Is the Doctor always right ? Second Opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It would appear, based on reading the above posts, that Merion had pre-determined its objective and the path to that objective, prior to the retention of an architect.

I would submit that this is an uncommon situation.

I would also submit that it is difficult to deflect or deter a club from attaining its pre-determined objective.

It reminds me of the patient who saw doctor after doctor until he found one that agreed with his opinion.

We talk on this site about the many courses that have been altered for the worse, about holes that have been radically changed or even eliminated.  Yet we never look into the process that brought about the disfiguring of those holes and courses.

In the majority of cases the club retained an architect, so how did these great holes and courses get disfigured if not without his direction ??

Is it the architects fault ?
Is is the clubs fault ?
Or, do both share the blame.

Look again, into the process, then tell me that these clubs wouldn't have been better served by having independent consulting architects reviewing substantive departures form the original design integrity of the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Montclair and Metropolis ruined several holes on their golf courses so that they could.....install tennis courts in the 70's.

This may have been akin to the Merion situation where the club had made up their mind prior to the retention of architects and GC's, but.. had they had independent architects advising them, who weren't being paid for the project, perhaps they could have been the voice of reason and detered them from ruining their golf course.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Peter,
I'm sorry if I insulted your message, because your comments have helped clarify the situation quite a bit, and probably awakened many to the fact that Mr. Fazio is not very involved and that the process seems clouded, with many opinions carrying a great deal of weight. And I certainly don't know what you are thinking or feeling about the work. I apologize.

The comment about your friend sending good fax has nothing to do with him. It refers to Fazio's faxes that end with a stamp, "For Tom Fazio" in signature format. For a man who ridicules the signature hole/designer concept in his book, I think it's rather humorous that he has his staff throw that signature stamp on faxes they send out, as if Fazio is personally involved in all 30 of the companies ongoing jobs and monitoring every fax as they leave Hendersonville.

You are right, serious sour grapes here that Tom Fazio and his organization can put down the old architects in print, step all over their courses, then claim the changes are progress because that is what the client wanted. It's made worse when Fazio's own design style is a shallow, strategy-deficient, over-manufactured take off of MacKenzie, Ross, Flynn and Tillinghast. Yes, the membership can do what they want, their golf course, just like Watanabe can do what he wants with Riviera. The people involved just bother many of us who like the old architecture when they pat themselves on the back for doing pure "restoration" work, and claiming it's what the architects would be proud of if they were here today, etc... They hide behind those kinds of words because people buy it. While many folks who have researched the subject don't buy it or agree. And yes, there are still sour grapes that Fazio left his mark at Inverness and Oak Hill, and it's happening all over again with the full support of the USGA (which yes, David Fay will deny...but there's a lot he and his Committee are in denial about these days).
Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

I think if you re-read "Johnny Blutarski", you'll find that his tongue is firmly implanted in cheek.

I seriously question your contention that the bunkers at Merion had "fallen into disrepair", or were "ugly at the 81 open", or that the course rated highly "in spite of the horrendous bunkers" (not exactly your quote, but certainly seems to be in spirit).  

Actually, I think we just have a different philosophical perspective, and we could probably debate back and forth all day without either of us changing our minds.

However, your use of the term "ugly" tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from.  Let me ask you though...what is a bunker in your definition?

Is it a "hazard" to be avoided, lest one find a very uncertain and probably penalizing fate?

or

Is it just another manicured playing surface; consistent, separate but equal, where a player who finds themselves in one should have every expectation of a firm, flat, decent lie?  Just another golf shot?  

What do you think of the bunkering at Pine Valley?  Is that too inconsistent, penalizing, gnarly, and ugly as well??

Sand Hills?  Pacific Dunes?

Peter; I'm guessing you've seen the new bunkers at Merion.  Can you tell me how they differ substantively from what can be found at Hartefeld National?  

I'd love to hear your perspective, and I DO appreciate you coming on here to discuss the issue.

Rich,

I have to disagree with you.  

Picasso may have out-Reubened Reuben at an early age, but he didn't seek out all of Reubens work and paint over it.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

Sorry to be a nudge, but one other thing I have to take issue with is that it's pure BS to suggest that Merion had been significantly changed, neglected, or ignored since 1930, as well as demeaning to those men who served so ably and lovingly as her caretakers.  I'm speaking specifically of the Valentines and Bill Kittleman, in case there is any question.

I am intimately familiar with the course, and have studied aerials and ground photos from the past, and I stand by my contention that Merion "was" perhaps the best preserved course in the country.  If two bunkers had been added sometime after June 1930, in preparation for the Amateur on #5, it didn't take long for someone to think better of it, apparently.  I'd love to know what other bunkers had been "grassed over", since then, because if anything, some have been added.

The differences between the pre-Fazio course and 1930 are as follows;

#2 - 2 bunkers added to the left side of the green and the green moved slightly back and left.  The single fairway bunker on the left in the driving zone was turned into three (no present Fazio changes)

#4 - Short, love-grass filled, carry bunker eliminated which was perhaps 100 yards from the tee.

#5 - Nothing existed in June 1930.  If bunkers were installed, they were shortlived and properly so.

#6 - One bunker added on the left side in the driving area after 1930.

#8 - Some bunkering added to the left side of green since 1930.

#10 - Bunkering added further up the right side in the driving area since 1930.

#14 - Two smaller bunkers added further up the right side in the driving area since 1930.  Also, a bunker was installed left of the greensite, which Fazio removed (and rightly so)

#17 - A bunker was installed short right of the green since 1930.

Interestingly, and in the interest of historical accuracy, love grass is clearly evident in the bunkers on 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 18.  In the Fazio redo, some thin reeds have been replanted in the short left bunker on 18, probably in deference to the popularity of the Hy Peskin Hogan photo, but that's all folks.    

If you know of any other routing, bunkering, green orientation, or substantive changes (not involving trees) since 1930 that I am unaware of, please enlighten me.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I was frankly surprised to see your response to my post of a couple days ago. I thought here we ago again, one more time for the arguement of what is art and what isn't art. I'm sure most have tired of it long ago. And frankly since you are without question the most brillant man on this site, it is mentally fatiguing for me to respond properly. So with great trepidation I began to read your first paragraph and I thought holy shit, he's finally got me -- I don't understand a damn word he's saying. So I read it again -- what moron I am, I'm still totally confused. After the third time, I said screw it, I'll move on to the rest of his post.

So I began to write a response to the rest of it, why I wasn't a wild eyed hethen kneeling at the alter of the holy trinity -- Colt, Macdonald and Ross. Why I felt it was important to study and preserve the works of the past. And that it was possible to fix a high point or zenith of an architectural work. And finally to empathize with your predicament.

After finishing my lengthy response, I had relevation. Your first paragraph finally became clear, the reason I didn't understand it was because it made no sense.

Of course you are student, we are only students, Einstein was a student, the wize cracking a-hole in the back of the room is a student. I enjoy being questioned, it helps in clearly formulated a viewpoint or altering a viewpoint or reinforcing a viewpoint. You are especially skilled in taking a contrary view, as if it was a reflex action.

I agree completely, I too have enjoyed the pleasures of Olympic and Pebble Beach as they are presented today, but unless you are familar with the history of these courses and how they evolved, its difficult to make a comparison or to conclude any other way than I'm sure glad these courses " are today than the way they were in 1930." Which goes back to my point, if you are not familar with something you have a tendency to claim it is unimportant or irrelivant. Which is now followed by your view that those who choose to study the greats of the past and are in interested in protecting and preserving their works are practicing "deification".

At some point you will have to explain to me which arts you consider 'static' and which are 'dynamic', and why it unnecessary to preserve/protect dynamic art. But not now, I'm affraid we will bore the hell out of the entire group.

Do not fear you did not degrade me or my art, I was more concerned with my religious beliefs being brought into this forum. I did not intend to prevent you from offering your opinion, I was simply disagreeing with you. No one wants to prevent you from voicing your opinions.......well at least I don't.

[ForkaB]

Mike

Please do disagree.  You are right re Picasso, but you are stretching the analogy (IMHO) to say that Fazio (or whomever)is slinking around America like Freddy Krueger just looking for classic golf courses to deface.

EVERY golf course that we know and love has already been "painted over" many, many times.  The various Merion threads do nothing if not confirm this.

I, as one who hasn't played Merion or Augusta, but has seen them on the TV, find it less than comforting to see people argue for restoration to various single points in time without any real reason for that opinoin than they see, to "like" how the course "looked" at that time.  So, we have the Merion Committee opting for their version of 1930, others wanting to go back to 1981, or 1934 and others just wanting things to be as they were in 2000 or so before Fazio, Marucci et. al. came to town.  So, who wins, under this combatative scenario?

First, for all of us, ranging from you who know and love the place to me who has just seen pictures and is impressed, we must recognize that the members of Merion OWN the place.  If they want to put a waterfall by the 1st green or a McDonald's at the 18th tee, it's their right to do so.

Second, when push comes to shove, how important are those 2 bunkers on the 5th anyway?  They may well serve a purpose or two (and others have argued persuasively that this is so).  Is it really a big deal, or are people just rebelling against change for change's sake?  I don't know.

Finally, an analogy, which I don't have a clue which point of view it supports, but is within the spirit and the topics of this conversation.  St. Peter's Square, in Rome, is an enormous circular space which faces onto the Vatican, and was designed by Bernini, the greatest sculptor of the Baroque period in Italy.  Today, that square is reached by a majestic thoroughfare which leads into the circle opposite the Vatican.

When designed by Bernini, however, that thoroughfare was a narrow lane containing the worst slums of Rome.  To get to St. Peter's Square you had to fight your way through the sights and sounds and smells of deprivation before you emerged, miraculously, it have seemed, onto the grand piazza.  It must have been one of the most incredible architectural tour de forces of all time.

In the 30's Mussolini didn't "get it", tore down the slums and built the thoroughfare.

It is still a magnificent square, and it can be argued that Mussolini's broad thoroughfare improves with the patina of time.  And yet, if you were in charge of Italy, or the Vatican City, would you want to restore the old entrance to the square, with all the slums and the deprivation?  I doubt it, unless your name is Disney.

Just food for thought.......

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich, Rich, Rich...  

I LOVE discussing this stuff with you!  

To your points...

If I am "stretching the analogy", then I find it odd that Fazio is offering his services pro-bono to the classic courses in this country.  Are those courses in such absymal competitive condition, and sooooooo out of touch with the modern game, that they just scream out for charity, like the man carrying the "Homeless and Hungry" sign I saw sitting under entrance to the George Washington Bridge in NYC I saw yesterday?  Or, perhaps the most successful architect of our times is simply seeking to advance his business, ala Robert Trent Jones in the previous generation?  After all, who could argue reasonably against using the services of a company with Merion, Augusta, Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Riviera, Quaker Ridge, Winged Foot, (am I missing any?) in their portfolio?

Next, the members DO own the course.  It is their absolute right to do whatever they wish to it.  I'm sure they are wondering why we even give a shit.  If they think a waterfall fronting a green would make a pleasant addition, then they have the right to build one.  

Are those of us who love the course, but are not members, somehow wrong for criticizing changes to a golf course that has been recognized as a United States Historical site?  Of course not....not any more so than we are for criticizing changes taking place within the structure of our local football team.  We do it because we love it...not because we wish it harm.

You talked about the "apparent justification" of the addition of the bunkers on the 5th, but Rich....I have to tell you.  If you and I were to stand on the tee of that hole, the first thought that would enter your mind would be....ok...now...what the heck are those silly things doing out there???

The idea that the course played slower and softer in 1930 than it does today, and that the bunkers had purpose of saving well-played drives from the creek is simply a silly one.  Do you know of ANY course that plays faster today than it did prior to wall-to-wall irrigation?    

As far as your Mussolini analogy, you are mixing squares and circles.  

The changes instituted by Ill Duce seem to have taken a bad situation and improved it, unquestionably.

Of the 16,000 courses in this country, Merion, despite it's length and intrusion of a public avenue, housing, lack of an ocean, and what Peter refers to as neglected and ugly bunkering,  had been ranked the 6th most fabulous course in most respected rankings.  I hardly think the course had been slumming it prior to the most charitable work of Mr. Fazio.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Painting, sculptures, tapestries--they all just kind of sit there, and you look at them, gathering whatever insight is available to you on that day.  That is static.

Buildings and gardens and baseball stadiums kind of sit there too, but you can interact with them, at least a bit, and so they are semi-dynamic.

Golf courses and a few other esoteric art forms such as America's Cup sailing courses are dynamic.  This means that their valu4e is defined in relationship to their interaction with human participants.  This relationship changes over time, even instantaneously.  So, if their form changes, to match changes in functionality/interrelationships, I'm not really bothered.

I do, however, very much respect your alternative point of view.

Rich

[Rich]

Mike

I'm being double-teamed by you and MacWood and my wife just got home and the sprogs are acting up and i've got real work to do this evening, so you'll have to wait for tomorrow for my incisive riposte.

Cheers

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Merion made the decision to return the golf course to its 1930 design, and Merion remained true to that mission, that should be the end of the story.

We can debate the selection of the year 1930, but if they replicated the course, allowing for the elasticity of lengthening some tees then they accomplished their goal.

Since the members and their appointed representatives make those decisions, we must accept them.  That doesn't mean we always agree, or that the decisions are correct, but they've chosen their direction.

My only question is, have they replicated the golf course circa 1930 ??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

How precise is the 1930 restoration ?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

I don't agree that we should end the story if the architects or members deem this to be a successful "1930 restoration."  Even if the "success judges" were alive in 1930 and played in the US Amateur that year, the question still must be asked, why would you take a golf course that has evolved beautifully, was universally adored, and try taking it back to an era that few people alive today saw it in?

Encouraging this kind of date-picking concept could take architecture to new depths. Committees will use dates or eras that no one knew to justify their actions (or lack of action. Usually elements such as interesting, pivotal bunkers are not restored because committees deem them unfair or too much maintenance, or just not to their liking. Merion has gone to the other end of the spectrum, restore something even if it doesn't make much sense).

In the end, the question with Merion should be asked, had the course become unfair and unmaintainable? That seems to be the rationale for turning a contractor loose to flatten things and clean it all up in a matter of months. I doubt maintenance was a serious problem because when I was there in 1997, Paul Latshaw Jr. had the course looking spectacular, particularly the bunkers. He didn't seem to have a problem with some of the quirks and nuances of maintaining Merion, because like other upper echelon superintendents, he apparently understood that he was working with a unique piece of art that was worth a little extra effort to preserve in the state it was in. Like a Doug Petersan who did such great work at Baltimore, Latshaw Jr. probably took it as an interesting challenge to preserve and enhance the bunkers because they played a key role in making Merion such a hallowed ground.

This is a subject I have given a lot of thought to and discussed with Ben Crenshaw at length about. Because as I started uncovering photos of Riviera and saw how things used to be, the initial reaction was, "this has to be restored," or "those trees have to come out," or these bunkers need to be taken down like in the old days.  But then as you come to appreciate the benefits of evolution, you realize there has to be a middle ground found to take advantage of built up bunker faces or other character related features that come with time and rounds played. Imagine if Riviera pulled a Merion, and let Macdonald and Sons loose on the fourth hole bunker at Riviera?

You also come to realize that it is very difficult to match new features with old, as Riviera is demonstrating now with the work they are undertaking. It's not an easy task no matter who is doing the work. By encouraging clubs that only going way back to a perceived glory date, we are encouraging more committee decision making. Worse, this means there will be less chance for architects with a genuine interest and education in classic design, to do what is best for the remaining classics.
Geoff

[T_MacWood]

I think you miss the point Pat, the course wasn't in need of a restoration. It is an old course that was in need of some understandable shoring up -- not a complete overhaul. If you have an old brick home or a Dirk Van Erp lamp, you would certainly want to update there mechanics, they might need some new plumbing and wiring, but there is no need to sand blast brick or wipe away the aged copper exterior, and destroy the patina that gives both their charm.

[TEPaul]

The Merion restoration project is undoutably the most specifically analyzed and debated project in the few years of Golfclubatlas and possibly the most debated project of any golf course by non-members--ever.

Why is that? It must be just because it's Merion--a great course with lots of history and tournament history as well as a fascintating evolutionary history in an architectural and maintenance context!

There is plenty of interesting opinion too, on this thread alone, but also on many of the other threads over the last eighteen months. Now and then the subject gets a bit far afield when contributors discuss comparative art forms and such, but I believe Merion's restoration project was brought back to the essence of the subject by Shackelford's first paragraph in his August 9, 10:36pm post! "....the question still must be asked, why would you take a golf course that has evolved beautifully, and been universally adored, and try taking it back...?"

Why indeed!? I think there are numerous reasons, and some very valid ones and there has been plenty of good speculation in the last eighteen months as to the "why" of it all but to date Merion has chosen not to really answer those questions (on this website), so I suppose the questions still remain (on here).

I say, as I have before, that the answer to the restoration--of the bunkers, anyway, lies in the subjective opinion of various people (members and others) as to the state of those bunkers prior to restoration. Again, some looked at them and saw them as falling apart and others looked at them and saw them as years of evolutionary beauty. That is the real question (or dilemma) of the bunker project!

Geoff seems to be asking why take back a course that has evolved so beautifully at all--to any previous era?! I would say that to answer that, one has to be a bit more specific and look at all the features of the course and analyze them and ask just how beautifully have they really evolved--and should they be returned to something prior or to another former era?!

I don't really think the narrowed down fairways have evolved so beautifully! I think consideration should be given to taking them back to some of the widths they were designed for! I think the speed of the course (through the green) should be restored back to the way the course originally played and had been designed for! I think the speed of the greens should be carefully analyzed to take the original green contours and many of the EVOLUTIONARY CONTOURS into consideration! These green contours (original and evolutionary) are part of the beauty (and character) of the golf course and should be carefully PRESERVED! And I do think that Merion is currently looking into and trying to carefully analyze all the ramifications of many of those other elments, features, playabilies, strategies, etc, (including tree removal!).

But the bunkers are the real reason all this debate started in the first place! Again, if they needed draining or sand (and they did), or deepening or whatever, why change the surrounds and the grasses on the surrounds and all the little evolutionary detail that had taken decades to form and evolve?

Frankly, Geoff, the question of "PURE" restoration vs evolutionary build-up effecting bunkering (and greens) is an immensely complex question that I'm certain not ten people on this website even remotely understand!

I think you are asking me what I think Coore and Crenshaw might have done with Merion's bunkering. How would I really know, but my sense is that they would have recommended to the club to leave them alone! Rebuild the drainage and maybe resand and deepen their bases possibly, but that would be about all! I really don't even know the extent of what Hanse and Kittleman did with the bunkering at Merion that they "restored".

I don't even think I'm all that interested anymore in speculating what Fazio's intentions are in taking on all these "restoration" projects on classic courses, when he clearly admits (in his book) that he's more than a little skeptical that many of the classic aspects of golf architecture and its architects would even be accepted in today's world of golf and its architecture!

I can honestly tell you, though, that I have never seen a Fazio bunker as good looking and natural looking to me as what was at Merion pre 2000 (or Pine Valley), or any of the bunkering I have seen done by Coore and Crenshaw, Doak or Hanse! Not even close! My recommendation to anyone I know at Merion is to look very closely at the distinctions and differences of these various bunkers and all will become clear!

I don't really want to denigrate the people that are being denigrated on here for doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons with their golf course. I don't want to do it becuase I don't really think they're trying to do the wrong things and they may not be doing what they are doing for the wrong reasons either. I want to continue to talk with them and have them listen to me and to you and to anyone who might offer valid advice or valid architectural opinion. And in some ways I see that happening despite all the vituperative debate that has gone on here and elsewhere.

Many of the things you've mentioned in your paragraphs #3, #4 and #5 are also the essence of much of this stuff of Merion's restoration project, in my opinion!

I'm interested in research and education and I believe that can happen very effectively through collaboration. I believe that collaboration can happen if the atmosphere is right. I think Merion is willing to listen to you and me and others that they might think can offer or find valid architectural opinion and advice. I really don't know if it's feasible to get second and third opinions from professional architects (as Pat Mucci suggests) for a variety of reasons.

But if they are willing to listen to you or me or anyone they think can help them, in anyway, then I would hope that we could all keep listening and talking. And that includes Ben, Bill, Kye Goalby, you, me, Mike Cirba, Tom MacWood, any other professional architect or anyone who might have valid advice on anything at all, in their opinion!

Research, education, collaboration is the name of the game! That's the way I always heard it was and the more I learn about architecture the more I find that to be true.

So, if they're willing to do it, will you or will we be too? Probably not on typed topics and threads on Golfclubatlas, but I believe it can be done.

Please don't say something like it's too late now because the bunkering has been done. There is much more to go with the plan to restore (even to 1930) and obviously you have much opinion about the pros and cons and the pitfalls, etc, about that. If they would be willing to listen to your opinions and talk about it, would you be willing to do the same?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

My point was, if a club picked a target year for a restoration, and the club had an abundance of docmumented evidence, including aerial and ground level photos, they shouldn't be taken to task for that effort, even though there may not be universal agreement on the year they picked.

My premise is based on the adherence to "TRUE" restoration to the target year.

On one hand we can't clamor for restorations on old golf courses that have been changed over the years, and on the other hammer Merion, if it's been a true restoration.

Now I understand the distinction that Merion has evolved, where other courses may have undergone man made alterations, but...
if the laws of nature remain as they have, won't Merion just re-evolve all over again ?

In looking at most of today's old courses, few members were alive to view the original, yet that shouldn't be an impediment to a
"TRUE" restoration.

Many people would love the opportunity to go back in time, to play courses as they existed when Jones and other great players roamed the fairways, if the restoration at Merion is true to 1930, how harshly can we criticize them ?

I'm not so sure that picking a prudent target year is so bad for architecture, as long as supporting documentation exists.

I personally feel that Garden City should target 1936 in terms of design principles, understanding that a degree of elasticity has to be given for added length.

Think of Oak Hill, Inverness, Hollywood, Oakland Hills and others, wouldn't you like to go back, find a particular year, and return to those design principles.

I think many courses would benefit from a retro-fit, but I can understand how you feel that Merion should be the exception to thar process.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Geoff makes an interesting point about why fiddle with a golf course--like Merion--that has evolved so beautifully. But again, I don't think it's a good idea to make that a blanket statement! What are you and what is he talking about evolving so beautifully?

My original understanding is we were talking about the bunkering and specifically its surrounds, grasses, little natural detail and also the evolution of what the bunkers have done in some cases to the contiguous contours of the green surfaces!

There are definitely other areas of evolution which should be wiped away and taken back to the best way it once was. I think the bunker surrounds at Merion had evolved beautifully, but I don't think the large trees that grew up within the bunkers on the left of #11 fairway (or the quarry trees) was an instance of beautiful evolution. The bunkers themselves definitely did need drainage and some sand work but that would not have altered the look of their evolved surrounds.

In some ways it may be a good thing to pick an era or a specific year and go back to it and in other ways you have to be careful in doing that. I Think that's what Geoff Shackelford is talking about.

Although Gulph Mills is not Merion, a good analogy would be if we picked a year like 1930 and restored back to it. That might sound good and interesting but if we "TRULY" did that we would wipe away about four holes that Perry Maxwell restored (which may very well be better than the other Ross holes) and of course that would be a thoughtless tragedy!

You also ask what is wrong with going back to a specific year, starting again and letting the course re-evolve. In the case of Merion's bunkers, Shackelford's point, I believe, is why would you want to go to that trouble (and expense) if they already had evolved over many decades to that beautiful look. Why wipe away many decades of beautiful evolution and start again? What is the point in that?

[T_MacWood]

Yes we can clamour for restoration of an Oak Hill, Hollywood or Inverness, while at the same time questioning a 'restoration' of Merion. There is no magic formula or black and white rules. Each course is unique, they each have a different story -- Merion's evolution is not the same as Garden City's or the NGLA's or Pebble Beach's or Chicago's. What is good for Yeamans Hall or Cypress Point is not necessarily good for Merion or Sunningdale or County Down or Dornoch. Each course's evolution needs to be carefully analyzed by individuals with the requisite expertise and background.

In my view the goal of every course should be to be as good a course as it can possbily be.  That might require a restoration to a specific point or restoration of features from various moments in time or it might require a redesign or it might require a preservation of an evolved design. Restoration is not inherently good and redesign is not inherently bad and standing still is not necessarily either.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think Patrick is approaching the issue of restoring to a certain year from a different perspective.  In the case of Garden City, picking a target year to restore is a very good idea in my opinion.

However, there are some really major differences between Merion and Garden City that need to be considered.

At Garden City, fundamental, substantive changes had occurred on a few holes that altered them markedly from their 1934 prime.  We've all talked about the RTJ Sr. changes on 12, but others occurred on 14, and I believe 5.  The latter two holes have been restored by Tom Doak.

The 12th remains as Jones designed it, but is so out of character and look to the rest of the course that something needs to be done.  Personally, I'd love to see it totally restored, humps and all.

Also, subtle things like the mowing patterns on 7 have changed over the years at Garden City that should be reevalutated.  On that hole, the fairway has shifted left over time, as is evidenced from old photos.  Sadly, what is not missing from the hole is the strategic angle of attack on the second shot that should flirt with an AWESOME trench-like, 30 yard long coffin bunker that is now buried in overgrowth in the right rough out of play.  If that's the type of restoration Patrick is talking about, I say bravo!

Complicating matters at GCGC is that fact that more changes are being proposed that would relocate tee positions to completely change the angle of attack on a number of holes, including the 1st, which would be a shame.  In an effort to squeeze yardage out of the course, deviations from original playing lines need to be really thought out.

So, what I hear Patrick saying is that let's just undo the RTJ Sr. changes, reconsider the mowing lines to optimize strategy, get the course screaming fast, and put together some type of club policy that keeps things permanently as close to 1934 as possible.  The historical records exist there, and make a great blueprint for keeping things the same.

In the case of Merion, NO substantive architectural changes occurred over the years that need to be undone.  What's more, as Tom Paul mentioned, the course had evolved naturally and beautifully.  Yes, trees needed to come out and fairway mowing patterns needed to be widened, but the heart of the matter is the bunkers, and the fact that they have been recreated in what many view as a much inferior and significantly different look and playability to what they replaced.

And, if I know Patrick, if someone said to him that the deep, scruffy pots at Garden City were too penal, too inconsistent, too unfair, too unsightly, and should be dug up, filled with consistent sand, frilly capes and bays, and manicured surrounds, then I'm pretty sure he'd point out very clearly the nearest metro bridge that the person should leap from!    

[Mike_Cirba]

One other thought...

One thing that IS similar at both Merion and Garden City is that restoration efforts have been excellently effective in tree-clearing, both opening vistas and enhancing playability and strategy.  

That's a good thing in any year!

[ForkaB]

Tom MacWood

Very well said.  I completely agree with you!

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm puzzled !

Isn't there a course located a little east of Merion in New Jersey that recently completed a project where they duplicated
eight ( holes from a Golf course ranked
# 1 in the world, as a par three course.

And....didn't it draw rave reviews ?

And...Wasn't the architect for that project
      a guy named Fazio  ??

So how did the Pine VAlley project turn out so well

I sense that the difference might be in the individual at Pine Valley who led the project.

Anyone who has played Pine Valley and the par three course would have to say that the replication of the bunkers is near identical.

So, how did Merion differ ?

I suspect the answer lies in the direction the club wanted to go, led by the project chairman.

One course had as its objective to create an exact duplicate of its holes, and they pretty much succeeded on a nearby piece of land, using the same architect that Merion used.

We can conclude that Fazio is capable of producing the intended results.  So let's
stop Fazio bashing on the Merion issue.

The real question is what direction was Fazio given at Merion.

And, as I stated earlier, if Merion selected 1930 as their target year, and they
were "TRUE" to the 1930 restoration, then I find it difficult to criticize them for completing a successful project.

I understand your questioning the need to do anything other than repair work to the bunkers, tree clearing, etc., etc., but  
the die is cast.

My only question at this point of time is:
were they faithful to the architecture circa
1930 ?

Mike Cirba,

1936 is the target year I favor at GCGC, and
I think I can offer some valid reasons for picking that point in time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The dilema with your statement to the effect that restoration is not necessarily good, change not necessarily bad, and remaining static not necessarily either, is:

What's a club to do ?

Only the club can make that decision,
a decision that will be criticized by member and non-member alike, no matter which choice is made.

Neither you, me, Geoff nor the many other site contributors can make that call, we can only express our opinions on the clubs decision, and I can't fault the club for picking a memorable time as their target date.  I can't fault the club, which has been great architectually since its near beginning, for trying to restore the architecture to that memorable date.

I suspect that Fazio might have been chosen due to his successful completion of the Pine Valley job.  Having seen and played both the regular and short course, I couldn't fault Merion for choosing him, based on the results of the Pine Valley project.

You see the course as having needed little if any change or improvement, others, including what would seem to be the majority of the members, saw it differently, and....
I certainly don't know which would be the right choice, especially since I haven't seen the results of the project.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You are right, it is a difficult task. Too often clubs have either not done the necessary painstaking research or have failed to seek the very best advice or maybe both. One without the other and the effort futile. Adding to the difficulty is the politics of a club and trying to please a diverse membership. You hope the club is fortunate to have wise humble leadership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Geoff, Tom, et.,al.,

I think one of the problems clubs face with respect to restorations or changes is the lack of internal resources or talent.

It's not that each club doesn't have smart or successful members, they do, they just don't seem to have that many members that are highly interested in, or knowledgeable about golf course architecture.

I'm not making excuses for any club, but sometimes the most knowledgeable members are not the members in power, and club politics play an important role in what gets done, and how.

I've sat in green committee meetings where members were more concerned about the color of the flags and flagsticks, than they were about course conditions and architectual issues.

To my continued amazement, issues that I would say this group would almost certainly vote unanimously on, are often divided evenly, or rejected by committee vote.

I think the Pine Valley project came out as it was intended because Ernie Ransome and/or O. Gordon Brewer excersized the proper leadership from the begining to the successful conclusion of the project, and that most successful projects are the result of the vision and ongoing supervision of a knowledgeable leader, and that a club has to be lucky to have such a leader as a member.
They also have to be smart enough to put him in charge, which isn't always as simple as we might imagine.

Pine Valley should be another great lesson.
Here we have an architect widely criticized for altering golf courses, yet he duplicated Pine Valley in abreviated form.  What does that tell you ??  It tells me that he is capable of creating anything, based on the direction and supervision he receives.

It would make an interesting study to examine Oak Hill, Pine Valley, Merion, Fenway, NGLA, GCGC and other clubs to see how changes and restorations evolve within the club, but that's another thread.