Taylor's Mid Surrey grassy mound/hollow experiment

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
The busiest golf architects in the US during the teens and twenties were Donald Ross and Willie Park-Jr.--two old Scots. Do you think they were trying to recreate the English countryside in America? It seems to me they were trying to create interesting golf in whatever the natural environment, be it rugged land around Boston, lovely parkland in Montreal, a palm strewn headland in Havana, swampy land on LI, sandhills in NC or a forrested island off Cape Cod.

Would the British architects of that era preffered to build a golf course in a beautiful English park setting or a barren, brownish, scrubby Heath?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The anonymous poster provides a perfect example of what I've been talking about for some time.

The butchering of the 17th hole bunker at GCGC is now passed off as a joke.  Pssst, let's make fun and overlook it.  Yet, the altering of the 8th hole at Riviera creates a firestorm and has everyone up in arms at Fazio.

If there was any intellectual honesty on the site, both alterations/disfigurations would be treated equally, and not viewed solely in the context of which architect did the work.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

It is interesting that after Mid Surrey was altered Darwin became a fan of the course and spoke highly of it often. Another example of more open analysis in those days is Darwin criticism of Garden City which Travis understandably did not take well and gave his counter point. Darwin said GCGC lacked thrill, one wonders if that influenced Travis in future designs (Darwin also criticized Onwentsia and they immediately hired Willie Watson to remedy the problem). Travis on the other hand criticized the NGLA, he said it was too severe. Macdonald and Travis seemed to have an off and on relationship, this might explain one of the offs. There is also the trans-Atlantic joust between Behr and Simpson, which undoubtably benefited both men and the readers. And then we have the Taylor-Tillinghast debate, all very healthy if you ask me. And not once did they interject ownership or a 'mandate' into their architectural discussions.

Anyone checked out the IP Address of that anonymous poster?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'd certainly like to hear more about that Behr/Simpson debate. Is that possible?

Pat:

If the restoration at GCGC is as disappointing to anyone at  the club as the restoration of Riviera is to Geoff Shackelford then maybe GCGC needs a GeoffShac to air that opinion. I'm not so sure that you should accuse this website of anything because there's been silence about Doak and GCGC. Whoever LIRR is already mentioned that few on here understand what went on inside the club of GCGC anyway, so what is there to be up in arms about?

Not that it matters that much at this point, I suppose, but you didn't answer my question about what the people at GCGC who made the decisions think about Tom Doak's restoration there.

[corey miller]

I would like to know the answer to the question TeP asked also becuase they are ultimately responsible for disfigurements to their course.

Many on this site ar not familiar with GCGC or the restoration by Doak.  It of course would only illicit criticism if it were bad and people had actually seen the work or heard about it.  Much of Jones and Fazio's work has been at higher profile places.

[LIRR]

Tom Paul,

The sainthood reference wasn't meant to be directed at work at Garden City Golf Club, it was meant in broader terms.

My opinion of why things went wrong, and it is only my opinion, is because the chairman didn't have the confidence to question, and if necessary oppose Mr Doak's views.    
A project could be blocked because the chairman wouldn't override Mr Doaks opinion.  Why Mr Doak would block efforts to faithfully restore holes on the golf course is a mystery to many.  You would have to ask him why he opposed restoring the fairway and bunkers on the 7th hole, a restoration that is desirealble and affordable.

If you have ever been to Garden City you immediately become aware of its sense of history by all the photos and memorobelia hanging on every wall in the clubhouse.
There are numerous pictures showing many of the holes, including the 5th, 7th, 12th and 14th holes.  I don't think research to establish a holes former form presents a problem.

The butchering of the 17th hole bunker, which I think was done without committee and board approval reflects a disregard for the history of the Golf Club, the golf course, and the work of Emmett and Travis.  How could an architect touted as so pro restoration work oversee the ruination of this bunker?  That's another mystery.

The tees at Garden City are unique.  Each hole has one tee with the exception of a hole with a service road running through it and another hole with a cart path going through it.  Members were concerned about the distance players were hitting the ball and wanted to counter the trend by making some holes play longer as they felt they were intended.  
Some tee area had been added to the back of the 3rd tee a while back and there was interest in lengthening the 6th tee and the 8th tee.  Rather than add to the back of the existing tees Mr Doak proposed building a seperate tee between the two holes to service both holes.  This would change the character of the holes and the golf course and also open the golf course up to future changes in conflict with the architecture history of the golf course.  Some members felt that Mr Doak wanted to put the new tee in that location because it would prevent returning the 7th fairway to its former location due to the danger created off the new tee he recommended, effectively defeating a restoration he opposed.

The memberships first concern is the condition of the golf course.  It has gotten too green, soft and spongey and that needs to be fixed.  Clubs go through stages and some members feel that a  good opportunity to do some restoration work was allowed to slip away, partly because of Mr Doaks opposition to changes like the ones at # 7.  Others are hopeful that the new regime will get the course back to the way it was meant to be played and that restoration work will continue.

rees jones imposter,

You apparently know nothing about Garden City.
Rather than make jokes at the expense of Rees Jones in an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues, why don't you protest the butchering of the 17th hole bunker, the interpretive restorations and countless opportunities lost at Garden City?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

LIRR/Pat
Do you think this is an example of the all important club politics gone bad? If a golf architect was actively employed to oversee any restoration work and I was honestly interested in restoring some historical features, I'd go the TE Paul route. Documenting the historical evolution of the holes in question (and the reasons for the holes evolution) and explaining why you believe restoring these features would improve the golf course. A thorough well-researched document, and I'd engage the architect in the research process. Let him take the credit.

Strong arming architects, often back fires. Sometimes over-bearing members push these projects because they seek attention, they want to leave a legacy, to recieve credit. Airing this publicly when it still seems possible to achieve your stated goal quietly, makes me wonder if there is an ulterior motive. Possibly an attempt to portrait yourself as the protector of great old architecture (cough!) or an attempt to portrait the architect in a bad light, (which might indirectly restore the damaged reputation of others) or both.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

As usual, you're now offering your expert advice about a club, and specific issues that you know nothing about.
And, as usual, you're wrong.
You're arrogance is unbridled.

The genisis for the restoration of the 7th hole came from other members, not myself.  But, once the idea was presented, its merits became obvious to all.
Other members, including myself were asked to look at the hole in the context of the restoration presented by the others and to comment on it.  I thought the restoration would be great, and communicated same back to the party that made the request of me.  

Research confirmed that the hole was as the member had suggested.  There was no need to write a book or re-invent the wheel, it was blatantly obvious to everyone.  And, the cost to implement the changes were minimal, as was the inconvenience to the membership.

Contrary to your false assertion, there was no strong arming, and the party who initiated the idea only sought to better the golf course, not gain attention, leave a legacy or gain credit as you have so arrogantly labeled their effort.  ( I know, you thought it was me, and therefore directed those wise guy remarks at me, but, once again, you're wrong.)

Tom Doak is not infallible on matters of architecture.
For whatever his reasons, he made a mistake at # 7 and
# 17 bunker.  I'm sure it's not his first and I'm sure it won't be his last, we all make them.

The saga of the 12th hole is well known to all, and I've yet to hear a valid reason not to restore the hole, and I don't want to rehash that issue again.

But, what I'm amazed at, is that you specifically asked for criticism of modern day architects, and when I offer some,
you get defensive, say it's invalid, claim it's for ridiculous ulterior motives etc.,etc.. and personally attack and besmirch my reputation. You are such a hypocrite.  You got what you asked for, and didn't like it.  STOP WHINING.

It's also amazing how sensitive you are with respect to any criticism of Doak's work, yet you foment and join in the feeding frenzy when there is any criticism of Rees or Fazio.

That you have the balls to say that I'm attempting to portrait Tom Doak in a bad light after all of the things you've said about Rees and Fazio is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance, something you seem rather adept at.

Personal attacks and sniping seem to be your specialty,  
Perhaps you should abandon architecture and start a gossip column.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Would modern architects benefit from more criticism?

I guess you only meant Rees and Fazio

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat/LIRR
Could you tell us what work Doak has done at GCGC--has he restored any lost features?

What is the architectural evolution of 7, 12 and 17?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I would love to get a brief history of the courses evolution. There are few courses in the golf world who have had more storied history of changes--Travis alterations being the most famous. How have the holes changed over the years?

[Paul_Turner]

Tom P

I had a search for some JH Taylor mounds on the web, the only pics I could find, are in the link below from Sonning GC (good name, eh?).  

I can't transfer the pics, so you have to click on the link- wait for about 10-20 seconds and the greenside mounds should appear.  I think these are Taylor's/Hawtree's:

http://www.sonning-golf-club.co.uk/golf/coursemap.asp?hole=12


Just for interest here are some other links from Taylor/Hawtree courses with some evidence of mounding, although nothing as severe as Mid-Surrey.  I particularly like the look of Guildford.


West Wilts

Below images from Guildford.


















PS

Tom P, another advocate for the scientific approach to GCA was Braid.