The Society to Protect Golf Architecture

[T_MacWood]

BillV
I would agree with you, Aronimink certainly exhibits a lot of Ross-like character. But one of my concerns with the current popularity of Ross restorations is a potential loss of Ross's diversity of styles.

Beverly, Oyster Harbors, Seminole, Aronimink, Salem, Brae Burn, Rhode Island, Scioto, Palm Beach all exhibit (or exhibited) a unique look. The reasons vary from his style evolving over the years, the stamp of construction superitendents, site sensativity, incorporation of a previous architect's work, etc. Whatever the reason for the diversity, homoginizing his work and losing that interesting diversity is a mistake IMO.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I have tried to follow along, but my point is that you may want to preserve the wrong things and neglect others. That's why under your proposal it would have to be all courses, not just a select few, made popular by critics. Critics, who in this day and age have as much divierse opinion, as there are stars in the sky.

 In other arts, it's somewhat easier to preserve, because they really aren't living breathing entitities, save for a wine, but that also fails in any comparison because it isn't really exposed to too much outside influence once corked. Temp and light is it. Courses must evolve. Preserving the ability to evolve, seems logical to this dyslexic madman.

It just seems like the differing architect societies fill the need of what I think you're proposing, better, and with greater detail.

Didn't JakaB start the TF society?

[T_MacWood]

Adam
This hypothetical organization would consist of respected historians and architects, recognizing important works of architecture and recommending the protection of these important well-preserved golf courses – golf courses like the Old Course and The NGLA.

You've speculated that this organization might “want to preserve the wrong things and neglect others.” What are examples of the wrong things this organization might want to preserve and protect? What are examples of golf courses that might be potentially neglected? Are those devoted to golf architecture history (Bernard Darwin, Alister MacKenzie, Bobby Jones, HW Wind, Ron Whitten, Geoff Shackelford, Daniel Wexler, Ran Morrissett) less capable of recognizing important works as compared to other disiplines?

“ In other arts, it's somewhat easier to preserve, because they really aren't living breathing entitities, save for a wine, but that also fails in any comparison because it isn't really exposed to too much outside influence once corked. Temp and light is it. Courses must evolve. Preserving the ability to evolve, seems logical to this dyslexic madman.”

Are the gardens of Kyoto living? Hundreds of years of preservation would seem to indicate living things can be preserved.  Central Park and other works Olmsted? Are Native American sites like the Serpent Mounds in Ohio not living? What about the equaliberium natural and man-made at Cumberland Island? Environmental groups wanted the island returned to a pristine natural condition…the National Trust objected, saying that decades (centuries) of man’s use of the area should be preserved in concert with island’s great natural features.

If you look back through this thread and other recent threads, there has been an acknowledgement of the evolutionary process. The importance of respecting a golf course which evolves gracefully…like Cypress Point, Riviera, Merion...emphasizing preservation over restoration. I questioned the need and wisdom of restoring these courses…asking ”should we be digging up great old golf courses which have evolved beautifully in hopes of recapturing an architectural point in history?”

“It just seems like the differing architect societies fill the need of what I think you're proposing, better, and with greater detail.”

What societies fill the need better? Why are they, or would they be better…in what way do they fill the need better?

[TEPaul]

I'm wondering if the clubs of those courses mentioned as very worthy of or being preserved (and not restored) don't understand at this point that their courses are worthy of being preserved and how, what would it be about a group of historians and architects they're probably not that familiar with that would convince them?

It seems most of these clubs think the likes of Rees and Fazio are the ultimate word in architecture---so I have a better idea. Perhaps this society could be created and a list of courses that should be preserved could be created with it and then that society could be populated by the likes of Rees and Fazio!!!

At least populating the Preservation Society with the likes of Rees and Fazio might have the effect of encouraging them to keep their hands off those courses worthy of preservation!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Thanx for the clarification. I was confusing the implied restorations, which would naturally be inorder, to facilitate the preservations.

I don't see how an outside agency could dicatate to property owners what to do with that property.

Strongly encourage, maybe? UNLESS: With alot of tax relief, or yearly grants, for those making the list, and agreeing to the terms of the upstanding society, would be like finding ProV 1"s all over the place. Free money. Just like government.

i'm still agin'

But I would vote early and often, for the golf course architectural principles society. That way everyone could benefit from the effort rather than just a few.

How bout' the acceptance of impermanance ?

[Jim Thompson]

This sort of concept always gets me wondering:

Is it better to restore a course / property to its original state?

or

Is it better to restore the shot values of the original property?

If the great Archies (pick your own favorite) came back and were asked to "restore a course", would they put a feature where they had it in their day or put it where it would represent / impact play as they originally intended?

Preservation – No Change – Modern courses to be as they are forever, with classics being overpowered by modern equipment.
Restoration – Backward Change – Classic courses being defenseless to modern equipment.
Conservation – Adaptive Change – Classic course continuing to present us with challenges as near to the originators intent.

If we are going to restore classic courses, are we going to maintain the greens at .5 to .4 inch?  Stimp of 5 would be good speed back in the day.  Are we willing to go back to hand topdressing?  Goats in the rough?  Are we going to fertilize with a roller drum of chicken dung and water?  Poa everything / everywhere?  

I’m as romantic as anyone when it comes to a golf course, but I’d rather be able to afford to play the course.  When I look at the old photos of the great courses, I can’t help but be a little grateful for how far we’ve come.  A good challenge would mean Hickorys and Gutties.  Something tells me MacDonald and Raynor would do some heavy eye rolling at the notion of putting a feature in a position where it could just be readily blown over / avoided by modern equipment because that's where it was originally.  After which they’d probably ask you if you want a museum or a golf course…

Cheers!

[T_MacWood]

Adam
Who said anything about dictating? I don't believe William Morris was dictating in 1879 when he formed the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. He and his supporters were between a rock and a hard place, and in no position to dictate.

Today I watched representatives of the National Trust on C-Span anounce the 11 most endangered historical places...I didn't see anyone dictating. Nor was there any mention of tax relief, grants or free money. The reality of the preservation movement is there are as many failures as successes. But as someone who loves history, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I appreciate their efforts and all their victories.

On the other hand not everyone is interested or concerned with preserving great golf architecture...you are entitled to your opinion.

TE
You would think it would be easier to influence the attitudes of two men, rather than influence the members of 25+ clubs. Not a bad way to look at it.

On the other hand these clubs and architects have operated in relative immunity...one of the lessons of the architectural restoration movement is every action has its ramifications. Sometimes you can effect behavior with positive publicity, sometimes you can effect behavior with negative publicity. I prefer the positive tact, but one should retain the other option just in case.

[T_MacWood]

Jim Thompson
No need to speculate what Macdonald, MacKenzie, Darwin, Behr, Flynn, etc. would have said about the current need to modernize courses to remedy equipment advancements. Their thoughts on the subject are available for anyone interested in reading them.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What do you really think those you mentioned did about this issue (preserving architecture)?

I certainly know what Flynn said and did. Behr wrote voluminously on a theme he called "permanent architecture". Flynn spoke about the need to control the ball or 8,000 yard courses would be needed. Macdonald kept "improving" his NGLA for the last thirty years of his life. When Crump was asked when he'd finish his PVGC he said "NEVER"! Mackenzie, like Flynn, talked about the need for architectural "elasticity."

The one thing practically every architect of any age seemed concerned about is that golf courses and their architecture stay relevent to the game itself. If the game didn't stop changing they all seemed willing to change with it---although they all seemed to be advocates of the regulatory bodies preserving the game better.

You should also know that many of these restoration projects that are taking place at many classic courses now are in effect two sides of the coin---they are both restorative of a course's inherent architecture on the one hand and once that's done they're intented to be preservative---to preserve what was done so as to avoid the willy-nilly changes that were made in the past.

It's pretty hard to deny that the same basic issue concerns us today as concerned those classic architects 75-80 years ago---that being the distance and potential distance the ball goes---how to control that and make golf architecture stay relevant to the game. If nothing is ever done to ensure that problem will be solved better I think even you understand that it's going to be pretty hard to get anyone, any club or any architect to get on the bandwagon to preserve architecture in a manner you may be envisioning.

Can you give me a single example, for instance, of any classic golf course anywhere, including TOC, Merion, Shinnecock, Oakmont, Pebble, NGLA, PVGC who has refused to consider adding tee length?

I can't think of one. The reason they consider it is not because they don't want to preserve their courses and their architecture, they simply want their courses to stay relevent to today's game---sans the regulatory bodies doing something to preserve the game better---eg controlling the game's equipment better.

[T_MacWood]

Those architects all understood the need for flexibility. Flexibility is/was most easily accomplished by moving tees. They were very wise and quite right.

I think one can argue for both finality and flexibility--as MacKeznie did.

They all seemed to foresee the dangers of uncontrolled advancements in the golf ball--Macdonald and MacKenzie both advocated the floater (a lighter ball that didn't travel as far).

I've not read any architect warn about the speeds of greens getting out if hand. I don't believe they ever dreamt greens could be brought to speeds found today. Super fast green speed are a popular means of challenging golfers today due to the unreal distances the ball is traveling. One wonders what MacKenzie's reaction would be to his greens being described as freakish once again.

Darwin, who lived longer and wrote more than any of the others, was an outspoken critic of altering prominant designs.

Here are a couple exerpts from MacKenzie and Behr:


"If a course ever has to be altered, it means that the architect was wrong in the first instance, and yet one sees all over the world golf course which are being continually altered, and not infrequently the changes that are made are no great improvement on the old holes.

It is often suggested that changes in the ball may necessitate alterations to the course, but this is nonsense. A well-designed golf course should suit any golf ball or any class of player. The Old Course at St.Andrews is classical example. It was the best in the days of the fether, guttie, and the Haskel ball, and Bobby Jones still describes it as the best.

There are many golf architects who have never has a golf course altered when they have been given a free hand to carry out their ideas in the first place. I do not think that Jf Abercromby, Harry Colt, or Max Behr have ever had a course altered.

None of our courses in America have been changed,.."

~~ Alister MacKenzie circa 1930



"Perhaps, it is not right to so castigate the penologist, for to be restricted in designing holes to fairways of limited width is a great handicap for strategy to surmount. This is especially true in that freedom, demanded by a sport, loses all sense when subject to obvious restraint. Consequently, golf architecture, in an effort to police the thieving of space by the present ball, has turned inward upon itself in an effort to tell the golfer what is right and wrong, whereas it is imperatve in any sport that the pursuer of it is the sole judge. Because the ball as implement is dishonorable to a sportsman in making him take advantage of a hole's sole live defense, the sport has verily lost its soul. And such is the condition of golf as it is played today."

~~Max Behr 1952

[TEPaul]

Tom:

You just gave us a quote from Mackenzie in 1930. This is 74 years later. Do you think perhaps he spoke a bit soon about no chances to the courses he mentioned? Would he say none have been changed today? Of course not!

But why? My point is because of the increase in the distance the ball continued to go. Look at what Max Behr said in the quote you used that was 22 years after MacKenzie's. What is Behr saying? He's saying the problem is the increased distance of the ball.

I think most would be more than willing to preserve architecture, particularly famous and respected architecture but they seem more interested in seeing that architecture stays relevant to the game. Stop the distance incresases or roll the distance back and I think you'll find your suggestions golf architecture be preserved will be about 1,000% easier to do.

It's really sort of a horse before the cart kind of thing.

[T_MacWood]

TE
They all warned of the dangers of not controlling the increasing distances the ball was traveling...in the 1920's!


"All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally slove the ball problem. A great deal of experimentation is now going on and its it to be hopes that before long a solution will be found to controll the distance of the elusive pill.

If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7500 and even 8000 yard courses and more yards more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out."

~~William Flynn 1927


These architects often preached economy, they deplored waste and they almost always advised the most financially prudent alternative. Most of their comments on golf architecture were writen in the 1920's, their frugal attitude could have only grown with the experience of the Depression. You combine their obvious frugality with their common belief that the golf ball had to be controlled and you have a pretty good idea of what they would be saying today if they were magically beamed down.

"These damn fools still haven't done anything about the golf ball (seventy-four years later!)....they are wasting millions on moving our bunkers and flattening greens.....what a complete waste!"

I don't see preservation as puting the cart in front of the horse. The horse left the barn a long time ago and it doesn't appear it will be reigned in any time soon...especially when we have so many willing to remodel.

If you and the others are interested in renovating to keep up...go for it...I'm only looking to preserve a few museum pieces for the betterment of golf architecture (perhaps we should only look to preserve courses that have already been deemed obsolete for major championships). And you never know maybe it might actually effect change...to this point nothing else has.

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

So does that mean the end conclusions of mt theory are correct if the only fault you find in it is my method of referencing the classic architects?  Many who come to this sight have NOT read the volumes that we have, so I choose to share in terms they can understand.

Although "tee flexibility" is the first line of defense, and most always the cheapest, moving the tee may protect the stylistics of a design but does not protect the integrity of a holes design relative to shot values.  You may be able to keep the driver in a players hand off the tee but the four iron will be an eight in twenty years.  Landlocked short walk routings and site restrictions are often going to get in the way.  So the question is on a Classic 150 acre site do you revise the holes to make the best golf in tune with the original arhitects design or do you, in essence, dub it an Indian burial ground that you can look at and admire with little function.  Should we ad a line to the "proper golf attire required for admission to course" sign that reads "19xx equipment required" to play said course.

I agree the horse is gone and not coming back.  How long should one wait before buying a new horse?  I agree its the ball.  We all do.  Its the only factor this site has true agreement on.  It should be noted the balls we play in the "What's in Your Bag?" thread.

I'll even come right out and say what your begging these guys to say.  The wisdom of the ages was correct in the near term but WRONG over the course of 50+ years.  The one factor that protects architecture as I believe you would intend is the playing condition.  If you would be willing to start a "Society to Protect the Reasonable Expectation of the Playability Condition of a Course", I'm in.  Fast, hard not firm, brown and dormant, rear sloping, unkempt bunkers (both in sand and walls), and enough flaws that the rub of the green means something other than a kick off a sprinkler head or a cart path protect design and cannot be overcome by technology as they require a ball soft enough that it can't be ridiculously long.

Had MacKenzie known what a Flex 21 would be or forseen the future of irrigation and drainage.  His courses would not have undergone as many changes as they have.  Compare ANGC to Crystal Downs relative to changes and playability.  The obsession with lush green turf is the second biggest culprit in this case.

Nobody gets 100% right the first time and if they do in 2 years it all changes again.  We've been open ten weeks now and we're looking at adding four - five bunkers and we're already moving mow lines and bunker maint. practices.  In light of the amount of time put into every detail and angle on the course a year ago - I'd have told you you no way, but its true.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
I'm not exactly sure what your theory is or how it relates to the proposed society to preserve and protect a small number of important designs, but we do see things a little differently based upon your previous post.

"Is it better to restore a course / property to its original state?

or

Is it better to restore the shot values of the original property?"

You forgot, or

Is it better to protect a small number of well-preserved outstanding designs?

"If the great Archies (pick your own favorite) came back and were asked to "restore a course", would they put a feature where they had it in their day or put it where it would represent / impact play as they originally intended?"

I believe when you go back through this thread you will find I've been questioning restoration and pointing out some of the negative ramifications. IMO if the architects came back 'restoration' would be the least of their concerns.

"Preservation – No Change – Modern courses to be as they are forever, with classics being overpowered by modern equipment.
Restoration – Backward Change – Classic courses being defenseless to modern equipment.
Conservation – Adaptive Change – Classic course continuing to present us with challenges as near to the originators intent."

Preservation/Conservation -- Important designs (a relatively small number) are preserved and protected. Bunkers are not moved. Greens are not softened. New tees could be constructed or moved if appropriate. (Many of these courses are--most likely--unable to test the best professionals of today. They understand any attempt to regain their championship standing--through redesign--would be futile and damaging to their great design)

Restoration -- True restoration is extremely difficult and rare. We could learn something from Architecture when approaching restoration. It should only be considered under extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps a very important design that has been corrupted or damaged in some severe way. It should only be undertaken by highly specialized craftsmen and based on respect for the original material and techniques. Above all it must be acompanied by thorough documentation and research...it must stop at the point conjecture begins. A good restoration could be as simple as removing trees, expanding putting surfaces and fairways. (Some of these restored courses may be of modern championship standard; some will fall into the category above. If they fall short and there is a desire to strengthen the test through alteration, it is no longer a restoration).

Redesign/Renovation -- Most courses have been redesigned / renovated at some point; and they could, and probably should, continue to be redesigned and renovated. There are plenty of successes and failures to study and contemplate. (Let it rip Jim!)

[TEPaul]

"TE
They all warned of the dangers of not controlling the increasing distances the ball was traveling...in the 1920's!'

Tom MacW:

I realize that. That's precisely what I just said in post #64. But the ball was not controlled in the 1920s or thereafter---it continued to increase in distance and consequently those architects you mentioned continued to alter and adjust golf courses and their architecture because of it---just as they continue to do today!

Look at it this way---the distance the ball goes is the horse, the courses and their architecture the cart---the one is dragging the other in a direction where the cart is continuously being altered. Stop the horse and your chances of really preserving great architecture is improved dramatically!

You suggest that a society for architectural preservation can stop any alteration of great old architecture. As long as the distance the ball travels increases or is not brought into line to make that old architecture play relevant I don't think you'll succeed with this society for the preservation of classic architecture idea of yours.

I don't know a single old and classic club that wants to put their architecture into a virtual museum as you seem to. Golf is a game and it's architecture is highly interactive to the game and will continue to be! All the clubs I'm aware of want to stay relevant to the game somehow.

You may not see or understand this because heretofore you've basically admitted you don't really care what any course's membership thinks, that all you want to do is supply them with historical research material. That's fine but if you want to get anything benefical done at any course in a total preservationist sense you just have to deal with that course's membership and what they think and want to do first!

You can continue to talk around that issue or continue to ignore it but nothing totally preservationist will ever happen, in my opinion, if you continue to do that! What will happen is clubs will always continure to try to improve their courses to stay relevant to the changes in the game.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I borrowed the museum comment from Jim Thompson for effect, its a rediculous notion often used by those not really interested in preserving architecture when it gets in the way of progress.

Do the member of Cypress Point enjoy their course any less because it is too short to challenge today's professionals?  Somerset Hills?  Prestwick?  NGLA?  Jasper Park?  Ekwanok?  Mayfield?  Swinley Forest?  Valley Club?  Lehigh?  Seminole?  Maidstone?


The way I look at it -- preserving these courses is in the best interest of their membership....remodeling them is not.

[TEPaul]

"Do the member of Cypress Point enjoy their course any less because it is too short to challenge today's professionals?  Somerset Hills?  Prestwick?  NGLA?  Jasper Park?  Ekwanok?  Mayfield?  Swinley Forest?  Valley Club?  Lehigh?  Seminole?  Maidstone?

Tom:

I don't know a thing about Prestwick, Jasper Park, Ekwanok, Mayfield or Swinley Forest but isn't it interesting all the rest (CPC, Somerset Hills, NGLA, Valley Club, Lehigh, Seminole and Maidstone) I do know have had architectural work or restoration work of one kind or another done to them relatively recently.

That's my point! Do you disagree with that? Isn't this what you're maintaining on this thread you've now decided has become dangerous to architecture, and that a "Society to Preserve Golf Architecture" needs to be formed to prevent?

Furthermore, it seems to me from what I've heard most all those clubs and their memberships are happy with the architectural work (whether you think its restoration or other-wise) done to their courses. And furthermore, I've never said a thing on this subject about professional golfers--you brought that up. I'm talking about memberships of clubs and what they want to do--not about what someone thinks needs to be done to those courses for professional golfers.

[T_MacWood]

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Remove trees, recapture playing surfaces, repair where you need to, but don't move bunkers and don't flatten greens, and be very careful if you must restore. No need to modernize these courses in hopes of keeping up with the golf ball.

I question the rebuilding of MacKenzie & Co's gracefully evolved bunkers CPC--of course if you were in charge you would have had them moved fifty of sixty yards down the fairway. I question the rebuilding of Seminole's bunkers based upon conjecture...inaccurate conjecture as it turns out.

The members at Scioto were happy when Dick Wilson and friends redesigned its course...the same with Inverness and Fazio....and GCGC and RTJ...and Bel-Air and George Fazio...and Gulph Mills and half a dozen architects...at least they were happy for a little while.

[TEPaul]

"I question the rebuilding of MacKenzie & Co's gracefully evolved bunkers CPC--of course if you were in charge you would have had them moved fifty of sixty yards down the fairway. I question the rebuilding of Seminole's bunkers based upon conjecture...inaccurate conjecture as it turns out.

The members at Scioto were happy when Dick Wilson and friends redesigned its course...the same with Inverness and Fazio....and GCGC and RTJ...and Bel-Air and George Fazio...and Gulph Mills and half a dozen architects...at least they were happy for a little while."

Tom MacWood:

Most of that is what I was sort of expecting you to say. It really doesn't surprise me you saying that about CPC or Seminole. And it doesn't even annoy me you saying that about GMGC! It just proves to me you're a guy with an opinion that is based on very little understanding of the architecture of these clubs and no understanding of the membership of those clubs.

The restored bunkers at CPC sure looks a helluva lot better to me and far more representative of the look and shapes of those beautiful bunkers that Mackenzie and the American Construction Co built at CPC then what those CPC bunkers had come to look like a few years ago.

As for Seminole, I doubt you have any understanding of what that club did recently with their bunkers and why. Have you spoken to the club or Brian Silva about them? Some seem to think the club thought they were restoring to the look of Wilson bunkers because of a misdated photograph but the look of the bunkers they restored to was actually Donald Ross. So what's the inaccurate conjecture you're referring to? As far as the bunkers at Aronimink, you're the only one I've ever heard of who thinks it was a better idea to restore those bunkers to what was likely J.B McGovern than some of the best Ross drawings Ron Prichard has ever seen. When Ron Prichard read the things you said about Aronimink's bunkers (probably never having been there or done any research on it) he said; "Who is this guy, has he been doing this kind of research and this kind of work like I have for the last thirty years?" In my opinon, there isn't an architect out there who sticks as close to his historic reseach as Ron and probably no one better with historical research than he is.

And as far as GMGC and what its members thought at any point in time and particularly now, well, what's one to say about that? I've only been there for 25 years and you never have---but I guess you know more about that architecture and what the club's membership thought about it at any point than I do.

God knows why you said I'd recommend moving CPC's bunkers 50-60 yards downfield either. The assumptions you make about a lot of people and a lot of things to do with classic architecture and architects just never seizes to amaze me.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Do you believe MacKenzie expected his bunkers at CPC to remain frozen in time? As someone who studied dune structure and the nature of sand he obviously knew they would change and evolve--and they did, gracefully in my opinion.

You and I look at these things very differently. IMO unless there is something structurally unrepairable that neccesitates total reconstruction all efforts should be made to preserve the original work. (Obviously there are instances when bunkers have been destroyed, inartfully altered or filled in...but that is another story)

I want to see the original work of those Irish laborers overseen by MacKenzie and Hunter in its beautifully evolved state...not a modern attempt to recreate their work.

I want to see the original work of Flynn and Valentine and Valentine and their decades of brilliant care and attention....not a new version created by modern construction methods.

I want see the orginal work of Thomas and Bell at Riviera, again evolved beautifully....not Fazio's new and improved Thomas & Bell.

I want see the original work and its historic style at Seminole...not a modern psuedo-Ross style based upon conjecture.

I want to see the orginal steamshovel work of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks...not a watered down modern interpretation by Rulewich.

[TEPaul]

"You and I look at these things very differently."

Tom:

Apparently we do look at these things very differently and literally, not figuratively.

To me the original bunkers of CPC were some of the most extraordinary I've ever seen anywhere. They were imaginative, artistic (apparently the American Construction Co's Irish contractors tried to copy and mimic the look of the shapes of passing clouds!). From that extraordinary set of photographs by Julian Graham of Mackenzie playing the course shortly after opening one can clearly see that those beautiful bunkers are extremely low-profile of sand to grass surrounds (perhaps no more than an inch or two in some cases)---some of the most low-profile I've ever seen anywhere. They almost look from afar as if they were pasted onto the landscape.

I don't think it takes more than a little bit of commonsense to understand maintaining the look of those incredible bunkers was going to be extremely difficult to do. Wind likely whipped the sand all over the place, onto greens, out of the bunkers etc---sheet flow water probably played havoc with them too. I'm more than willing to bet the same construction company did those beautiful "artifical" sand dunes on some of the holes of the redesigned (Chandler Egan) Pebble Beach too. Those "Artificial Dune" bunkers at Pebble were clearly not slated to last and were very likely deemed "unmaintainable" in their original look. One can hardly miss the extreme similarity in that unusual bunker style and look between Cypress and then Pebble (leading one to conclude they were likely the American Construction Co at Pebble also (Irish foremen constructors Gormley and Fleming)).

This from Chandler Egan;

"The green was rebuilt a little to the right and as close to the ocean as possible. It is rather small and almost completely surrounded by small imitation sand dunes. Joe Mayo and I had never seen this type of bunkering before but we had faith in the idea and after a few experiments acheived a result that we hope will continue to be as good as it seems to be at this writing."

Maintaining that extraordinary early look was obviously not as easy as Egan and Mayo hoped it would be and we certainly know those "imitation sand dunes" were changed at Pebble.

Now you say you think the evolution of the Cypress bunkers (that were extremely similar to the Pebble's "imitation sand dune" redesigned bunkers) were best when they evolved beautifully over the years!?

That's the part we really do look at things differently Tom! If you're saying you think the look of Cypress's bunkers was better just before the recent bunker restoration I think you're either completely blind or have no real idea what you're talking about! There were some before and after photos posted on here not long ago!

It's prettty clear to see the bunkers of Cypress had evolved into mundane, round and boring looking shapes and dimensions before they were recently restored! They looked as different from those original Mackenzie (American Construction Co) bunkers as night and day.

But the recent restoration returned those bunkers to shapes and a look that is far more representive and similar to what they once were. Only this time they used material that will obviously allow maintenance to keep those bunkers looking far more like what they once were than what they'd evolved into over the decades which were entirely different with none of their original beauty and uniqueness.

And you're now telling us you think the bunkers of CPC should've been preserved the way they'd come to look before their recent restoration?? If you are, Tom, I just don't get it---and furthermore I sure wouldn't support that kind of "preservation" suggestion. I'd very much support the kind of "restoration" project the club just went through with their bunkering. It looks a whole lot closer to what the bunkers once were than what they'd come to be!

Seminole has it's own interesting bunker restoration story, the details of which are not to be found in a Golf Digest article!

[TEPaul]

"I want to see the original work of Flynn and Valentine and Valentine and their decades of brilliant care and attention...."

Tom:

Have you ever talked to Richie Valentine about the evolution of Merion's bunkers? Well, I have--for hours! It's interesting and obviously far different than some of the things you must think.