R. Jones @ NGLA

« **on:** January 23, 2003, 06:29:11 PM »

Per golfweek forecaddie R. Jones Has " been retained to ready the course for the Walker Cup bid".

What do they have to ready? Can this be declared a National Historic Landmark that NOBODY screws with( except the ghost of C.B. maybe)?

Anybody know if this is indeed cause for concern?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2003, 06:58:53 PM »

wpeyronnin,

What do you think about the changes made over the last 15 years to NGLA ?

Do you object to them ?

Do you feel that they should not have been made

« **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2003, 07:13:19 PM »

Pat
Please explain. I think Ward's question is a good one...a legitimate concern. We don't need criptic responses....detail for us what you know about the changes of the last 15 years and why we should have no concern.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2003, 07:22:35 PM »

Tom MacWood,

There is no need for me to re-hash the previous changes.

I asked Ward, in the context of his fear of future changes, what he thinks about the previous ones, and what distinguishes the two.

I'm sure Ward can speak for himself.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2003, 07:37:12 PM »

I'd settle for a simple hashing of the changes. Been on board for a few years now - other than casual dismissals, I don't recall too much discussion of the changes.

Plenty of name calling & posturing already, though - don't need to re-hash those.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2003, 07:50:19 PM »

I have only had the good fortune to play NGLA once two augusts ago so i don't have enough perspective to respond to Mr. Mucci's question. However, isn't RJ known as the open doctor? I was trying to bring out whether he is being consulted for similar makeover of this course assuming that any changes in the recent past were more fine tuning and not "structural".

« **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2003, 08:03:00 PM »

Ward,

Rees has been a member of NGLA for some time.

He's also been consulted with on some previous changes.

It is my understanding that nothing other than a few tee lengthenings are planned, some of which had already been in the works when Karl Olson was there.

My question is, will they restore # 13 green and expand # 9 green, two worthy restoration goals ?

But, some on here might object to those changes if Rees were to undertake them, as they would most assuredly be judged as wrong since Rees is involved.

In fact Ward, you've inspired me. I'm going to send Rees a note suggesting that he consider these restorations, just so that I could enjoy torturing the bashers.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2003, 08:15:15 PM »

Is it wrong to assume they will play #5 and #7 as par 4's or are these the holes that Rees will lengthen?

« **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2003, 08:41:52 PM »

Pat
Rees has been a member for years is not that reassuring....I can think of a number of architects/members who messed up or had some wacky ideas. Wasn't Rulewich connected with Yale? I'm still not clear on the what Rees had to do with the last 15 years and why that is passifying? And wasn't Olson dismissed...for a reason I assume?

Are you confident the club is going the right direction with this hire?

« **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2003, 03:08:34 AM »

Joel,

If # 5 was lengthened, they would have to move the tee to the left and back toward the bay. I think # 7 has some room directly back from the current tee.

Tom MacWood,

Many think that the changes at NGLA over the last 15 years under Karl Olson's reign as Green Super were very good.
Rees has been a member there for many years and has been consulted on changes. To date everything seems A-OK.

Roger Rulewich, like Rees Jones is a Yale graduate, I believe.

It is my understanding that Karl Olson was NOT dismissed.
That he chose to resign and return to the Southwest.

Is the club going in the right direction ? Time will tell.
Any changes will certainly be scrutinized, especially with the awarding of the Walker Cup.

I'm surprised by some reactions.
I would think, that the focus should be on NGLA seeking a Walker Cup.
The tremendous benefits to architecture in America if NGLA is awarded the Walker Cup.
The exposure MILLIONS will get to NGLA and the genius of its architecture.

The fun that can be created by unique architecture despite moderate length

This would be a wonderful event for golf and golf course architecture.

Hopefully, the USGA and NGLA will agree.

One would hope that ALL 18 HOLES would be televised, and that the coverage would be from many angles, aerial and ground level.

I think it is one of the most exciting prospects to come along in a long while

« **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2003, 04:54:59 AM »

Pat
Did Kark Olson and Rees work pretty much as a team and did Rees every nix any of his potential changes?

The fact that you don't know if the club is going in the right direction is the reason for this thread. Whenever you get an Open Doctor and the USGA together it normally spells trouble for the original architecture. I think the educational benefit of exposing the NGLA to an extremely small Walker Cup audience is clearly out weighed by the concern to architectural fans of putting this course in the path of a duo not known for architectural senativity.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:20:51 AM »

Tom MacWood,

I didn't say that I didn't know (opinion) if the club was going in the right direction, I did say that time will tell.
Today's direction might not be next years direction and I'm not very good at predicting the future at anything, let alone golf club policies and politics.

Many, including myself would strongly disagree with your assessment, offering The Country Club and Baltusrol as examples of excellent work. What is your specific assessment of the work at The Country Club and Baltusrol ?

Neither Rees Jones or Karl Olson act independently, dictate policy or achitectural changes at NGLA. I think consensus amongst all those involved is the modus operandi.

But, tell me, what is your assessment of each and all the changes that have taken place at NGLA over the last 15 years ?

« **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:30:59 AM »

The people to ask these questions of are the green chairman who stepped down this year after about 25 years on the job and obviously the new green chairman. If they don't have the facts and the answers to these questions, who could (other than Karl)?

But if NGLA wants to toughen up the course for a Walker Cup the obvious way to do it is to simply use the available extra strokes they luckily have with a par 73 course as at least two, maybe three par 5s can transition beautifully into long par 4s with ease. Sure, it's basically a "perception change" but it does work! Matter of fact there's some very interesting historic percedent on some other courses for just this kind of thing--like Philly C.C. in the 1939 US Open.

This is basically a no-brainer in my book if they're looking for some perception of toughening the course. NGLA is unusually lucky this way as a golf course--it's unusually adaptable this way and the club and all of us should recognize that.

NGLA does not need tee length increases to play a Walker there--if they're looking to do something they should just print up some alternate score cards and leave the course just as it is.

NGLA doesn't need any architectural redesign, all they need is a scorecard printing company. If #9 and #13 green were larger once and that can be documented that would be a true restoration and maybe they should go for it. #9, though, is already an enormous par 5 green and I've always heard the original green (#9 was orignally #18) was a combined practice putting green #18 green when the old hotel was right next to it (before it burned), so one should question the function of restoring the size of #9. As for expanding #13 green to the right---it is a sort of interesting idea but I've never heard anyone document if that was ever done by Macdonald although it does appear he may have thought about it.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:37:35 AM »

TEPaul,

Are you absolutely certain, that to keep the centerline bunker complex in play from the 8th tee, preserving the original architectural intent, that the tee doesn't have to be lengthened ?

« **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:39:04 AM »

So they didn't work as a team or at least you don't know the answer....so we can drop another of your reasons for assurance.

Brookline should have been the model for all events, a sensative restoration conducted largely in-house. Unfortunately it has been the exception. How close is Baltusrol today to the course that Tillinghast built...from what I have researched not very. There have been numerous changes over the years. Perhaps you can some of the folks from the Tillie Society to weigh in. Is there an old aerial out there?

If I knew the details of the changes at NGLA over the last 15 yrs I wouldn't asked you the question in the first place.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:47:35 AM »

Patrick:

If NGLA is going to start to try to analyze exactly where any of the Walker Cuppers are going to hit any particular drive (such as #8 ) like you apparently are with that post, they really are getting into the same mind-set as ANGC does every year. #8 will be just fine and don't forget the "Principle's Nose" bunker on #8 farther out.

The club should just drop the par down to 71 (or even 70) and let those Walker Cuppers go play the course as it is. NGLA will be just fine that way!

« **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:50:14 AM »

Tom MacWood,

It's amazing how you can attempt to discount Rees Jones's work at The Country Club by stating that the work was done in house. No it wasn't. Rees Jones did the Design work.
The construction work of Rees's designs were carried out under the supervision of the Superintendent, who responded on this site and had high acclaim for Rees. Nice Try.

I don't know what part of "consensus" you didn't understand.
But, you have mis-stated my words, and drawn your own improper conclusion.

Rees's work at Baltusrol has been very well regarded.
You couldn't tell what he did if you walked and played the golf course. Tillinghast's work has been preserved by Rees.

Tom, I never fail to be amazed at your expertise in analyzing golf courses that you've never seen. Don't you think you owe it to your credibility to see a golf course, both pre and post change, before providing a critical evaluation of the work done to the golf course ?

In addition, what about restoration changes an architect wants to make that the membership/committee/owner prevents him from making ?

What about changes forced upon an architect by the membership/committee/owner ?

Let's not live in an ivory tower, or wallow in hypothetical situations, let's deal with the realities of golf club life.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:07:22 AM »

"It's amazing how you can attempt to discount Rees Jones's work at The Country Club by stating that the work was done in house. No it wasn't. Rees Jones did the Design work.
The construction work of Rees's designs were carried out under the supervision of the Superintendent, who responded on this site and had high acclaim for Rees. Nice Try."

Frankly, I do not remember the super at Brookline ever responding on Golfclubatlas, but if he did I wish someone would find it.

Regarding the bunkers though, Rees did the design work (as with the rest of the US Open prep restoration/design work) and the work was carried out inhouse and the bunkering was "evolved" by maintenance over a lengthy period of time. I know this because I had a long talk with the super a couple of months ago.

Brookline looks just great now and into the future they have an informal consulting relationship with an architectural firm but the work on the course continues to be done inhouse and will. There's no design work in store (except some really odd-ball request from a significant member that hopefully will be nixed) and the course should just progress into the future with some really great maintenance practices!

Brookline is into a really good preservation process!

« **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:17:02 AM »

"rees work at Baltusrol has been very well regarded". Is this fact or opinion?

Changes have been made to the character of the bunkering over the years at Baltusrol. I do not know if Rees is responsible but it is evidenced in the 100 year anniversary book on the club.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:18:04 AM »

Pat
Here's a reality for you....how close is Baltusrol-Lower to the course that Tillinghast built?

« **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:26:27 AM »

I don't understand the need to do anything to the course. Isn't this a match play event? Why is par a consideration? Why change the course if everyone is playing the same holes against EACH OTHER? It is what it is. Swing away. What terrible thing would happen if they just left the course alone? I like TEPaul's idea of changing the scorecard IF for some reason they are concerned with par (though I don't know why they would be).

« **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:54:56 AM »

Match Play asked:

"Why is par a consideration?"

Unfortunately, it's a consideration at NGLA (or anywhere else) even in the Walker Cup (match play) just because people dedicatedly view it as such.

I think most of us realize that in mano a mano match play the relevence of par is basically nil but just try convincing most golfers and even some very good ones of that?

So par is a consideration at NGLA in the match play Walker Cup simply because it's virtually impossible to convince so many of those concerned that it really isn't!

« **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2003, 07:38:14 AM »

TEPaul,

Yes, the super posted on this site with respect to the work done and Rees's pro-active and positive involvement at The Country Club.

Are you aware that the 8th tee at NGLA was lengthened a few years ago ? I know you are, because I told you so a year or so ago, and...... noone has complained.

Would you not agree that the centerline bunker complex is far more of THE strategic hazard than the principle's nose bunker, some fifty yards farther down the fairway ?

Tom MacWood,

Before the upper was built or after the upper was built.

Are you familiar with the foot pad of the old par 3 that sits crossing the fairway and rough on the current 18th hole of the upper ?

Corey Miller,

"changes have been made, but you don't know if they're Rees's." Don't you think that you should find out before rendering an opinion on his work there ?

Match Play,

At a hole like # 8, the centerline bunker complex is an integral, if not vital component to the strategy and play of the hole.
If those bunkers can be routinely flown by Walker Cup players it defeats the architect's intent, relative to the play of the hole. That's not good. Those bunkers need to remain in play.

To often match play is perceived as golfer against golfer as if the hole being played doesn't exist, and is to be ignored.
One must PLAY the hole, disregarding the field, but keeping an eye on their opponent. And since one must play the hole, shouldn't it be played as the architect intended ?

With the bunkers in play, options exist, decisions must be made, and the shot executed. If the bunkers are no longer in play, one of the primary challenges of the hole is removed, and with it, the options, decisions and challenge of the hole.

Many tees have been altered/lenghtened over the years and nobody has complained. Why the sudden objections ?

« **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2003, 07:51:09 AM »

Pat:

Yes, I am aware that #8 was lengthened and all the detail about that was supplied to me one morning around 6am when I was standing on the road berm looking at #8 and up came Karl Olsen. So, we talked for about 1/2 hour about the entire evolution of the hole and how it plays today vs back then. Karl, who can kill the ball, said he could actually get a drive into the "Principle's Nose bunker"!!

But I feel today that despite the fact the hole was lengthened it probably doesn't need it again. If they had good players there and put them at the tips of that hole (which of course they should) crossing over the center bunker scheme would be no problem but in certain conditions the last (horizontal) bunker in the line would be something they would still think about and that's good enough for me strategy-wise--and there's always that "Principles Nose" bunker to think about today although in C.B's time it was not remotely designed for the drive.

Sometimes interesting golf holes have fascinating ways of strategically transitioning from one era to another. And we should just let them do that if they can! #7 Pine Valley is most definitely one and #8 NGLA probably is too!

For those kinds of reasons as well as a few others, I would say with an NGLA (or PV) just leave their architecture alone at this point---they've earned that!

« **Reply #24 on:** January 24, 2003, 07:53:24 AM »

Pat
No, I wasn't aware of the old foot pad. I was aware that Tillinghast converted the old course at Baltusrol into a new 36 hole complex in the late teens/early 20's.

My question is regarding Tillinghast's original Lower course completed in the early 20's.

The question has nothing to do with a specific architect or a hidden agenda. It has to do with the changes that have occured over the years.

News:

ward peyronnin

Patrick_Mucci

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Patrick_Mucci

George Pazin

ward peyronnin

Patrick_Mucci

Joel_Stewart

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Patrick_Mucci

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Tom MacWood (Guest)

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

corey miller

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Match Play

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Tom MacWood (Guest)

An Error Has Occurred!