[ForkaB]

Patrick

Your last sentence is possibly telling.

I had a conversation recently with a senior member of a well respected club in the UK, and he mentioned that a significant proposed "improvement" (and, yes, it would have been) to one of the holes on his course had been rejected due to excessive potential cost--about $100K.  Pocket change to youse guys on the East Coast and just rounding errors to our friends from California.........

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I can agree with that, but I will not agree with the politics of one specific change at Merion. MAKE THAT NEVER AGREE.

Ray Charles, Jose Feliciano, and Stevie Wonder could see in those pictures just how ridiculous it is.

But lets not get into that again!:)

[ian]

Concidering the wide fairway approaches on the left of 14 green and the right of 5 green, I would assume that the club intends to find the 1930's fairway lines to go with the 30's bunkering. I think Tom's comments on the timing make sense, wait till the amatuer is done and then expand, its not as easy as just cutting it down.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Time will tell.

I believe, that if those tops don't get TLC, that they will evolve into the LOOK you like.

Ian Andrew,

Yes it is.

The amateur serves as an excuse to justify postponing a simple task which could have been accomplished some time ago.  I sense that this delay signals a lack of unanimity amongst those involved in the decision making process.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Any bunker that doesn't get the gross over-attenton that American society has deemed acceptable is going to look unkept, but will it look natural to its twist and turns inside the capes and bays, where these features have been eliminated from the previous beautifully evolved bunkers?

Anoher thing is that the depth is not anywhere close to be right, at least from the images, and I know that isn't going to be a valid observation for you, but from what I can tell, he place looks great with the amount of tree clearing that has occured. Bunkerwise, I'm sorry, it was a huge mistake. HUGE!

I still love Merion with all of my heart, and will remember what the bunkers once looked like. I equate it to these atheletes that take a brand new beautiful Mercedes Benz and add on the gaudy gold packages and wheels that don't match. People like it because that's the way Alan Iverson or Shaq have it, and Shaq once said "its still a Cedes."

Maybe in his "hood" but not in mine.

Now, if he only had Gil Hanse putting the touches on that Mercedes...............

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you haven't seen the bunkers before the work, and you haven't seen the bunkers after the work, and you haven't seen the 1930 bunkers, how would you judge or evaluate any answer that I would provide ?

Tommy Naccarato,

I disagree with you with respect to all the nooks and crannies that you seem to feel existed in those bunkers.

The current bunkers have contour, but much of it is obscured by the upholstered grass on top.

How can you make a quantatative evaluation regarding bunker depth ?

Did you know the depth of the bunkers before the project began ?  If I asked you about the bunker depth at Winged Foot, Pebble Beach and Pacific Dunes, I think you and everyone else would guess, based on foggy recollection of bunkers that you might have been in, or seen in a photo.

I find no fault with the bunker depth on the current bunkers and I have played and studied them, which probably disqualifies me with this group.

How would you compare the look of the bunkers today, with the look of the bunkers the day the golf course was open for play ?

Please don't tell me that you're going to compare a brand new bunker with one that has been exposed to the elements and golfers for 20 or more years.

I happen to believe that the upholstered tops will not survive and that the bunkers will take on a look more in line with what you like.  Unfortunately, I doubt it will be in our lifetimes.

[Forrest Richardson]

A better question for Tommy and others — is why? Why on earth spend time comparing bunker depths when those that exist will change again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

At some point one needs to say: "You know, golf is about change and the ideas of one generation on top of another. This is the honest truth, and by the nicks on my seven iron I'm going to start believing this right here today. In fact, I'm going to pick up a good book about The old Course, crack open a bottle of YooHoo and read with great interest how golf came to be and how we seem to have lost sight of this piece of magic in our daily pursuit of anaylsis."

[Forrest Richardson]

Did I mention adding anything to the YooHoo? Well, it's possible.

[ForkaB]

Forrest

If it's a Black Russian effect you are after, I'd suggest industrial strength vodka.  If your taste runs more to Bailey's try adding some home made poteen.

Anybody else out there remember Yogi Berra's TV ad's in the 50's:

"Me-he for Yoo-Hoo!"

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat & Forrest,
I hate to see old wounds opened up again, because it is certainly long past all of it. But, I will say this:

The purpose of redoing the Merion bunkers in the first place was because the bunkers themselves were falling apart, or in one speicific circumstance, fell apart on a certain hole. The club felt that the opinion of who the bunker fell apart on was a viable one, and WISELY took his advice to repair them. You see, Bill Kittleman (Forrest, a person that I greatly admire and respect in the same vein as you do A.J. Snyder.) wasn't around anymore to repair the bunkers as in the past. So they essentially went out and got him.....by hiring one of the best RESTORATION experts in the business; the one who probably knew the course better then any architect--Gil Hanse.

Gil and Bill K. worked on several bunkers, and I have to say, from my viewpoint from seeing them, as close as possible to the wonderful looking and EVOLVED bunkers that all had come to know and respect.  In the restoration of art, yes, I will give you that it is impossible to paint EXACTLY what was there, especially on an ever-evolving canvas. It is more of an interpretation to get it as close as possible as what was orignally built and then how it evolved, thus maybe an interpretation of imitating nature over a period of some 80 years.

To do this interpretation, requires time, and that time frame wasn't acceptable for a group of members, which is their right. So, they dismissed Hanse & Kittleman, and hire what was essentially a Tom Fazio associate, the golf course construction company of MacDonald & Sons, and to oversee it all, former amateur champion and member Buddy Marucci.

They're work on the bunkers would not be an interpretation, but more of a remodel with the intent of making the course look like it did in 1930, which they had seen and been inspired from the book "The Golden Age of Golf" by Geoff Shackelford.  This team, got the work done in a year, erasing the evolved, but somewhat crumbling masterpieces known originally as the "White Faces" and creating the bunkers Pat so much enjoys today.

Don't get me wrong, that is O.K. because we all have so many opinions here. But never think for one moment that these bunkers were going to be constructed in the same verve as the much storied and beautifully evolved originals--by the restoration artist that knew them best--Bill Kittleman. They are not.

Those bunkers are a far distant memory that can only now be appreciated for what they once were, and unfortunately cannot be studied and admired by students of the art and fans of Classic American Golf Course Design and Heritage.

Painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa? No, more like giving her Double D breast implants. Ultimately, they look exactly like Morgana the Kissing Bandit's appendege--over-wrought with excess, and just plain tasteless, and when she got them the intent was to do away with the rack that God gave her, and live with the one she thought would serve her ego well.

If I may be so bold to judge similarties in taste, I'm sure Buddy Marucci likes them a lot.

[Forrest Richardson]

You should not compare the Mona Lisa to a golf course. Every time I am around these discussions I hear analogies such as:

The Mona Lisa...Model Ts....Wright buildings...museums....bridges....none of which approach or approximate or are anywhere near a golf course's unique — yes unique — quality.

The Mona Lisa was not painted/created with the intent that it would change.

Merion was. Any golf architect could tell you that. If he/she tries to say that his/her work "will never/should never" change they will be telling a great falsehood. Do we justify destroying? Of course we do not! Of course, destroying is a matter of personal taste and limits. Of which we are all not on entirely different pages. Most of us here would agree on what is Ok versus what is not OK. Not, perhaps, within an e-mailed environment, but certainly out in the field with hats and dirty boots.

Tommy — until you can find a good analogy, please stop the old artwork routing. Do not resort to telling us about keeping old bridges, buildings and Japanese gardens like others have tried. This is golf — among the most wonderfully unique and special built environments on earth — do not stoop to suggesting that its very soul shall be left to rot along with the creativity it might stiffle while we follow this ugly path.

[Dan Kelly]

At some point one needs to say: "You know, golf is about change and the ideas of one generation on top of another. This is the honest truth, and by the nicks on my seven iron I'm going to start believing this right here today. In fact, I'm going to pick up a good book about The old Course, crack open a bottle of YooHoo and read with great interest how golf came to be and how we seem to have lost sight of this piece of magic in our daily pursuit of anaylsis."

Forrest --

You know, golf is about change and the ideas of one generation on top of another. This is the honest truth, and by the nicks on my seven iron I'm going to start believing this right here today. In fact, I'm going to pick up a good book about The old Course, crack open a bottle of YooHoo and read with great interest how golf came to be and how we seem to have lost sight of this piece of magic in our daily pursuit of anaylsis.

(You were right! At some point I did need to say it! And I don't even disagree!)

But I will add, and wonder if you disagree with this: Some generations turn out to be smarter than others -- and sometimes (in golf architecture, as in the rest of life) it pays to dig up the buried wisdom of a previous generation.

I didn't now you could still get yoo-hoo. Is that the original yoo-hoo, a restored yoo-hoo, or a renovated yoo-hoo?

[Forrest Richardson]

It's a virtual Yoo-Hoo.

Yes, some generations are smarter than others. The interesting part, of course, is that the current generation never knows where they stand in the rankings!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
I to tire of the Mona Lisa comparison, thus my expanding of the sentence. Just keep the blinders on, and skip past that Mona Lisa comment and read the Morgana part. Hey, she lives in Arizona doesn't she?

[Dan Kelly]

Yes, some generations are smarter than others. The interesting part, of course, is that the current generation never knows where they stand in the rankings!

Point extremely well taken.

Where do you think the current generation stands?

[Forrest Richardson]

If I was to guess, which I will, the current (golf) generation is in love with an ideal that there are some great things to behold and preserve — and also not a lot to love about many of the courses we've created in recent times (past 40 years). Nothing too surprising. Is this a smart generation? Probably not. It is polarized: On one end are the "don't touch a thing" folks, and on the other are the "I don't have a clue" folks. When, in reality, the issue is not about either, nor anywhere in between.

It is (or should be) about creating terrific and fun golf courses no matter what route or approach is taken. Fun, of course, can mean the preservation of a design and charm in order that people can see what was done in days gone by. On the other hand, changing a seemingly historic/classic layout to make it more fun to watch a tournament or play or look out across with a drink in hand is also necessary. We also have an obligation to the future golf architects and golfers, who are infinately more important that those who are dead. Had we not fostered the likes of our great artists — no matter the area of their work — we would not have the "greats" to behold today.

And the great artists have not just learned from seeing the great preserved works before their time. No. They have also learned from seeing the butchered art and archietcture of their day, and which has also come before them. Seeing bad is enlightening. It is probably what motivates some on this site to chirp so often and loudly.

So, is it OK that Tom or Bob or Jeff or Bill or Mark or Ted or Wendy or Hans (the new golf architects) get a chance to tinker with courses, both classic and non? Yes. Will they make mistakes and annoy some who call their work awful? Yes. But in my book, just one great and terrific new idea that may never have been thought of, which finds it way through the cracks of all this preceived awfulness, is extremely important. Now, do I want to see Tom or Bob or Jeff or Bill or Mark or Ted or Wendy or Hans really screw things up? Of course not. But rarely are golf architects, new or seasoned,  given unfair access to do such. It is always a process and whether due to politics or fate or luck or stupidity, it sometimes happens that the wrong person is given a green light to do the wrong thing. Funny, though, that this wrongness is in our present-day perspective — and in reality we know not what it will be seen as in 100 years. And, in a 100 years — if it is stills seen as wrong — it will likely be corrected or changed yet again....as I believe we are doing today, as we discuss.

So, you see, it is a cycle. And in no sport or game or any of the design arts of the built environment do we have what golf has provided: A living canvas on which what we draw is no more permanent than chalk on a sidewalk. For it may last — with great heroics — but it is not designed to by nature or the movement of people across its skin. The chalk may become messy. It may wash away. But rebuilding and re-drawing it is part of the fun and excitement.

Golf is much bigger than any of us. It will endure past all our opinions as it has gone well past the opinions of others. All of our history of golf  is relatively recent. The deepest reaches of it go no further back than 500 years. And almost all of it goes no further back than 100 years. And all that we can say for absolute certainty goes back not much more than 50 years.

The only thing for certain is that the courses we speak about today will change tomorrow morning, and every morning thereafter. Whether from wind, hot air, people, bad ideas, good ideas, or grown men and women with gin and tonics who think they know everything.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I've seen, studied and played Merion's bunkers before and after the recent bunker project, and you haven't.  Thus,
I think I'm far more qualified to discuss, evaluate  and compare them, then you are, and, you're certainly in no position to evaluate my answers when you've never seen the bunkers.

Since neither of us has seen the 1930 bunkers in person, you asked a rather foolish question.

Tommy Naccarato,

I'm not so sure that I agree with your conclusions.

I feel that the elements, gravity, erosion, golfers play and maintainance will serve to alter the current look over time, just like the original bunkers were altered from their original look over time, evolving into the look you like.

I don't see how you can perform qualitative analysis and draw sharp conclusions when you've never examined or played from the current bunkers.

I also don't agree with you with respect to construction time determining the outcome.  One would have to know the size of the labor force, the resources, budget and equipment devoted to the project before making that judgement.

1930 was 73 years ago.
A lot happens to golf courses and bunkers in 73 years, and I don't think that you can compare a new bunker to the ones you love, which took 70 years to evolve.

[Dan Kelly]

Forrest --

Thanks so much for answering my question, and with such care.

How ... refreshing!

I particularly like this: "So, you see, it is a cycle. And in no sport or game or any of the design arts of the built environment do we have what golf has provided: A living canvas on which what we draw is no more permanent than chalk on a sidewalk. For it may last ? with great heroics ? but it is not designed to by nature or the movement of people across its skin. The chalk may become messy. It may wash away. But rebuilding and re-drawing it is part of the fun and excitement."


Dan

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

If I understand your argument correctly, you're contending that any bunker, no matter how well or poorly conceived and constructed, as well as artificial looking, will improve over time simply due to elements and wear.

By that thinking every single bunker on the planet earth built before say, 1960, should by now have evolved into a wonderful work of art and thing of wonder.  In fact, it's amazing that the bunkers at Merion received any notoriety at all, much less their own nickname, the "White Faces of Merion" (somewhat ironically named by Chick Evans in 1916!!!), because given your belief, every single bunker on the planet that's at least 50 years old should have developed into a thing of beauty and reverence.  There is no reason for Merion's bunkers to have stood out for special attention and respect, given your argument.

Yet, we all know that this isn't true at all, don't we?  How many courses have bunkering built before 1950 that meet the standard of beauty, effectiveness, and natural integration of the Merion bunkers we knew and loved?  

Is this all Nature's alchemist trick where chaff is spun into gold, given enough time and abuse by golfers?  Why isn't it happening the world over?  Why, there should just be wonderful bunkers popping up out of poorly conceived and contrived pits in the ground all over the place!  Why isn't this happening?

Or, should Merion just sit around and wait for a miracle because they're somehow special, and immune from the overwhelming evidence we've seen at all clubs that have made unfortunate changes to their courses over the years?  

Those other course didn't magically evolve over time into something greater than what was originally built.  No, instead most of those courses started to suffer things that are happening at Merion already....structural issues, drainage issues, access issues, maintenance issues.

I love the golf course at Merion and have nothing but respect for the club, but let's not call a sow's ear a silk purse!  

[ian]

Forrest Richardson,

That was a post I thouroughly enjoyed reading, you have made your point very well. I wish I could write like that.

Whether I choose to agree or disagree with many of the points, is not important.

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, thank you Ian. But you and I only make two. I am afraid that my opinions are lost on some. I only wish I have been able to see Merion to be able to be more involved in this discussion from a specific point of reference.

[Mike_Cirba]

Forrest;

I understand your points and you make an effective argument.

I also agree that not every course should be "preserved", and that change is inevitable, but all of that being a given;

Some change is clearly for the better and some change is clearly for the worse.

I too wish that you were able to see the bunkers at Merion pre and post "re-creation", because I have no doubt which category you'd find the work to fall within.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ahhh, Mike, but it matters not so much as you and I are but a speck on the great arse of Golf — our opinions are at a point in time and the course and its change lasts longer, much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

If I understand your argument correctly, you're contending that any bunker, no matter how well or poorly conceived and constructed, as well as artificial looking, will improve over time simply due to elements and wear.

Mike, you don't understand my argument correctly, and that's not what I contended.

I have said from day one, that without TLC those bunker tops can't survive, and as they deteriorate, the look will be more appealing to Tommy, et. al..

Would you not agree that the bunkers are better from a playability and strategic point of view ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Are you contending that the original bunkers at Merion looked so great previously because they were somehow "neglected" by Flynn, Valentine(s), Kittleman, etc.?

That's what you seem to be saying when you make the statement that "without TLC", in some indeterminant period of time the new bunkers will look more like something we favor because the grass faces will die off.  

Why would it be in a club's best interest not to provide TLC?

As far as your questions, I've said many times in here that I believe the new bunnkers play more "consistently"  than the old.  I also question what consistency has to do with a hazard, and why that's a desirable thing.  

Are they more penal?  Perhaps their non-historic additional depth makes them so, particularly for the less-skilled player, but for the better player, I find they have a tougher time with inconsistency of conditions than depth in an age of 64 degree wedges.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()