News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2005, 09:00:24 AM »

Your certainly correct that you don't hire Nicklaus to do a restoration, you hire him to make it a "championship" course or sell real estate.  

In his book and the article in Links he makes it quite clear that he has not read the classic books, does not go out of his way to play classic courses that aren't part of the tour and he does not look at other architects work.  



Craig,

I wonder if his views will change by virtue of his collaboration with Tom Doak at Sebonack ?
[/color]

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2005, 09:01:08 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Regarding your post #27 about the history of the OSU Scarlet course and the recent work by Nicklaus & Co, all I can say is welcome to the real world. Apparently you think your involvement was as much as you could do. Perhaps it was. But still look at what happened.

I would think a project like that compared to say one like Aronimink's would at least allow you to see better the totality of what went right with Aronimink's and the oddity of your criticism of it and of those who had to do with it. Perhaps before you gratuitously criticize what others have tried to do and perhaps not completely succeeded at because of all the obstacles involved you should get some project under your belt first with which you had to do which you and others consider even partially successful.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 09:23:04 AM by TEPaul »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2005, 09:24:10 AM »
Pat,

     I certainly hope that both Jack Nicklaus and Tom Doak will take away something positive from this collaboration.

     As for changing his views, you have to want to change. Nicklaus Designs is very successful so the desire to change seems unlikely. Change is usually comes from adversity. Its always good to listen to a different perspective once in a while.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 09:44:34 AM by Craig Edgmand »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2005, 10:01:52 AM »
Thankfully, it seems like Tom Doak has been unusually forthcoming on here (given a relatively unusual collaboration such as Sebonac's) and to some of us about what he's found during the Sebonak project about Jack Nicklaus's opinions on a whole variety of things. It seems to me Tom Doak looks at it all and even occasionally reports on the way it is--both some negative and some postive. I think it's a good education all around, for them and for us in the extent Tom Doak cares to mention any of these things. If Tom Doak decides to report something to someone on here in some form of confidence then obviously that confidence should be completely adhered to or he may not report anything at all in the future and that wouldn't be good.

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2005, 10:09:52 AM »
I have to get that Links article..

I find it sad and kind of surprising if Jack doesn't study the past.....
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2005, 11:42:05 AM »

Paul,

     I don't know if its still true but Bill Coore has never been to Scotland, Ireland etc to study courses there and it hasn't seemed to hold him back.


TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2005, 11:52:16 AM »
Actually Coore has been to Scotland relatively recently looking at some site that was so far north I believe the feeling was it was simply too remote. I think he's probably been to Ireland too to look at the site they may do some day next to the site Doak may do. I believe he said someone such as the writer Herbert Warren Wind ran across that Irish site some years ago and remarked that it may be one of the finest sites for golf on earth.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2005, 02:11:14 PM »
Tom MacWood:

Regarding your post #37---I don't believe hard work and politcial persuasion on restoration projects makes those projects or those who took part in them immune from criticisim either. I simply believe that the most intelligent and cogent criticisms generally comes from those who've been intimately involved in all phases of those types of projects and not from those who never have been. And I most certainly don't tbink it comes from those who've never even seen the golf course or its project they criticize. You may view this kind of remark as some type of personal criticism of you. I don't--I think it's nothing more than reality and common sense.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 02:15:05 PM by TEPaul »

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2005, 02:16:12 PM »
Isn't Nicklaus about to embark on the "redesign" of a Max Behr course at Montecito CC ?

Ty Warner's Hotels and Resorts owns the club - and their stated intent is to make Montecito "one of the most prestigious courses on the west coast."

The question has to be asked - is a Nicklaus redesign going to add to their prestige? Or shall I say, might it add to their prestige but detract from the actual quality of their existing course? I have not played it, so I can't comment on the current design.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2005, 02:30:45 PM »
The question is----does Jack think Max Behr is a former heavyweight boxing champion or his son, a former comedy series actor?  ;)

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2005, 02:37:47 PM »
The question is----does Jack think Max Behr is a former heavyweight boxing champion or his son, a former comedy series actor?  ;)

I think Max Behr is irrelevant to Nicklaus.
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2005, 03:14:04 PM »
And equally irrelevant to Ty Warner.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2005, 03:28:00 PM »
"And equally irrelevant to Ty Warner"

Well, perhaps, but will Jack and Ty think Max is irrelevent when we get finished blasting all over the world wide Internet that Max would undeniably consider Jack and Ty to be the worst personifications of "Mrs Grundys" imaginable if they mess with his golf course?!    ;)

Does Jack realize, for instance, that if it hadn't been for the incredibly significant influence of Max Behr on the philosophies of Jones and MacKenzie at ANGC that Jack would be lucky if he owned a single sleeve of a green jacket instead of six whole green jackets?!

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2005, 03:47:46 PM »
Is the story actually true that while at Mid Ocean one time Pete Dye mentioned Charles Blair Macdonald's name to Jack and Jack's response was;

"Who's he?"

;)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2005, 03:53:59 PM »
The Nicklaus design website page that discusses this project does not even mention the estimable Mr. Behr. I had to find that information elsewhere. Again, not being familiar with the course and its history, it's hard for me to say whether or not the the existing design is truly reflective of Max Behr's work or not.

Nicklaus says: "We have the opportunity and potential, given the property we've been handed, to create a very outstanding golf course that I think the membership will enjoy playing over and over again. Are we going to create a championship golf course that you could hold the U.S. Open on? No, but that is not our goal or desire. Our goal is to create a very fine golf course for the membership to enjoy and have fun with for many years to come."

There is really no mention of the existing course, just the "property," as if there isn't a course there yet. Who knows - perhaps the membership of the club shares Mr. Warner and Mr. Nicklaus' enthusiasm for the redesign.

"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2005, 04:01:30 PM »
It may not be a surprise if the entire membership had never  heard of Max Behr. For this oversight I think it's right and proper that we send Tommy Nacarrato or GeoffShac over there in the dead of night to put chatreuse dye in their irrigation system.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2005, 04:15:34 PM »
At least wait until the redesign is complete before using the dye.

You wouldn't want to desecrate a classic design.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2005, 09:10:31 PM »

"The AD isn't the power base.
It's the Board and President."

Is that right? When did you become an expert in Ohio State Univ internal politics. In his term as AD, he has masterminded a $187 million football stadium renovation/expansion, $116 million basketball arena, $140 million athletics center, $20 million track stadium, $5 million baseball park and the golf course renovation project, which by the way included taking the $8 million albatross Nicklaus Museum off the hands of its former owner. Projects overlapping three school presidents and an evolving board. Andy Geiger was the power base.
If you believe that he acted autonomously you're more naive than I thought.

For each and every one of those projects he had to go before the President and Board to get approval and financing.

In the real world it's called chain of command or reporting function.
[/color]

I will continue criticize you when you defend and/or promote poor restoration work and redesign in the name of restoration.

Nice try changing the subject, which was, the methodology for getting things done.

You've failed to understand the process for years, and criticized me and others for our approaches, and now I find it ironic that you're a victim of your own inability to influence a project of great importance to you.  Perhaps you should have listened to TEPaul and myself, or called us as consultants ;D
[/color]

TE
I've always been firmly grounded in the real world. Documenting historically inaccurate restoration work has nothing to do with not accepting or understanding the realities of club politics and internal affairs.

That's where you're wrong.
Politics has everything with getting the desired work done.
Politics influences and decides the final architectural outcome.
It's a lesson, though repeated to you often by myself, TEPaul and Brad Klein, that you're unwilling or unable to come to grips with.
[/color]

I've always understood these projects do not happen magically, it takes hard work and a lot of selling. But I don't believe that the hard work and successful selling makes one immune from historical and architectureral criticism--see Ohio State, Hollywood, Yale, Riviera, Aronimink, Bethapge, Oyster Harbors, ANGC, Seminole, etc.

Do you think that George Bahto didn't know the history of the architecture at Yale ?

Do you think that the powers at ANGC didn't know their architectural history ?

Do you understand that the members at Hollywood eliminated a hundred or so bunkers before Rees Jones was out of grade school, and the current members didn't want them back.

Do you understand that the members of Aronomink wanted to restore the golf course to Ross's detailed designs, and that absent evidence to the contrary, were desirous of completing Ross's work, just as you were desirous of completing MacKenzie's work at OSU Scarlet ?

When you understand those realities, perhaps you'll be better positioned to positively influence the outcome of a project and not fall on your face as you did at your beloved Scarlet Course.
[/color]

Larry_Keltto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2005, 10:51:12 PM »
I appreciate what Patrick is saying about politics and how it relates to architecture. To win on the architecture front means you have to win on the political front. That's absolutely true.

I'd like to provide some context.

Andy Geiger, across the entire OSU athletic department, was faced with aging facilities when he arrived. To his credit, Geiger throughout his long career at OSU, Stanford, Maryland and elsewhere, believed in creating as many intercollegiate opportunities as possible for students. Contrary to popular belief, that was his bottom line and guiding mission. Today, OSU has more NCAA sports than any other in the nation and some of the finest, most modern facilities.

In order to pay for all of those opportunities and for the new facilities, Geiger created innovative partnerships with private individuals and commercial enterprises. He got those projects done and built those programs without taxpayer money. Some people in Columbus despise him for some of the things he did, saying he sold out. But if he hadn't built those partnerships, OSU today would have crumbling athletic facilities and not nearly the number of athletic programs. The state wasn't going to pay the bill.

If you're in Geiger's shoes, looking at the world the way he does, with student-athletes as the focus, I doubt architectural history/integrity were on his list of priorities when trying to decide what to do about the Scarlet course. (See his creation of the Schottenstein Center, and its configuration, vis a vis St. John Arena for context.)

He probably saw the partnership with Nicklaus as a perfect solution -- an opportunity to bring the course up to current and future standards for the student-athletes through a relationship with a former student and a great ambassador for OSU. Geiger certainly would have had complete board approval of a partnership with Nicklaus. (Remember that Jack's father was a well-respected Columbus resident with many influential friends.)

The only way this project would have turned out differently than it has is if someone had influenced Nicklaus. If Jack had said to Geiger, "Let's complete the Mackenzie vision," I'm certain Geiger would have gone along, if he was convinced the completed Mackenzie Scarlet was a solid test for college golfers today and into the future.

I'm not in a position to know if influencing Nicklaus was a possibility. Others here might know the answer to that.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2005, 08:41:30 AM »
"The evidence is not going to jump in their laps. Why didn't they look at the Hagley?"

Tom MacWood;

If you're going to keep criticizing Aronimink and Prichard, get your facts straight. Prichard did go to the Hagley museum for Aronimink. I believe I already explained that on the McGovern thread but you probably failed to read it.

You also can no more explain why the bunkers on the course were constructed differently from Ross's plans than Prichard or the club or anyone else can. You seem to keep implying you can, and that's becoming real disingenuous on your part because obviously you can't prove why any more than they could. And that's why they made the decision to construct Ross's bunkers. At least they could prove they were his. You can continue to say it's obvious or it's illogical to think otherwise but that's not the proof they were looking for. They wanted Ross's own bunkering and that's what they got.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2005, 09:27:54 AM »
"I believe your constant refrain that you haven't played Aronimink or Hollywood (or you weren't involved in the restoration projects), so you can't comment is a result of frustration. You like and admire the men involved in these projects (Ron and Rees), you really don't have the abilitly or desire to conduct your own research, to either confirm or refute my findings, therefore its easier to try to disqualify me and my findings. The funny thing is playing a course in 2000 is not going to give you any insight into what was there in 1929."

Tom MacWood:

You apparently believe a lot of pretty odd things, certainly at Aronimink and that's why I keep responding to the things you continue to say about it on here.

I don't care who we're talking about, any idiot understands it's far more benefical to understanding a golf course and what should and shouldn't be restored on it if you've not only played a golf course and spent a great deal of time on it analyzing it in a restoration project than some guy in Ohio who's never even been there and who's only seen it in a single on-ground photo of one hole and an aerial from 1939 from 6,000 ft!!

To say playing or studying the course can give you no insight into what was there in 1929 is another great example of the total stupidity of the things you tend to say on here for whatever reason. That completely proves to me that you not only have no experience on-site on restoration projects and that since you don't consequently you have zero understanding of the importance of it.  

I don't have any ability or desire to conduct my own research? Tom MacWood, I thought you had my design evolution report for GMGC. That alone was more beneficial to a single successful restoration project than all the so-called research you've ever produced for all golf clubs in your entire life. If you're going to say something like that to me get at least some direct involvement in a restoration project under your belt first and then we can see how well you did.

I haven't confirmed or refuted your findings on Aronimink? How can you say that? Who was it that just confirmed how those bunkers were originally built? Refute your findings? What is that? Is it your so-called "findings" why those bunkers were built differently than Ross's really comprehensive plans? What "findings" do you have on that other than the fact that you say it's obvious or that thinking otherwise is illogical? Is that the kind of “research” and "findings" you offer a golf club doing research? If so it's crap---that's nothing more than another opinion. If you want to prove that those bunkers that were built were Ross's then show me the proof. Otherwise try explaining why he would’ve gone to all that trouble to draw and explain almost simultaneously perhaps the most comprehensive plans he ever did in the field on any golf course.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2005, 11:26:00 AM »
Do you think that George Bahto didn't know the history of the architecture at Yale ?

...Yes, but I'm still unclear why the powers at Yale didn't hire him...should George have gone to the president and/or the board of trustees?

YES.

The golf course wouldn't be any worse for the effort would it ?

And, you should have gone to the President and Board as well.
[/color]

Do you think that the powers at ANGC didn't know their architectural history ?

I have my doubts. Based on your defense of the changes there...I wonder about you as well.  

They know their history better than you do, and they've experienced the golf course in every phase, while you've never played it once, in any configuration.  
Since Doak, Klein and others agree with me on specific changes, I'll take my opinion over yours 365-366 days a year.
[/color]

Do you understand that the members at Hollywood eliminated a hundred or so bunkers before Rees Jones was out of grade school, and the current members didn't want them back.

...and the reason Rees chose to add his bunkers where once there was Travis bunkers is?

Let's deal with specifics.  On what hole, and where did Rees add his bunkers where ONCE there was Travis bunkers ?
[/color]

Your consistant defense of Rees's transgression again makes me wonder about you.


Again, be specific, not vague.  Please identify the transgression.   And, what was the direction given to Rees by the membership ?   Why did the membership choose Rees ?
Did you ever stop to think about that ?
The members had begun a long process of modifing Hollywood before Rees was born.
[/color]

Do you understand that the members of Aronomink wanted to restore the golf course to Ross's detailed designs, and that absent evidence to the contrary, were desirous of completing Ross's work, just as you were desirous of completing MacKenzie's work at OSU Scarlet ?

The evidence is not going to jump in their laps. Why didn't they look at the Hagley?

Get your fact right.
Ron Prichard did.
[/color]

Aronimink was designed and built by Ross. OSU was designed by MacKenzie; built by an agronomy professor four years after he kicked the bucket (and nine years after he submitted the plans) and bunkered by a golf coach six years after that. Apples and oranges.


No, it's not.
Aronomink has Ross's detailed hole by hole, feature by feature, green by green plans, but, the bunkers were not built to those specs and YOU don't know why, and neither does Aronomink.  Absent that evidence, building the bunkers to Ross's detailed plans is a prudent endeavor.

How ironic that you complain that OSU Scarlet wasn't built to MacKenzie's plans but protest building Aronomink to Ross's plans.  Surely, evey you see the conflict and double standard you've created for yourself.
[/color]

The shortcomings with these 'restoration' projects can usually be traced to ego, and a lack of historical documentation. Two things you are intimately familar with.

That's funny.
You're the one with the EGO and the insufferable arrogance to go with it.

Since you brought up the topic of historical documentation.
Tell us why the bunkers at Aronomink were built other than to Ross's detailed plans ?  Produce the documentation that nullifies Ross's intent as evidenced through his detailed plans and explains the difference in the as builts.

Absent that info neither Aronomink or Prichard should be criticized for embarking on a prudent restoration.
[/color]  

Larry Keltto,

Thanks for you imput.

Perhaps Tom MacWood knew that and chose, disengenuously, to be intellectually dishonest by not disclosing it.

If you're correct, then, Tom MacWood definitely should have written to the President and Board, with copies to Geiger and Nicklaus.

It's one thing to come up with an idea.
It's quite another to get it implemented and I guess that's just not his forte.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2005, 01:35:04 PM »
"It's one thing to come up with an idea.
It's quite another to get it implemented and I guess that's just not his forte."

Patrick:

You're not kidding. All of us have ideas. And all of us can complain and criticize and whatnot but doing something about it is another matter altogether. Tom MacWood is pretty proficient at the first part but in the second part he just doesn't have a clue. His research and criticisms from wherever it is he sits has never accomplished much of anything productive in any project that I can see.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2005, 02:54:52 PM »
"TE
Yours and Charles Lighthall's GMGC booklet is excellent, and obviously it got the job done, which is the bottom line. However your ability or desire to look for information since--I'm not sure which--outside C&W, is not too evident. That's where the frustration comes in...and that is when you resort to stiffling descending voices and/or new data (at least trying to), unless of course that person was intimately involved in the project...fat chance.

Any logical mind understood that Aronomink was built with multiple bunkers from the start based on the aerial and the ground photo, but you continued to argue for an early redesign (during the Depression) or a maverick McGovern or a poor architect McGovern or the other 16 holes could have been built without multiple bunkers....two years of arguement later (including the old retort...have you seen Aronimink...were you involved in the project or any project), you acknowledges the course was in fact built with multiple bunkers. You've been involved in similar arguments about GCGC, Engineers and Bethpage...independent research of your own be damned.

The most illustrative example was the before and after photo at Minikahda. The comparison of the historic photo and the newly 'restored' photo (by Ron Prichard) prompted you to ask who did that work Micheal Hurdzan. Insulting two architects with one comment."

Tom MacWood:

That entire couple of paragraphs is nothing more than a pack of self-serving lies and distortions on your part.

The problem with you is you are so intransigent in the points and opinions you try to float on here I doubt you even bother to read what anyone else says to you. You certainly do avoid answering questions or answering them properly unless they fit into some agenda you have.

We've been over this so many times on here before but apparently you just don't get it.

Maybe 3-4 years ago Prichard and Aronimink DID THINK the course's bunkers were originally built with those sets of 2s and 3s despite the fact they always had Ross's plans. What they could not explain is why Ross would change or agree to have changed such detailed bunkering plans that he'd drawn almost simultaneous to the bunkers going into construction.

And then that tournament program which you've never seen from July 1931 turned up depicting the bunkers in hole by hole detail precisely like Ross's drawin plans. What the hell would you make of that if you were Prichard and the club? It's pretty obvious really---you'd begin to suspect the bunkers were changed at some point following that tournament in July 1931 to what the course looked like in the 1939 aerial.

There is nothing illogical about that assumption. No one, including you or anyone else could've proven then the way the bunkers were initially built. That was never to become known conclusively until we found that 1929 aerial at the Hagley about two weeks ago.

But still, the quesiton remains----why would Ross change his plans from such detailed ones he'd done practically simultaneous to the course going into construction? I don't care how many times you mention this "any logical mind would've understood" crap, you cannot answer that question and frankly no matter how many times I've asked it of you, you refuse to even address it. And it's no wonder at all you refuse to address it.

A logical mind could every bit as easily assume that foreman McGovern who was probably on site daily changed those bunkers rather than Ross, particularly seeing as McGovern had done bunkers like that previously at Jeffersonville, a project most believe Ross never saw.

The point is Aronimink knowing the above did not wish to take any chance at all of creating bunkers that may not have been Ross's when they had such good plans from Ross himself drawn nearly simultaneous to the course being constructed.

The point here, Tom MacWood, is this 'any logical mind would've understood' crap of yours is not proof those multi-sets were Ross, no matter how much you seem to want to make it sound like they were. The point you've been making about Ross possibly changing them on site was discussed a good deal back then before the final decison was made. I heard it discussed--I was there. I discussed it too the same way you have been for the last year or so. But the point is they couldn't prove that, and neither can you today and the plans they had were positively Ross's in his own hand and that's prescisely why they used them.

Your constant self congratulations of the type of research you do compared to most anyone else including about every archtiect in the world has become a real joke on here, in my opinion. I think there's a host of people on this website, including a number of architects who could use about one quarter of the research material you might and come to far more accurate and historically correct conclusions than you frequently do.

The point I've been making about you for years is despite the quantity and quality of some of the research material you tend to come up with you are not good at analyzing it correctly. I doubt you ever will be---certainly not until you get out of that Ivory Tower of yours and out into the field more often like some of the rest of us and start to learn what the field and being on actual restoration sites can teach you.

Face it, despite the fact that you obviously think you know what you're talking about and despite the fact that some on here who've probably never really been in the field either or part of a restoration project think you know what you're talking about, those on here who have been in the field a lot or on these projects and have been intimately involved in them just don't buy some of what you say on here and some of what you criticize. And it's no wonder---they simply understand some of the things you need to learn.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2005, 02:59:53 PM »
"The comparison of the historic photo and the newly 'restored' photo (by Ron Prichard) prompted you to ask who did that work Micheal Hurdzan. Insulting two architects with one comment."

May I ask how it is that you know if someone got Hurzden and Prichard's work interchanged that they would both be insulted?   ;)

I must say, at this point, it's rather enjoyable to see you put both feet deeper and deeper into your mouth.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back