Just a few minor points in between the tussle.
The folks at OSU do appear to be an obstinate bunch. I have no doubt that TMac went well out of his way to provide his assistance and knowledge. If not rebuffed altogether, he was at least ignored.
Much earlier in the cycle, I was in contact with the AD, and offered a plan to review the entire process (taking a historical perspective for restoring the course and updating some aspects so that it could hold important tournaments as it has in the past). The basis of my proposal was to set up a small committee, say five to seven "recommendors", who would have the relevant expertise but no conflicts of interest, to conduct a serious, thourough review over a period of three to six months. The members of this group would have diverse interests and backgrounds, though no specific constituency to represent.
At the conclusion of the review period, a detailed recommendation would be provided to the athletic department where the final decisions would be made. To help the AD escape some of the heat, I suggested that a unanimous or super-majority recommendation be put on a fast-track through the decision makers.
Not long afterwards, I received a two to three sentence letter from the AD thanking me for my concern, and declaring in no uncertain terms that he was perfectly capable of making important decisions on his own. This was a couple of years ago.
My attempts to get the alumni publication to do a feature article on the course, its history and its future, also didn't bear fruit. I even offered TMac's valuable assistance and whatever I could do to bring an accurate portrayal to the readers' attention, but was met with the same indifference.
Unlike TMac, I am not as pessimistic regarding the work currently underway. I certainly give the Nicklaus group much more credit and respect. Ultimately, the architects, working pro-bono on this one, will give the decision makers at the university what they want. I'd like to think that with TMacs and my input, it (what they want) would have been better, but I am not sure that this is necessarily the case.
I've played Scarlet several hundred times during my time in Columbus between 1970 and 1978. I was active in club events, and played in local and regional tournaments. I worked as a starter at the Scarlet & Grey Club for most of one spring season, and knew most of the regulars by name.
I am only mentioning this because we put considerable weight here on experience on the ground. Possibly to my professional detriment, I spent way too much time out there, but loved most every minute of it.
My views about Scarlet appear to be considerably different than TMac's. While I greatly appreciate his fine piece on Scarlet's history and admire his work on the Arts & Crafts influence, I seem to be much more of a fan of the course from an architectural standpoint as it was.
I have no major issues with the green complexes and overall bunkering schemes. Playing firm and relatively fast, the course could hold its own quite well (I remember a Kepler Invitational when only well struck irons from the fairways would hold the greens and some D1 players were having a hard time breaking 90).
My biggest problem with Scarlet was how it had been allowed to shrink due to tree plantings and poor maintanance. The course was abused by nearly every stakeholder, yet it was still a joy to play.
In my opinion, Scarlet under the management regime like that at Chicago Golf Club would not require major renovation. Cut the tree lines back as Nicklaus appears to have done, maybe introduce some diagonal bunkering here and there, expand the greens to their original pads, and follow prudent agronomical practices (including limiting play to some smaller extent), and it can play with many of the best.
Putting Perry Maxwell greens on such a beefed up golf course is not, in my opinion, neither MacKenzian nor representitive of Maxwell's work (whose three major works- Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes, and Colonial- are much more finesse courses, and whose greens resemble Scarlet's much more than Augusta National's or Cypress Point). Those who believe that the "old" greens at Scarlet were too bland or simplistic are either accomplished putters, have not played the course in varied conditions, or have a need for a chemical stimulant.
The bottom line, OSU may have a nice MacKenzie routing, but it has not been a MacKenzie course from the begining. Can something be restored to what it never was? As morning after/easy chair architects, do we have justifiable grounds to question the university and the Nicklaus organization? And when the work is done, will it be fair to criticize JN for having failed to perform a faithful restoration of what some third parties envisioned as MacKenzie's design intent (which had not been finalized at least on paper)?
Finally, I see a problem with the argument that even if MacKenzie had not finished his design, we can impute or borrow from his other courses which would then earn Scarlet the Doctor's label. This, it seems, implies that there are common, basic design elements or characteristics in his courses. Would that not open Dr. MacKenzie to the same criticism so often aimed at Tom Fazio of being repetitive?