TommyN:
Regarding that last post of yours, OK, if you want to get into it with your opinions on the bunkers of Merion, the architect and contractor and my position on the evolution of the Merion bunkers, then I'm willing to do exactly that, particularly since you're now accusing me of a lack of substance and "homerism".
For starters, perhaps you should look up the definitions of "irony" and "obfuscate" and what that may mean in my post you just quoted. If you do that properly then perhaps you'll reevaluate what you said about me ‘contradicting’ myself or being ‘redundant’. What I'm doing here is reporting how those bunkers have changed in look in the last three years or so and why.
If Merion were on the West Coast would I say the same things I have about it? Probably not. I probably wouldn’t say much of anything about it because if Merion were on the West Coast I very likely wouldn't know the course as well as I have and do. You asked why I haven't said as much about the recent Fazio/Macdonald architectural project at Riviera or the bunkers of Riviera as I did a few years ago about the Fazio/Macdonald bunker project of Merion and the bunkers as they are today? Probably because I just don't know that much about Riviera and the details of its architecture and the evolution of its bunkers as well as the Fazio/Macdonald project there. The same is true of your understanding of Merion on the East Coast.
Perhaps you should start to recognize the same thing about yourself---eg you may know the history and evolution of Riviera well but not Merion's.
You want Mike Cirba to stand his ground and give it right back to me? What are you talking about? I was out there with him during most of Saturday's round, and told him just what I did on here. While out there I also introduced him to Merion’s president and Joe Logan the Philly Inquirer golf reporter. Mike Cirba is a good golf architecture analyst but he doesn't know the way that golf course was throughout its evolution, particularly the evolution of its bunkering the way I do and he doesn't know how and why they've evolved the way they have in the last 2-3 years. I doubt he's ever met Richie Valentine, Greg Armstrong, Matt Shaeffer and many of the others involved with Merion and spoken to them about all this at length. I doubt he's done the research on the golf course that Wayne and I have. How well did he know the details of that course before the project? How much has he kept up with the details of what went on out there since the project?
If you want to talk about the facts of the evolution of Merion and its bunkers I'll be glad to go into the details---but all that is in the archives of this website anyway. There's nothing contradictory or redundant about anything I’ve said. The bunkers today do not look like they did three years ago and they sure don't look like they did five years ago as I've said on here many times. The bunkers five years ago sure didn't look like they did in 1930s and those 1930 bunkers looked little like they did in the teens. If you want to know the details of how and why they were at any of those times we'd be glad to discuss it.
But if it's simply your never-ending vendetta against architect Tom Fazio, contractor Macdonald & Co and perhaps Merion, the club, and some of its members such as Buddy Marucci, I'm just not interested in that on this website, and as you know that's something I've spoken with you about a number of times on the telephone as being really counterproductive generally. That kind of modus operandi of yours on this website I view as truly counter-productive with Merion or with Riviera, their architecture and also very much this website in a general sense. If you think ‘substance’ on here is for all GOLFCLUBATLAS’s contributors to form a consensus along with you in your criticism of Fazio and Macdonald & Co. then I’m not on the same page with you and I never will be.
My philosophy is to talk about golf architecture in detail and honestly and keep the personal vendettas and criticisms towards architects, contractors and clubs and their members involved in projects out of it.
And I don't say that in some sort of philosophical vacuum either. It definitely is not lost on me that if this website and some of its contributors could take this Merion bunker project situation on this website back about 5-6 years and learn how to have an intellegent dialogue with Merion and those involved with it then this site and some of it contributors and their opinions may've had a far more benefical influence on the course and some of the things that took place.
But long ago all that became virtually impossible. Why? Because it all became almost completely adverserial. Who was primarily responsible for that? You were TommyN. When are you ever going to learn that you can maintain your passionate principles about golf architecture and simply apply them in a more productive and less adverserial way? You know as well as I do that most all of us on this website are basically in the same philosophical boat in our principles regarding golf course architecture. The only real difference I can see is sometimes some of us have to pay a higher personal price in various ways than others do. And the reason for that, as far as I can see, is because we choose to get more directly involved than others do with some clubs and those who have to do with them.
We all love you on here but do yourself, me and the rest of us a favor and take this advice of mine to heart this time. Understand that getting to know and trying to work with some of the people you may not always agree with, even if in small ways, is not compromising architectural principles. Better things happen with golf courses if one can get involved, even if in a small way with them, rather than completely pissing off the people who have to do with them.