[TEPaul]

Tony:

If any of us want a good classic course restoration to point to using what NGLA has done in the last fifteen years or so would be a pretty fine example to study and follow. And there are some others around (Oakmont, Cypress, Valley Club, Shinnecock, Seminole, PCC, Riverton, Plainfield, Kittansett, GMGC, Aronimink, even Merion off the top of my head) and more that're in the process (a ton of them I could list) of good restorations both architecturally and in more effective maintenance practices to produce the most interesting, challenging and enjoyable "playabilities".

[ForkaB]

Is NGLA worth consideration as a serious artefact?  Again why would you want to restore it?

Excellent post, Tony.  In terms of the two questions of yours which I have highlighted, the "answer" from the defenders of the faith seems to be nothing more that "Just because!"

Like you, I would prefer to see more reason and openmindedness, and less emotion and self-importance in the arguments on this very interesting question.

My one game at NGLA was on a day when it was "stimping" something closer to what it must have been in 1914 than what it could be today.  It was still a cool, fun and challenging experience.  No doubt it would be cool, fun and challenging (for both similar and different reasons) if it were "tuned up" to "championship" conditions.  As Tom Paul well knows, the "ideal" maintenance meld for any course varies from season to season and day by day.  as we should know, great courses are much more protean than largely static "art" such as the Mona Lisa.

[wsmorrison]

Hey, Tom.  What about Cascades    I think the unique approach taken, in bringing together a comprehensive set of documents (drawings, photographs and historical documents), high-tech expertise (Craig Disher) and a disciplined analytical process was pretty special.  The proof will be on display in April.

[TEPaul]

Wayne, that one falls into 'the ton I could mention that're in the process' category.

Should NGLA be restored? Well first of all I don't really subscribe to the initial post of this thread which postulates this into NGLA being destroyed like Lido. Why discusss that since NGLA was never destroyed?

However, if you could've seen NGLA about 17-20 years ago and back for a number of decades I think you'd readily agree that not only did it deserve to be restored, thank God it was restored the way it was in the last decade and a half or so.

However, NGLA's restoration was some architecture (we can list that) but most of what's been done there in the last decade and a half or so probably falls into the category of reestablished "mainteance practices".

[wsmorrison]

I agree with you, Tom.  I don't know the point of this thread at all.  What if St. Andrews Old Course was bombed by the Germans, abandoned and scheduled for resurrection.  Would it be worth restoring?  I think this is a better question but nearly equally inane.

This thread was brought to lower lows with the use of parrying dictionaries.  Nearly always when I see the Merriam Webster brought out, I know there are some weak arguments in the mix.  

The architecture and maintenance practices need to be melded as Tom Paul has been advocating for years.  There is growing evidence that the philosophy is being restored.

[T_MacWood]

Tommy Mac

Line up 10 knowledgeable guys and ask what are optimum conditions or the perfect state and I bet you get at least three answers.

I bet you are wrong.....again.

No such animal exists Tom.  It is a matter of opinion.  This is why I have been asking about the diferences between renovation and restoration.

Renovation is what you do to your kitchen or family room. Restoration is what you do to your Frank Lloyd Wright house and studio in Oak Park that had been converted into appartments several decades ago. Renovation is what Open Doctors do to US Open sites....like Oakland Hills. Restoration is what Karl Olson and Tom Doak did at NGLA and Camargo respectively. Is it that difficult to understand?

I don't know of any courses that have been properly restored.  Probably because not many people really want a proper restoration.

Probably because you have a fanciful definition of a proper restoration. To my knowledge there has never been a proper restoration  (in any art form) in world history based strictly upon your wacky defintion. Your defintion should be immediately inducted into the Contrarian Hall of Fame...Antiestablishmentarian Wing  

Ciao

Sean

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is NGLA worth consideration as a serious artefact?  
YES[/color]

Again why would you want to restore it?

Because of the unique genius of its architecture[/color]

If it’s important to then surely you want to get the details right and not accept some modern compromise?  

Could you define what a "modern compromise" is ?
Could you specifically identify what "modern compromises" have been proposed ?[/color]

In an age where these courses are no longer able to offer a challenge to all golfers (as Macdonald originally intended) it becomes more and more important to decide what kind of experience they should be offering.

NGLA continues to offer a challenge to 99.9 % of the golfing world.  Where did you get the notion that it doesn't ?
Have you ever played NGLA ?[/color]

Tom Doak what you say is fine for members clubs but would Macdonald really only have been  ‘bummed out’ knowing that NGLA  was no longer relevant to the very best?
On what basis do you declare NLGA no longer relevant for the very best ?
Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2 and others convert their par 5's to par 4's.  If NGLA did the same thing, it's as relevant as any other golf course, maybe even more so due to its blind nature.[/color]

If it isn’t a challenge for the elite golfer today then surely it will not offer the intended challenge for greater numbers of golfers in future?  

On what basis do you declare that it isn't a challenge for today's elite golfer ?[/color]

From what I’ve read I think he would more likely be incandescent or apoplectic and if he were able to work on the course today then big changes would take place, including scrapping the Biarritz.  

What Biarritz ?[/color]

We’ve passed a point where a course can be historically accurate and true to all of its original aims if they include offering a serious challenge to all levels, including elite, of golfers.

How isn't Winged Foot historically accurate ?[/color]


Thanks Pat and Tom Mac for the colour posting and the miniscule break down of my argument line by line. I’ll take it as a personal tribute and it made me smile, however as you know I don’t normally read those replies. Life’s too short; I’ve got too much nit picking of my own to do.[size=2x]

I can understand why you wouldn't want to address questions to which you have no answers.

We respond to your specific points.
That you can't respond to ours is a clear indication that you possess neither the facts nor the reasoning to put forth a valid position.  

Your inability to respond speaks volumes[/color] [/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I've not read this whole thread (sorry) but my philosophiy is this when it comes to restoring a golf course - If what was once there is better then what you have at present, why not restore the design?  By the same token, if the course has improved from the original design, why go backwards?  Not all golf courses should be restored but all deserve a careful study of their past before bringing in the bulldozers.  

I gave a presentation at the Penn State Turf Grass Conference titled "What's Hiding Under All Those Years Of Improvements".  Sometimes you find that those "improvements" really weren't "improvements".  Here is one great example of where "restoration" of the original architecture will be far better than what is there now.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I would love to see one of those holes that Flynn designed with the separated fairways restored but I'm completely aware they may've been somewhat controversial when they were designed, later and now. At least one he changed in design even before it was built (Shinnecock's #16), some that he intended to builtdthat way seem not to have been built that way and most that were built that way were changed at some point later. There's virtually none of those Flynn "separated fairway" design (all par 5s) left. The primary reason apparently is they were always unpopular with women (and I guess I can understand why).

"On what basis do you declare NLGA no longer relevant for the very best ?
Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2 and others convert their par 5's to par 4's.  If NGLA did the same thing, it's as relevant as any other golf course, maybe even more so due to its blind nature."

Patrick:

I knew even an intransigent block-head like you would have to see that my way on NGLA. Just print up an alternate card for use by really elite players. Hell, I'll pay for the first 500 or so alternate cards. If the club likes the idea they can then pay me about half what your idea on #7 would've cost them which would've been about ten grand.  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Is anything being done about the tree encroachment on this hole?  I'm sure there will be.  I applaud the return to a great deal of lost architectural features but the bunker scheme on the right is compromised by the tree grouping between it and the tee.  This includes the trees directly on the left as it appears to create too narrow a chute.  Of course, I haven't been to Cherry Hills so I only ask because I don't know.  Where is the landing area for the tee shot?  How much of a carry is there on the second shot over the central hazard (front and rear)?

Was there any talk of returning some of the interrupted fairways?  As Tom said, they must have always been controversial.  As of now, we see them at Kittansett and Cascades (restored in the recent phase of work).

[Mark_Fine]

There will be tree work done on #17.  The most dramatic (at least to start) will be the removal of the trees framing the island green.  The trees up the corridor will take more time though some will be addressed early on.  Patience is required on this project.

Part of the compromise of the center fairway bunker complex was to leave a partial opening on the left to allow players to work their way up that side with minimal if any forced carry.  I'm still pleased that the primary design intent and strategy of the hole as well as the look will be restored.  Tim Moraghan said it best, "It's a 0 now and when the plan is finished, it will be one awesome golf hole".  

If the interrupted fairways (interrupted by rough) that Flynn showed for some of the other holes on his plans were ever put in, they didn't last long, as they never showed up on very early photos and aerials of the course.  Since we have no proof they were ever built coupled with the fact that there are space constraints and distance issues, to put them in now would be silly as they just don't make sense.  

Getting back to #17, the first cross hazard from the championship tee will be about 330 yards away.  If the player lays up close to this hazard, they will have about 230-240 into the island green which will create temptation for the better players.  They could try to skirt the cross hazard on the left with their tee shot which would leave them an even shorter shot.  That temptation will be there for the longer players.  It will be an exciting hole and much more thought provoking than the one dimensional design that exists now.  It will be fun and more interesting for all levels of players.  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Tony
It is true, there is a whole worldwide industry of art and architecture restoration who nit pick over the smallest detail. But they approach their individual art form with some intelligence. They understand the differences between painting restoration, garden restoration, architectural restoration, etc. They understand these disciplines are guided by different goals and criteria, criteria which take into account the unique challenges each has. No reasonable person would try to compare the restoration of the Mona Lisa to the restoration of the Roman garden to Fishbourne. It is equally ridiculous to compare restoring the Mona Lisa to the NGLA, a golf course that has been in continual use for over ninety years.

The NGLA is a serious artifact. The reasons you would want preserve, protect and restore it are numerous. First of all it is great golf course today: enjoyable, beautiful and challenging for the great majority of golfers...and the restoration enhanced all the above. It is also one of the most significant designs in the history of golf architecture. In addition it has been very well preserved over the years. Its restoration was relatively simple, involving removing trees, expanding fairways and recapturing lost green surfaces.

The way I see it you have a couple of choices with courses like NGLA, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Swinley Forest, Dornoch and Morfonatine. You could redesign these golf courses in order to challenge the very best golfers once a year or once every couple years or once every decade, and in the process lose some portion of the historic work. Or you can accept that they can no longer host a professional event and preserve & protect these wonderful golf courses. In other words keep these flawed (if you consider not being able to challenge today’s hyper-equipped pros a flaw) but otherwise spectacular designs for the majority of golfers of today to enjoy, and preserve these great works for future generations to enjoy, study and learn from.

I go for the latter, hosting professionals one weekend a year is not big loss IMO. There also appears to be some movement on the equipment front, so it would be even more foolish to something drastic today. Architecture and most other design disciplines learned a long time ago the importance of preserving & protecting their very best designs…its about time golf architecture follow suit.

The next person who says they know what any dead golf architect would have done if he were alive today (to rationalize or promote a redesign) should be given forty lashes with a wet noodle. The NGLA has a Biarritz?

I’m not sure where you have been, but courses like Myopia Hunt, NGLA, and Eastward Ho! (and the list is growing) haven’t been able to challenge the pros for a long time. That is why there is growing pressure on the rules bodies to do something. Those who love great architecture realize what the consequences have been and will continue be: unfortunate redesigns like Riviera, ANGC, and Inverness. Your possible solution of ripping up these significant designs in order to challenge the pros is a bad one.

As far as restoration is considered, I personally think it should be limited to very special designs. There are a relatively few number of courses that should be candidates for restoration IMO. There are a far too many redesigns today that present themselves as restorations. I personally don’t have problem debating the meaning of the terms, IMO it is important that golf architecture have a precise definition for preservation, restoration, historic reconstruction and redesign.

[Sean_A]

Tom P.

I would very much like to hear what you think are some of the finer points in your maintenance meld.  I don't think I have ever seen particulars of any such program other than the ball should be running at least 50 yards if decently struck on short grass.  

You are correct in that I have been nit picking with terms.  I do this because terms are often used on this site which I am not sure at all that everybody has a similar understanding of.  I think there is a load of mis-communication due to terminology.  Golf course is like any other field, it requires a glossary of terms to properly communicate.  

Ciao

Sean

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom Mac I knew we weren’t that far apart I can agree pretty much with everything in your post no 61.  You must have spotted that I ran with the Mona Lisa because someone else pitched it into the conversation and I do try to take part in a discussion and to move things forward.

So the big question for me is the reason why we would be restoring NGLA and once you have the reasons for that and the ethos you have a million nit picking decisions to make.  Like what construction methods should we use.

It was Tom Doak who posted (no 28) that the course no longer challenges the elite golfer of today. It is my understanding that one of MacDonald’s aims was to provide a challenge to golfers of all abilities, and to test this is why he organised a Professional Tournament there.   My choice of the Biarritz was obviously ill informed (I’m  going to give myself 40 lashes with the DaVinci code after posting this) but the point still stands if he felt that this was an important aim then the course would need some major work.   So if the course was destroyed would we be restoring with the aim of providing a challenge to all golfers or to the historically important course that has done so much to inspire golf in America (and exactly which version)?


Pat

If you want to know why people on the other thread say they don’t follow your posts you need to check out the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This is why I can’t see the merit in your method. I will give one example of why I believe you practice Reductio ad absurdum.

I posted the following argument because you said you couldn’t see how changes in maintenance practices affected architectural features.

Pat

I do think the way maintenance has changed over the past 150 years has made profound changes to the architectural features known as greens.  I would argue that on this site green speeds are second only to bunkers as a subject of debate on architectural features. This deserves a thread all of its own.  I’ve referenced this before but Bobby Jones’ ‘perfect’ round at Suningdale had 33 putts.  Most weekends the winner of a PGA tournament has what 28 putts per round?  This has more to do with the changes to the maintenance of the green than equipment or training.  I believe that if you went back a further 30 years before Jones, the greens added at least a further 5 shots per round.  That is why I ask if you want to restore NGLA will you go back to the maintenance practices of Macdonald’s days.  If you don’t, I believe you are playing a different course to the one originally conceived. For a start I think with the ground game it was easier to attack the pin when the greens rolled slower.

I think there’s an argument made across a whole paragraph.  In post no 30 you break it down and answer it as 7 separate sentences.  You finish as follows


For a start I think with the ground game it was easier to attack the pin when the greens rolled slower.

How would that be true if the pin was cut to the left rear of # 4 and the rear of # 18 green, to mention just two examples ?

Giving two pin placements that make the ground game irrelevant adds absolutely nothing to the debate. Read the paragraph again and you will see that my final sentence relates directly to the theme of the paragraph as set out in the first sentence. Fine if you still think my argument is bogus. But because there are two places on the course where the ground game is irrelevant is not a counter argument to my belief that maintenance changes (and they have produced other results than faster green speeds e.g. consistency) have changed an important architectural feature on these courses.

Do you really want me to answer your line by line dissection with a line by line dissection of my own?  Will you then answer my answer line by line by line ad absurdum. I’d much rather we tried to move this forward and answer the interesting question you posed in the title of the thread.

Please don’t take me as a negative person or someone who wants to bash you.  I always look for a new thread by you as, like this one, I find them fresh and stimulating.  It’s your method of replying that (to me) fails to take things forward.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you have to differentiate between the issues.

One has to do with PGA Tour Pros and the issue of protecting par that Tony seems concerned about.

Club after club have converted par 5's to par 4's on their scorecards, when hosting PGA Tour events, to protect against excessive red numbers.

The second issue, the more important one, involves an architectural feature and it's intended use, and the principle of "elasticity"

The "hotel" bunker complex has had its architectural significance reduced.  It no longer poses the hazard that it was intended to present, and as such, lengthening the hole, back to the elevated berm directly behind the existing tee restores the playing principles and intent as envisioned by CBM.

Adding a new tee further back restores the playing values to the drive, the second shot and the approach.

It has a beneficial affect on ALL THREE of the shots meant to be played on this hole.

George Bahto agrees with me, and you were present when we walked back, examined the area in question and discussed the relative merits of creating a new back tee.

Eventually, you'll see the wisdom of my suggestion.

P.S.  How do you feel about the new tee on # 14 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you want to know why people on the other thread say they don’t follow your posts you need to check out the following link.

The number of replies and views, demonstable facts, refute your above conclusion[/color]

For a start I think with the ground game it was easier to attack the pin when the greens rolled slower.

How would that be true if the pin was cut to the left rear of # 4 and the rear of # 18 green, to mention just two examples ?[/color]

Giving two pin placements that make the ground game irrelevant adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

I could have cited many, many more.
Since you postured the theory, I merely asked you to apply your theory to two examples.[/color]

But because there are two places on the course where the ground game is irrelevant is not a counter argument to my belief that maintenance changes (and they have produced other results than faster green speeds e.g. consistency) have changed an important architectural feature on these courses.


Your lack of familiarity with NGLA is casuing you to make ridiculous statements.  

The ground game is irrelevant in a great number of examples at NGLA, I only cited two and asked you to address them.

Should I have asked you about every example at NGLA ?[/color]

Do you really want me to answer your line by line dissection with a line by line dissection of my own?  

YES,
That's the reason the question was asked.
If you don't know the answer, merely say so.
But, when the question raises a genuine issue, or reveals the fallacy of your argument, I can understand why you'd be reluctant to answer it.

You want to posture theories and not have them subjected to challenge.

If your theory has merit, it will survive the interogatory process.[/color]

Please don’t take me as a negative person or someone who wants to bash you.  I always look for a new thread by you as, like this one, I find them fresh and stimulating.  It’s your method of replying that (to me) fails to take things forward.


I don't take you as a negative person, nor do I think you want to bash me, I take no offense.
But, you want to be granted immunity when you put forth a point of view and that's unreasonable.  

If you or anyone else have questions for me, I'm only to happy to try to answer them, as best I can.

I don't try to duck the issue, or question the form in which a question or answer is presented.

Rich Goodale cited the day that he played NGLA and said the green speeds were probably comparable to 1914.
I mentioned that I had played NGLA when the greens stimped at about 6, and in both cases we asked you how the architecture had changed over the intervening 95 years due to maintainance practices, as you had postured.

Both are legitimate questions which you avoided.

If you're going to posture a theory or offer a point of view, you should be able to offer a prudent and/or strident defense.

Likewise, I should be able to withstand the same questioning on any theories or positions I put forth..

View it as healthy debate, nothing more.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Your chronological exhibit of # 17 is one of the most powerful examples of the architectural deterioration of a golf course that I've ever seen, and also one of the most compelling arguments as to why the hole should be restored as you intend to do.

Keep up the good work

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ok Pat I'll try and reply post by post line by line

If you want to know why people on the other thread say they don’t follow your posts you need to check out the following link.

The number of replies and views, demonstable facts, refute your above conclusion[/color]

No Patrick read what I said. I didn't say use the other thread as a vote, I merely suggested that I was not the only one who felt your method was counter productive if you really want people to read what you write.  Looking again at the other thread I count three people, including myself, who feel this. Therefore demonstrably it's my point that is proven i.e. there are people who say they don't read your posts.
Once again you demonstrate a sense of logic which is entirely alien to me, arguing incorrectly about something which misssed the point I'm trying to make entirely. All of which has nothing to do with the thread. In fact I consider your reply more evidnece in support of my case that you need to change your modus operandi.

This is just too exhausting (which is your real game). I can see we're not going to agree on anything.  So I'm giving up on this hopeless task and going to bed.  Please be assurred that I won't be reading any parts of your point by point 'arguments' (see Monty Python on that one) and if I miss pure gold then it's my loss.  Goodnight sleep well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

Everyone's entitled to their opinon.
I think my method is productive, it seperates the wheat from the chaff.

For someone who claims not to read my posts, you seem unusually well informed on their content.

Is that due to osmosis or esp ?

Sleep tight.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your insistence to lengthen #7 NGLA, I'm never going to buy that when the club could print an alternate card for elite players. I'm not thinking of touring pros because I doubt they'll be there much. NGLA's prototype has not done badly dropping it's par to 4 and either would #7 on an alternate card. Lengthening #7 is not as stupid an idea as the one you came up with to move MacDonald's gate and the driveway to add length to #18 but it's still unnecessary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You keep failing to understand that changing the scorecard doesn't bring the "hotel" bunker complex back into play.

That bunker complex was MEANT to interface with the golfers, not be ignored by them.

It's interesting that you can understand the lengthening the 8th hole in order to keep the centerline bunker complex in play, but, can't understand lengthening # 7 in order to accomplish the same goal.

With the "hotel" bunker complex returned to play, the hole is effectively lengthened because golfers can't take the direct path to the green and have to tack their way up the fairway.

With respect to the gates on # 18, their position is arbitrary, and moving them 50 feet or 50 yards north allows the 18th tee to come back, retaining the angle of attack off the tee, while returning the deep left side fairway bunker to play.

The benefits, architecturally and in terms of playability are overwhelmingly evident to everyone except you and Ray Charles.

[T_MacWood]

So the big question for me is the reason why we would be restoring NGLA and once you have the reasons for that and the ethos you have a million nit picking decisions to make.  Like what construction methods should we use.

It was Tom Doak who posted (no 28) that the course no longer challenges the elite golfer of today. It is my understanding that one of MacDonald’s aims was to provide a challenge to golfers of all abilities, and to test this is why he organised a Professional Tournament there.   My choice of the Biarritz was obviously ill informed (I’m  going to give myself 40 lashes with the DaVinci code after posting this) but the point still stands if he felt that this was an important aim then the course would need some major work.   So if the course was destroyed would we be restoring with the aim of providing a challenge to all golfers or to the historically important course that has done so much to inspire golf in America (and exactly which version)?

Tony
Are you asking why they did restore the NGLA? If so, I already answered that question. If you are asking hypothetically why it should be rebuilt if it were destroyed...it would be the same reasons why there have been other historical reconstructions, like rebuilding the collapsed companile in Piazza San Marco, Venice (in 1902). The significance of the design.

I think modern technology (like GPS, lasers, modern heavy equipment) in combination with traditional hand work would be appropriate.

One of Macdonald's aims was to challenge the best. That was also the aim of MacKenzie at CPC and Crump/Colt at PVGC. Just about every great design of that era was intended to challange the elite golfers. NGLA is not alone in not being able to challenge the very best pros...that is the reality we live in today. Its not a perfect situation, and something should be done, but that something is not wholesale redesign in hopes of challenging a professional group once a year or once a decade.

Hosting a professional invitational once in the course's 90+ year history is not a good reason to redsign the course IMO. Likewise to rationalize redesign by saying this is what CB would have done is very dangerous thinking IMO....we've lost too much original work over the years using that kind of thinking. We don't know what Macdonald would have done had the course been destroyed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()