[PThomas]

well, if they are tinkering with Riv's #10, then nothing is sacred anymore

that is hard to believe....

[Ryan Farrow]

All I can comment on is what i see at Oakmont. I never heard of the guy before I started working there. I guess its a good thing the tees at oakmont are square. From what i can tell the new back tees are in fact square.

Thats:
Marzloff 1
Baboon 0

-for those keeping score.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ryan,
Your about two or three years late on your score and your partially crediting the wrong guy. Especially since many here have commented on how stupid many of the new Marzloff tees are at Oakmont. Given what I've seen at Winged Foot, I'll surmise that they are just as ridiculous.

Also, don't confuse the tree clearing and other important factors that are the handy-work of John Zimmers, who is someone that probably doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves in the REMODELING of Oakmont. (Given what I know of the history, it would be anything but a restoration. Restoration by definition is restoring what once was. Moving bunkers (famed ones at that) into new areas to accomodate this so called golf equipment of today is anything but restoration.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Also, I'll have you know that with Marzloff's original work at Merion which was in fact changed when it started collapsing, as well as his work at Riviera, Bel Air (which Tom Doak is right to pronounce some of the worst in classical golf destruction) Winged Foot, and many, many others, well you go ahead and count Oakmont as a success.

He has a lot to make up for.

Baboon was being nice. He is just simply a boob.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

You know my opinion of the work done at Merion.  While I certainly applaud the tree removal, I thought the bunker work was/is anything but a "restoration" and even those who feel they came out "ok", with a heck of a lot of superintendent input and creative maintenance and bolstering over the past couple of years will admit as much.  Frankly, it still doesn't compare to the original restoration work that was begun there some years ago, which was short-circuited due to a number of factors we won't get into.

You also know my opinion of the ongoing work at Pine Valley.  I think the formalizing and standardized maintenance of the bunkers is hardly cause for celebration, and while some tree overgrowth has been accomplished, much more can and should be done.

Riviera is a damn shame, frankly.  When I played there a few years back, only a couple of holes had been "restored", and if one were to be polite, the best that could be said is that they were completely butchered.  I'm troubled to think that the 10th hole is now under construction by the same fellows, and although I hope for the best, I'm hardly optimistic.

I have never been to Winged Foot, and have only seen pictures.  From those pics, I've been very encouraged by the clearing of impinging trees and the bunkers do seem to be crafted with professional care.   While I don't know enough about the history and aesthetics of the course (my fault) to make a complete judgement, I'm of the feeling that whoever is doing the work on the ground there is a competent professional and someone who takes pride in their work.  I'm also encouraged when someone like our friend Geoffrey gives it his blessing.

Finally, it's been over 20 years since I've been to Oakmont, and have been thrilled to hear of the tree work there that has opened vistas and avenues of play.  It's one of my favorite places for golf and although I've heard mixed reports on the bunkering and teeing areas, I'm hopeful that it's maintained it's aura and architectural integrity.  I do have faith in folks like Mark Studer and company, and I trust that their stewardship will continue in the right direction.

I guess overall the sense I have of Tom Fazio and crew's "restoration" efforts is simply this.  With strong internal control and the selection of dligent and professional shapers the result can be successful.  However, left to their own devices, I believe that Fazio's team has very little sensitivity to the nuances and aesthetics that made each of those courses so brilliantly unique in the first place, and frankly, they are best left to create their own modern courses which they do very well.  For someone looking for true "restoration" however, any club considering such has to truly dictate the parameters of the work and keep a close watch on the details, lest they be left with a course that, while probably being more challenging to the modern game, also bears too much resemblance to a course built specifically for that purpose.

[Ryan Farrow]

 Tommy as mentioned above I know John and the entire club at Oakmont started the tree removal process and deserve a lot of credit for it.

As far as making "stupid tee boxes" I think you are loosing it my friend. They are square!!!!! I know of two tee boxes on 2 and 14 that have a little irregularity in their shapes. But those tees have been there for a while. Please explain how you think they screwed it up.

The only part of the restoration that I feel was questionable is the bunker work. They are extremely deep now and I feel that they could change they way people play out of them. I started a thread on this a few days ago but nobody seemed to have an answer.

As for the lengthening of church pews: Do you really think that if Fownes saw every single professional player easily driving past the church pews he would sit back and do nothing about it? He has been known to move bunkers over night after seeing pros drive over fairway bunkers. What do you think he would do? Add some pot bunkers on both ends of the pews?

I feel this part of interpreting what an architect would do was very successful. Not to mention how much better the pews look.

[Kyle Harris]

What do you think he would do? Add some pot bunkers on both ends of the pews?

Ryan,

He just may have. By an extension of your logic, he would have expanded a lot more bunkers. If bunkers were merely expanded by Fownes, wouldn't there be large bunkers on the sides of each fairway? Would the number have gotten up to 300 or so if he were just making bunkers bigger?

Heck, we could have church pews, a narthex, and an altar bunker by now.

[Ryan Farrow]

I understand your point and it is apparent throughout the whole course. There is only one other “long” fairway bunker on the course and that is a restored church pew on the left of 15. Throughout the course there are many complexes of small bunkers but the pews are acting as small bunkers on their own. In both cases they are the only fairway bunkers on each side of their respective fairways. I think adding some smaller bunkers would disrupt the flow and aesthetic appeal of such a unique bunker.

[Kyle Harris]

Ryan,

You can probably add the sahara bunker on 8 to that list. In fact, that was my first thought and I'd be curious to see if that bunker "evolved" into that size.

Interpretation of an architect's intent is VERY tricky business, and rushing a restoration ad hoc will draw criticism from a lot of people.

Whether or not the interpretation is correct is a crap shoot, and I've learned that a lot of things in golf architect take time.

I think things would be a lot more welcome if we called a spade a spade and said changes were made because they needed to be made now, and not under the auspices of a "sympathetic restortion" or whatever.

[Mike_Sweeney]

For someone looking for true "restoration" however, any club considering such has to truly dictate the parameters of the work and keep a close watch on the details, lest they be left with a course that, while probably being more challenging to the modern game, also bears too much resemblance to a course built specifically for that purpose.

Mike, Tommy all,

Can Merion, WFW, WFE, Augusta ..... be restored under your parameters and hold Major Championships with the technology parameters that today are defined by the USGA and R&A?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

YES, I think it would. In fact, it might produce more strategic, more interesting golf if in the right hands.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, Tommy all,

Can Merion, WFW, WFE, Augusta ..... be restored under your parameters and hold Major Championships with the technology parameters that today are defined by the USGA and R&A?

Mike,

No question they can.  

I don't see anything incongruous with greens to their original dimension, bunkers playing as hazardous as they did historically (and generally looking as rugged), fairway widths that permit options and sometime confusion, firm and fast conditions that offset some of the modern penchant for lush and slow (and which by definition narrow the fairways), removal of trees which create boring, punch out golf and discourage bold recovery, tight turf around greens to not only create short-game recovery options, but to let balls run into more difficult predicaments than thick rough to the edge, etc.

I also have no problem with adding yardage, where it makes sense, and where original lines of play and hole philosophy can be maintained.  For the most part, the addition of yardage at Merion was quite well done, for instance, although it does affect the intimacy of the routing and will be a challenge with specatators.  

My problem in those case I've cited has been not getting the details right, at least from my perspective.  If it's a "restoration", then that means a diligent effort to achieve a look and playability that's been lost with time.  In the case of Riviera, the look on the ground there is wholly different, and that's what Incongruous.

I'm not looking for these vaunted championship courses to be frozen in some type of time warp, but certain essentials should be preserved.

[Mike_Sweeney]

If it's a "restoration", then that means a diligent effort to achieve a look and playability that's been lost with time.  In the case of Riviera, the look on the ground there is wholly different, and that's what Incongruous.

I'm not looking for these vaunted championship courses to be frozen in some type of time warp, but certain essentials should be preserved.

Mike,

We learn from mistakes in life, perhaps Fazio too. I only know that Riviera was done some time ago. Staying current, what "certain essentials" were lost at Merion or Winged Foot?

Tommy,

What specifially is wrong with the tees at Winged Foot.?Obviously most of the new tees force the golfer to walk back 25+ yards to a new back tee, but this would have to be done by any architect. What else is wrong?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I did comment above that I am not nearly familiar enough with Winged Foot (I've never been there, much less played either course), but stated that the pictures i've seen of the bunkers look quite good.

As far as what's been lost at Merion, I've certainly gone through this way too many times, but the bunkers today do not look or play as they did at any time in their evolutionary history, much less 1930 which was supposed to be the target date for the restoration efforts.  Even Tom Paul would concede that point.  

The thick grass faces which drop down into the front bunker wall are not congruous with anything I've ever seen at Merion in historical pictures or in person.  They are also more bowled (some have compared them to a bathtub), and some are deeper than ever, not through design, but because a decision was made to not touch the evolutionary buildup on holes such as 8 and 13 (and others) while digging down to the original bunker floor.

The club is doing the best they can to make them look appropriately rugged and they definitely play tough.  They just are anything but a "restoration".      

[Mike_Sweeney]

The thick grass faces which drop down into the front bunker wall are not congruous with anything I've ever seen at Merion in historical pictures or in person.  They are also more bowled (some have compared them to a bathtub), and some are deeper than ever, not through design, but because a decision was made to not touch the evolutionary buildup on holes such as 8 and 13 (and others) while digging down to the original bunker floor.

The club is doing the best they can to make them look appropriately rugged and they definitely play tough.  They just are anything but a "restoration".      

But Mike, this was exactly my point. Isn't it obvious that the USGA prefers this deeper more penal bunker? Isn't the deeper bunkers part of the reason (probably) that Merion got a US Open?

Reading today in the NY Times about Mickelson's preparation for WFW, he and Pelz walked the course one day without clubs (probably had putters, but it did not say)  and guessed where the USGA would put pins and how they should approach those pins. They have been back a number of times.

I asked Neil is they ever hired a local caddie for local knowlege during these walk throughs. To his knowledge, no, but they did receive some local input. It appears that Major Championship golf, especially the US Open, has become a chess match of sorts between the players, their coaches and the USGA. I just don't think that Doak/Hanse restoration types can pull out the Merion 1933 bunkers, greens and surrounds and protect it from Phil Mickelson's 60 degree wedge.

It might be more fun and better for the cast of characters here at GCA.com, but we are a far cry from Major Championship players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

If but one club embarked upon a "restoration" that you would deem a departure from the orginal design integrity, one could call it an anomaly, or a mistake.

But, when several clubs, prominent in the historic architectural and traditional sense, embark upon those "restorations" you would deem a departure from the original design integrity, you have to ask yourself, is this not systemic, or mostly systemic ?  A trend in architecture to "restore" a golf course in the context of modern interpretation, especially as it relates to "tour tournament" integration ?

One might view the genesis of this "concept" to Oakland Hills and RTJ, with Rees Jones and Tom Fazio as more recent instruments to do the bidding of THESE SELECT CLUBS and the USGA & PGA.

Your displeasure shouldn't be with RTJ, Rees and Tom Fazio, your displeasure should be focused on THE CLUBS themselves and the members who championed the departure and destruction of the original or dated design integrity.

Architects don't wander in off the street.
They're invited in by the clubs.
Alterations to the golf course are solicited, and paid for by THE CLUB.

Today, It seems that alterations are made for one or two reasons.  To modernize and improve the golf course OR to restore and improve the golf course.

Unfortunately, the former seems to be chosen over the latter, and I believe that that is a product of the current culture at  golf clubs today, which, is greatly influenced by what's presented on TV, and not by individual architects.

[Mike_Cirba]

But Mike, this was exactly my point. Isn't it obvious that the USGA prefers this deeper more penal bunker? Isn't the deeper bunkers part of the reason (probably) that Merion got a US Open?

Reading today in the NY Times about Mickelson's preparation for WFW, he and Pelz walked the course one day without clubs (probably had putters, but it did not say)  and guessed where the USGA would put pins and how they should approach those pins. They have been back a number of times.

I asked Neil is they ever hired a local caddie for local knowlege during these walk throughs. To his knowledge, no, but they did receive some local input. It appears that Major Championship golf, especially the US Open, has become a chess match of sorts between the players, their coaches and the USGA. I just don't think that Doak/Hanse restoration types can pull out the Merion 1933 bunkers, greens and surrounds and protect it from Phil Mickelson's 60 degree wedge.

It might be more fun and better for the cast of characters here at GCA.com, but we are a far cry from Major Championship players.

Mike,

With all due respect, I don't agree with either your premise that the fact that a couple of bunkers are now slightly deeper was what drove the USGA's decision to return to Merion, nor do I think it will make a bit of difference to touring professionals.

The new Merion bunkers, beside aesthetic differences outlined earlier, are also much smoother, consistent, and uniform than their predecessors.  Also, much of the interior movement of the bunkers themselves has disappeared.  Beyond that, the old bunkers actually sort of flowed into their surrounds, and it was sometimes difficult to tell exactly where the hazard stopped and started.   What's there today is very cleanly defined with thick grassy surrounds.

Ironically, if anything, I think older bunkers were more difficult for top level players due to their internal contour and inconsistency.  By contrast, I think today's deeper bunkers affect the member more, not the touring pro.  How many touring pros are going to have difficulty getting the ball up quickly off a consistent sand surface given their 60 and 64 degree wedges?  That's a red herring.

In the past, the bunkers were really pretty scruffy and your odds of getting a firm, flat lie were pretty poor.  

I'm also not so sure why it takes the imagination of a Tom Fazio to dig a little deeper that's somehow beyond the ability of a Tom Doak or Gil Hanse?    

Or, perhaps they would have realized that if you choose to not touch the sand buildup on the face, then your bunker is elevated by definition, and thus if you go down to the original floor, by definition, you're not restoring a thing.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

With all due respect, I don't agree with either your premise that the fact that a couple of bunkers are now slightly deeper was what drove the USGA's decision to return to Merion, nor do I think it will make a bit of difference to touring professionals.

Mike,

The problem is neither you nor Tommy have any statistical data to support your theories. The USGA does. They may have flawed data according to some, but they do have data of how the different bunkers play at their US Opens and other events.

Like most things on GCA, we really agree on this topic. However, I don't think that a bunch of GCA geeks know how to set up a Major Championship course. However, I seem to be the only one that understands that I don't understand  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The problem is neither you nor Tommy have any statistical data to support your theories. The USGA does. They may have flawed data according to some, but they do have data of how the different bunkers play at their US Opens and other events.

Like most things on GCA, we really agree on this topic. However, I don't think that a bunch of GCA geeks know how to set up a Major Championship course. However, I seem to be the only one that understands that I don't understand  

Mike,

What statistical information does the USGA have that would indicate that the bunkers at Merion today are more challenging for tour professionals than the bunkers of five years ago?

This discussion sort of reminds me of the "science" that has been and continues to drive the changes at ANGC, where every drive is measured, approach clubs noted, etc.

The semi-humorous thing to me is that while a comprehensive "test lab" is staged every year, followed by additional "corrections" to the course, the next year requires a whole new set of changes!  

You think at some point they'd finally get it right!  

The funny thing about this discussion is that although a few bunkers at Merion are now deeper, it wasn't by intent or design.  It was simply the happenstance situation created when a decision was made not to lower the sand buildup on some commonly visited bunkers like the front of 8 and 13, while still going to the original floor of the bunker.

Are you telling me that this construction mistake resulted in them being awarded the US Open?!?  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

You can't just blame the clubs without giving the USGA a share, too.  The USGA guys are extremely forward in their views of where a course is "lacking" for championship play and what it would take to get it there.  Half the architectural changes which have been done to US Open courses over the past twenty years have been directly suggested by someone at the USGA.  (And the reason that Rees Jones and Tom Fazio get the call for these courses, instead of others, is because they will do what they're asked to do and not argue the merits of those suggestions.)

Mike S.:  I do not believe for one second that anyone at the USGA is looking at ShotLink type info to determine what architectural changes should be made to courses -- though I would not defend that as the right approach, either.  The USGA is making changes with a certain length of drive and a certain winning score in mind, and the way to achieve these things is to tighten the fairways and deepen the bunkers and roll the greens at midnight with the floodlights off.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom and others

I seem to remember that Fazio's team was Merion at the Am charting shots.

Steve

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

Architecture, you are probably correct, but how about maintenance decisions such as chipping areas vs. rough around the greens?

By the way, if I am the last guy to know what the USGA is doing, after your post above, you may soon be the second to last guy to know.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You can't just blame the clubs without giving the USGA a share, too.  The USGA guys are extremely forward in their views of where a course is "lacking" for championship play and what it would take to get it there.  

Half the architectural changes which have been done to US Open courses over the past twenty years have been directly suggested by someone at the USGA.  (And the reason that Rees Jones and Tom Fazio get the call for these courses, instead of others, is because they will do what they're asked to do and not argue the merits of those suggestions.)

Tom Doak,

I mentioned that the USGA and the PGA were complicit and an integral part of the process.

Still, it's the clubs that are willing to IRREVERSIBLY alter their golf course for the sake of obtaining a major that bear the ultimate responsibility.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Okay, I have to agree with you there.  Most of these clubs are so caught up in hosting a USGA event that they will just do whatever the USGA tells them to do, Shinnecock being the one exception I am aware of.  [It will be interesting to see what happens there if they want to come back into the fold.]

Mike S:

I know both Mike Davis and Tim Moraghan reasonably well, and I think both of them are aware of my general view toward changing courses for major championships, so [unfortunately] that post won't change things much.  And changing rough to a chipping area qualifies as architecture for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()