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.


Geoffrey Childs

Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« on: July 01, 2006, 06:19:55 PM »
I was lucky enough to see Engineers CC for the first time and I was mightily impressed with the golf course. In its day it must have been an incredible test of golf and it remains so but with the fun factor well up the charts.

I must also write that I think Trip Davis who was brought in to work on the course and restore it was given a real disservice in the way he was treated here on GCA. His work at the course in my opinion was stellar. I obviously did not see it before but there have been lots of trees removed (with quite a few still needed to be taken out).  Thus, the vistas over the fescues and remarkably rolling property are beautiful.  Most of the tree removal that is still necessary is more for the views then for the playability of the holes.

Now for the great greens.  We had a great caddie in our group, Jay a retired NYC cop who is into architecture and could tell us where the greens were expanded, softened and where new pin locations were recovered by both methods. Whatever was done to them, they remain a set of the most bold and interesting and varied greens I have ever seen.  Perhaps NGLA and Pine Valley are as wild and maybe Hollywood would be in the ballpark.  They are all very playable.  They all have 5-6 good pin locations that work.  Among them, there are mirror images, front to back tilt, back to front tilt, waves, shelves, and multiple shelves, shelves left to right and back to front. I could not tell they were altered as they fit into the surrounds and tie in with the chipping areas.  You start off with one of the craziest greens in all of golf.  Our host was kind enough to make a four footer for a FOUR PUTT on the opener. If I had a surprise about the approach shots into the greens it was that many or most required an aerial attack.  That must have been the toughest part of engineers in the old days.  

The newer par 3 3rd hole (228 yards) that replaced the 2 or 20 hole (we played that too!) fits in nicely with similar bunkering (done by Trip) and a rolling difficult to putt green). The bunkering overall is esthetically pleasing and challenging.  Trip did very well in my opinion.

I have learned a lot about restoration lately. I see that there is much more to it then bunkers.  Equally or more so is the restoration of width (done at Engineers), vistas (mostly done at Engineers), mowing patterns (I like them at Engineers), reclaiming putting surfaces (done at Engineers) and when necessary altering the green contours as well (sensitively done by Trip at Engineers).

The place is great to play today and yet its bold features constantly remind you of days past.

Finally, I’d like to revisit places like Five Farms, San Francisco GC and Pasatiempo where recent work to the green contours softened them a bit. I was perhaps too quick to condemn work like that in the past but when done with the proper sensitivity and more importantly skill and view of how it played previously the results can be very satisfactory.  I saw this first hand recently at #8 on Winged Foot East where Jeff Porteus used his great skills to slightly modify an 8% grade on a ridge to 5% while reclaiming pin locations and playability. Good Job!

Back to topic-  Go to see Engineers if possible.  It’s another Northeast Gem!

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2006, 06:58:16 PM »
Geoffrey
I'm glad you liked it. I agree, it is great golf course. I take it you had never seen the course prior to the 'restoration'?

How was Tripp Davis mistreated?

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2006, 07:22:52 PM »
Tom

If I'm not mistaken you put him through the ringer explaining changes made to the greens.  I recall it was not very respectful.  If I'm mistaken then I apologize but that is how I remember the interaction.
Maybe you can find tose old threads and bring them back up top.

What do you think of the 1st green; 2nd green; 8th green (mirror image of 2 if I recall) 16th green; 18th green and all the rest for that matter?

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2006, 07:32:23 PM »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2006, 08:15:51 PM »
Tom

Did you play the current greens?  What did you think of just how they play and in looking at them how multiple pin locations would play?

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2006, 08:33:41 PM »
Geoffrey
I don't know, I don't think so, I assume some of the greens have been recontoured since 2004.

No doubt it would be a challenge to find multiple pin positions on some of the greens if you maintained them at modern green speeds.


David Mulle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2006, 01:01:36 AM »
I agree that Davis did a wonderful with Engineers -particularly with widening the fairways.  

Even though I think the total result is outstanding, I still disagree with making some of the greens less severe.  Engineers has some of the most interesting greens I've ever seen and I think the solution is to tailor the maintenance to the greens, not tailor the greens to maintainance.  Unfortunately, I don't think that is an argument many golfers agree with.

I've heard they are going to put the 2 or 20 hole in play more often.  I think that is great news because I would feel quite disappointed if I went out to play Engineers and was denied the opportunity to play one of its most interesting holes.  

Jason Blasberg

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2006, 06:28:52 AM »
Even though I think the total result is outstanding, I still disagree with making some of the greens less severe.  Engineers has some of the most interesting greens I've ever seen and I think the solution is to tailor the maintenance to the greens, not tailor the greens to maintainance.  Unfortunately, I don't think that is an argument many golfers agree with.

David:  Without a drastic difference in green speeds I don't think you could have kept number 6 and 16 at their original pitch.

Especially number 6, it simply was not fun.  at speeds of about 8 you could not stop a ball within two feet (even short) of a back pin placement.  That green was over the top.  

As I understand, 16 was softened only so that it's original size could be recaptured.  

BTW, read your copy of Links magazine this month and the article on Prairie Dunes describes C&C being retained in 1986 to "recontour" a few greens.  It happens at the best courses in the world, I still don't get why people think it shouldn't have happened at Engineers.  

The course is SO MUCH FUN you need to go play it!

Geoff:

For the record our looper was Bobby (great guy!).  And I can still say that I've never 5 putted!!!!   ;D ;D
« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 11:31:19 PM by Jason Blasberg »

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2006, 07:43:39 AM »
I have had the great fortune to have played Engineers many times over the years.  I currently play it very often. For anyone to think that the new 6th green is inferior, then they have their head somewhere I would not enjoy the smell.  The old 6th was Strong's weakest link--it was simply a back to front with almost no side contours and was sloping from 10 to 5 degrees with no area under 5 degrees--there simply were no pins.  The new green has more character and is more consistent with what you would find on 5, 10, 15, and 17.  Once the grass becomes consistent, I defy anyone who never saw the course previously to point out where the greens were changed!

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2006, 02:06:53 PM »
I played Engineers for the first time recently and I must say that I was duly impressed. The course offers every challenge and excitement one could want. No two holes are similar... holes are routed uphill, downhill... bend left, bend right; There are long fours (4.5's really) & short fours... long threes & short threes; and, very interesting fives. And, some of the most interesting and varied greens I have ever seen collected on one course. In short, I has the feel of a "great" course that one would not grow tired of playing every day.

I've read all the background threads here on Engineers that are referenced, along with Ran's review, and in my book the work done by Tripp Davis was a resounding success. Our caddie pointed out all of the changes that had been made and I didn't feel any were out of place. They all seemed very sensitive to the original design and, IMHO, enhanced what was there, not detracted from it.

Bottom line for me is that Engineers is a course that I would eagerly play every day, if I could. I'm not sure that would have been the case before Mr. Davis' work.

PS: I noted that Tripp Davis has not posted on this site since December '05... I hope he has not left us for good and will come back and follow up on the discussion of his work at Engineers.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 02:10:20 PM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2006, 03:04:34 PM »
Michael/Robert/Jason
What changes have been made....what features have been restored....could you detail the work that has been done? Do you consider the work to be a faithful Herbert Strong restoration? Is the project complete...if not, what else is planned?  



David Mulle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2006, 09:24:19 PM »
Jason,
   Lest my comments be misinterpreted, I want to make it clear that I am a HUGE fan of Engineers.  I consider myself lucky to be able to play it 5-6 times a year and look forward to my next visit later this week.
    I am willing to admit that my concerns about the softening some of the greens may be misplaced, particularly since everyone I know who knows the course better than I do thinks that the changes were necessary.
    My comments arise from a more general concern that as green speeds are increased it makes more of the old greens borderline "unfair" (am I allowed to say that on this website?)  
    It was actually the changes at Stanwich that got me thinking about this topic and IMO Engineers is such a special place that I am concerned when changes are made to its greatest asset.

Jason Blasberg

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2006, 12:22:45 AM »
Jason
What changes have been made....what features have been restored....could you detail the work that has been done? Do you consider the work to be a faithful Herbert Strong restoration? Is the project complete...if not, what else is planned?

Tom:

Engineers is a better coures than it was 4 years ago and it will likely be a better course in 4 years than it is today.  I suspect, therefore, that it may even be a better course in four years than it was in 1917  :o :o :o  

BTW, the greens remain utterly brilliant in no small part due to the work done by Tripp's firm BY TOUCHING ONLY WHAT THEY HAD TO and knowing what not to touch.  

I know T.Doak expressed concerns about softening contours and not knowing when to stop but I can say most all original green contouring remains intact (to the extent one can know the original contouring of greens built in 1917).

Jason
« Last Edit: July 03, 2006, 12:23:27 AM by Jason Blasberg »

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2006, 12:54:03 AM »
Jason
What changes have been made....what features have been restored....could you detail the work that has been done? Do you consider the work to be a faithful Herbert Strong restoration?

I've noticed you've never mentioned Strong in any of your posts...why?

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2006, 01:46:15 AM »






Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2006, 07:48:22 AM »
Hopefully, the pictures that Tommy has posted will give a better idea of the greatness found at Engineers.  At some point there will be more pictures detailing the course.  The course is not a canvas in a museum, but a living organic entity.  The most important thing is the playablitiy factor--people want to play a vibrant course.  For the average player, Engineers might be one of the toughest courses in the US.  This is in spite of the fact that fairways are about 40 yards wide on average.  On 15, when the pin is in front, the approach from the right side of the fairway is easier, while when the pin is in the back, the electrical tower is in play from the right and there is very little green unless a massive cut is played.  It is hard to believe, but the electrical tower has made the hole a little more interesting--it is played as an integral part of the course.  This 48 yard long green has some of the most interesting wavy contours running from front to back with both right to left and left to right tiers.

Jason Blasberg

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2006, 08:34:24 AM »
Jason
What changes have been made....what features have been restored....could you detail the work that has been done? Do you consider the work to be a faithful Herbert Strong restoration?

I've noticed you've never mentioned Strong in any of your posts...why?

Tom:

The reason I don't mention Strong is the same reason I never really discussed Emmet when the work was being done at Seawane.  I'm focused on the present and future, not the past, and in some instances, distant past.  Moreover, I find the purist restoration idea boyed about on this Board by yourself and others to be silly in some instances.

Golf courses are living things, not static museum pieces such as the Mona Lisa that need to maintained as closely as possible to their exact original state.  Last time I checked grass grows, dirt shifts, bunkers erode, trees grow, neighborhoods pop up all over the place.  Thus, to me restoration work has always been best done with keeping the original design as intact as possible but only so much so as makes sense given the world in which the course currently exists.  Moreover, we must always factor in technology and the current ball.  

The project at Engineers has come out great, the playing corridors are restored to original widths and bunkers are much more in play and play more of a strategic role than I recall in the past.  I believe the contours of 6, 8, 16 and 17 green were massaged, but the results blend perfectly with the rest of the course and in a couple of years when the new grass is completely in you wont know what was newly done and what's been their for a century.


Tom, last thing . . . I imagine I'll have very little else to discuss with you about Engineers or anything else GCA related because all you seem interested in is the past, and in this instance very distant past.  Your posts look in only one direction, backward.  

Jason

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2006, 10:59:25 AM »
Jason
Engineers was a great course in 1917, it was a great course two years ago and it is a great course today. Only a fool or an idiot would not acknowledge that the greatness of Engineers is primarily the result of Strong's genius. If based upon what has existed there for over eighty years - a very special and unique golf course - you still have no interest in discovering more about Strong and his work - preferring to concentrate on the here and now - that is your choice. That kind of thinking leads to the complete re-design of Emmet courses...which I assume you think is a good thing. To each his own.

Robert or Jason
One more time. What changes have been made...could you detail the work that has been done?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2006, 11:00:36 AM by Tom MacWood »

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2006, 03:33:25 PM »
Tom - No offense, but after reading your posts on the archived threads concerning Engineers I don't get the feeling that you are genuinely interested in discussing the merits of the tweaks to the course. You mainly come across as only interested in bullying your point of view on "restoration." You seem to take the position that ANY change is an affront to Herbert Strong's original design. I was embarrassed reading some of your comments to Tripp Davis... no wonder he doesn't post here anymore.

I would love to see a spirited discussion about Engineers, but I doubt anyone wants to participate in a "no win" bludgeoning over every comment they make.

Is there any way you could keep on open mind on this subject and stay respectful of others ideas? Or, is this only about you being right and everyone else being wrong?

For example: are you calling Jason a "fool or an idiot" for not mentioning Strong in his posts? It sure seems that way.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Jason Blasberg

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2006, 03:37:24 PM »
you still have no interest in discovering more about Strong and his work - preferring to concentrate on the here and now - that is your choice. That kind of thinking leads to the complete re-design of Emmet courses...which I assume you think is a good thing. To each his own.

Tom:  

Where to you come up with this stuff, 1917 Mars ???  I relish the fact that so much of Strong's work remained intact and is mostly just being polished and or dusted off.

I've never said specifically that a "complete re-design" of an Emmet course is a good thing, although one Mr. Travis had a lot to do with major changes to one of Mr. Emmet's works and nobody seems to be giving him a hard time.

If your reference is to Seawane that project vastly improved the course and changed nothing on the greens or the routing.    

The major work at Engineers has been tree removal, some bunker work and green work.  If you have access to before pics you can most likely see what was done.

Tom, the dismissive tone of your posts in the past regarding restoration work is what turns me off to anything of substance that you have to say.  If you had flexibility and an open mind when discussing changes to a course I would engage you but it's just not worth trying to explain that an "exact" restoration is not always worth doing, or even possible, or anything close to what a membership wants.  Members are the gatekeepers on both sides of changes to a course.  In this regard, Engineers is getting it right and, IMO,  gets very high marks for what is being done there.
     
Jason

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2006, 04:25:24 PM »
Michael or James
What changes have been made...could you detail the work that has been done to date?  If you don't know just say you don't know.

"I was embarrassed reading some of your comments to Tripp Davis... no wonder he doesn't post here anymore."

Michael
Could you specify which comment or comments embarrassed you.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2006, 04:27:03 PM by Tom MacWood »

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2006, 05:05:29 PM »
Tom - I can't detail the changes for you. I've only played the course one time and really didn't know that much about Engineers before I played it. I'm basing my feelings about the changes on what was pointed out to me by our caddie, who has been at the course for quite some time. On each hole he indicated what had been done and I don't remember ever thinking that the change was a mistake. I wish I had taken notes, but I didn't... maybe on my return visit!

My overall memory of the changes to the greens is that some had an edge or two "adjusted" up or down to allow for additional hole positions. In no way did any change appear to be a flattening of a green, or a change in the original playing characteristics. Every "tweak" pointed out to me seemed well thought out and an improvement to the alternative.

I'd really like to see a detailed hole-by-hole listing of the changes. It would be fun to discuss and debate. Again, I'm only talking about the Tripp Davis changes, not the ones that occurred before him.

As for your comments on the previous thread... they are there for you to reread. I'm not going to debate your intent or tone. All I know for sure is that you never apologized for pissing him off. Now, let's move on to talking about Engineers.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2006, 06:15:32 PM »
Michael
If you are going to make a statement like that - that you were embarassed by my comments - the least you can do is specify what they were. If you can't find the specific remark or remarks you probably ought to delete your pervious post.

What disapointed me about those threads were questions Tripp didn't answer about the architectural history/evolution of Engineers and that fact that he didn't respond to a requested explanation of some changes he said were meant to re-establish original shots values that seem to be contrary to the original design/shot values. And IMO those questions were also asked with respect...so I'm not sure what the problem was.

I'd also like to see a hole by hole listing. What were some of the changes you caddy pointed out to you?

Jason Blasberg

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2006, 06:34:30 PM »
Mike:

Here are the changes that I'm aware of.

1) removed entire stand of trees down left side between 1 and 18, reshaped fairway bunkering and added fescue grasses.  

I believe the green mowing patterns were enlarged to recapture the original green size.

2) removed trees down left side of hole, reshaped fairway bunkers and added fescue grasses.

3) reshaped greenside bunkering and removed some trees ( the par 3 third is the only hole that is not Strong's and I'm not sure when it was added but 4 (the old number 3) was lengthened to a par 5, the current 3rd hole filled the gap from 2 green to the new 4 tee.  This is when, I believe, the "2 or 20" was taken out of regular play.

4) removed large tree down right side of fairway just before the dogleg (right) thereby opening up the fairway width instead of the hole essentially only having the left of the fairway to play from.  

5) lots of trees removed down both sides of the fairways, and fairway bunkers down right side just short of ridge in fairway were added, and, in addition the bunker down left side of fairway at the top of the ridge was added.

6) major tree removal down left side of fairway and around the green site.  The green was extended to the right and recontoured adding 4 additional pin placements.  The green side bunker to the right is new I believe.

7) I believe the changes are to the bunkers and trees were removed down the right side.

8 tree removal down both sides of the fairway and the front left corner of the green was raised a couple of feet.  

9) bunkers were reshaped in spots and trees removed.

10) lots of tree removal down the left side (inside of dogleg) and the bunkers were added, tempting the big hitter to challenge them for the possibility to reach the green in two.
Not sure what else was done.

11) I think some tree removal to the left of the green site.

12) big imposing tree with overhanging limbs that was about 50 yards off the tee to the right was removed, this really opened up the original playing angles off the tee.

13) bunkers down the left side were reshaped, fescue grasses added and large stand of trees behind 13 green were removed to reveal the severe dropp off behind green.

14) trees removed behind 13 green and left side of 14 fairway revealed the chasm that the tee shot is played over and the ridge that must be reached off the tee.  The offset fairway orientation from front right to back left is again a prominant feature off the tee and 14 remains the most difficult fairway to hit on the course (for me and most mortals).  I believe the back tee location is also recent.  some fairway bunkering down the left side may have been reshaped and/or added.

14a ("2 or 20") the greenside bunkers were cleaned up and trees and/or brush removed to reveal more of the greensite from the tee.  a new teeing area was added to the back and right, extending the hole from abot 96 yards to 125 or so.  The prominent tree in the photo in Ran's review behind the green was removed, restoring the feeling that the end of the earth lies beyond the back of the green.

15) not sure what was done other than tree removal.

16) tee was raised a few feet and fairway bunkers were added down the right side of hole, although they remain blind off the tee.  Trees removed down left of fairway.

Green was flatened slightly to recapture original green size with playable pin placements on the right side of green.  Some bunkers were restored that were in front and left of the green site.

17) back right side of green was lowered and collection area long of green created (green really feels like it slopes away from the fairway now).  

18) tree removal and bunker restoration, not sure what else was done.

Jason

   
« Last Edit: July 03, 2006, 06:35:12 PM by Jason Blasberg »

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2006, 06:58:27 PM »
Geoffrey Childs, Jason Blasberg and Michael Whitaker:

Excellent posts and responses on this thread. It's about time the interested and thoughtful contributors on here take to task those who constantly crow about architectural purity for purity's sake, and do nothing much more----and when questioned about the effects of some really good restoration projects contribute little else other than to continue to crow about architectural purity for purity's sake. If one actually continued to listen to some of these people seriously, one might begin to think some of these classic golf courses are nothing more than historic building architecture.