News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2006, 01:17:23 PM »
Except for Augusta and Yale I am familiar with the changes he discusses.  I concur with his analysis, except for The Medalist.  I have never thought that The Meslaist was good enough to ruin.  Many of my friends have left the Medalist to join MacArthur.  Actually I think that some of the changes helped the course.  I don't mind difficult courses, but the original design was just too penal.

Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

TEPaul

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2006, 07:39:11 PM »
Looking at the comparison photos of Bethpage's #16 and #17 shows me that Tom MacWood just doesn't have a clue about restoration projects if he's actually trying to claim those comparative photos are evidence of redesign. I mean it he just doesn't have a clue.

If one wants a more legitimate comparison of the work Jones did on those two holes via photos one would pretty much need to compare either of those aerial photos to an aerial that's fairly representative of the way those holes looked not long before Jones's Bethpage project.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 08:22:42 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2006, 07:56:49 PM »
From a recent thread...

Drawing is a great ability, I wish I were better at it.  But at the end of the day it's a two-dimensional representation of what is crucially a three-dimensional product.  There are a lot of golf course designers who think well only in two dimensions, and their courses are not that interesting.  

Just because they look similar from above, doesn't make them the same.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2006, 08:07:00 PM »
Tom MacWood,

It would appear that you're on a witch hunt and not interested in the input of individuals intimately familiar with BPB pre and post the U.S. Open.

From a personal perspective, I would have prefered the retention of the rear bunker at # 18, but, it was "show time" and that's where they wanted to put the bleachers.

I would have prefered retention of the rear bunker to the detriment of proximity to the green with respect to the bleachers, and, I'd like to see the rear bunker restored.

But, through out the rest of the golf course I think your criticisms are more in the nature of nit picking rather than substantive.

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2006, 09:10:52 PM »
TE
Have you compared a recent aerial of Bethpage-Black to the late 30's aerial? What is your opinion of the golf course today and its historical importance architecturally?

Pat
What about the greenside bunkering changes on the other holes...for example why wasn't Tilly's original bunkering at #7 retained?

« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 12:42:03 AM by Tom MacWood »

HamiltonBHearst

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2006, 09:40:00 PM »


Mr. Young

Rees record with restorations speaks for itself.  I must ask if all this probing and digging down by hand you describe was done before the open, why were the greens only expanded after photo discovery?

TEPaul

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2006, 06:31:06 AM »
"TE
Have you compared a recent aerial of Bethpage-Black to the late 30's aerial? What is your opinion of the golf course today and its historical importance architecturally?"

Tom:

I have not other than the one posted on here recently of the 16th and 17th holes and I made some comments on my opinion of your take of that particular comparison if those are examples of what you're calling Jones' redesign of the course.

As I implied the bunkering and greens (16 and 17) don't seem to be an exact match but they're close enough. My recommendation would be to try to also compare those photos to an aerial taken not long before Jones's project (if there is one) to see what he was working with.

I have not been to Bethpage Black in over forty years and so you will notice I've never commented on Jones' project on here on Bethpage or on Bethpage, other than some comments on my opinion on the Tillinghast/Burbeck controversy.

The historical importance of the golf course today? Good question. Obviously the fact that it has recently landed on the USGA "tight" (5-6 courses) Open rota has upped the course's historical importance and visibility immensely. Obviously the golf course is architecturally significant but to what particular degree it's hard for me to say.

It seems to me the course went through many decades of pretty serious maintenance and capital maintenance neglect and has been dusted off and rejuvenated tremendously. If I was initmately familiar with the place though, I'd probably have had more to say about it and it's architecture but I'm not that familiar with it personally. Even though I'm from Long Island originally I'm probably no more personally familiar with the course than you are.

Would I call the work done to it a restoration or a redesign? Hard for me to say since I haven't done much analysis of it or been there in many years. From what I saw in the Open, and the few old photos I've seen, I sure wouldn't call the Open preparation project on it by Jones a redesign---certainly not on most holes. Could he have done a more exact restoration? I don't know since I'm not particularly familiar with the project or the obstacles of what may've preceded the project. I am pretty familiar with Ress and Jones & Co, though, and the USGA, so maybe I will ask them at some point.

I did attend a superintendents conference in Atlantic City about five years ago where the Bethpage super spoke about the restoration project and some of the facets of it such as the space between the greenside bunkers and the greens.

But frankly, some of this particular thread on Bethpage is not so much a question of the project at Bethpage per se, it's a question of your continuous insistence that the Jones project was a redesign despite your lack of familiarity with the course. I think most of these recent threads are asking you  to more accurately prove why you say that.

Again, if the comparative photos of #16 and #17 are examples of what you are using to prove "redesign", I, for one, don't but that.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 06:52:09 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2006, 10:50:25 AM »
TE
I would disagree with your assessment. No doubt there are others more familar with the golf course today (I've played it once) and more familar with the golf course of the last couple of decades, but I reckon I've given the original design more study and the early architectural history of the course more study than just about anyone on this site, with the exception perhaps of Phil (and even there I'm not sure because Phil is not really into the details of architecture). And afterall the original design is what we are talking about here, the success of restoring the original architecture.

What happens with these threads on restoration - like Bethpage, Engineers, Aronimink, Yale, Hollywood etc. - is that the critical look at the restoration is often considered a criticism of the quality of the golf course, today. You can say all you want, that the golf course is still very good (despite the inaccuracy of the restoration work), but invariably they don't hear you, and many will interpret your analysis as an attack on their favorite golf course (or the guy they befriended who did the work).

Most of these golf courses are still very good it is just that they could've been, and should've been, a lot better.

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2006, 11:04:44 AM »
Tom Mac

I do understand where you are coming from with that last reply.  Still, let me disagree with your assessment that Bethpage is a redesign. Now you are saying that it could or should have been better.

Is it a redesign?  

What is your definition of a redesign.  That might help us to see where we differ.

I totally agree with TEP's argument that it is important especially in this case to see what was there in 1969 when I first played the course all the way to 1996 before Rees did the work and when the USGA officials played and evaluated its merits and potential.

I have said it before and I repeat- This project was in a manner of speaking a pact with the devil.  Had the USGA not seen the greatness in BB and the state of NY not agreed to allow their funding the work WITH THE EXPRESSED MANDATE OF HOLDING A US OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP then BB would still look like I remember it in 1969. It would be an obscure great muni with a local population who loved and appreciated it (I was one of these from 1969-1975).

We must live in the real world and those are facts.  I still would like to see a single course that can hold up to the same scrutiny you give Bethpage Black when comparing a present day course to its state 70 or more years ago.

edit- As an aside - This discussion does not belong in a thread titled - Architectural Crimes.  It is in fact a great gift to the golfing community that this course came out of hibernation and is recognized throughout the world.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 11:12:15 AM by Geoffrey Childs »

Mike_Golden

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2006, 11:39:07 AM »
and to tell you the truth, the more I look at it, I can't even say that I'm sure that these represent the same shot values.  Look at the front left corner of the 16th green in 1938.  There appears to be a neat little pin position there that might have dangled near a falloff.  It's gone.

And look at the front right portion of #17.  The Tille green extends closer to the player than the Rees version.  As we all know, that's a falloff area, too.  Tillie's green probably had more cant to it in that front right corner than Rees's.  Wouldn't you agree?  

Geoff, I don't think I'm known as one of the Rees bashers here.  I've seen a handful of his US Open works, and I liked the majority of it.  And I understand that this type of work is done by HUMAN BEINGS, and that human beings are not robots or computers and they do make mistakes.  If a guy gets it pretty doggone close, that's about all you can ask of a man.  I get that.  

I also get what Phillip is saying.  A restoration can include changes to a course that honor original design, shot value, decisionmaking and strategic intent.  I think his example of #4 is valid.  But greensites are different.  Then or now, regardless of the effect of technology, whether a bunker is smack up against the green or set a few feet away matters.  Whether a pin position exists near a falloff matters.  The depth of the green matters.   So in a true restoration, greensites shouldn't have many, if any, changes from the original for this simple reason:  say what you will about technology, but it hasn't affected bunker shots or chips or putts all that much over the years.  Those are constants.  (I'm ignoring the 60 degree wedge argument because if you tried to restore a greensite to maintain the difficulty of the shots around the greens to factor in the 60 degree wedge, you'd have to deepen every bunker in the world by about 6 feet, which is just silly).  

I'm not so sure that I can honestly say that Rees stayed faithful to the original design in this case, based on this evidence.  

I guess I just don't belong in this group of esteemed nitpickers.  But, based on my 300+ rounds at BPB before the work in the late 90's and my 4 rounds afterwards I saw no appreciable difference between the two golf courses.  Great golf course before, great golf course after, with little or no substantive changes to the way the course is played, hole by hole.

OK, back to your nitpicking.

Kyle Harris

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2006, 11:40:56 AM »
Now, to say that what was done to the 14th hole was anything other than Rees original work would be dead wrong.

Please tell or show me how or why that change was justified if the effort was to preserve the Black.

Just don't touch the Red, please.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2006, 11:53:37 AM »

I totally agree with TEP's argument that it is important especially in this case to see what was there in 1969 when I first played the course all the way to 1996 before Rees did the work and when the USGA officials played and evaluated its merits and potential.

I have said it before and I repeat- This project was in a manner of speaking a pact with the devil.  Had the USGA not seen the greatness in BB and the state of NY not agreed to allow their funding the work WITH THE EXPRESSED MANDATE OF HOLDING A US OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP then BB would still look like I remember it in 1969. It would be an obscure great muni with a local population who loved and appreciated it (I was one of these from 1969-1975).

We must live in the real world and those are facts.  I still would like to see a single course that can hold up to the same scrutiny you give Bethpage Black when comparing a present day course to its state 70 or more years ago.

edit- As an aside - This discussion does not belong in a thread titled - Architectural Crimes.  It is in fact a great gift to the golfing community that this course came out of hibernation and is recognized throughout the world.

Geoffrey - These comments seem like an aside from whether or not the Black is a redesign or restoration. That the course is better than it was in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the same could have been said if it was plowed under and Doak or C&C built in its place their finest work to date.

In my opinion, the fact that 1) the course is an improvement over what existed prior to 1999, or 2) there was a mandate to hold a USGA tournament, shouldn't matter whatever to whether or not its a Rees design or a Tillie restored.

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #62 on: July 09, 2006, 03:58:17 PM »
Geoffrey
Obviously there are different degrees of redesign, and maybe there should be different terms for wholesale redesign, significant redesign, moderate redesign and minor redesign. It was not a wholesale redesign because the routing was kept intact, but for whatever reason Rees chose to leave his mark throughout the golf course with the bunkering, which is really a shame considering the architectural significance of the design and the fact everyone involved claimed it was a restoration. The bunkering was a major component of the original design, perhaps THE major component (along with the use of the terrain). It may have been Tilly’s most boldly bunkered golf course.

I understand your point about the poor state of the course, and the double edged sword of the USGA's money and the USGA's lack of appreciation for historic golf architecture (along with their US Open doctors). I just think it is important to bring attention to Tillinghast's brilliant original work and hold those responsible for changing it accountable.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2006, 04:56:15 PM »
Tom MacWood,

The problem with your statement in post # 61 is your assumption that clubs WANTED a restoration, when in most cases they didn't.

The opted for something other than a pure restoration.

What happened at your beloved Scarlet Course at Ohio State, despite all of  your research and imput ?

You view these projects in a theoretical, almost romantic vein, ignoring the reality of the situation and "the will of the membership", which, in the ultimate, dictates the final product.

Hollywood was altered long before Rees Jones began his work.
The members, well aware of the golf course's early look and configuration didn't want to restore it.

I would have loved to have seen the golf course restored to the aerial that hangs in the Men's locker room, but, that's not what the members wanted.

As to the other clubs, I suspect that the members made their choice with respect to what they wanted.

With respect to Aronomink, you can't fault a membership for restoring the golf course such that it mirrored the original detailed Ross Plans and field notes.

I prefer pure restorations because they leave no room for interpretive design if the original plans or aerials are available.

But, I realize that the members are the ones who rightly or wrongly modify the golf course to suit their preferences.

And, once they make those decisions, the architect becomes the instrument to do their bidding.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #64 on: July 09, 2006, 05:03:48 PM »


And, once they make those decisions, the architect becomes the instrument to do their bidding.


Pat - If that's the case (that the membership didn't want a pure restoration) that should preclude the architect from claiming it as such, no?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 05:04:04 PM by SPDB »

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2006, 09:36:28 PM »
Pat
The Scarlet was not a restoration...a design has to have existed to be restored.

Please, no more Rees apologies. Of course Hollywood was altered before he got there - so was Aronimink, Engineers, Quaker Ridge and Bethpage before blank got involved in their restoration - that is why those courses were in need of a restoration.

No doubt each case has a different story, who did what and who didn't, but no matter the case there is no reason why we should not bring to everyones attention the brilliance of those designs and hold those responsible for changing them accountable, especially when they are selling everyone a restoration.

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2006, 09:49:02 PM »
Tom Mac

Like Mike Golden who has played the course many more times then I, I think you are really nitpicking over the bunker changes and I still defy you to find another golf course that fits the criteria you require and survives the magnifying glass.

Kyle - The changes to 14 at BB were a horrible mistake.  I hate what was done to that hole. I don't like the new bunkering on #8 either although its better then the sewer-like little pond that was to the left of the green from 1969-?.

What golf course (if any) that you have visited would you consider a true restoration?

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2006, 10:12:32 PM »
Geof
What you are saying about Mike Golden goes back to my original point, Bethpage is a great golf course today, and no doubt the course is much better today compared to its neglected past, especially for those of you who played in those day, however the original Tilly design was its highpoint and for whatever reason Rees was unable or unwilling to restore Tilly's work faithfully...he left his mark all over that property. Is that nick-picking, I think Tillinghast's Bethpage design is worth nick-picking over.

Again it is still a great golf course.

Phil_the_Author

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2006, 01:06:21 AM »
If this post is overly long I apologize in advance as I haven’t been around to comment for a few days and I feel that there are several things that I would like to address.

I think the problems in any discussion about the work that was done to Bethpage Black are several things.  The first is the continuous lack of those who comment to recognize the mandate given to all involved and the reality of the scope of what could be done. This is exacerbated by the arguing over terminologies NOT DEFINED by those using them.

Secondly, there is unquestionably a bias among many on here, including some who have expressed opinions in this thread, toward the work done by Rees Jones in general and this project in specific. This has grown to the point where phrases such as “Rees record with restorations speaks for itself.” And “Rees chose to leave his mark throughout the golf course with the bunkering, which is really a shame… I just think it is important to bring attention to Tillinghast's brilliant original work and hold those responsible for changing it accountable.”

I say that not because I want to pick on Tom and Hamilton, but because it appears that our passions bring out an inability to hear what is being said. We all seem intent on being “right” and not with appreciating a viewpoint even when it strongly disagrees with our own. I don’t say that because I am looking to ameliorate the rhetoric and look for consensus; to the contrary, I only seek to see this be a discussion father than devolving into undeserved criticisms toward those who post and those involved who don’t.

Tom, you have been asked several times in this thread to give your personal definitions of phrases such as restoration and redesign and how at what point the two differ and where they may have similarities. This is important because this has devolved into criticisms based along semantical lines.

Foe example, I would define a restoration as putting a course back into a condition that meets its original design intent, most especially in the area of shot angles and values. That is why I can see the work on the bunkers at the fairway corner on the 4th hole to be a restoration even though the bunker complex has been moved from its original location. By the new upper tee and the shifting of the bunker(s) the shot angle and decisions that Tilly wanted the accomplished player to face on the tee has been restored. If the bunker had been left in it’s original position and the upper tee not done, the hole, even though the features would have been brought back to original, would NOT have played as original. That is why I believe restoration HAS to be primarily giving first consideration to shot angles and values.

I would define a redesign as changing a hole to play in a different manner from its original design. For example, taking a redan green and building four tiers into it.

At what point do the two things differ? This is not necessarily obvious. Consider a re-do (avoiding the words restore and redesign for the moment). Is it a redesign when features of the original are not recreated? If yes, which ones? E.G. – 5 Farms is about to have work done in order to prepare it for hosting the Senior’s Tour Championship in 2007 and beyond. If your goal is to “restore” them to original, will you then have fringes? If you do, then it is not as original because they didn’t have them until at least the 40’s. Is the act of putting fringes on them enough to say that it would change it from a restoration to a redesign? Undulations that were once quite severe have been softened. Knowing that the green speeds that they will be subject to both during the championship and for daily play will be much greater than when originally built, how does that impact on HOW you will restore the greens. How much of the undulations are put back? At what point does restore and redesign become different. Since the softening was previously done, would the putting back of SOME of the undulations then be more properly considered a PARTIAL RESTORATION rather than a REDESIGN?

This type of situation which is most applicable to the work done at Bethpage Black now becomes more than mere semantics and is actually a viewpoint of definition.

So, as to my first assertion, what was the scope of the mandate that was given to Rees Jones and what was HIS perspective of it. “The biggest part of our effort was redesigning and rebuilding the bunkers, and in some cases relocating them, in a style consistent with Tillinghast’s original design.” This is a direct quote taken from the book “Bethpage Black Course – Field Notes” by Rees Jones. His own words.

Now before all jump on his use of the word “redesign” as proof that he redesigned the course, he meant it in a different sense than how it might strike you. He was “redesigning” against the bunkers as they THEN existed, not from how they were originally designed.


Continued....

Phil_the_Author

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2006, 01:07:41 AM »
In an interview that I did with him and is part of my book, Golf for the Peolple: Bethpage and the Black, and makes an entire chapter titled, Me and Mr. Jones, I asked Rees, “What [would] Tillinghast would have thought of the work you did?”

His answer gives an insight into what he believed was his mandate and what he was attempting to accomplish. “I think he would have thought I finished it: I finished his
assignment. I think the nice thing that the State of New York did, is put those two plaques up saying that I restored it, but I actually restored it and finished it.”

He then went on and mentioned the only conscious change that they did and the reason for doing so. “That I went beyond what Tillinghast left us with and brought it into play for the modern player and really made it more of a Tillinghast style by sweeping the bunkers up to the greens.”

He did this because he believed that Tilly would have wanted the bunkers to be done in this style (one of Tilly’s favorites) and that he was unsure of how much Tilly was there when the bunkers were done. What makes this single conscious “change most ironic is that we now have a few pictures from the 30’s of the Black showing specific bunkers with the faces flashed up. So in actuality, by doing this he ended up restoring a lost feature.

It has been suggested that a number of bunkers are decidedly different in shape from how they were originally designed, and that this, therefore, proves that holes were redesigned.

I disagree with this conclusion for a variety of reasons. To me, a “redesign” is something done consciously and purposefully to BE different. That isn’t the case here.

My favorite author once wrote that, “Logistics are the assassins of ideas.” I believe in this principle.

The logistics of the work included land that had seriously shifted to the extent that almost every bunker was many feet away from where the original footprint was. This shifting also caused the surrounding land folds in which they were contained to have drastically change as well. An example of this is how high they actually rose. With the bunker shift the back side and mound tops became much lower. This had a big impact on how the bunkers could be redone.

In addition to this is another feature of Bethpage that had to be taken into account and worked around. It’s sprinkler system.

Shivas, you wrote what most on here would agree with, “So in a true restoration, greensites shouldn't have many, if any, changes from the original for this simple reason:  say what you will about technology, but it hasn't affected bunker shots or chips or putts all that much over the years.”

In the case of Bethpage Black you are incorrect; technology most DEFINITELY affects what can be restored to the greens and its surrounds.

When the courses at Bethpage were built being built, because federal money was being used, many modern technological advances were employed in its construction and design. Among these was the installation of a “modern” sprinkler system. Actually it was a series of pipes with a spigot to attach a hose to that could be connected to a large rotating sprinkler head. Ask any old-time Bethpage regular and they will recite how drives often found their way underneath or in the line of fire of a fairway sprinkler in the throes of performing its function. Those sprinklers offered many a wonderful break to the August afternoon player.

These same sprinklers were used to water the greens. Typically a maintenance worker would turn them on and off as players came to the greens they were watering. This system was replaced in the late 70’s & early 80’s throughout all of the 5 courses. When they installed the new pop-up sprinkler heads around the greens, they were placed based upon how the greens were being cut at that time. Almost every green had suffered significant shrinkage over the years but this was NOT TAKEN into account when these were installed, and many can be found in areas where green surface used to be.

continued...

Phil_the_Author

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2006, 01:08:20 AM »
Years later, Rees is constrained in his work by the reality of logistics. The USGA was paying for the work but would not pay for a repiping of the sprinkler system other than at 18 where the green complex was being changed. New York State was not going to spend a penny that they didn’t have to and therefore they were not going to upgrade the sprinkler system. So you see, technology does and did impact the renovation, though granted in an odd sort of fashion, the SCOPE of the restoration project.

When all is taken into account then, Bethpage Black was a true restoration project where the entire course was brought back to its original design intent. All shot angles and values, including those for the most accomplished of players, was returned to what Tilly had in mind, with the exception of two holes.

Nearly every person I have every spoken with, on GCA or elsewhere, insists or insisted that something HAD to be done to change the 18th hole. Since we are dealing with Tilly’s design intents what I think is important was his attitude that where a hole had to be changed, to change it; even if he had designed it.

Yet, the new hole itself still plays remarkably similar from tee-to-green as Tilly envisioned it. A new bunker scheme and a smaller green, but the tee shot has the same choices and the shot into the green was always to fly it in; even with the open front one would not play a shot along the ground as it rises too sharply in the last 100+ yards. The green itself is the SAME as what existed before with only a reshaping of its dimensions and not its surface. So the putts faced are the same ones that Tilly designed, just some of them no longer exist as those green portions have been eliminated.

Kyle, you stated, “Now, to say that what was done to the 14th hole was anything other than Rees original work would be dead wrong…. Please tell or show me how or why that change was justified if the effort was to preserve the Black.”

You are wrong in your supposition and let me show you how. First, you ascribe the change to Rees Jones. I can categorically tell you that the changes to 14 made since the Open, were NOT his idea. I can do this because I was there for the discussion and was asked my opinion on them before decision was made.

The idea for adding the new top green section high right and in back of the bunker was Craig Currier’s. When the decision was made to do the work, it was Craig and his staff who did the entire job.

The reason for considering it was to address what was universally felt as a weakness during the Open. The 14th hole was just too easy, mostly because there just weren’t that many good pin positions to use. By putting in this section it allows for some very challenging ones high and back right that will make the hole play much tougher in 2009. When it was agreed upon to do that, and only then, Rees suggested that we go further and extend the front left portion out and down to allow for a difficult front pin position. The left hand bunker was added to accentuate this.

All of you know that I am not afraid to share my opinion and this essay certainly proves that. I agreed with all of the changes. I feel stylistically they fit and that there was a clear need. Yet even these changes do not change the way the hole will play for the every day player as these tough positions will almost exclusively be used in 2009. The hole then still plays the same for them.

Also, the other universal belief from all who play the Black was that this hole needed toughening. T seems everyone wanted to see a new tee placed back across the service road, but the logistics to do this were insurmountable. First, a forest of trees would have to be cut and then a new hill would have to be raised. In order to create a hill for the tee, a literal mountain of dirt would have to be brought in and the hill would need pilings and retaining walls to stabilize it. What seems like a good idea falls once again to the assassin named logistic.

The only reasonable option, especially since the State of New York would have to pay for it, was to do what was done. I am waiting until 2009 to see how it stands up before I decide if it was the right thing to do. I believe though that it will be a wonderful hole then and now.

Finally, Tom, you wrote, “I reckon I've given the original design more study and the early architectural history of the course more study than just about anyone on this site, with the exception perhaps of Phil (and even there I'm not sure because Phil is not really into the details of architecture).”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am quite certain that you are wrong in this. You appear to take my not agreeing with what you define as definitions of redesign and restoration and how it applies to Bethpage and changes there as the reason for this conclusion. I would suggest that you read the interview with Rees in my book, Golf for the People: Bethpage and the Black, if you have it. Like it or not, you will find that I asked him pointed questions dealing with the work done and the reasons for it on almost every single hole.

Frankly, it is only because he respected my knowledge of the Black and its architectural history that he chose to allow me to increase that initial one-hour interview to over three hours in length despite his busy schedule, and that he made arrangements to spend even more time on other occasions in discussing more points about the project.

Finally, once again, I would really appreciate knowing how any & all would define the terms restoration and renovation and the aspects where they might overlap. I think it would create a completely different atmosphere for this discussion.

Also, Tom Mac, I’m going to be back up in New York during October. If I send you the dates far enough in advance, how about joining me for a day at Bethpage? I’ll make arrangements for you to spend time studying and examining the ACTUAL 1938 aerial rather than photocopies of it. You will be surprised what shows up on it that doesn’t in copies. Sometimes what one sees isn’t exactly what is there to be seen, otherwise Linus Pauling and the triple-helix would define our understanding of DNA (That one was for you Dr. Childs!)
Hopefully this hasn’t broken a Mucci or TEPaul record for length!

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2006, 07:38:49 AM »
Phil
“The biggest part of our effort was redesigning and rebuilding the bunkers, and in some cases relocating them, in a style consistent with Tillinghast’s original design.”

IMO the style is not consistent with Tillinghast. A restoration is restoring bunkers as they were originally designed and built, not in some style an architect believes is consistent with Tilly. Is the 18th in a style consistent with Tilly?

Relocating bunkers and putting bunkers where there were none is redesign in my book and completely altering the shape of Tilly’s bunkers in a modern stylized manner is redesign as well.


Now before all jump on his use of the word “redesign” as proof that he redesigned the course, he meant it in a different sense than how it might strike you. He was “redesigning” against the bunkers as they THEN existed, not from how they were originally designed.

I’m confident Rees knows the difference between the terms redesign and restoration.

I asked Rees, “What [would] Tillinghast would have thought of the work you did?”

His answer gives an insight into what he believed was his mandate and what he was attempting to accomplish. “I think he would have thought I finished it: I finished his
assignment. I think the nice thing that the State of New York did, is put those two plaques up saying that I restored it, but I actually restored it and finished it.”

I wasn’t aware that Tilly did not finish the course.

“That I went beyond what Tillinghast left us with and brought it into play for the modern player and really made it more of a Tillinghast style by sweeping the bunkers up to the greens.”

This is the Winged Foot effect. If Tilly wanted the greens to be like WF he would built them that way. Should Somerset Hills and Baltimore sweep their bunkers up to the green in the WF style?

He did this because he believed that Tilly would have wanted the bunkers to be done in this style (one of Tilly’s favorites) and that he was unsure of how much Tilly was there when the bunkers were done. What makes this single conscious “change most ironic is that we now have a few pictures from the 30’s of the Black showing specific bunkers with the faces flashed up. So in actuality, by doing this he ended up restoring a lost feature.

I’m not fond of restoration architects (and authors) who claim to know what an architect would have wanted or would have thought….What I find ironic is that you appear to be saying Rees designed these bunkers in different style then what he thought originals were, but as it turned out in reality he didn’t know what the original bunkering style was and the new style ironically was actually what Tilly built in the first place.

Please, that is too much to handle. What about the pronounced capes and bays he added…what was the reason for that?


It has been suggested that a number of bunkers are decidedly different in shape from how they were originally designed, and that this, therefore, proves that holes were redesigned.

I disagree with this conclusion for a variety of reasons. To me, a “redesign” is something done consciously and purposefully to BE different. That isn’t the case here.

The capes and bays just appeared out of thin air?

Years later, Rees is constrained in his work by the reality of logistics. The USGA was paying for the work but would not pay for a repiping of the sprinkler system other than at 18 where the green complex was being changed. New York State was not going to spend a penny that they didn’t have to and therefore they were not going to upgrade the sprinkler system. So you see, technology does and did impact the renovation, though granted in an odd sort of fashion, the SCOPE of the restoration project.

”In preparation for this year's Open, significant investments were made in restoring the course to its original A.W. Tillinghast design. Well-known golf course designer Rees Jones oversaw its rehabilitation on a pro-bono basis, monitoring every detail of the work. The $3 million project, funded by the USGA, included lengthening tees, re-seeding roughs, rebuilding bunkers, redesigning greens and installing a new irrigation system. “(A press release from the State of NY & USGA)

It appears there was a new irrigation system installed, if so I don’t believe that alibi holds….and even if it was legacy irrigation system I don't follow why the legacy features couldn't be restored? Perhaps you should also address Hambone’s comments about the greens not being restored to their original dimensions.

I’m a little disappointed that you appear more intent on defending Rees and his work then you are in seeing Tillinghast’s original design preserved, protected and restored faithfully.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 07:42:21 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Golden

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2006, 07:42:00 AM »
For those of us who PLAY golf, BPB is essentially the same course it has been for as long as I've been alive.

For those who LOOK at the golf course as a static canvas, obviously you can find things that are different.

Since I play golf, BPB is the same course.  The rest of you can decide which side of the fence you belong.

T_MacWood

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2006, 07:44:54 AM »
Mike
Shouldn't Tilly's large sandy waste bunkers been restored to the right of the driving zone at #4 and to the right of the green at #7?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 07:48:13 AM by Tom MacWood »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Morrissett's Ten Great Architectural Crimes of the 20thC
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2006, 09:38:20 AM »
For those of us who PLAY golf, BPB is essentially the same course it has been for as long as I've been alive.

For those who LOOK at the golf course as a static canvas, obviously you can find things that are different.

Since I play golf, BPB is the same course.  The rest of you can decide which side of the fence you belong.

Bravo Mike.

Phil - The expansion of the green in the back or #14 by adding quite a bit of space as a kickback has changedd the playing characteristics for all the other pin locations immensly and for the worse.  Its a much EASIER tee shot now that you have a much less chance of going over the green and pitching downhill to a back to front sloped green.  It is now easy to use the green extension as a backstop to funnel balls back to the center section of the green.  This was a HORRIBLE decision IMHO.

PS - I am somewhat offended that this discussion is in a thread entitled "Architectural Crimes".  If this is a crime then every urban golf center with munis deserves a massive crime spree.

Enough of Bethpage please.  Our lines are obviously drawn in the sand.

Tom Mac - You STILL have not provided either a detailed definition of a true restoration NOR have you answered my question about which course that you have visited most applies to your definition. Where have you seen a good restoration.

I want to dissect that course.  I also want YOU to to pick a course and show us that it is closer today to its state 70 years or more ago then Bethpage.  You choose Newport initially so lets get hopping on that comparison.

If you are not going to answer or can't find an appropriate course to dissect then please tell us.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 09:40:13 AM by Geoffrey Childs »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back