[Jason Blasberg]

Jason
Thats wonderful...I'm happy for you. Things are good why do you allow  these golf architectural issues to upset you? Enjoy your golf (and flowers) and let others debate the finer points of GCA.

TomMW:

I've tried to engage you several times over several months to have a substantive discussion about what is actually there at ECC and all you've ever discussed is what isin't there.  

As for the green remodelling, I played ECC a have dozen or so times before Tripp's work and irrespective of whether Gil or Tom Doak wouldn't have made the changes the greens today are far better to play IMO.  

2, 6, 8 and 16 play better today than they did four years ago.  You can still hit it in places on the green where it's just about an assured 3 putt but you also have many more pin placements.

Especially on 6, there are literally now 6 pin placements including a couple tucked over the right side bunker which really creates more strategic options.  The old 6 green was single faceted and no fun whatsoever, moreover, as Rob Deruntz has pointed out, 6 wasn't Strong's green anyway.  

I'm fairly positive that you haven't seen the newly contoured greens but yet you criticise them for simply being recontoured which betrays entirely your dogma.  And although I've said it before, this is the last time I converse with you (as you may see, I've deleted all my other posts on this thread) until you open your mind and embrace the concept that change can be and is often good, including change at ECC.

Jason

P.S. Good luck in the theoretical world and, IMO, you should stay there for you want badly the analytical perspective to hack it in reality.  

[TEPaul]

"TE
You crack me up. Do you think you are qualified to say anyone's opinion of Engineers is baseless? I get the impression your architectural archives won't be devoting much space to Herbert Strong. Yikes."

Tom MacWood:

I just can't imagine why you'd make a leap of logic like that (belay that---there's probably no leap of logic I have not seen you make). It seems virtually impossible for you to even remotely stay on subject with anything.

For about the sixth time now on this Engineers thread I have said I do not know Engineers, I have never seen it---so why is it you keep questioning that?

I'm merely asking you how in the world you think YOU can criticize, as you have, a restoration project at Engineers WHEN YOU have never seen it?

I certainly do not need to have seen the golf course to legitimately ask you a question like that particularly on a thread like this one where a number of people who are familiar with the golf course are basically asking you the same thing.

And the same goes for Aronimink, another golf course you've never seen and one I know a bit more about than you do.

The gist of everything I'm saying to you is that for anyone to make the critical claims you do on various golf courses and to have never even seen what you are criticizing is just ludicrous.

This website needs to know that about you and be constantly reminded of it.

If you're going to get involved in criticizing clubs and memberships and architects on restoration projects what you need to do is get involved with them before the projects and not after the fact.

And the first step in getting involved on a restoration project is to go to it. But maybe you still aren't aware of that elemental fact.  

PS;

The architectural archive initiative has developed a list of fifty of the most significant architects and I can assure you Langford is definitely on that list.

 

[T_MacWood]

I've tried to engage you several times over several months to have a substantive discussion about what is actually there at ECC and all you've ever discussed is what isin't there.  

Jason
Obviously your definition of a substantive discussion is different from my definition. Perhaps your idea of a substantive discusssion is to blindly praise whatever course you happen to be involved with. I have tried to look at this project objectively...praising the decision to expand fairways and remore trees, while questioning the recontouring and rebunkering in places.

As far as discussing what isn't there...we have been debating the decision to redesign vs preserve/restore...I know you are uncomfortable with history and the past, but it is difficult to make a decision on a restoration without studying what isn't there

TE
I have criticized the decision to redesign this landmark course...I know what he did and he didn't do. I'm certain this course continues to be a wonderful test, there is no doubt about that in my mind, and I'm certain decisions were made that did improve the course (expanding fairways, etc), but it is my humble opinion that Strong's design was worth preserving and restoring. I would have the same objection if someone tired to improve Riviera or NGLA or CPC.

Langford?

Can you give us your top 50?

[TEPaul]

"TE
I have criticized the decision to redesign this landmark course...I know what he did and he didn't do."

Tom MacWood:

Anyone can figure out what Tripp Davis did and didn't do at Engineers by looking at the plan or his website or the threads with his participation and some photos on here.

But that's not what I've been asking you. I asked you if you think the course plays better now than it used to. And if you don't think so I wonder how you know that? You can't answer that question because you haven't been to the course since the Tripp Davis project.

Others on here have and they've seen it and played it and they seem to rave about it. No one else can tell how good it is now without going there and seeing it and playing it and you are definitely no different. Do you think you're different? Do you think you can tell how the course is now and how it plays by sitting out there in Ohio and thinking about it and looking at old magazines and newspapers?

If so that's a pretty neat trick. How do you do that? How did you do that with Aronimink, a course you did not see before the restoration or after the restortion or for that matter at any other time?  

"Langford?"

I meant Strong.

"Can you give us your top 50?"

No, I can not do that at this time. Perhaps at some point after October. Most everyone on the committee work group submitted lists of top fifty architects. Maybe you should ask Gil Hanse or Michael Hurzdan if they can give you their lists but they might also say, not until after October.  
 
 

[T_MacWood]

TE
Is it the fifty most significant golf architects in the world or in the US? What is your own list...we have a very knowledgable group here that could give you helpful feedback.

IMO there is a very small percentage of significant designs that should be preserved and protected from redesign (within reason)...Engineers is one of those courses. Frank Duane completely re-routed the course, in essence creating two new holes...Davis made the re-routing permanent. He also redsigned nearly half the greens...not just any greens but perhaps the most extraordinary set of greens ever created (one of them anyway). You add in all the new bunkering and I don't need go back to see that one of the golf's most significant designs is significantly altered. That is a bad thing in my view.

You seem to favor the idea that any golf course can be improved, and you have no problem with an architect redesigning any course (if it makes the course play better)...be it the NGLA, Shinnecock, Merion, Riviera, Cape Breton, Cypress Point, Hirono, GCGC, Yale or Morfontaine.

You say go ahead and give it your best shot and you'll decide after the fact if is better or not IYO (although in the case of Engineers, Cape Breton, Hirono, Yale or Morfontaine, you have no personal or historical knowledge so its tough for you to make any comparison...that might also explain why you really don't care if they are redesigned).

I say don't touch them at all (except for minor touches here and there), they're too good and too important to be messed with. It is a philosophical difference between you and I.

[Noel Freeman]

TE
You say go ahead and give it your best shot and you'll decide after the fact if is better or not IYO (although in the case of Engineers, Cape Breton, Hirono, Yale or Morfontaine, you have no personal or historical knowledge so its tough for you to make any comparison...that might also explain why you really don't care if they are redesigned).



Tom- after this weekend I might be the only one on this site other than Doak who has seen all of these venues you refer to.. Of them all I don't think Mortfontaine is much different than it was in Simpson's day except for the par 5 on the back that Kyle Phillips is changing (that said, I don't know if he is being commissioned for more work).. Hirono could benefit the most from tree clearing and some bunker restoration but the core of the routing is still there.. Unfortunately, the greens that have been touched can never be recovered.

[TEPaul]

"(although in the case of Engineers, Cape Breton, Hirono, Yale or Morfontaine, you have no personal or historical knowledge so its tough for you to make any comparison...that might also explain why you really don't care if they are redesigned)."

Tom MacWood:

I've never said I had any personal knowledge of the courses you just mentioned and that's one good reason I've never commented on the architectural details of any of them. How could I if I've never even seen them?

You're the only one I've heard of who comments on the architectural details of courses you've never seen , and sometimes quite critically. That's the issue here.  

[Sean_Tully]

The only Travis course I've played is the 9-holes Great Dunes on Jekyl Island.   Loved it and am really intrigued by Ran's Hollywood review.  That said, would we not vilify a modern architect who came up with this?





Getting back to some of the roots of this thread...
My addition is from 1926 and for me it shows a far superior hole. Sorry that the image is so small but it is better than nothing.
The fronting bunker does a very good job of tieing in the bunkers behind it and challenges your eye for depth perception. It looks like the bunker in the back was not as noticeable or not even there(I have no Idea). For me the bunkers are a little to busy in the modern version and the tie in at the front is too obvious.

I have no idea on the timeframe on the Hendren photo, but if that is the current version I would be all for a restoration.

Tully

[T_MacWood]

Tom- after this weekend I might be the only one on this site other than Doak who has seen all of these venues you refer to.. Of them all I don't think Mortfontaine is much different than it was in Simpson's day except for the par 5 on the back that Kyle Phillips is changing (that said, I don't know if he is being commissioned for more work).. Hirono could benefit the most from tree clearing and some bunker restoration but the core of the routing is still there.. Unfortunately, the greens that have been touched can never be recovered.

Noel
Its ashame about Hirono's greens. How much do you think Hirono might benefit from a bunker restoration? I was amazed how well preserved Mornontaine...hopefully Phillips will move along. Based on what Ian Andrews has shared here Cape Breton would benefit from a reversal of some redesign work.

Tully
Thanks for the comparison. Hollywood is another of those landmard designs.

TE
I'll say it again...IMO there are a number of landmark designs that should not be messed with. Engineers is one of those courses and unfortunately Duane and Davis messed with it.

Are you trying to identify the fifty most significant golf architects in the world or in the US?

What is your own list?

 

[Geoffrey Childs]

I've tried to engage you several times over several months to have a substantive discussion about what is actually there at ECC and all you've ever discussed is what isin't there.  

Jason
Obviously your definition of a substantive discussion is different from my definition. Perhaps your idea of a substantive discusssion is to blindly praise whatever course you happen to be involved with. I have tried to look at this project objectively...praising the decision to expand fairways and remore trees, while questioning the recontouring and rebunkering in places.

Tom

Jason isn't the only one praising Engineers.  Robert D has probably more time spent on the property then the rest of us combined and his comments are equally positive as Jason's.  I also chimed in on the positive side from my visit. On the other hand, you are the only one criticizing the project which you have not seen. Since your posting of the comments made by Gol Hanse and Tom Doak we have learned that they both have recontoured greens at classic landmark type courses (Doak- Pasatiempo, SFGC, Yeamans Hall and Hanse at Quaker Ridge and Apawamis).

Bogey H

THat photo of Hollywood is really nice.  I would agree its a more aesthetic version of the golf hole.  That front beach bunker is however, quite out of play on this short hole (6 or 7 iron) but for the (pardon the pun) Bogey Golfer. I'd bet that the membership did not want it restored when it would only cause havic to the poorer players.  There are probably another 100 or more bunkers from the original course that were also not restored.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
As I have stated before the problem with criticizing these redesign projects is the reaction you get from those emotionally attached to these courses. They enterpret your criticism of redesign as an indictment on their golf course.

I've said no doubt Engineers is still a wonderful golf course, Bethpage is still a very good course, so is Hollywood. Yale was still a greatr course despite Rulewich. It is rarely a case of restored course=great course, remodeled course=crappy course

I don't know why you continue to bring up the redsign of the greens at SFGC and Pasatiempo...I have consistantly criticized both. As far as I know Doak did not stray from the original routing and/or create a new bunker scheme at either course....like Engineers.

I don't know anything about Yeaman's...what happened there?

What greens did Hanse redesign at Quaker Ridge?

You mentioned before C&C redesigning Prairie Dunes...what did they do there.

Why do you consider Apawamis a landmark design?

Does Robert work at Engineers CC?

How do you figure the bunker at Hollywood was out of play...it was directly infront of the green?

What was the mandate at....oh my God I've turned into Pat Mucci!

[Mike Hendren]

Just to clarify, the photo I posted was lifted from Ran's profile.  Sean was kind enough to forward his old photograph to me and I do like the way the large fronting bunker integrates the clusters on the mounds.  The modern photograph reminds me of a crab.  Gotta love the skyline in the b/w pic as well.  

Geoffrey, even us hacks should be called upon to carry the ball 140 yards on occasion.  

Mike

[Noel Freeman]

Tom-

The old pictures of Hirono show off some of the most stunning bunkering the game has ever seen.. That said the current bunkering is still attractive to the eye and serves its purpose it just isnt as artistic.  To me the greens would be the bigger loss, obviously not knowing what they were may make my argument irrelevant but both Kawana's and Hirono's weak suits were their putting surfaces..

But if some architect was given carte blanche at Hirono I would say trees then greens before bunkering would be the right order of business.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
As I have stated before the problem with criticizing these redesign projects is the reaction you get from those emotionally attached to these courses. They enterpret your criticism of redesign as an indictment on their golf course.

I've said no doubt Engineers is still a wonderful golf course, Bethpage is still a very good course, so is Hollywood. Yale was still a greatr course despite Rulewich. It is rarely a case of restored course=great course, remodeled course=crappy course

Tom- I realize that but I wanted to point out that you seem to be the lone criticism of this project.  While Tom and Gil had made comments they both subsequently themselves remodeled greens

I don't know why you continue to bring up the redsign of the greens at SFGC and Pasatiempo...I have consistantly criticized both. As far as I know Doak did not stray from the original routing and/or create a new bunker scheme at either course....like Engineers.

See above- those are landmark courses that had greens softened by Tom yet he made statements previously that he would not do so at Engineers so he didn't want the job

I don't know anything about Yeaman's...what happened there?

My understanding is that Jim Urbana and Tom Doak did not have any plans for the greens at Yeamans Hall. They were not available.  I believe they rebuilt 17 greens and possibly the first green more recently) using their knowledge of Raynor to interpret what they thought was there originally. What do you think of that? NOTE TO TOM DOAK- I think they turned out great

What greens did Hanse redesign at Quaker Ridge?
He rebuilt the already rebuilt (Fazio) par 5 first green

You mentioned before C&C redesigning Prairie Dunes...what did they do there.
Check with Brad or Jason for details but I believe at least one green was redone with altered contours and new tees built that changed the angle of play and therefore the strategy of the hole. Again- lets hear from Brad and Jason- I think they both liked the outcome

Why do you consider Apawamis a landmark design?
No - but it is a quirky as can be and it did host a quite historic US Amateur Championship. You should know that

Does Robert work at Engineers CC?
- you'll have to ask him

How do you figure the bunker at Hollywood was out of play...it was directly infront of the green?
Tom- Its a short par 3 that played as a 7 iron for me and I'm not a long hitter by anyone's standards. A good player would wind up in that front bunker maybe once per season.  The bogey golfer would be in it all the time. It is effectively not in play and the club probably did not want to torture its older memebers or those with high handicaps

What was the mandate at....oh my God I've turned into Pat Mucci!

[LPolisano]

When they cut the pin just over the front ridge on the 4th green at HCC, that front bunker would be in play.  In my years caddying at Hollywood, I saw a ton of balls wind up in the front rough, particularly when the pin was just over the ridge.  If the rough was shaved down to even fringe length between the green and the front bunker, the front bunker would get its share of play, from all types of players.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
What greens at SFGC and Pasatiempo were remodeled?

Why would Doak & Urbina need the plans of Yeaman's greens if they were the original greens?

I didn't know Fazio redesigned the 1st green QR. I hope Gil Hanse also reverses the work Rees did at QR as well.

I knew C&C added tees at PD...calling that a redesign is misleading IMO?

I don't believe every old golf course is a landmark design worth preserving and protecting. I also don't believe every old course is worth restoring. I don't know that much about Apawamis (I wish I knew more) but I'm sure they will be in good hands with Hanse. He (and Doak) is one of the best when it comes to sensatively approaching historic courses. Is their record perfect? No, but they've done hell of lot more good than bad.

Do you favor removing front bunkers on all short par-3s?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Lee

Thanks- I stand corrected.  For a good player would that front bunker (or the rough that's there presently) be a better "miss" then to leave it well above the pin with a really scary downhill putt?  Would that bunker still be a more penal hazard for a bogey player if it ws restored?  Do you think that was the club's thinking when they chose not to reinstate that bunker?

Thanks for your insight

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
What greens at SFGC and Pasatiempo were remodeled?
SFGC #8 and I believe #2 (not sure); Pasatiempo #11

Why would Doak & Urbina need the plans of Yeaman's greens if they were the original greens?
Maybe because they had been topdressed to the point where they were nothing like the originals

I didn't know Fazio redesigned the 1st green QR. I hope Gil Hanse also reverses the work Rees did at QR as well.
So do I!!

I knew C&C added tees at PD...calling that a redesign is misleading IMO?
I was told at least one green was altered.  I'll await word from Jason or Brad

I don't believe every old golf course is a landmark design worth preserving and protecting. I also don't believe every old course is worth restoring. I don't know that much about Apawamis (I wish I knew more) but I'm sure they will be in good hands with Hanse. He (and Doak) is one of the best when it comes to sensatively approaching historic courses. Is their record perfect? No, but they've done hell of lot more good than bad.
I agree with this in every point you made

Do you favor removing front bunkers on all short par-3s?
Not at all.  I was merely giving my theory as to why this specific bunker might have been nixed by the membership

[Sean_Tully]

Some more of Hollywood

The 7th hole then and now.
An excuse to test my skills on posting pics. Some of you guys sure made it look hard!





Original contours of green are a little more interesting as well as the shape of the green. Three tiers and a false front too! Cool stuff.

tully

[LPolisano]

Geoffrey:

For the good player, I always felt that missing into the front rough was less penal than knocking it to the back of the green and putting it back to the front hole location, mainly because the front rough was never very long or tough to play from.  Playing from the front bunker would be a different story I think.  It would be tougher than playing from the rough because you wouldn't be able to see the bottom of the flagstick, or even the green.  I agree that, if reinstated, the bunker would be more in play for the bogey player, regardless of pin placement.  For the better player, it would almost never be in play if the pin was anywhere except just over the ridge.  It probably wasn't reinstated because it would impact the bogey player more, as you state, but that's just a guess.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Thanks Lee. I appreciate your obviously informed view of the hole.

Those old photos point out to me that Hollywood could really use A LOT of tree removal.  I think it might impact the course for the better about as much as it has recently up at Yale where the bunkering remains less then it should be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Tully,

The current photo of the 7th green doesn't do it justice.

It has three pronounced tiers, not unlike the B&W photo, which is taken close to the green.

The archway to the 18th tee, which existed until the 18th tee was extended, is clearly visible.  It was a neat feature.

The photos you posted certainly highlight how invasive tree plantings and growth have become, especially at Hollywood, which is within a mile of the Atlantic Ocean.

Another startling photo is of LACC in the 20's I believe.
It hangs in the locker room.
At that time L.A. appeared to be high desert without any vegetation.  Today, its semi-tropical.

It's unfortunate that clubs continue to CRAVE isolation.

As opening up vistas, letting sun and air in to benefit turf, and wind to frustrate golfers provides the best combination.

P.S.  What's the date on the B&W photo ?

[Sean_Tully]

Pat-

That photo is from 1921.


Here is another photo, it is hard to make out but it gives another view of the course. No reference to a hole but the road running down the right side should be a good clue.


Tully

[T_MacWood]

I believe that is the 9th hole at Hollywood. You drove over the bunkers on your tee shot and they've been gone for a long time. Were they victims of Tilly's PGA tour?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()