Does The National's membership know what it has?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Sorry George (and Tim)

I just thought that this thread was going way over the top and wanted to inject a bit of self-deprecating humor.  I'm glad that Sebonac jumped in too to remind us of the facts.

Cheers

Rich

[George Pazin]

No problem, Rich - I'm the one that always cautions about reading too much into someone else's post.

Sebonac & G Tiska -

Your points are well taken. Maybe the answer to Geoff's original question is simply yes, the National's membership does know what it has. You're certainly in a better position to judge than most anyone else on this site. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to raise this concern & speculate about possible consequences. Isn't it better to address these things before the fact rather than after?

[TEPaul]

The latest word from the East End is there's a faction who thinks hole #3 (the Alps) is a relic and that kind of blindness will never do in the future of golf architecture.

They've apparently asked Pat Mucci to come out there to help study the hole to see if it would play better as just a visible green that plays uphill! Not sure at this point if they'll go through with that change but if they do is anyone looking to buy a considerable amount of fill?

Pat is actually more interested in the movement of C.B's gates and the driveway to the right and north to make room for up to 60 addtional tee yards on #18! Pat thinks that decision is a go though and his concern now is when they do move the gates should they also widen them so he can get his Hummer through them with less concern about fender dings.

[TEPaul]

And furthermore, don't anyone say that Pat isn't a restorationist when it comes to "museum piece" golf architecture. He's also a true efficiency expert!

Pat has a plan B that he hasn't unveiled yet but I can tell you the idea is to just sell C.B's gates and from that income  reroute the driveway through the middle of the course and that will allow the "rediscovery" (or was it "reclamation") of the cape hole (#14) with its green out in the water!

There's a plan C too! That would entail moving the clubhouse over to where the old hotel used to..... Oops, sorry, it's too early to mention that!!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I hope you are joking when it comes to the Alps.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I realize there are some rumors floating around about NGLA, but no, I did not really expect anyone to believe that one!

[JFalk]

Geoff Shackelford,

Mr. Mucci asked some legitimate questions regarding National and made some comments relative to Rees Jones involvement at National.  You responded with a personal attack with respect Mr. Mucci's knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding golf course architecture.  Your response was one of the most infantile and pedantic that I've witnessed since discovering this site.  To indicate that the 12th hole at Garden City will never be restored due to his lack of knowledge or until he acquires the knowledge YOU feel is necessary is absurd.

Anyone who has played Garden City understands that the 12th hole is an aberation, entirely out of context with the remainder of the golf course, and that it should be restored.
It's ultimate restoration has nothing to do with Mr. Mucci's knowledge, it has to do with a prudent evaluation from hackers to well respected individuals in the field of golf and golf course architecture.

Rather than launch a personal attack on Mr. Mucci why don't you answer his questions.  It would seem that you either don't know the answers or you don't want to provide an answer because it will support Mr Mucci's position.

Tom Paul,

Mr Mucci asked you a simple question, to list the alterations or restoration projects at National.  You responded by jumping on Mr Shackelford's bandwagon and attacking him, calling him nuts.  Why do you find the need to personally attack an individual who asked reasonable questions ?  I would suspect that you too don't have the answers, or that the answers would embarrasingly support Mr Mucci's position.

I've sensed for some time, an air of elitism amongst a few.
If they are questioned or challenged, they strike out with personal attacks, diverting the attention from the issues, a rather Clintonian approach, that doesn't benefit this site.

I may not agree with all of Mr Mucci's positions, but I appreciate his candor.

I have been warned by the individuals who refered me to this site, to post at my own risk, that often posters are set upon by others who disagree with their position, so I fully expect to be crucified.   I only make one request, prior to attacking me, please answer the questions asked by Mr. Mucci.

Jay

[TEPaul]

JFalk:

Relax will you and see if maybe you can't manage a smile?

Pat Mucci was asked the same questions by us you think he asked us before he asked us!

Since he can't answer our questions his response is to ask us exactly what we asked him! He was the one who stated that Rees has already consulted on a number of holes at NGLA that were changed and when he was asked what those changes were his response was basically the same questions we asked him!

If you think I'm personally attacking Pat Mucci you definitely must be new to this website! Either that or you should probably work on your sense of humor!

You should also know that Pat Mucci has never asked a simple question in his life. His questions aren't even questions at all, they're simple his prelude to an attempt to argue!

But stick with the site and post more and you'll come to see that we really aren't elitists at all, we're just honing the art of Mucci attacking Pat at the same time as he hones the art of Mucci attacking us!

Jay: I tried to send you an email but it didn't work. Do you have your email correctly listed on here?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Mr. Falk,

You can characterize my post however you'd like, but yes, I am questioning Mr. Mucci's consistency and whether he has the knowledge and information to support his efforts to question an architect like Doak who has made it his life's work to study architecture.  I would like to support Pat's quest to see the 12th restored, but I can't with his inconsistency and obvious disrespect for those who make an effort to study and support their views with well-reasoned insights. You just can't passionately fight to see one hole put back to a certain year and look, and then throw out suggestions for shifting bunkers on the same course for today's game.

Furthermore, suggesting that Rees Jones can restore something to National while Karl Olson just rediscovered it speaks to my point that holes like the 12th at Garden City exist. There was probably a similar parsing of words or self-important views by club members that led to such changes. You can't have it both ways. Restore this, change this for today's game...they don't mix. That's why holes like 12 at Garden City exist, will the same thing happen to The National? I hope not. I suspect not, but with Rees and a new green chairman and a seemingly bizarre desire to try and be like the other courses in the neighborhood, I have to think anything's possible.

When talk of change is considered, no matter how minor, it opens the door to all sorts of possibilities, things that end up looking like the Trent Jones 12th at Garden City even (obviously the extreme). So I'm suggestiong that Pat can't see the inconsistency and the irony here. Why is that? I don't know, but I suspect that reading and listening to those with some experience in golf architecture and construction would enlighten him. Or maybe not.

As for answering his questions, I really don't know why he is asking about waterfalls or Atlantic City CC and disingenous views that I apparently have because I did not object on a post when it came up. That's really a rude stance to take on his part. But I suspect it's a calculated methodology: throw out a lot of questions and when all 40 of them are not answered with cited references (date and time of post, etc...), the person must be lying and making it up as he goes. There are plenty of intelligent people in our country who fall for this distraction tactic. So you have to give Pat credit, it worked with you, but I stand by my statement that he has underminined his quest to see Garden City's 12th restored, and that was my point in suggesting he consider reading up on the subject and understanding some of the things that have gone on in the past and why that would help him formulate a more consistent argument that would be taken seriously.

The whole point of this thread was to simply ask if the membership at National appreciates what it has and what has been done in recent years to "rediscover" the course CB Macdonald created. Is that such an awful thing to ponder? Is there a law that says we are not free to wonder about such things? I think it's been quite informative.
Geoff

[Sgt._Shanks]

The only "Rees-toration" that needs to be made at NGLA is for the membership to build entrenchments around the property with anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapons ready to take on all that wish to desecrate the Holy Land of American Golf Course Architecture.

[melville]

Any speculation on a replacement for Karl?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Arthur Goldberg was a good personal friend of mine.
I had a little hand in getting the original job for Rees.

Arthur wanted to out-Wynn Steve Wynn, he wanted to out-Trump Donald Trump.  He wanted to create a product for his costomers that would be unique.  I tried to convince him otherwise.  In addition our good friend Mario Formicella tried to do the same.  And, simultaneously, Billy Ziobro was also trying to convince Arthur to take a different path.  
You benefited from those collective discussions.

Rees supplied several renderings to Arthur, all of which were rejected.  Friction/tension was entering the relationship.
On the Friday or Saturday BEFORE the OPEN at Olympic, Arthur tried to reach Rees.  He told Rees's office that he must hear from him ASAP and no later than the end of the day.
Rees's office informed Arthur that Rees would be unavailable.
When Arthur hung up the phone, he turned to Wally Barr and said, Fire him, which is what Wally did.  He then turned to Billy Ziobro and said, where do we go from here, and the rest is history.

The good thing was that Arthur had softened his position on what HE wanted to do to the golf course, and with Billy Ziobro in charge, a more reasonable course was charted, that enabled you to produce your golf course, a golf course which I have said is sporty, challenging and fun to play.  But, we both know it was not a restoration, and I more than anyone understand the CLIENT'S MARCHING ORDERS to you.  They would have been a lot worse if it wasn't for Billy Ziobro, Mario Formicell and myself.

With respect to the 12th hole at GCGC, I'll give you and muster whatever member support I can for a REAL sympathetic restoration.

With regard to # 16, as I informed you, that was a theoretical exercise, not an advocacy.  Although, at some point in the furture, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at # 10 and the possibility of recapturing the left side bunker in the woods.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Do we really want to encourage leaders or members of private golf clubs to believe private business discussions regarding architect selection and/or marching orders will be repeated at GolfClubAtlas?

Please think about the consequences for this site if people start taking things down that road.

If the principals involved care to comment, fine. The rest of us should probably stay away from that sort of thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

The FACTS are as follows:

The 12th hole at GCGC exists in its present form.
I have advocated for some time a sympathetic restoration.

You created this thread, and HAVE NOT produced one supporting fact that REES JONES intends to ALTER NGLA, and that the Board and membership at NGLA endorse those phantom changes.

Your entire posting on this subject has been complete
CONJECTURE.  

While I would suspect that GB and KO may have spoken to you, one must look at personal perspectives and the influences of recent events.  I've spoken to Board Members who assured me no changes other than tee lengthening would take place.

When I asked you to cite specific restoration projects, you respond by telling that I don't understand architecture, that my lack of understanding of architecture and my inconsistency is what is preventing the 12th hole at GCGC from being restored.  Like you know.

I have not been inconsistent, you and others have.
The only voice which questioned the relocation and lengthening of the 1st tee at NGLA was mine, not yours, nor anyone else's.  But now, some other holes are going to be lengthened and you and others object, talk about inconsistency.

With respect to my questioning Tom Doak, you bet, neither he, nor anyone else is perfect.   I also have a duty and a responsibility, in the capacity that I serve the club,  to question Tom Doak.  How dare you tell me that he is above questioning.  How dare you effectively tell me to give him carte blanche at GCGC.  That would be shear and utter negligence.

Tom Doak knows infinitely more than I about architecture and building golf courses, but he's dead wrong about the 12th and 7th holes at GCGC.  You know it, I know it, and Tom Doak knows it.

With all of your knowledge and expertise, how is it that Riviera is making the changes you and others object to ?
Should I lay the responsibility for failing to halt those changes at your feet, like you tried blame the failure to change the 12th at GCGC at mine ?

Fair play doesn't seem to be your strong suit.  

The last thing you're qualified to do is lecture me, and my understanding of architecture.

If you want to debate the facts on any issue, I'd be happy to do so, if you want to debate architectural features, I'd be happy to do so, I you want to debate strategy and playability, I'd be happy to do so.  But, don't get so full of yourself that you think that you know everything about architecture, and that people like myself need to go read books in order to bone up on the subject, so that we may become qualified to discuss it with you.

Arrogance doesn't become you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I asked you to identify changes/alterations/restorations to NGLA and you avoid answering the question.

You take up the gauntlet thrown by Geoff, yet you are totally unaware of ANY proposed changes at NGLA other than what I listed.  How can you object to phantom changes that have never been described, or acknowledged ?

I asked why you and others never objected to the lengthening of tees under Karl Olson's watch and you're speechless.

Why should some lengthening of tees in the future upset you ?  Why is that different than tees lengthened under Karl Olson ?

I asked you why you didn't cry wolf when Tom Doak surgically altered one of your beloved FLYNN'S works, Atlantic City, and what do you do ?  You don't answer me, instead, you sneak over to Atlantic City last wednesday, hoping I wouldn't know that the trespass alarms had gone off, to see what had been done.   Would you say the changes are substantive ?

So Doak can alter a treasure, because the owner client ordered him to, but should anyone else touch one of your treasures, the outrage and wails can be heard across the country.  Nah, there's no double standard.  And, the reason you're getting tired of hearing it, is because it happens so often, and you're in DENIAL  

Question:  How can two people who agree so much in person, disagree so much on this site ?

Did you really think that you could sneak over to Atlantic City and that I wouldn't find out about it ?

And, should I let this site know that you also were seen sneaking around Galloway, a FAZIO golf course  

What's happening to you ?

Perhaps you should start reading some of those books that Geoff Shackelford recommends in order to get a better handle on architecture.    You could bone up you know  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Very weak. Tom Doak ain't perfect, but I think he would be the first to admit it. But to try to compare Rees with Doak proves how out of touch you are. If ever there was a quick kick on GCA, you need it now. Your bias in regards to Rees has not served you well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

So, are you saying that when the facts show Rees in a positive light, I should supress them ?  That I shouldn't post anything that shows or indicates that Rees tried to convince the owner to preserve the old Atlantic City Country Club, and not make RADICAL changes ?

Since I was questioned regarding the circumstances and facts, I produced the FACTS.

If you find the FACTS uncomfortable, why request or search for them ?

If you knew Arthur Goldberg, and our relationship, you would not question my response, and neither would Arthur.  

Arthur was probably the most efficient casino operator in the business, but he knew very little about golf or golf course architecture.  But, he did make DECISIONS.

You worry about what you post, I'll worry about and be responsible for what I post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Where did I compare Tom Doak to Rees Jones ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JFalk,

I've felt, since the day I logged on to GCA that certain architects enjoyed "most favored nation" status.

When I stated same, the assaults began.  It's just one of the facets of the site, and something I've become used to.
Most on the site will debate the issue, others resort to name calling and personal attacks when they have no other defense.
That tactic only validates my position.

You'll note, that despite your request, neither Tom Paul or Geoff Shackelford have answered the questions or addressed the issues I raised.  

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
This thread centers around the NGLA's decision to call in Rees to advise, which you tried to defend by bringing TDoak and GCGC in to it. Very strange move for someone who claims to be interested in golf architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, since early on when I weighed in with a hypothetical response that I "hoped Rees Jones would tell to the powers that be at NGLA and Maidstone to sit tight".  I stick to my hope that my response was more than hypothetical, not only because he would be in a lose/lose situation, but also because his personal architectural style does not "fit" either golf course, period.  No offense intended, but I've seen enough of his original and restoration work to realize that you're mixing apples and oranges.

But, I do want to clear something up.  

Back when the discussion of the new first tee at NGLA hit this board, I also voiced very concerned questions, which asked if having the tee out the right did two things that I thought might be inconsistent with the hole's design intent.  I believed it might make the hole more "visible", and also that it might make it a bit easier to avoid the leftside fairway bunkers.

I was assured by you and others that it wasn't the case, and left it at that.  

But, you weren't the only one who voiced concern about ANY fundamental change to what is one of the world's greatest starting holes.  

I would have made my comments if I had known Rees was involved or not, which I didn't know at the time.  That's not bias....that's caring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your contention is ridiculous, I never drew a comparison, you did.

Do you know what Rees's involvement is at NGLA pre and post Karl Olson ?

Do you know if NGLA has consulted with him since he became a member ?

Do you know of any specific plans to change NGLA ?

Could you inform us with respect to the above ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I never assured you that the 1st tee was okay, because I've never seen it.

If I overlooked your shared concern about the first tee, my apologies, that makes only two of us.  
Where were all of these Johnny come latelies when the 1st tee changes were announced under Karl Olson's watch ?

As you know, NGLA is my favorite golf course, and I am as concerned about its architectural future, as much as anyone, but I'm not prepared to launch an attack on anyone without one IOTA of supporting facts, as has been done by others.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Re-read the thread.

Geoff was write about your tactics - for ever question you fail to answer you come up with five new ones of your own. It never ends and honest discusion is stiffled. You need to turn over new leaf for the sake of good golf architecture and GCA. This was at one time a site when people were able to explore the subject and not worry about modifying their ideas. But that was pre-Mucci.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I remember the site, pre Mucci, when people, some of whom you probably know, would post under false names, attacking architects and individuals for their work and/or opinions.
People who didn't have the balls to identify themselves, yet rendered mean spirited diatribes.

I remember pre-Mucci when feeding frenzies occured, wilding is probably a better term, when one moron even said that Rees Jones courses don't make you think, and noone objected or found that statement ridiculous, because noone had the objectivity to defend Rees on that issue other than myself.

I remember the personal attacks without one IOTA of FACT to support them, and you were as guilty as anyone else.
Do we want to go back to Atlantic, Do we want to go back to your attacking me regarding Jews at GCGC ?

Even on this post, the implied theme is that the membership of NGLA are a bunch of idiots, and are about to wreck their golf course with Rees's assistance, yet NOT ONE FACT has been put forth to support that position.  But, the seed is planted.  Who drinks first from the rumored poisoned well ?

I remember the attacks on FAZIO and MERION some anonymous, some identifiable, by people who hadn't even played the golf course, post work.

If anything, I've brought a measure of accountability to this site, and inserted a measure of fairness, which didn't exist when I first tuned in.

I'm not going to apologize because I don't agree with the self anointed idols on this site.

If my facts are wrong, correct me, specifically.
If my principles or theories are wrong, correct me, specifically

But, don't whine like an old washerwoman and tell me that I've tainted the site, when you're stumped by a question or asked to provide supporting facts.

Instead of trying to constantly do battle with me, to constantly take issue with me, to constantly try to show me up, do something smart, if you can,  if you don't have the facts, or don't know what you're talking about, stay out of the fray.