Does The National's membership know what it has?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Chip
I'm saying that important architectural works like Merion, Pinehurst #2 and NGLA should be protected from 'improvements'. Just as important works of architecture are protected for future generations to enjoy and study. Of the most talented architects of our modern era, how many do you think would accept a commission to improve these courses? I suspect none, unfortunately there are plenty of others who would.

Pat
Many of our great courses were designed with flexibility in mind; but there is a limit to their flexibility. And we've reached it.

Moving bunkers is more than adding length. How do you duplicate the same feel, aesthetic and playing characteristics by moving bunkers on an undulating site? RTJ said he simply relocated bunkers at Oakland Hills, closer study reveals he did much more. There have been legions of courses altered in the last fifty years without a peep (Bel-Air, Scioto, Saucon Valley-Old, Timber Point, Canton Brookside, Garden City, Yale etc.), I'm not sure what that proves other than a lack of appreciation for interesting architecture during that period.

I agree we should not jump the gun before all the facts are in, but aren't you concerned by who has been engaged? Geoff asked you a very good question, why would you involve an architect who has NEVER shown a great sensativity or competence in working with great old courses?  Especially when you have one of the most talented men - if not the most talented man - in that field working in-house? Which goes back to the original question of this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The issue of moving bunkers is a difficult one.

In a previous response to Geoff Childs I raised the issue of the near tee fairway bunkers on the 16th hole at GCGC.

The first bunker (and I'll measure it tomorrow) I estimate is about 150 yards from the back tee.  It is a magnificent bunker, deep, with steep walls, rather square, but,  it is practically useless in the play of the golf course today.
The tee is back as far as it can go, right up to the property line.

What has happened over the years is that the strategic significance of the bunker has been lost.

To carry that old bunker gave one a prefered angle of attack to the green, avoiding it right put one precariously close to the woods, and avoiding it left gave you a most difficult angle into the green which included carrying additional bunkers near the green.

Like a vestigal organ it stands without function today.

So what should be done ?

Duplicate another bunker more in play ?

Move that bunker back into play ?

I don't know that there is an absolute answer but I would think, if you were going to be true to the design principles of Emmett/Travis that that bunker or its twin should be created in a position that brings it and its strategy back into play.

So in that particular circumstance, on that particular hole, I would favor creating an exact duplicate of that bunker, in its intended strategic location, leaving the original bunker in its current position.

The 16th hole would be a better hole from a strategic and risk/reward perspective.  The playability would be enhanced.
The golf course would benefit.

I'd be interested in your theoretical opinion on the above example and I would be interested in the opinion of golfers who have played that hole and have observed the bunker in question, and its relative impact or lack of impact on the strategy, risk/reward and play of the hole.

Could you sldo tell me, which bunkers on which holes at NGLA Rees or anyone else has proposed moving or duplicating at another location ?  

Is everyone tilting at windmills or is there a definite plan to make alterations, I'd like to know.

I'll address Geoff's other questions in the next couple of days as it's getting late and I have a hectic few days in front of me

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'm not sure your GCGC example shows that moving bunkers is acceptable - especially at NGLA. Do you think the Cape bunker at Westward Ho!, the Cardinal at Prestwick or Hell at St.Andrews should be moved? The obvious strategic influence of these bunkers has been lost or severely altered - especially for the top 1%. On the other hand, the exhiliration in seeing your ball fly over these famous bunkers is no doubt still high. Could they be moved and replicated? Only a fool would try.

I have no idea what they are going to do NGLA - as for moving bunkers, you brougth up/discussed the possibility. My main concern is with who is leaving NGLA and who is moving into the void. And the same with Maidstone.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

Always pleased to be in your company anywhere.  With or without me, I think you'll find the effect of the new first tee at National to be modest, at most.  The carry over the left side is now 5-7 yards further and the far bunker in the center is no longer "dead ahead", but there's only a 15 foot difference between old and new.  If they didn't know the tee box had been shifted a bit to the right, I'm not sure many people would even notice.

Tom MacWood:

While we seem destined to disagree on this issue, your observation about today's architects taking on the "tinkering" of any masterpiece like National is noteworthy.  It seems to me that there's a lot of reputational risk to an established architect in doing major work to a classic course if the job gets bungled by them, their contractors or interfering members/committees.  A small job (a few new tees, a couple re-positioned bunkers) which would be "safer" is probably not a financially attractive proposition to an already-successful architect.

However, I'll bet an architect who has a sub-specialty of "restoring" golden age courses would LOVE to take on such an assignment - big or small.  The "Open Doctor" would be my first example to support this.

[TEPaul]

Geoff Shackelford and Tom MacWood:

Really good posts on your part--really good! I can tell from two years on here that the issue of actually making architectural changes on certain courses has been tiptoed around on this website by some and it's a hard issue to take a square and staunch position on but you two have!

You have said on certain courses that really do have tremendous architectural significance and historical architectural interest that they should just be left untouched--no matter what!

I agree with you completely! Eventually the buck just has to stop somewhere and that's where it should. The technology issue is a cause that has and is having an ongoing negative effect and that should be dealt with. Courses such as NGLA should wait for it to be dealt with and do what they can to see that happens just so preserving them will be more generally done and accepted!

This is a hard issue, always has been, and also will be. I agree that NGLA, and those of that stature and significance should be left untouched so they can remain what they are but although in a way they are somewhat like the Mona Lisa to us they are not hanging on a wall under glass, they are still played on and always will be.

Nevertheless, the buck should stop somewhere and those courses, at least, is where it should stop.

Pat:

Your invention of a couple of new terms to attempt to make "distinctions" on this subject really isn't necessary or needed. Words like "rediscovery" or "reclamation" to make distinctions on whether "restoration" on NGLA took place and will continue to or not is just smoke to cloud and confuse and deflect a very important issue.

We all on here pretty much recognize what proper restoration is and isn't and at this point I really don't think the subject needs any sub-categories or sub-headings!

Particular changes are of varying degrees of "tampering with great architectural art", and things like trying to add tee length has to be carefully considered on a hole by hole basis if considered at all. But changes like moving bunkering or changing any of the actual "bodies of holes or greens" on an NGLA, for instance, should be absolutely unacceptable if a club like that really does understand what they have!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of moving bunkers, others were, I merely provided actual examples of where I feel the process has merit.  You avoided answering the question.  As to the bunkers you mention, perhaps those should stay exactly where they are, but that doesn't mean that every bunker should stay exactly where it is, or have its twin created in a more strategic location today.

I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but NGLA will survive well, no matter who the new superintendent is.
The "Will of the Membership" is the most important ongoing factor at any club, not interchangeable employees.
I'm sure NGLA will remain as it always has, with good hands at the helm.

TEPaul,

Could you list for me the restoration work you think was done at NGLA ?

Then we can ascertain if it involved any construction, relocation, etc., etc., versus reclaimation vis a vis mowing patterns etc., etc..   By dealing with specific facts we'll be better able to determine how to categorize each project.

F

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom MacWood, Geoff Shakelford and Tom Paul-

I agree with you totally.  

I think it's pretty easy to pick out the NGLA's as museum pieces if that term fits for a course whose architecture should be retained no matter what.  Myopia Hunt fits the bill pretty well too.  Who could imagine building modern greens complexes on that course?  

But a question that's interesting to me is just where the boundary between historically significant and not among the significant works lies?  I think Tom MacWood said it well a while back during our Bethpage battles. He said (Sorry if I'm misquoting) that if the membership would enjoy playing the restored course more then the altered one then go ahead and bring back the strategy and playability the architect intended.

[SPDB]

Can someone (anyone) tell me unequivocally that NGLA has indeed contracted, or engaged Rees, whether formally or informally, to "restore" the course. And also, whether that came at the expense of Karl Olsen?

until then, this discussion seems far too abstract to take seriously. Right now it seems like we're falling into the Holmes trap of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic."

[Tim Weiman]

SPDB:

I don't see any panic here. We are simply trying to have the best possible dialogue we can about a prominent venue that is is rumored to be considering golf course modifications.

If it turns out that the members rejects any modifications to the course, no harm will be done.

If the members really are considering changes, GCA is simply one more resource for them to consider in their decision making process.

[SPDB]

Tim,
it just seems that we're putting the cart before the horse here. Many seem to already be faulting NGLA for letting Karl go in favor of Rees, when I have seen no evidence that even suggests that. All I am looking for is an answer to a few simple questions which, I think, will help frame this discussion somewhat.
1. Is Rees going to be doing work to NGLA.
2. Did Karl resign (or get the axe) because of that decision

I think that answers to these questions may provide some needed insight to what's going on out there, if anything.

[Sebonac]

Chip.....I might stay out of this one....Lots of bizarre conjecture...

[C.B. Mac]

No real lover of golf with artistic understanding would undertake to measure the quality or fascination of a golf hole by a yard-stick, any more than a critic of poetry would attempt to measure the supreme sentiment expressed in a poem by the same method. One can understand the meter, but one cannot measure the soul expressed. It is absolutely inconceivable.

Today there seems to be a constant endeavor to make golf commonplace, to emasculate it, as it were, of its finer qualities.

[Tim Weiman]

SPDB:

The answers you are seeking might shed some light, but I wonder if they also cross the line into personnel matters at the club that perhaps we should avoid.

We are a golf architecture discussion group. NGLA is one of the all time great examples of the art form we love. Technological changes have presented golf clubs with serious questions. We should try to help them answer those questions.

But, I worry about personalizing this issue and how productive or counterproductive that might be.

That is why I've raised the issue of "groupthink", a theory which dates back to analysis of choices policy makers made during the Vietnam war. The author (Irving Janis, if a remember my political science classes well enough) made a point to stress the intellectual strength and integrity of the people he studied. Nonetheless, they all fell victim to thinking like a group, reinforcing their own perceptions and failing to seriously question the fundamental assumptions behind their policy perscriptions.

That is what I see happening here. Well meaning, very bright people make reasonable sounding arguments that really amount to nothing more than continuing the golf technology arms race.

We spend money on new equipment which forces us to spend more money modifiying the courses we play only to encourage still more "technology improvements" and the same cycle starts all over again. To what end? For what purpose? How does the never ending cycle of changes really improve the game?

I had hope that Augusta National was club uniquely positioned to bring some sanity to the whole situation. Unfortunately, it does not appear their leadership is inclined to. To the contrary, they have set an example fueling the golf technology arms race.

So, instead we hope clubs like NGLA will provide a different, more thoughtful approach, perhaps something similiar to the fine example Prestwick has set: don't worry about people thinking the course is "obsolete". Decades after the last Open Championship was held there, golfers from around the world still treasure the experience of playing the course.

I don't think of Prestwick as a "museum piece". It provides a joy few other courses can match.

I'm sure for many, many years to come people will also treasure the experience of NGLA, even if (or perhaps because) nothing is done to change the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood and Geoff Shackleford.

NGLA has had several alterations over the last ten or so years, mostly the LENGTHENING of tees, and yet neither or you, nor any other critic on this site said boo.

The first tee was shifted and lengthened within the last year and neither one of you or anyone else, except myself, questioned the alteration or said boo.

NGLA has consulted with Rees over the years while he has been a member, while these changes were made, and neither one of you, or anyone else said boo.

Now all of a sudden, NGLA intends to continue with some tee work, and I would imagine that Rees will be consulted and all of a sudden there's an uproar.  

Why ?  And why were you silent on all the other changes including the change to the 1st tee ?

To address a question that you and Geoff raised about the quality of the work and its adherence to the original architect......where was your outrage when a wonderful Flynn course was put under the knife by Tom Doak,
at Atlantic City ?  

Oh, that's right, I forgot, now waterfalls are OK because one of your fair haired boys has been told to build one.  But, when everybody else was told to build one, that was a no no.
What a laughable double standard some of you employ.

Rees refused, time and time again, to cater to Arthur Goldberg's desire and intent to build a Las Vegas style golf course on that site.  Rees argued on many points including telling Arthur that a Flynn golf course and a great deal of history and tradition was contained in the 170 acres he purchased and that those comodities were priceless and shouldn't be destroyed in favor of modern desert glitz.

Rees was fired by Arthur and Tom Doak was eventually retained.

Why was there no outcry when the original Flynn course was put under the knife and altered forever, Tom MacWood ?
Or, is it okay for every architect except Rees and FAZIO ?

Now I think Tom Doak did a nice job on the golf course, understanding what his marching orders were from Arthur Goldberg, and his designates.  I think Atlantic City CC is a good, sporty, and challenging golf course, but it's NO FLYNN RESTORATION, it's a clear alteration and departure from the original golf course, yet not a peep from you fellows, WHY ?

I also noticed that there wasn't much criticism when FAZIO duplicated 8 holes at PV for their short course, and added 2 more of his own.  

Was his work so good there that you were speechless ?

You can't have it both ways fellows.

Be consistent, and don't be disengenuous in your criticisms.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Boo!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,
Thanks for the explanation, Clintonian in some respects, revealing a complete lack of knowledge in other ways, thanks for putting it up online for all to see. Sadly, I now have a much better grasp of the Garden City situation as well thanks to your reasoning. I can see why your views on that situation are not respected and will never be heard. The situation you lament there is basically the same potential situation that many of us feel may potentially happen with The National. Unfortunately, you don't see the irony and I'm not going to bother to try to help you grasp the big picture here. It's beyond your grasp, I'm afraid. I would hope someday you will consider reading some of the old texts on architecture, I think you'd be enlightened...or maybe not.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

I agree and furthermore this entire ongoing attempt by Pat to prove bias is getting boring and sidetracking architectural discussion.

I don't think there is bias here, although there is some strong opinion about various architects, but Pat has raised that specter, a bogus one, and now many of us spend all this time defending ourselves from being considered biased!

Some of us like certain architects and say so and also say why. Just doing that alone apparently makes Pat think that shows bias against architects like Fazio and Jones. I guess he expects if someone says something nice about an architect, logically they should then say something nice about all other architects, and certainly Jones and Fazio because failing to do that would constitute bias towards those unmentioned architects.

These "bias" threads are a bloody waste of time, in my book!

Pat even asked me in the last day if I'm afraid to question who he called "the guru Doak". I recall questioning Doak about one thing or another on every course of his I know, and he answered. One of those threads even created a major league argument on here with some guy who asked me how I could ever question an architect like Tom Doak.

But I guess Pat missed that one too, or else it's just convenient for him to overlook it when he starts another thread defending a few highly successful architects from "bias" on Golfclubatlas!

I'm not getting involved in anymore threads that discuss this "straw man" Pat calls "bias" and I suggest others do the same!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

Interesting post about GCGC.

Are you saying that you favor the continuation of the existing
12th hole at GCGC and that you disagree with my position that a sympathetic restoration should be embarked upon ?

I asked some questions about NGLA and Atlantic City, but rather than answer them, you chose to tell me I know nothing, but you, you know everything.  If you know everything, address the questions I raised about NGLA.

Tell me, specifically, how I'm clueless about NGLA and GCGC.

Why didn't you object to shifting the 1st tee at NGLA, I did.

I never knew that reading books makes one an architectural expert.

TEPaul,

It doesn't surprise me that when difficult questions are asked, you choose not to answer them.  But, how can you not address them when your beloved FLYNN is involved.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I completely agree with you that all this talk about bias is a complete waste of time.

However, you might be interested to know that offline I did have communications with a member at a prominent club who began lurking here a while back.

Interestingly, he described GolfClubAtlas as "neutral".

Given all this talk about "bias" we keep hearing, I was a bit surprised, but thought it said something positive about our treehouse.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You've got to stop badgering people on this bias thing! I already told you what I know and don't know about Atlantic City. Although it's been changed perhaps we will do some research on what it was before Doak got there but I don't know that now so how do you  expect me to answer you on Flynn at AC?

With GeoffShac, it's pretty clear he's saying NGLA should be left alone, period! I don't really see why we need to go over other things that have been done or GCGC's holes or something like that. What's done is done, this is today, most of us are talking about what we hope will not happen to NGLA!

Maybe they don't even have plans to make chances, we don't even know that at this point--but one can hope (not)!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tim

Are you sure that there was not some static on the line and what he really meant to say was "neutered?"

[Tom Doak]

Pat:  maybe we should simply all listen to you no matter which way you're blowing in the wind.  If you want to restore the 12th at GCGC, let's do that; if you want to move the bunkers at the 16th, let's do that, too.

With regard to Atlantic City CC, I've certainly never told anyone it was a sensitive restoration.  The client, at times, has tried to have it both ways in telling the press and public what they've done, but I have not.

Rees Jones did have that job at one point, but I'm not sure you have your facts straight on how he got uninvolved -- at least that is not at all what Billy Ziobro and Arthur Goldberg told me.  (But, since it's second-hand info and I've never talked to Rees Jones about it, I'll decline to say anything more.)

I've been saying for years that the goal of the Donald Ross Society should be to identify the few Ross courses which are best preserved and should remain so:  not, as it is today, a network of contacts for playing Ross courses and getting jobs to "restore" them.

I'd love to see Golf Club Atlas evolve into the same thing -- a credible group which would help preserve some of the great courses.  If it happened, I would feel a lot less guilty about getting out of the restoration business.  But you're going to have to be pretty selective about which courses fall under the category of "landmarks," or no one will take you seriously.

[George Pazin]

Disappointing shot, Rich - I hope you were kidding.

I don't think anyone wants this site to actually have power other than through discussion & persuasive influence.

[Sebonac]

I think you all should chill a little bit and consider the fact that Karl has been at the National for 15+ years....and it was just time for a change.....from his perspective....from the club's perspective...either...or...or both.....You are reading way too much into the ramifications of all of this.....

[G Tiska]

Sebonac,

Very well put! To many are jumping to conclusions.