[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'm aligned in the same direction that you are.

However, I've been down the restoration/preservation road at several clubs and I can tell you that it's a very difficult process.

And, if the truth be told, you and I are in the minority with respect to the issue of restoration/perservation at most clubs.

To take your concept beyond individual clubs, forming some sort of confederation, with experts and leaders making decisions on behalf of the member clubs, that must then be passed down to these clubs as a mandate for implementation, is beyond anything that I could fathom.

There are so many moving parts that the process would become unmanageable and fail.

I think the only way for your concept to succeed would be to start out with a limited, controlled group.

The USGA and the Architectural Societies.
I think the marriage of both could present a well respected source to advise clubs with respect to restoration/preservation.

But, you'd have to get everyone at the USGA and the Architectural Societies to buy-in to your theory.

I do, and some others on this site do, but, I'm afraid that we're in the minority.

I don't mind that because I like it when everyone else is wrong  

I would suggest that you contact each Architectural Society and present them with a position paper with respect to your theory on restoration to the architectural high water mark, and preservation of the architectural high water mark.

Then, if you could convince an important publication to agree with your theories, I think you'd have a strong foundation for implementing your programs.

I think your thoughts well intentioned and in the right direction, but, the road ahead is difficult.

It's a noble pursuit.

[Mike_Young]

Tom MacWood,

I aligned in the same direction that you are.


I think the only way for your concept to succeed would be to start out with a limited, controlled group.

The USGA and the Architectural Societies.
I think the marriage of both could present a well respected source to advise clubs with respect to restoration/preservation.

But, you'd have to get everyone at the USGA and the Architectural Societies to buy-in to your theory.

I do, and some others on this site do, but, I'm afraid that we're in the minority.

I don't mind that because I like it when everyone else is wrong  

I would suggest that you contact each Architectural Society and present them with a position paper with respect to your theory on restoration to the architectural high water mark, and preservation of the architectural high water mark.

It's a noble pursuit.

Pat,
I would wish you luck but I do not think any of the legitimate golf associations such as the USGA would want anything to do with the fan clubs of the dead guys.....can't see it...
Mike

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I like your idea of getting the support from the societies devoted to an architect. The USGA and ASGCA no doubt have something to offer too, but they also find themselves in conflict with preservation...at least they have in the past.

As the body responsible for running all our national championships, the USGA often is involved - directly or indirectly - in the redesign of very good golf courses. This is long standing tradition which continues today. Do you see this changing?

I'm not sure what the ASGCA's position is on preservation, but there first responsibility appears to be to its members. And many of their members have been involved and continue to be involved in the redesign of important golf courses. They are also uncomfortable criticizing their members. While I think the main responsibitly of preservation organization is to identify and celebrate courses of particular architectural merit, I think there will be times when a project will be criticized.

I do not invision a restoration organization "making decisions on behalf of the member clubs, that must then be passed down to these clubs as a mandate for implementation." I agree that is crazy.

I see this group idenitfying and celebrating courses of architectural merit. Promoting preservation, educating, providing advice regarding historical information and other related issues, bring to light courses that may be endangered, bring to light courses that have been partially compromised, totally compromised or lost all together.

And I would not limit it to the golden age either, I think there are courses in each era worth preserving.

As far as the clubs buying in and the difficulty you've experienced. I would think getting people to buy into restoration would be most difficult, getting them to buy into preservation (and benign restoration) less difficult. I see this as an organization that would be primarily focused on preservation and not so much restoration. There are too many redesigns today in the name of restoration.

[ForkaB]

In a golfing contexst, "malpractice" is something a VJ Singh might say.....

[Willie_Dow]

TD - Had my linguica breakfast this AM with Mel, and I'd like to clarify some questions, off line GCA.  Give me a call ==== 508-996-2285

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I'm not so sure.

Don't view them as fan clubs, view them as sources for information about the work that their namesakes performed.

They may have information that individual clubs don't possess or perhaps lost.

If the common ground between the USGA, ASGCA and the Societies is the production of historical data, I can't see why they wouldn't work with each other, given that each organization would be interested in collecting and perhaps distributing the data.

It's certainly a goal or project worthy of consideration

[Mike_Cirba]

"If the organization is formed properly, including the right people behind it, and publicized properly the clubs will come IMO. But thats all easier said than done."

Tom MacWood;

I couldn't agree with you more. But it's time to get beyond the theoretical and talk about how it would work in detail and within the structure and administration of clubs.

You're telling me your opinion of my position on the Merion bunkers is because I've questioned Mike Cirba's position? That's really beautiful. That smacks of an agenda on your part to sort of tow some party line on here about the Merion project. That only underscores just how little you personally really do know about Merion and its bunker project.

With all due respect to Mike Cirba, who is a pretty good friend of mine, he had no real knowledge of that course, its bunkers or their evolution or condition before that project. He did not know what was going on with those bunkers before the project. I doubt he'd ever even set foot on Merion at that point. To date he may've been over there less than a handful of times.

Did he speak with anyone there before the project, during it or after it? I doubt it.

I've known that course for thirty years and really well, having been over there hundreds of times.

I was asked by what may be termed a dissenter to the bunker project before it was done to get involved and go speak with the project committee about what was going to be done with the bunkers.

I did that. I even took Kye Goalby over there with me because he had worked on Flynn bunkers with Doak/Macdonald at Atlantic City and he had what we felt was some great knowledge and information. Before that and after Hanse and Kittleman were sort of relieved from the bunker restoration project the club reached out to Crenshaw and then Coore, actually at separate times and in separate places. For various reasons Ben went really ballistic and Bill was sort of in a corner because of that. I sat within two miles of Merion having lunch with Bill just pleading with him to at least go over there and talk with them because they'd asked him to. I told him he could save those great old Merion bunkers if he'd just go over there. He just wouldn't do it. I didn't really understand back then why he really couldn't but I understand now, even if I still wish he at least could've just gone over there and talked to them. He probably would've said what we ended up saying---redo the sanding and drainage and just fix the surrounds that were broken down of falling apart. One thing nobody who knows anything about bunkers or Merion's bunkers before that project will deny and can tell you is that those bunkers needed capital maintenance in the worst way in every aspect and part of them.

Kye and I met with the committee, the chairman of Golf and Green, the super and the head pro on the course and went out and analyzed those bunkers before the project.

Our recommendation was that they simple do two of three restoration steps and not all three. We recommended that they completely redo the sanding and the drainage, both of which had totally failed and simply fix the bunker surrounds rather than taking them completely apart, throwing away all their turf and starting all over again reforming and reshaping the surrounds.

Kye even jumped into the fronting bunker on #12 and #13 and showed them exactly how to fix the some surround breakdowns. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

Well, apparently Fazio and Macdonald were near on hand and that apparently may not have been the way they saw it. The committee went along with their bunker project recommendations and not ours.

So don't tell me what my position on those bunkers and that project was simply because of whatever I've said to Mike Cirba on here about them. Frankly most all of what Mike Cirba knows about those bunkers and that project he heard from me anyway, and he knows that and I'm sure would be more than willing to admit it. Compared to me he doesn't know shit about the history and evolution of those bunkers, their condition before the project or the recommendations made before the project. How would he, he didn't get involved with the club like I did either? He has said he used to drive down Ardmore Ave. and look at them both before and after from his car, but Mike is smart enough and honest enough to admit that doesn't and can't give him much understanding of those bunkers and that project.

All this just shows again how little you really do know about these things you so gratuitously criticize. More people need to realize how bogus you really are on some of the things you say and criticize, and just how little you get involved. That's what I'm going to continuosly point out on here and your take on my position on those bunkers is a great example of your lack of involvment and understanding.

Sheesh...I was doing a harmless search looking for the recent thread on Merion West and came upon this post.   I knew my ears have been ringing since August, but I figured that was just work related stress and associated high blood pressure.  

Tom is correct in stating that I was not involved in the bunker project and had no real insider information from the powers that be at the club.   The only inaccuracy I'd correct is that I had walked the course a number of times prior to the project (going back to the 89 US Amateur), and played it once prior to the bunkers being revised.

I did witness some drainage and maintenance issues with the bunkers, including hornet infestation on the ones between 11 and 12, so I would never have argued that nothing needed to be done.  Like Tom and some others, however, I would have hoped the work didn't need to involve complete rebuilding.

For five years during that period I worked only five minutes away from the club, so yes, I did periodically drive over there to have a look around at the progress.  Anyone familiar with the club knows that much of it is visible from Ardmore Avenue, and a side venture up Golf House Road reveals a lot more.  There were also a number of times I may have lost my dog Skippy, so I may have ventured out there to talk to the fellows doing the work and being the quizzical type, I probably talked to them at length about their construction techniques.  

I also was fortunate enough to have played there a few times since the bunker work, and started a thread recently describing what I thought was a very favorable recent evolution of the bunkers, seemingly helped along with what seems to be some purposeful maintenace practices designed to get them looking delightfully ragged once again.  

As Merion has been my personal "favorite" course since I was a little kid, I've also done some significant research over the years, pouring over old photos, historical accounts, and such at different times, although nothing in the way of the detailed historical work done by Tom and Wayne.

So, although I'm hardly an expert on either the club or all of the details and machinations that went into the decisions, I think I have a bit more than a "drive-by" understanding based on my own keen interest over the years, as well as information and insight from discussions with Tom and some others who were more directly involved.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()