I have a feeling this thread was inspired by my response to Pat Mucci's thread on his home course. Rich wrote, "I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years—all with a very high degree of competence and interest, I can presume. You could get 500 non-Mucci DG participants and give them 500 typewriters, 10 years, an unlimited travel budget and all the library cards they ever dreamed of and I would be surprised if they were to reach anything close to the understanding that he probably has of that course and of Tucker, much less a conclusion."
Pat agreed and said, "Research can be beneficial, provided the data base isn't flawed. Would one gain any indication of Tucker's work if they visited my club and studied it. The myriad of changes to the golf course over the last fifty years would confuse them, and I would challenge anyone on this site to identify all of the changes, especially the bunkers that have been removed, and altered." It sounds like he believes there may not be much of Tucker remaining. He goes on to say, "How would they evaluate entire holes that have been completely redesigned? How would they understand the order, the evolution of the changes? Talk is cheap, there is no substitute for experience." My answer: through research.
He goes to say, "What I find interesting, is that I am deeply involved in this project, have been on the green committee and board for over thirty years, yet individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do, especially in areas where they don't have the facts, and don't understand the particular circumstances unique to this club."
If I'm not mistaken Pat requested four individuals, none of which have seen the golf course, for their advice. I was the first to respond, asking for more information about the architect and the evolution of the course. My advice: if you want to preserve and restore the Tucker course (and it now sounds like there isn't much Tucker left to preserve), take the TE Paul route and present a well researched document as to why it was in the club's best interest. I wouldn't characterize that as telling him to go 'back to the library.' Nor would I say that advice discounts his 50 years of experience. The response was sad, but not my response. The irony of this thread, Pat wants to preserve and restore his vintage course, Rich feels that restoring GCA is a bad idea. Their common thread, they both disagree with me. Explain that one to me.