[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
My first question was is it good thing being known as a major's plastic surgeon. I know professionally its very good, but as someone who studied the history of your trade and who I thought appreciated great old works, in your opinion which courses have historically benefited from Major championship remodeling and which courses have not?

Lake Merced was a MacKenzie redesign that was effected by the freeway and was remodeled by Robert Muir Graves, I don't doubt Rees improved RMG's work. I've always said there are plenty of courses that can use work - no need to disband Remodel U. Renovation can benefit many courses. I've said on more than one occasion that I believe Rees involvement will benefit Medinah and I have no problem with him tearing up Torrey Pines.

I asked if it was distasteful for some to take credit for something they did not do, not distasteful to be a Open Doctor. For example Baltusrol and Pinehurst, being the 2005 Jones triumph. What about Tillinghast and Ross, when do they get their triumph? My question is what did Rees do to these courses that you believe gives him the right to call 2005 'the Jones triumph'?

You said that Rees will have more tendency to interject improvements over pure restoration - would you characterize what Rulewich did at Yale or what you did it at Dornick Hills as improvements? I don't think 'improvements' is the right term, many times they aren't improvements especially when you are talking about a great/important design, and if you restore a course does that mean you turned down the opportunity to 'improve' it? If you have an important work of golf architecture - US Open or no US Open - don't you think one should attempt to protect and preserve that work? You don't have to freeze it in time, but I would think you'd avoid designing over top of it. Unless there is really no such thing as an important work of golf architecture.

I don't know what benfeting classics means either, it was your phrase. When I asked the question I was hoping you might be able to explain it and how Rees fit into it.

I have different view on the benefit of Rees and the USGA bringing attention to the 'classics'.  I'd like to see as many 'clasics' preserved as possible, and I don't think they need that kind of publicity.

[Jeff Brauer]

Tom,

We've batted back these questions enough to have a tennis match.  I have a plane to catch this am, or I would be tempted to serve up another one, but I think we should just agree to disagree.  The funny thing is, on the cross fire thread, I would say your sliding scale for what should be preserved and what should be given some leeway isn't too far from mine.

MY only other contention, using Lake Merced and Dornick Hills as specific examples, is that by the time the "offending" architect got there, there had been a convolulted architecture history anyway.  Even your favorite restorer would be making some real guesses if he attempted to put it back to its original state.  All I am really saying is that it is harder to do than to discuss in theory.

Cheers.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood-  I'm glad to see that you're actually getting out to play.  I have not played Congressional but my understanding was that it was filled with awkward shots pre-Rees.  What was so bad about what was done there and was that original course worthy of "complete sympathetic restoration"?

To answer your question, I'm not at all a fan of the restoration work that I've seen from Rees.  Bethpage is the exception and I explained that one in many different ways, the latest on the thread stated by Matt Ward last night.

WIth regard to other Tillinghast restorations, I think that Baltusrol and Quaker Ridge members didn't get faithful restoration of the look the original course was built with.  Those members should really get down to Fenway to see how it should have been done.  Its a real shame for Quaker Ridge since they didn't host a major championship (the work was done for the Walker Cup).  Had the membership used Hanse, Hine, Kittleman et. al. their course would be more of a joy to play, however, I do not know the changes for the Walker Cup well enough to know if the basic playability was altered.  Its still an incredible course to play. Baltusrol members apparently want major championships and in this case they will allow some changes in playability. I don't feel sorry for those memberships.  Still, their work could have looked much better and in character with Tillinghast had Gil's firm done the work and converted it into an "open worthy" test.

As I stated on the other discussion, I weigh playability more then esthetics (hense Bethpage is fine to me now and I'm thankful for what was done. If the price for that is a US Open so be it.).

I hope that answers your question.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
Thank you so much for recognizing that I've gotten out and played a little. I've played a few courses over the years, but certainly no where near as many as yourself. Perhaps when my kids are growed, I can join you on your road show.

Congressional was typical Trent Jones, not real inspiring, although the property was actually pretty good. And there were a few awkward blindish shots. Rees improved visability and rebunkerd the course - I believe he felt the course lacked 'definition'. It is better and I really have no idea what was left of Dev Emmet or even if Dev Emmet's design was any good. I have no desire to ever play the course again. I'd put into the same catagory as Hazeltine, Medinah, Atlanta AC, Torrey Pines and Sahalee as perfect projects for Rees to install a personality.

I didn't ask you to explain why you liked Rees' work at Bethpage. I asked if you considered it a restoration, as the article does, and if you did what exactly of Tillinghast's work was restored.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom-

Using a stringent definition, the work at Bethpage was not a restoration or "preservation" of the Bethpage of 1938. However, the results were quite satisfactory given the circumstances of municipal play and having to cater to a US Open. On the whole, the facility is light years better then it has been for the past 50 years. YOu ask what has been restored and maintained at Bethpage? The playability! Isn't that the critical issue?  

I have less sympathy for other private courses that want to hold major championships and undergo "restoration".

By the way, I see you actually said that Rees improved Congressional.  

[George Pazin]

I haven't seen the article yet - did they bother to mention or contrast any restoration efforts that we might find more sympathetic, like Gil's work at Fenway or Plainfield?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

George
The article wasn't really devoted to restoration generally. It was about Rees Jones and Hazeltine and his father and what could have been if Tiger was going for the slam.  I found the way the author and Rees portayed his Majors rework interesting. And I was also curious what others thought of the Open Doctor phenomenon.

[Rick Shefchik]

Beacuse Hazeltine opened for play just 40 years ago -- and was not a well-realized course at the time of its first major exposure in 1970 -- I don't think you could classify any of Rees Jones' work on that course as "restoration."

He did indeed Doctor the course, but as part of the ongoing evolution of a track that was essentially an adolescent in 1970 and perhaps a young adult in 1991. The holes were in their current configuration by 1991 -- the most important changes switching 16 and 17 from a par3/par 4 combination to a par 4/par 3 -- but the course still needed some tweaking. The 15th hole in particular has been completely re-bunkered, and a new tee was added to straighten the hole.

Having played Hazeltine a few times, I believe it's a much better course than it used to be. The essential character hasn't changed much -- there are still a lot of doglegs, but the worst ones have been softened and the best ones have been preserved. I don't think the course will need any major work before the next PGA is held there in 2009, but I'm even more sure that Hazeltine is never going to undergo a "restoration" in my lifetime. It's a relatively modern course compared to those we usually discuss here, and it has come of age at a time when the game itself was rapidly changing. Jones has helped Hazeltine reach its potential and stay in step with the modern players. Whatever happens there in the future will be a further attempt to move forward, rather than backward.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom,
Rees brought up something along these lines with me at the ASGCA dinner this year and he makes a decent case for what he does, versus what the Fazio group is doing. The best example is Riviera. Rees walked away from the chance to do his thing there and get a lot of publicity because he recognized the brilliance of the course. He openly admits the courses he takes on need work and weren't necessarily going to go down as architectural marvels (Pinehurst and TCC being the obvious exceptions, and what work he did at those was minimal compard to the others). So I think Rees recognizes which courses could only cause headaches for him if he left his mark. But, that said, Rees does have some 'splaining to do.  He is offering his services to his beloved Maidstone after initially declining and after the club interviewed architects and made their choice. Maidstone will show us if he's changed his mind and has just decided to milk every opportunity he can get to pad the resume, the formula clearing used by...

The Fazio group, which seems eager to jump in anywhere that they can get the exposure, regardless of whether the course needs work or not. What may be the greatest mystery here is the tolerance level of the clubs involved. Pat is right in one sense, it's the club's job to clarify why these architects are brought in and how much publicity the architects can milk out said club. I was ASTONISHED that Fazio took credit for work at Merion, Winged Foot, Oakmont and Pine Valley when he appeared on The Golf Channel. Especially Merion, which has displayed a peculiar sensitivity to architect's names other than Hugh Wilson attached to their course (even William Flynn!). Fazio latching onto these courses proved to be the finest example yet that he is in these redo jobs for the publicity and beefing up of his credibility.

And yes, Pat, the clubs, at least the ones claiming to be doing restoration work and in it for the love of their course (oh but still wanting their privacy), are to blame for letting Fazio use them like that. Do they feel guilty that they are getting him for free, or do they like the association? I don't know, but it definitely hurts their reputation with those who respected them for preserving their tradition, architecture and values.
Geoff

[Paul Richards]

Geoff:

You said:
> I was ASTONISHED that Fazio took credit for work at
>Merion, Winged Foot, Oakmont and Pine Valley when he
>appeared on The Golf Channel.

Why should that astonish you?   Mr. Fazio has already gone on the record that he charges a lot of money, he makes a lot of money, pays his people well, and contributes to charity.

In order to do all that, he needs some NAME jobs.  These are some of those NAME jobs that helps him get the big bucks for his original designs!

[Mike_Cirba]

Taking "design credit" for "remodeling" work, whether that's "redesign", "renovating", "restoring", or whatever, seems to be in vogue.

I don't know why we're so surprised.  For instance, a look at a list of Roger Rulewich designs on his website might be surprising to some...I wonder if he'll consider the hosting of the Senior PGA championship at Aronimink next year as validation of his reputation, ala Rees.  

http://www.rulewich.com/courses/

[TEPaul]

Robert Rulewich taking credit for actually DESIGNING Aronimink?? What the hell is that all about? I don't even see that he REDESIGNED a single tee on that golf course and if he did he must have been working for some other architect of record (in one of Aronimink's redesign projects)!

From what I can see at the moment, Rulewich taking credit for DESIGNING Aronomink is apparently about as disingenuous as Dick Wilson showing up at Shinnecock in the 1950s (after Flynn died) and telling the club he actually designed their course in 1930!! Good job of picking that up, MikeC! Someone should follow that up and find out why that kind of attribution or even mention is on Rulewich's website--and particularly in the list claiming DESIGN!!

Some of the other attribution on this thread, though, could probably use some clarification.

GeoffShac:

Did you mean in your post to say that Merion has displayed a peculiar sensitivity (sic)(?) to other architects other than Hugh Wilson? The context of your sentence sounds like you meant to say (in)sensitivity--the opposite, in fact?

If insensitivity to other architects, other than Hugh Wilson, is what you meant to say (as it would appear from your context), apparently they're no longer insensitive to the contributions of William Flynn. They may never have been insensitive to Flynn, actually, it's just that a good deal of historic research has been done lately on the formative years of Merion's architecture (probably stretching from 1912-1930 (1934) and they appear to be very willing to recognize the contributions of Flynn, particularly in collaboration with Wilson in and around the time that Wilson died (1924-25) and at a time when the course was slated for a bit of an architectural  overhaul.

I also believe that Merion probably is quite sensitive to architects today taking design, redesign or even rennovation or restoration credit for Merion. The club feels that much of what has been planned in any so-called restoration effort in the last 10-12 years has had a good deal of club and inhouse input in it.

In Merion's particular case Fazio was hired to do what they asked him to do--a bunker restoration, specificially to 1930. I realize that many do not like the job that was done on the bunkers by Fazio's company or the contrators but Merion asked for a 1930 restoration of the bunkers, not a redesign--and I think that Merion itself is more than willing to take whatever credit (or discredit) was done without have another architect added to the name of the golf course for architectural attribution.

Or put another way, Merion might not take that kindly to seeing a revised edition of C&W claim Fazio (R) 2000-1, if you know what I mean! The only reason I say this is the club did not take that kindly to Ron Whitten's (uncorroborated) article  explaining Merion's architectural attribution this way: Wilson H/Flynn W/Hanse/Kittleman!

Oakmont is very much the same, in my opinion! They know exactly what they want and have asked Fazio (and MacDonald) for advice in the restoration redoing of some of their bunkering (if in fact any redoing of their bunkering is necessary) and to build some new tees which has been done. It seems to me that Oakmont feels the architectural planning work that has been done is as much inhouse as the work of the Fazio/MacDonald organizations!

As for Pine Valley, we should all understand that Tom Fazio is a long time member and also a board member (long time) of Pine Valley. They've asked for his advice for years and he's probably given it to them but basically whatever has been done there has been done inhouse--work-wise.

Rees Jones at Maidstone is worth explaining too. Rees joined the club no more than 4-5 years ago. If he had an actual "hands off" architectural policy with the golf club and course noone seemed to be sure of that fact.

The club felt they may have gotten slightly beyond in-house planning and work recently and they contacted a couple of architects before actually asking Rees if, in fact, he did want to have a "hands off" policy architecturally since he's now a member. Apparently Rees said he did not feel that he'd indicated or said he should have a "hands off" policy architecturally so the club readily agreed to have Rees do whatever architectural consultation or work that they needed.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing any redesign or restoration work Rees or Fazio has done at other clubs but I don't think any of us should suspect either Rees or Fazio of anything nefarious for consulting or even working with or for clubs that they belong to.

Frankly, if I was an architect, I'm trying hard to think of a valid reason I would declare a "hands off" policy for a golf club I belonged to, particularly if the club asked me for my architectural advice!

Again, I have zero compunction about criticizing design, redesign, rennovation or restoration work of any architect after the work has been done but I can scarcely see why any of us should criticize any architect for simply agreeing to do architectural work. Let's at least see what they did before analyzing either their work or their motives.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

You said:
>Robert Rulewich taking credit for actually DESIGNING
>Aronimink?? What the hell is that all about?

Kind of reminds me what Bob Lohmann wrote after he redid some fairway bunkering at Beverly.  

Sad when those who know nothing read crap like that in a press release.  They might actually believe it!

[Jeff Fortson]

Rees the "Open Doctor" restoration architect is a lot better than Rees Jones the original course architect.  That goes for all the Jones as original designers.  In my humble opinion I think that at least 90% of all Jones' courses are abominations of architecture.

Their family problems are a backlash of karma from the golf gods for wasting prime golf real estate.

OOPS, did I say that OUT LOUD!?!?!

Jeff F.


All comments made in this post are not necessarily the opinions of GolfClubAtlas.Com nor any of their corporate sponsors of which they don't have.  The views shared in this post are the views held by one tortured golf professional in the New York City area and his alone.

P.S.: This Dr. Burk lady makng a fuss about Augusta National is maybe the funniest golf story of the year.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom Paul,
Actually, I meant what I wrote. Merion has displayed a peculiar sensitivity to certain architectural references that have included others alongside Hugh Wilson, as you noted. I think we know in which instances they overreacted to some rather minor circumstances. I'll never understand why, and I'm sure each time a member tries to get in and out of one of those lovely McBunkers, they must wonder how things got so out of control. So in light of that, I don't agree with your portrayal of the infamous "1930" restoration concept and Fazio's hiring, but we've covered that on other posts and frankly I'm surprised you feel this master plan evolved, no pun intended, in such a manner.  I'll certainly take Ben Crenshaw or Gil Hanse's word over a car salesman's anyday.

I also have to disagree that architects who take on home course projects are immune to criticism until they've done the actual work. For years Fazio was praised (at least to me by some club members) for saying the big 18 at Pine Valley didn't need help or some such thing, and that he knew it was not in his best interest to get involved (and I'd always think to myself, thank God he keeps his hands off o that course).  Now he's listing it as a consulting restoration gig when he's on The Golf Channel?? He doesn't have enough classic courses that everyone loves to list?   Fazio surely could tell TGC that he's a member and that they not list PV as one of his consulting efforts, but, he knows listing it pumps up the resume. That's why he's got Marzolf flying all over the place "helping" these classic courses stay modern. It certainly isn't out of the goodness of their hearts.  

I know of several architects who decline to work at courses they are members at because of the potential for a conflict of interest, or because they don't want to give the wrong impression that they are using their home club to enhance their business. I also know architects who consult at some high profile courses who don't want anyone to know. Why can't Fazio act in a similar way?  Is the publicity temptation too great to resist? Even so, where are the members saying it's not right? San Francisco Golf Club has never had any problem keeping RTJ Jr.'s hands off their course.

As for Rees, he declines initially to get involved at Maidstone, and now that they have interviewed architects and made a choice, he becomes interested in the job? I can't accept that these about-faces are above questioning. It's a competitive business, and the unfortunate conseqence of better understanding and celebrating classic architecture has been that some of today's architects want to get their name connected to the old architects for their own gain. I understand how this happens, and why, and several architects have skillfully managed to do restoration work, benefit from it, while still carrying on in a more humble, understated manner.  

As for Oakmont, you know the situation better than I, but I also know what the U$GA wants and how self-important certain staffers there tend to be when it comes to architecture and getting what they want (and boy havent they got a nice streak going in recent Open setups).   I hope the members at Oakmont are prepared to hear Fazio's name mentioned as much as the Fownes name in 2007. Oddly, many might consider that a good thing.
Geoff

[Patrick Mucci]

Geoff,

What really puzzles me is WHY classic, famous, well regarded golf courses are so anxious to make alterations.

If the members, before they were members, were so attracted to the golf course that they wanted to join it,
why is there a desire to change it once they get in ?

At some clubs that I'm familiar with, there was no clear understanding of what the club wished to accomplish, only the notion that they should bring in an architect to review the golf course.

In other instances, members with influence, with pet peeves about the golf course, seek to have them changed, and initiate the process by bringing in an architect, pointing out their disatisfaction with a feature and championing modifications to it.

I can understand a golf club, with a modest or poor golf course having an interest in improving upon the design and play of their course, and I don't think one could object to that, invoking prudent man standards.

But, I'm completely baffled by the willingness of the Committee, Board and Memberships to permanantely alter/disfigure widely acknowledged, already great, classic golf courses.

I think it relates to our evolving into the generation of a disposable society.   Pens, razors, marriages, history and tradition are cavalierly discarded today, why should they exclude golf courses and classic architecture.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

How have you slipped from "Doyen" to "Guest"?  

In the case of a few of the clubs you've described, I think the lure of hosting another major USGA event had a lot to do with it.  Because these courses were not being selected, they probably looked too hard to find something wrong that needed "fixing".  Then, with architects like Tom Fazio offering his services pro bono, coupled with his "I can improve any course" philosophy, you have all the ingredients in place for what you witnessed in-person recently, and what Geoff is all too familiar with in his neighborhood.

[Joel_Stewart]

Geoff,

What really puzzles me is WHY classic, famous, well regarded golf courses are so anxious to make alterations.

But, I'm completely baffled by the willingness of the Committee, Board and Memberships to permanantely alter/disfigure widely acknowledged, already great, classic golf courses.

Its because they either want to stay or want to be recognized as a classic famous course.  

Furthermore and it relates directly to previous discussions, when you have mini-tour players and young kids that can flat out play and come in to your course and tear it up, people think that changes are needed.  Some courses like Riveria, Winged Foot and Merion are measured by tour players, others like GCGC just by the play of the membership themselves.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joel;

I understand your point about touring pros and or national amateurs and "tearing it up", but I'm not sure I agree with your basic premise.

In the case of each of the courses you mentioned, they were already recognized as "classic famous courses".  

What course features at any of them put them at risk not to "stay" as "classic famous courses"?

Had any of them dropped precipitously, or at all, in any course rankings you've seen in recent decades?  

[Patrick Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

My computer line is down, so I have to borrow someone else's.

As one goes through life, one meets new acquaintances and friends, AND.... as a condition of your relationship with them,
if they want you to alter your life style, to begin using drugs for example, it's time to make the decision not to be influenced by them, and to disassociate yourself from them.
They clearly don't have your long term best interest at heart.

The same principals apply to clubs and third party organizations.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()