[Dick Stanley]

Why is Oakmont in Pennsylvania looking to hire an architect? I was told by a member friend it was down to Rees Jones and Tom Fazio. Why? I love this place and it's incredible with all of the trees out now. Is this for the USGA?

[Ran Morrissett]

Oakmont is one of the five or six most original and unique designs in the United States.  To deviate from Fownes's vision would be a mistake.

The best possible slant you can put on this story is

1) perhaps they want to restore the 33 Fownes bunkers that have been lost through time.

2) my recollection is that some of the bunkers on the side of the fairways were in danger of becoming detached from the fairways by rough. Perhaps they want an architect to help them better establish mowing patterns to feed the balls into the bunkers?

3) they want to extend some tees back so that the ridges in the hitting areas will affect the tee ball as Fownes intended.

With the trees felled, the greens still at their original size, anything else would be a mistake.

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick,

As your member friend probably told you, Oakmont very much wants the Open in 2006.

The USGA thinks very highly of John Zimmers (and so do I!).

Hiring Jones or Fazio in addition to Zimmers is probably viewed making all the right moves to secure their objective.

[Dick Stanley]

It sure seems odd to me that Oakmont would need an architect for such minor changes, especially since they have handled their tree removal so well. I guess it disturbs me that in order to appease the USGA to host a U.S. Open, an architect is required to be on the payroll. Would Pine Valley need advice too if they suddenly decided to host a U.S. Open?

The other thing I now recall that makes this seem even more odd is that Arthur Hills was consulting for the club and everyone was pleased with his input because he was so careful with the Fownes design.

[Ran Morrissett]

Dick,

I agree with you - it seems hosting a USGA event = hiring an architect to tinker around = trouble.

Perhaps they want to bring the furrowed bunkers back  ?

[DBE]

If only you guys knew what was going on so that your speculation wouldn't be necessary.  

Do you want to know who has been doing the work at Pine Valley for years?  How about Winged Foot?  

Oakmont is down to three finalists......speculate who the third one might be.  

Finally, why not just ask the club president or green committe chairman?  That way you'd get the truth and not drag someone through the mud as seems to be the norm on this site these days.

[Dick Stanley]

Mr. Eger,
I was merely asking the question because I'm not sure why the course needs an architect at this point, it's done quite well for some time. No one was having their name dragged through the mud as far as I can see.

Sorry we all don't have your inside knowledge and wisdom Mr. Eger. I was merely expressing concern that changes will be made to a course I love. I'm sorry you took this so personally and that we all aren't on your higher sphere of knowledge.

[T_MacWood]

I believe Tom Fazio has been involved with PV and WF for several years, and I'd guess the third is Arthur Hills, he did the last Open work at Oakmont.

David
Has the hiring of a name architect normally enhanced or degraded the designs of potential US Open sites?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
To repeat your quote, ""Finally, why not just ask the club president or green committe chairman? That way you'd get the truth and not drag someone through the mud as seems to be the norm on this site these days.

I don't know what it is, but the second I read your post, I thought of something that John Low wrote in the classic book, "Concerning Golf."  He said "Committees should leave well enough alone, especially when they have a really fine course."

I would also like to know why you don't think that we should be able to call into question, the tinkering with classic design?
(i.e. Merion, Riviera, and now Oakmont)  

[Tim_Weiman]

David:

Tom Fazio's work with PV and WF is pretty well known, but to my knowledge sorting out who the consulting architect will be at Oakmont is still in progress.

Simply contacting officials at the club for the inside scoop is not so easy for those lacking a personal connection.

If one does have such a connection, posting information you are given is not necessarily a good idea.  John Zimmers, for example, is a friend of mine, but quoting anything John might say on the matter is probably unfair to John and unwise.

Tommy N:

I haven't heard anything negative about Tom Fazio's work at Winged Foot.  Indeed, from what I understand through friends at Winged Foot, one could hardly even call his work "tinkering with a classic design".

As for the Oakmont example, the "Committee", for all its involvement, has also pretty much limited changes to two areas: tree removal and conditioning.  I toured the course with John Zimmers not too long ago and also saw no evidence of "tinkering with a classic design".

I don't know what may lie ahead, but would hold off assuming the worst until someone is actually hired at Oakmont, they make specific recommendations and the Committee actually approves them.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
I specifically didn't include Winged Foot in that.

But what about Merion and Riviera?

BTW, Riviera is now fast becoming a shadow of its once former self.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dick Stanley,

I thought Rees' work at Baltusrol, The Country Club, Hazeltine, and other venues was widely accepted as positive, why would you expect less at Oakmont ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I'm inclined to take each project or proposal on its own merits.  Doing otherwise can quickly degenerate into "bashing" rather than a serious discussion about what we like or don't like about golf architecture.

Having not seen Riviera in the past several years, I'd rather leave it to people like Geoff Shackelford or yourself to comment.

But, still, that would be a story about Riviera not Oakmont. If and when an actual proposal to make changes at Oakmont is presented, that would be the time to offer judgement.

[DBE]

This is the deal:  Oakmont is interviewing Doak, Fazio and Jones.

The club is interested in lengthening some holes that can be lengthened (1,4,6,7,18), removing some bunkers that are not original, widening some fairways that have eliminated off line shots going into the water hazards (ditches)and continuing the program to eliminate the interior trees that started under the previous superintendent. Whether any of these things will happen is something that will be determined by them. The club is hosting the 2007 US Open.

The work Fazio is doing at Riviera is apparently supported by the majority of the members.  Original bunkers have been restored, tees built and even the eighth hole restored similar to what Thomas had originally designed.

Fazio has been working with Winged Foot since 1988.  Only in the last few years has the tree removal program been successful.  Winged Foot will host the US Open in 2006.  The last three holes will all measure in the 500 yard range.

The most notable clubs that have hired Fazio Design are Oak Hill, Merion, Augusta National and Quaker Ridge.  There must be something that the people in charge of these clubs like about his work.

Architects who have worked at courses that host the US Open have done some good and less that stellar work.  What frequently has happened is what happened at Southern Hills or Olympic and the USGA requires the club to correct the problem or never again will the Open be played there.  Frequently, the clubs have hinted to them by high ranking staff or Executive Committee members that there are too many trees or not enough length.  The clubs then resort to architects to help with making changes they think the USGA will like.

By the way, Arthur Hills supposedly made some changes to Inverness that some say are good.

That's all I'm going to contribute on this topic, you all can now debate and disagree.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the insight, David.

[TEPaul]

Amazing!

Here is a topic Golfclubatlas about a classic heavy-weight championship course in the midst of US Open jockeying or even preparation after being awarded an Open and some of the usual architecture suspects who get automatically bashed on here and who might be involved with the club have not been bashed---yet! Maybe we're making headway on this site-the site that some love and some love to hate!

Contributors and readers on this site are always keenly interested in architectural information. Speculating on architectural work and architectural information and bashing architects on incomplete and misinformation just ain't good. Speculating and bashing on the strength of an architect's name alone certainly ain't good either.

David Eger seems a little prematurely defensive about this site's reaction to what might be happening at Oakmont or elsewhere. I'm not completely sure why that is but David Eger has been at the center of these things (run them actually) for a long time and obviously knows the architectural players, the USGA, club and committee processes and so forth.

I'm very glad he contributes on this site and I wish he would more. So thanks for that information and let's this time see what we can find out nonjudgmentally (from people like David Eger and others), discuss the pros and cons of the architecture, architectural changes if they're planned and lay off speculation and bashing of architects on the strength of their name alone on work that they haven't even done yet!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

David,

Fascinating insight on the Riviera situation. First, the members aren't consulted at Riviera, and if they were, I don't think you've been talking to the same people I have. I've gotten calls every night this week from the members asking me why the heck the work is being done the way it is and how come the shaping is so awkward and out of character, and how Fazio would do this kind of stuff. Of course, I have to remind them that Mr. Fazio is too busy and he sends Tom Marzolf, which shocks them because they are told Fazio is on the property!

So how's this for restoration: they've discovered a bunker none of us knew about! A framing bunker to boot. I keep looking at the aerials of old #8, but no framing piece I can find. And of course, Tim Moraghan doesn't think Thomas's version of the green could receive shots from the new corporate tent pad they've erected, so they are taking the green to a place it's never gone before. That is called Reestoration!

The members that call me to tell me these things are alarmed that the seventh hole bunker is in the wrong place and is so badly oversized that people actually can't believe the best designers in the world could create something so out of place! And with the fairway not restored properly every tour pro will have to lay up with a 2-iron, which as I understand it is the "storyline" the architect wants everyone to hear to justify not doing the job properly.  

Oh, and they turned Marzolf loose on fairway contours. You should hear the moans! He makes Tom Meeks look like Monet when it comes to this stuff! He's pinching down the landing areas so the USGA can continue to take drivers out of everyones hands. Great test of golf that is!

We could go on and on, but the point is, the Fazio firm is doing this pro-bono work to bolster their reputation and put themselves in a position to charge more money. They are not doing this out of a love for classic courses, just read his book. He doesn't even hide the contempt. I just find it sad that they can't leave these courses alone and have to offer themselves for free to make up for their inability to understand basic strategy. But if the people running these clubs and within the USGA think it helps and improves their courses, well, they are getting what they pay for.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Why is it when I read David Eger's remark that Fazio (or Marzolf) was restoring Riviera's #8 to the way Thomas had it was I absolutely certain that Geoff Shackleford would respond instantly if he happened to notice this post?? And why is it that I seem to notice a certained heightened blood pressure in GeoffShac's words?? At least David Eger used the qualifier "similarly" restoring #8.

I spent about an hour early one morning last March looking at the developing restoration, similar restoration, redesign, changes that are taking place, or whatever they're calling it that is taking place on that hole and for the life of me I could not really figure out what they are trying to do.

At the very minimum I counted at least 17-20 trees that need to be removed between the alternate fairways to even remotely make that hole make sense (and there must be three times that many there now). Frankly something in the nature of a rugged depression or a barrance would be the best design way to go! And I have almost zero idea how the hole was designed by George Thomas.

But from what I could see last March if whomever is doing the restoration (or whatever it's called) on that hole leaves most or some of those trees in the middle (between the old alternate fairways) it will be basic mind-lock for any player including the Touring Pros as exactly which way to go or what to do.

And then there's the green end!?

[Daniel_Wexler]

As Geoff can testify, I have tried to view the Fazio organization's "restoration" of Riviera objectively-- particularly since any attempt at building/shaping things exactly as they were in 1927/29 would make them visibly out of step with what the rest of the layout has evolved into.  However, Geoff's above-listed points are, from my perspective, completely valid.  And here are a few more.

1) The "framing" bunker that they wish to add on the new right-side fairway at the eighth was absolutely never part of the Thomas design.  Further, having stood on the new back tee yesterday, it's very difficult for me to imagine its purpose; the new fairway is flanked left by a six-foot-deep, plainly visible barranca and right by a 70' canyon wall.  Few fairways anywhere are better "framed."

2) The decision not to remove the berm that runs up the seventh fairway is perplexing.  It was not original but rather added after the infamous flood to help prevent decently hit balls from kicking off the right side of the eroded fairway.  Not removing it now will result in tee shots hit dead-center (in an exceedingly narrow fairway) kicking left into the "restored" bunker.  If leaving the berm in is an oversight, that's embarrassing.  More likely it remains because of somebody's concept of
"toughness."  Unfortunately it's really just a cheap gimmick that members and Tour players alike will despise.

3) The contour cutting on the first fairway is so geometrical, it resembles an off-ramp on the 405.  Furthermore, it diminishes the hole's strategy immensely by removing from play the left segment of fairway so desirable for attacking a left-side pin.  Granted, strategy is not at the forefront of the Fazio approach but for a firm that takes some legitimate pride in their sense of aesthetics, this is flat-out UGLY.

Finally, the (many) members that I see can at best be called lukewarm about the changes.  Indeed, not one has been vocally supportive in my presence.  I'm not saying that supporters aren't out there...but I haven't encountered any yet.

So in the end I agree with Geoff: You get what you pay for.

[T_MacWood]

Certainly there have been some radical/reactionary views expressed from some of us on this site, some based on solid intelligent research, other times emotion has dominated over factual first hand judgement. But it is unfortuante that David Eger's view have become so measured and rare. From one of the most outspoken, brutally honest and experienced critics of architectual autracities, he now seems to be walking on egg shells.

I don't have a fraction of his experience, but I am constantly amazed by the insensative work done by these men who are favored by USGA sites. Trent Jones and Dick Wilson's work at Aronimink, Scioto, Bel-Air, Canton Brookside, Oakland Hills, Olympic, Congressional, etc. Fazio and Rees now have their own resumes - Inverness, Oak Hill, Equinox, Bethpage, The Country Club, Riviera, Merion, Pine Valley, etc. I would be pleasantly surprised if Doak was chosen at Oakmont, but from what I understand is to become of the 12th at GCGC, who knows.

[WoodironAndy]

Tom:

   I just recently had the pleasure of playing GCGC. The 12th hole kept it from being a 10 in my book. Here's hoping you could share some further information on future plans for the 12th as you alluded to in your post. Thanks!
                   
                     Andy Silis

[T_MacWood]

From what I understand they haven't decided yet; they're debating whether to acurately restore the 12th or create a new 12th in a similar style.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood

Sorry but I can't let you get by with including Bethpage in a list of "insensitive restorations".  We've been through this more than once but I still don't believe you have played or seen BB after the restoration or more importantly endured the HORRIBLE, ATROCIOUS, DEPLORABLE conditions that existed for the 30 years I have been going to the course.  I am all for exact restoration when possible (believe me- I take enough heat for just that stance in a different situation) and would have prefered the original rugged Pine Valley like look but I'm not sure it would work or be maintainable at a muni with sunrise to sunset play every day.  Moreover, I'm not sure the public would like it any better. BB is TODAY the best muni in the US bar none.  It beautifully serves the interests of all those golfers from sunrise to sunset.  Its a GREAT course that gives many golfers great recreation and pleasure. Leave this one be.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
I'll concede to your experience at Bethpage, but I'm not sure an architect can be credited for an increased maintenance budget.  I assume the increased budget is responsible for the new considition and a lack of a budget was responsible for the previous deplorable state? The course is far too soft looking for my tastes; Rees seems to prefer soft curves as opposed to the sharpness found in nature and preferred by Tillinghast.

We disagree about the course's practical potential as a rugged/natural beast. I'm not sure what your opinion is of the one new Rees hole--the 18th, I don't like it. But I'll concede to your experience, it may be a better hole than its predecssor--just not as good as it should or could be or Tillie originally conceived.

Which one of the courses I mentioned, puts Bethpage in bad company? I don't think there is debate as to the continued strength of all these courses despite changes. Scioto is also a great course, that gives many great recreation and pleasure, unfortunately it is not what it once was or could be. You believe Bethpage is as good as can be reasonably expected, I respect your judgement.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Oakmont's having hosted its Open, were these fears warranted or unwarranted? What of the other courses mentioned, not least Riviera?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()