Oakmont CC 1938 VS. 2007 (updated w/ back 9)

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Let me ask you a related question.
You crafted a wonderful book detailing your club's architectural history.
You were involved with the fairly recent restoration/renovation/modernization of your golf course.
You worked hard on behalf of your club.
How were you recently rewarded for your efforts, your sensitivity to the membership and your supreme diplomacy ?
Were you ungraciously and unceremoniously booted out ?
Is that the thanks you get for being polite, sensitive and diplomatic when it comes to the needs of your membership and your golf course ?
You advocate and do it your way and I'll advocate and do it my way.
And after we're both too old and battle scarred to care, we'll sit around, have a drink or two and discuss which method left us the more satisfied.
Remember what I told you, "no good deed shall go unpunished"  


Pat:

No, I didn't get booted out. They changed the green committee but the time had just come with the way my club is structured for that to happen anyway but I didn't get booted off it.

How have I been rewarded? Well, I think I have been in all kinds of ways and a lot of people over there have been very nice about that---a whole lot.

But that doesn't mean either me or the committee I'm on can't or won't make some mistakes and I think we probably did. We didn't make any mistakes with the architecture except perhaps that 7th green I was partially responsible for with Gil but we took the time to talk about it and consider it and we fixed it.

Well, I guess I should also include the new putting green. I took some flack from some people on that and it seemed pretty controversial for a while but I think it's been accepted now. I think it's even become a good example of how some forms of controversy in architecture is a very good thing in the end, as MacKenzie and Macdonald said.

But as you know a lot of stuff goes on with a course maintenance-wise that doesn't have to do with architecture and I guess we made some mistakes we have to take responsibility for or else do an even better job of communicating with the membership about what we were trying to do before we do it.

I think those things are very important and I guess I always will.

I do realize you don't agree with that kind of modus operandi but sure when we're two old farts sitting around with nothing else to do some day you and I can sit down and talk about how it all worked out and compares over the long haul.

But I'll say this about you and about me, Patrick, even though we may not agree on the best way to go about these kinds of things----and that is when you get into these kinds of things, as we both have, you just have to be informed about a lot of stuff going in and after you've done that and done it pretty well you also have to believe in what you're doing or you'll never convince anyone or pull it off.

I believe both you and me certainly share that part.

On the other hand, if I'm convinced I made some mistake on anything, I don't have any problem anymore admitting it to anyone. Matter of fact, I'd prefer to do that these days as I think it's even more effective in the long run.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I said:

"Perhaps it's never occurred to you for some odd reason but have you ever considered that it may not be necessary to hold someone accountable for anything to effect a really good restoration on any golf course and amongst any membership these days?"

You responded:

"Those are two SEPERATE issues."


I see, Patrick, and in that case I suppose I now need to ask you if it's possible for you to deal with two or more issues at the same time??  

It seems to me these things some of us do at and for golf clubs have a whole lot of interrelated issues going on at the same time and it's probably both a smart and effective policy to learn how to deal with each one of them at the same time.

But maybe you don't feel that way or can't do that. If not my advice to you would be to try to chew some gum and walk at the same time to see what happens.

Get back to me when you've done that, would you, and we'll take it from there?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding the rest of your post perhaps one reason I never even thought to blame someone for disfiguring my golf course is because I don't think anyone was doing that for a long, long, and then very long time.

I can see someone like a Tom MacWood saying something like that about my golf course, that it had been disfigured for years, and in fact he did say that a number of times, but, once again, and as usual, he was never there, never saw the place, so what does he really know? What he probably did is simply look in Cornish and Whitten and see that an inordinate number of achitects came through my course. But what does that mean really? For one, it means we have much better records than most other clubs. But does a guy like that think it's impossible for anyone to ever improve on any Ross course? Apparently so and in my opinion, that is just not informed or intelligent!

But having studied the evolution of the architecture over the existence of the course I guess I'd say some people did disfigure it and did things with architects and otherwise that was not for the best.

On the other hand, the bringing in of Perry Maxwell three separate times in the 1930s to make a number of architectural changes to Ross's course I feel made the golf course better than it had been, and I think my membership felt that way too about the holes Maxwell did even if almost none of them were aware of Maxwell or that he had done anything.

As for treeing up our golf course I don't really think of that as disfiguring exactly as that was simply a pattern in America which practically every golf course got into back then.

The clubs and courses that absolutely never did any of that are what is truly rare in America.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Let me ask you a related question.
You crafted a wonderful book detailing your club's architectural history.
You were involved with the fairly recent restoration/renovation/modernization of your golf course.
You worked hard on behalf of your club.
How were you recently rewarded for your efforts, your sensitivity to the membership and your supreme diplomacy ?
Were you ungraciously and unceremoniously booted out ?
Is that the thanks you get for being polite, sensitive and diplomatic when it comes to the needs of your membership and your golf course ?
You advocate and do it your way and I'll advocate and do it my way.
And after we're both too old and battle scarred to care, we'll sit around, have a drink or two and discuss which method left us the more satisfied.
Remember what I told you, "no good deed shall go unpunished"  


Pat:

No, I didn't get booted out. They changed the green committee but the time had just come with the way my club is structured for that to happen anyway but I didn't get booted off it.

HELLO, McFly .... is anybody home ?

After all the work you did, and your in depth awareness of the architectural history of the golf course, for you to be removed from the Green Committed is an insult and an indication that the club doesn't value your knowledge and imput, and perhaps, that the club may want to go in a direction that distances the golf course from its historical roots ?  ?  ?[/color]

How have I been rewarded?
Well, I think I have been in all kinds of ways and a lot of people over there have been very nice about that---a whole lot.

TE, after all the work you did, all the time you put in, and the terrific book you wrote for the club, the least they could have done is to have made you a green committee member, emeritus.[/color]

But that doesn't mean either me or the committee I'm on can't or won't make some mistakes and I think we probably did. We didn't make any mistakes with the architecture except perhaps that 7th green I was partially responsible for with Gil but we took the time to talk about it and consider it and we fixed it.

Everyone and especially every committee makes mistakes.
GCA isn't a mathematical exercise with absolute answers, but, that wasn't my point.  My point was, for all of your work and diplomatic efforts, you were unceremoniously dismissed  from the green committee, which reinforces my point that "your" way of addressing issues doesn't guarantee success.[/color]

Well, I guess I should also include the new putting green. I took some flack from some people on that and it seemed pretty controversial for a while but I think it's been accepted now. I think it's even become a good example of how some forms of controversy in architecture is a very good thing in the end, as MacKenzie and Macdonald said.

I KNOW that you had NO AGENDA.
That your efforts and work were a labor of love.
But, cajoling, romancing and attempting to educate doesn't always translate to "getting your message across and ACCEPTED"[/color]

But as you know a lot of stuff goes on with a course maintenance-wise that doesn't have to do with architecture and I guess we made some mistakes we have to take responsibility for or else do an even better job of communicating with the membership about what we were trying to do before we do it.

I think otherwise.
I think if you do an excellent job you DON'T have to communicate with anyone.  The membership "GETS" great results.

Another facet of my "point" is: if mistakes are accepted, without criticism, it creates an atmosphere of infalibility, which leads to more egregious mistakes by the same parties.

Likewise, if mistakes/disfigurations are allowed to remain, without criticism and challenge, then shame on the membership, they're as complicit as those who made the mistake.[/color]

I think those things are very important and I guess I always will.

I do realize you don't agree with that kind of modus operandi but sure when we're two old farts sitting around with nothing else to do some day you and I can sit down and talk about how it all worked out and compares over the long haul.

But I'll say this about you and about me, Patrick, even though we may not agree on the best way to go about these kinds of things----and that is when you get into these kinds of things, as we both have, you just have to be informed about a lot of stuff going in and after you've done that and done it pretty well you also have to believe in what you're doing or you'll never convince anyone or pull it off.

There's no doubt that "knowledge is power", but, knowledge can't exist in a vacuum.  Those seeking change/restoration have to be intellectually honest and have no self serving agenda.

They also have to understand the powerbase and culture of the club.

In many cases, no matter how correct you are, you're going to face vociferous opposition.  Opposition which camoflages itself.  I've found that most of the opposition can be placed in three basic categories.

# 1 money
# 2 Resistance to change
# 3 Money[/color]

I believe both you and me certainly share that part.

On the other hand, if I'm convinced I made some mistake on anything, I don't have any problem anymore admitting it to anyone. Matter of fact, I'd prefer to do that these days as I think it's even more effective in the long run.

If someone presents facts and/or logic that counters my position, I'll "see the light".  Absent facts and/or logic that counters my position, I"m not going to soften my position in order to placate and coddle the opposition.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I said:

"Perhaps it's never occurred to you for some odd reason but have you ever considered that it may not be necessary to hold someone accountable for anything to effect a really good restoration on any golf course and amongst any membership these days?"

You responded:

"Those are two SEPERATE issues."


I see, Patrick, and in that case I suppose I now need to ask you if it's possible for you to deal with two or more issues at the same time??  

Sure, but first you have to recognize that more than one issue is involved, then, divide and conquer.[/color]

It seems to me these things some of us do at and for golf clubs have a whole lot of interrelated issues going on at the same time and it's probably both a smart and effective policy to learn how to deal with each one of them at the same time.

I'd say the answer to that is issue dependent.
Sometimes it's best to divide and conquer, other times its best to put all the issues in one basket.[/color]

But maybe you don't feel that way or can't do that. If not my advice to you would be to try to chew some gum and walk at the same time to see what happens.

I think you have to be careful that you don't dilute and/or segregate the main issue into so many component issues that you spend all of your time putting out fires and never making any progress.

You've been at a lot of clubs over your lifetime.
Did you ever notice the bickering and disent over an issue, such as redecorating a room, or modifying a golf feature, when committees and the entire membership are involved ?

Do you notice the difference when the Major Domo, the dictator does the same thing, and there is no bickering, no lobbying, no internal strife ?

I prefer the latter, you prefer the former.
And, truthfully, I don't have the patience for the former, it's like a semi-controlled cat fight with sixteen factions of cats going at it at the same time. [/color]

Get back to me when you've done that, would you, and we'll take it from there?

I've tried it your way, and in most cases, it's a waste of my time, which I now value more than ever before.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"And, truthfully, I don't have the patience for the former, it's like a semi-controlled cat fight with sixteen factions of cats going at it at the same time."

Pat:

That reminds me of the funniest advertisement on TV I've ever seen in my life (and there sure have been some funny ones over the years).

I think this one was on some golf tournament telecast and it showed a couple of really gnarled old cowboys on horses herding on the range in long dust jackets and with guns and whips and lassoes and with eye-patches and a whole series scars all over their faces and such.

They were yelling and shooting and cracking their whips but instead of herding a couple of hundred cows they were trying to herd a couple of hundred cats who were hissin' and spittin' and crawling under and over bushes and such and going in a couple of hundred different directions.

I was laughing so hard I never even figured out what was being advertised.

By the way, Patrick, I noticed you've let the Pine Valley #12 thread and the issue of what to use as a tree removal guide and why slip to the back pages.

I can't say I blame you. I've noticed you tend to do that when you finally come to understand you're wrong because you don't know the facts and consequently when you realize  you don't know what your talking about!  

But don't worry about it. I'm glad to see you finally understand you can't hold a candle to me with that course!

[Forrest Richardson]

Ryan — In your initial post you gave two options:

(1) letting your course get ruined by the USGA

or

(2) hiring and incompetent architect to perform a restoration

Are you predisposed to these two options? Could there be something else at play in what Oakmont "did to their course"?

[Ryan Farrow]

Forrest, you would normally throw in the club membership in these types of situations but I don't think thats the case at Oakmont. They seem to have a very informed and historically sensitive membership. As you have seen with the aerials they have not let much change and were involved in the tree clearing programs and bunker restoration that is apparent in the old aerial, as most of the bunkers and shapes stayed where they were.

I can't pass blame on them for not know how wide their course used to be in its hay-day. Or how the fairways transitioned into the bunkers. I never saw the proposal of the Fazio team so I can't say its their fault or anyone who did work at the course from then till now. But I just can't see who else would be at fault (architect or USGA). Perhaps you can help me out here?


Anyways, what are your thoughts on the changes? Do any holes stand out in your mind as being better or worse? How important do you think the added fairway width would help the playability of the course?

[TEPaul]

"I can't pass blame on them for not know how wide their course used to be in its hay-day. Or how the fairways transitioned into the bunkers. I never saw the proposal of the Fazio team so I can't say its their fault or anyone who did work at the course from then till now. But I just can't see who else would be at fault (architect or USGA). Perhaps you can help me out here?"

Ryan:

It seems like you're getting like Pat Mucci in that you seem to assume above that if a club or membership does something you don't agree with that some blame ought to be assigned somewhere.

I know a lot of people at Oakmont and it seems that club and membership is sort of unusual and always has been in that they seem to very much enjoy a tough course and something of a championship setup and championship conditions all the time.

Have you forgotten that perhaps the highest principal and calling of all architecture and architects and such is to create the greatest enjoyment possible for a club's membership?

So if Oakmont and its membership really enjoys that kind of thing as it seems they do and always have, then why do you think it necessarly to assign blame somewhere?

[Forrest Richardson]

I am not sure anyone is "at fault."

Oakmont is a poster child to the notion that golf courses are always at change, especially when they are at the hands of owners/creators. The mandate of the Fownes was to always tweak Oakmont for the betterment of the challenge. There were no rules whatsoever...at least none I have ever heard of except this single approach.

Jack Snyder's father (Arthur A. Snyder) caddied for Henry Fownes and was fond of the almost-daily changes to the course (1910s and forward.) As a grounds worked following his caddie days, Arthur built new bunkers, cut down trees, planted trees!, dug ditches and added sand to greens.

My guess about the recent work, is that Oakmont desired to strike a balance between restoration, renovation and "keeping up with the times." The latter, probably, being an approach that will preserve their place as a US Open venue. The % devoted to restoration (never, ever to be agreed upon — certainly not by anyone here!) is a matter that will long be debated. But, even if you were to debate it — "restored to what???" 1910? 1922? 1934?

(An interesting change at Oakmont — and many other courses — is the Great Depression and WWII era "looks." How different many bunkers looked [some even be abandoned] during this era. Which proves that the look of bunkers is much easier to change than other aspects of golf courses.)

Politics is always at play when it comes to US Open venues. Members, USGA and others have a large say. But, since it is the USGA's event, and they have become very powerful, I suspect the USGA now weighs in even heavier to the process. Especially so since there are now more US Open course candidates than ever before.

There is one massive change at Oakmont that is at the root of what has taken place in the past 50+ years: There is no longer a Fownes around to take control and make decisions.

While that may not seem to matter on the surface, I think if one really looks at that fact, it will eventually cause you to realize that Oakmont is probably preserved much more to a previous condition than it ever would be had a true-to-Fownes-approach offspring have carried the torch into modern times.

[Ryan Farrow]

Forrest, thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying and I too thought about it before and realize that much of what Oakmont is today is the result of years and years of changes. One thing I like about the restoration, at least from what I was told, is that any of the bunkers that were added had already been on the course in a previous time. You can see that from the bunker short of #2 green. What would be best, and maybe this was the plan of the Fazio team all along would be to analyze all of the changes that the Fownes were responsible for and then choose which add to the architectural quality of the course and provide the most interesting challenge for todays best players.

It would be great if we could just get a god damn tournament ball so we wouldn't have to worry about far these guys will be able to hit it 5-10 years from now. That way the best of the best of the Fownes moves could be preserved so the course wouldn't have to change from Open to Open.

[Forrest Richardson]

On the other hand, it is the lure of new equipment that has kept so many in the game. Without new equipment to better one's "skill", golf would not be nearly as fascinating.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, I guess you too are assuming they actually know what they want.  

I understand your point and I too have heard how the membership has great pride in the challenge their course presents. But I don't think making the course wider would produce a less challenging course.  The challenge of Oakmont will always lie at the greens and their surroundings.... and bunkers.

[Ryan Farrow]

On the other hand, it is the lure of new equipment that has kept so many in the game. Without new equipment to better one's "skill", golf would not be a fascinating game.

Forrest, tell me it isn't true!

[Forrest Richardson]

I learned this from John Solheim. True, he is biased. But, when you consider the legacy of golf and equipment through the ages, it tends to prove his point — golfers are attracted by a game in which the mere change from one club or ball to another can produce (we think) an extraordinary result. Without technology, John argues, the game would not attract young people, nor would it retain those of us who have played for a long time. Golf is truly unique in this regard — at least in ball/stick games.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I guess you too are assuming they actually know what they want.  


Oh, I don't know about that but I may be assuming they know what they like if they say they like it.

My only issue is why any of us need to automatically look to blame them if there's something about the course we don't like or agree with. We don't belong to Oakmont, they do. At least I don't belong to Oakmont. Do you belong to Oakmont, Ryan?

If a whole bunch within the membership was really dissatisfied with something then maybe it would be different and worth a conversation.

[Ryan Farrow]

Not a chance in hell I belong to Oakmont.

Oakmont is a great course, they have no reason to complain. I am just saying it WAS a BETTER course. And its not their fault they don't know, and I would never expect them to know. But being the geeks that we are, or as George Pazin's boy Malcolm Gladwell would call some of us, "Mavens" its our nature to tell them about it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I spent all day in the office trying to catch up.

Not to worry, I'll address each of your misguided points in due time.

If there's NO accountability for a bad decision, there's nothing to prevent the flood gates of bad decisions from opening up, resulting in the ongoing disfiguration of treasured GCA and golf courses, is there ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan:

It seems like you're getting like Pat Mucci in that you seem to assume above that if a club or membership does something you don't agree with that some blame ought to be assigned somewhere.

That's an absurd statement, one that you have to fabricate in order to justify your misquided and indefensible position.

According to you, there are NO restrictions on a club disfiguring their golf course.

It's "Carte Blanche"
Whatever they decide to do is OK.

Whereas I believe that each issue should be carefully examined before administering the Ether.

Question:

Why do you suppose all of these restorations have taken place over the last decade or so ?

Answer:  

Because clubs previously disfigured their architecture and now, after the fact, they see the light that myself and others might have seen long ago, and are now embarked on a program to correct their mistakes.  

I would challenge their decisions to disfigure, whereas you applaud them, ordaining them with infalibility.

Your position has NO architectural standards and no preservation instinct.[/color]

I know a lot of people at Oakmont and it seems that club and membership is sort of unusual and always has been in that they seem to very much enjoy a tough course and something of a championship setup and championship conditions all the time.

I never disputed that.

There are a number of courses in the rotas that have made that decision.  Oakmont, Baltusrol and others.
It seems that Winged Foot recently rejected that philosophy.

So, were they wrong when they accepted it, or wrong to reject it now ?  You can't have it both ways.
[/color]

Have you forgotten that perhaps the highest principal and calling of all architecture and architects and such is to create the greatest enjoyment possible for a club's membership ?


You can't be that obtuse.
I enjoy playing Oakmont, but, on a day in and day out playing cycle, it would overwhelm my limited abilities and enjoyment would not be a daily fare.[/color]

So if Oakmont and its membership really enjoys that kind of thing as it seems they do and always have, then why do you think it necessarly to assign blame somewhere ?

So now, in addition to speaking for entire the membership at PV, you also in a position to speak for the entire membership at Oakmont ?  ?   ?

Your faulty premise predisposes an erroneous answer and conclusion
.
Surely, you see and understand that.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Patrick:

So now you're saying that Oakmont and Pine Valley have been disfigured and their memberships are to blame!

So now you've played Oakmont, what, once, and you're telling me you think it's too much for you and you think the membership should be blamed even if they enjoy their course?

Oakmont recently removed something like 5,000 trees from their course and restored a number of Fownes' bunkers to the way their patron had it when he died and you think the course has been disfigured and the membership should be blamed or I should be blamed for not blaming them.

You think the membership of Pine Valley should be blamed because although the club is removing trees from the course they aren't doing it as quickly as you'd like them to.

I know a lot of members at both clubs and I don't see much discontent amongst the members at either club but you think I should blame them because they aren't doing things the way you'd like to see them done?

My own club's membership enjoys our recent restoration and you're accusing me of endorsing the disfiguring of golf courses?

You need to get a grip on yourself---you aren't making much sense!

[John Kirk]

I understand your point and I too have heard how the membership has great pride in the challenge their course presents. But I don't think making the course wider would produce a less challenging course.  The challenge of Oakmont will always lie at the greens and their surroundings.... and bunkers.

I decided I didn't want to let this pass.

I disagree with this, and believe the narrow fairways and long rough make the course much tougher.  It's a very nice golf course, but it is hard as hell.  

[TEPaul]

Ryan:

While I don't believe it's a positive thing to see the fairways of Oakmont shrink, my real point here is that I just think Pat Mucci's constant harping on always blaming memberships for everything he doesn't completely agree with is less than positive in the long run.

I doubt the membership of Oakmont or Pine Valley or probably anywhere else he doesn't belong to gives a damn what he thinks but the members in his club probably do if he constantly goes around his clubs looking for someone to blame about the things he doesn't like.

Just look at some of the things he's been saying on some of his recent posts---things like his policy is to divide and conquer!?

What the hell is that all about?

I guess Pat Mucci thinks constant adverserialness within clubs is some kind of good thing! Think about that----how weird is that?

Apparently the guy doesn't think about or has never heard of good "morale" in a golf club and how important it is for the success and enjoyment of the membership and the club.

I love golf course architecture and classic architecture and I totally support its preservation or restoration but the morale of my golf club, at least how I come at it, is every bit as important, if not more so!

Recently Pat Mucci has been telling me that I'm supporting the disfiguring of golf courses. I'm doing nothing of the kind. On restoration and preservation of architecture Pat and I are  remarkably close and he knows that---he's always know that.

And he should know that's not even the issue here. I can certainly support restoration and architectural preservation at my golf club or any other golf club WITHOUT first trying to find someone to blame for disfiguring it. He says things like you can't have it both ways!!! Of course you can, and I have and it works just fine without my course or the ones I'm involved with getting disfigured!  


You said:

"But being the geeks that we are, or as George Pazin's boy Malcolm Gladwell would call some of us, "Mavens" its our nature to tell them about it.   "

Of course we can tell them about it and we do on here all the time. I do in person all the time at a whole lot of places. I just don't go around seeking out members FIRST to blame them for disfiguring something.

Frankly, this doesn't even have to do with architecture, restoration or preservation. It basically has to do with commonsense!

[John Gosselin]

Not a chance in hell I belong to Oakmont.

Oakmont is a great course, they have no reason to complain. I am just saying it WAS a BETTER course. And its not their fault they don't know, and I would never expect them to know. But being the geeks that we are, or as George Pazin's boy Malcolm Gladwell would call some of us, "Mavens" its our nature to tell them about it.

Ryan,

Your underestimating the membership and staff at Oakmont and the thought that went into any changes. They had a goal and they achieved it.

Do you think only members of this site are golf course architecture enthusiast and have studied the classics?


When you say it was a "better course", better for whom? The targeted customer or you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Patrick:

So now you're saying that Oakmont and Pine Valley have been disfigured and their memberships are to blame!

Could you CITE, exactly where I said that ?
And, failing that citation, retract your self serving statement.[/color]

So now you've played Oakmont, what, once, and you're telling me you think it's too much for you and you think the membership should be blamed even if they enjoy their course?



I've played Oakmont far more than once over the last 20 years.

How do you know what the membership enjoys and what they don't enjoy ?  How do you claim to speak for them.
Are you a member of Oakmont ?  If not, then you'd have NO sense of how the membership feels.[/color]

Oakmont recently removed something like 5,000 trees from their course and restored a number of Fownes' bunkers to the way their patron had it when he died and you think the course has been disfigured and the membership should be blamed or I should be blamed for not blaming them.

It's obvious that you don't grasp the concept of disfiguration and restoration.

Who planted those trees, the workers for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority ?  Who let Fownes's bunkers deteriorate and evaporate ?  Answer, the membership/leadership made those errors, which, the current leadership recognized and corrected.

However, the issue of narrowing the rough lines and moving the bunkers in to match them remains an issue of contention.

There are courses whose role has shifted from the playing interests of the membership, to the playing challenge of major tournaments, and Oakmont, ANGC and Baltusrol are some of those courses.

I've always opposed reconfiguring a golf course for 4 days of play out of 365 days or 3,652 or 3653 days.

But, I recognize that those courses serve more than one master, and as such, present their golf course, NOT solely for their members enjoyment, but, to challenge the best golfers in the world in Majors.[/color]

You think the membership of Pine Valley should be blamed because although the club is removing trees from the course they aren't doing it as quickly as you'd like them to.

The membership at PV has little to do with what happens at PV.  I blame the past leaderships for allowing Crump's features to be lost, and lost for so long.  While I applaud that the current leadership has finally seen the light, one has to question why they're moving so slowly to recapture Crump's lost features.  One would think that they'd want Crump's glorious features returned to prominence ASAP.[/color]

I know a lot of members at both clubs and I don't see much discontent amongst the members at either club but you think I should blame them because they aren't doing things the way you'd like to see them done?

You're entirely wrong.
Firstly, at clubs run by dictators or oligarchies, rarely do you find meaningful member discontent.  Secondly, the members at PV have little say in what does and doesn't get done.
YOU KNOW THAT.

PV not only dragged its feet in restoring Crump's lost features, but, over the years they encouraged it by allowing unabated, systemic tree growth to obliterate his intent, design and constructed features, and there's not an honest way in the world that you can defend that.

I've been advocating restoring Crump's lost features for decades and decades.

Unlike others, I haven't had my perspective clouded by having my head in the sand or up a members rear end in South Jersey [/color]

My own club's membership enjoys our recent restoration and you're accusing me of endorsing the disfiguring of golf courses?

WHY did your club embark upon a restoration ?  ?  ?

Answer,  because the previous membership/s disfigured the golf course.

Don't you get it ?[/color]

You need to get a grip on yourself---you aren't making much sense!

The clarity of my presentation is pure, you remain in the fog of denial on these issue.[/color]

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom Paul, I don't know if your trying to say I blamed the membership or not? I tried to defend them. The idea of blaming someone for the changes was a way generate some discussion and hopefully get an answer. I don't think we should overrun the entire thread about who's do blame. There is obviously a reason for every change that happened over the years and I do think its important to know who made the changes and why they did. Thats why I brought up the subject in the opening.

John, better for whom? How about the greatest number of people who play the course? Which goes beyond the membership and beyond the Pro's. I've seen more people struggle to finish a hole at Oakmont than I want to remember, Arnold Palmer included. They are just happy as can be though, they are playing golf at Oakmont Country Club, and that alone is enough for them. Its a complicated answer but why can't the course be a little more forgiving and strategic off the tee? Wouldn't that benefit everyone?