[Patrick_Mucci]

To the point that they want to restore previous alterations.

[Seth Berliner]

Cherry Hills recently approved a remodel which will restore the course closer to the original design.

[Joe Hancock]

Great question for the likes of Hamilton B. Hearst......

[PThomas]

Cherry Hills recently approved a remodel which will restore the course closer to the original design.

any details you can share Seth, like who will do it, hope to be done by when, etc..

thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

5 Farms... and I hope they follow through!  

[Tim Rooney]

Scioto has instituted major improvements the previous (2) years,i.e. additional bk T's(par 3/260+),bunkering(fairway/greenside)-------suggestions from Nicklaus&Hurdzan;however,returning to the original,unelevated green complexes will probably never happen.

[Sean Leary]

Prairie Dunes is restoring fairway widths to Pre US Senior Open widths (probably due to TE Paul's comments on his visit there last year)

[John Moore II]

Pine Needles has recently done a great restoration to get back much like the original Ross features. #2 has done a reasonable amount of restorations to the course making it play much like the original. Also, Raleigh Country Club another old Ross design has been greatly restored to original contours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Leary,

Has Prairie Dunes actually begun to re-widen the fairways or are they just discussing it ?

[Peter Zarlengo]

Paul T-
From what I've heard Renaissance is doing the work at Cherry Hills CC. Though I've heard both restoration talks and talks of trying to get a major championship that way (not that both couldn't be accomplished).

[John Shimp]

Palmetto in Aiken.  They have restored bunkers and greens and are working with Gil Hanse to restore the old scruffier look that was there for 90+ years that included large unmanicured waste areas, rough with a variety of grass types and consistencies, and some fescue areas that used to be around sand bunkers and in waste areas.

[TEPaul]

"Sean Leary,
Has Prairie Dunes actually begun to re-widen the fairways or are they just discussing it?"

So what if they are discussing it Patrick, are you going to blame the whole damn membership and tell them they are not on your schedule?  

[John Moore II]

Shivas--Is that hanging on to tradition or simply public ignorance? I am not certain which it is. Does the original 18 exist anymore?

[Chris_Clouser]

Patrick,

I think it is silly to think that clubs that have made changes to their courses do not value their pedigree.

I have talked to people at several clubs that truly appreciate where they started but feel like they have made changes that have improved their courses over the years for a variety of reasons.  The people at Dornick Hills in Ardmore, Oklahoma are a perfect example.  I'm sure the people at Medinah appreciate their pedigree as well.

We can argue whether those changes truly make the course better or not, but to say they do not "value their pedigree" is a little over the top.

Just because you feel that valuing their pedigree means they have to maintain the course as it was in 1925, or whenever it opened, doesn't mean they have to feel the same way.  Is this another case where if someone thinks differently than you that they must be wrong or belong to the Flat Earth Society?

[Joel_Stewart]

After 50 years of talking about it, San Francisco Golf Club finally restored the 3 lost holes it had lost.  The locker room hasn't been touched in 75 years.  Personally I would put it up there with Chicago Golf as a club that respects it pedigree.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

After 50 years of talking about it, San Francisco Golf Club finally restored the 3 lost holes it had lost.  The locker room hasn't been touched in 75 years.  Personally I would put it up there with Chicago Golf as a club that respects it pedigree.

Joel,

While I haven't played Chicago I did get the chance to play SFGC recently and I completely agree with you.  The new/old holes are great and the locker room is one of the neatest that I have seen.  When I was there they were restoring much of the clubhouse.  It is definitely a club that has stayed true to its roots and would seemingly be very similar to the original presentation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it is silly to think that clubs that have made changes to their courses do not value their pedigree.

If they valued their architectural pedigree, why taint it ?
Why create a mongrel when you already have a purebred ?[/color]

I have talked to people at several clubs that truly appreciate where they started but feel like they have made changes that have improved their courses over the years for a variety of reasons.  

I think you'll find the above phrase/concept as the common thread amongst EVERY golf course that was disfigured.

They all say the same thing, they were trying to improve the golf course.

Unfortunately, the resulting product doesn't bear out the rhetoric.[/color]

The people at Dornick Hills in Ardmore, Oklahoma are a perfect example.  

I couldn't comment on Dornick Hills as I've never visited the club pre and post.[/color]

I'm sure the people at Medinah appreciate their pedigree as well.

If they appreciated their architectural pedigree why did/do they almost completely redesign the golf course ?[/color]

We can argue whether those changes truly make the course better or not, but to say they do not "value their pedigree" is a little over the top.

No, it's  not.
If you value something you don't force it to undergo a metamorphosis, in some cases to the degree that it's previous form is no longer recognizable[/color]

Just because you feel that valuing their pedigree means they have to maintain the course as it was in 1925, or whenever it opened, doesn't mean they have to feel the same way.  


I NEVER said that, nor did I define valuing the pedigree in quantitative terms.  Those are YOUR words.

Everyone but you seems to understand "fine tuning" and can differentiate it from "Major Surgery"[/color]

Is this another case where if someone thinks differently than you that they must be wrong or belong to the Flat Earth Society?

They don't have to belong to the Flat Earth society, but, they're probably wrong.

Speaking of the Flat Earth Society, do you know what event triggered the last member to abandon the Society ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Chris Clouser is absolutely right and he said it well.

In the name of commonsense you need to get off this broken-record jag you've been on that any club that changes their course is disfiguring it and should be to blame.

Furthermore, you're being hypocritical because you know damn well you've made some suggestions for changing NGLA one of your favorite courses and one of the most important courses in American architectural history. You also seem to defend the decades long modus of ANGC, one of the most altered of the really famous courses in America!

The only way you rationalize your suggested changes for NGLA is that it's been changed before with tee length addition and such. To this day I've never even seen you try to rationalize all the changes at ANGC because who could other than to say its architecture is almost a yearly victim of the Masters tournament?

As you seem so fond of telling everyone else, Patrick, you can't have it both ways!  

[John Moore II]

I really find this thead and the one on which course don't value to be very repetitive. Both judgements are subjective to who is looking at the situation. The members may think that what they are doing is in keeping with the history and tradition of the club. We, as outsiders may think its blasphemy. Either way, these things are not set in stone ideas. Not to mention, as I have said before, if the club is owned by the members, and those members as owners decide to change something, for worse or better (but again, according to who's point of view?) is it not their right as the owners to do as they please?

[TEPaul]

JohnnyM:

You might want to ask Pat Mucci if he's inclined to criticize owners of significant building architecture for altering those houses. If he says no, then you might want to ask him what he thinks the difference is with members who own golf clubs and golf courses that are altered.

[Dean Paolucci]

GRCC restored the course as close to the original design as our research would allow.  When we were faced with a void we relied upon authentic architectural features from other notable works by Willie Park, Jr.

[John Moore II]

TEP-I thought about putting a reference like that in there, but figured I could make just as good a point without it.
Dean-Thats a great line of thinking for restoring a course. Your club seems to really have the idea right about what a true restoration is, and not simply someone doing their own thing and calling it a restoration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Clouser is absolutely right and he said it well.

In the name of commonsense you need to get off this broken-record jag you've been on that any club that changes their course is disfiguring it and should be to blame.

You're awfully defensive and touchy on this subject.
Have you disfigured any golf courses lately ?[/color]

Furthermore, you're being hypocritical because you know damn well you've made some suggestions for changing NGLA one of your favorite courses and one of the most important courses in American architectural history.

I haven't been hypocritical at all.
I don't consider lengthening a hole to retain the intended integration of the architectural features, with the golfer, to be a substantive change.  Especially when the club has embarked upon that path previously, on other holes.

Your hero, Flynn himself, advocated elasticity vis a vis lengthening, or perhaps you'd forgotten that.[/color]

You also seem to defend the decades long modus of ANGC, one of the most altered of the really famous courses in America!

What YOU, and others don't seem to understand is that ANGC, chose between serving two Masters.  They chose to serve The Masters and as such, almost all of the changes are withing the spirit of providing a test for the best golfers in the world.

Suprisingly, more changes were made in the early years, that involved moving dirt, then in recent years.  Again, elasticity, that Flynn concept, has been employed by ANGC.

While I don't endorse the swinging of the architectural pendulum toward The Masters, vis a vis, narrowing and tree planting, the golf course essentially remains intact.  It's still wide and an enjoyable challenge for the members.

You may recall that Maxwell and RTJ made the most substantive changes to the features on the golf course, but, that was decades and decades ago.

It's not that I champion all of the changes, but, I recognize that ANGC has a calling that most other clubs will never experience, and that calling, impacts the architecture.

Had I&B been properly controlled by the governing bodies of golf, I doubt that we'd be having this debate.[/color]

The only way you rationalize your suggested changes for NGLA is that it's been changed before with tee length addition and such.

I think "precedent" carries a good deal of weight, architecturally.
And, your idol, Flynn, endorsed elasticity.
Lengthening # 7, # 8, # 14 and # 18 at NGLA makes all the sense in the world.  That's why NGLA has already lengthened # 8 and # 14.  Hopefully # 7 and # 18 will be next.
In doing so, NGLA would restore the bunkers to their intended purpose of interfacing with the golfer.

As to my theory on # 13 and the replication of BOTH # 7 and # 11 at TOC, I think that's equally valid.[/color]

To this day I've never even seen you try to rationalize all the changes at ANGC because who could other than to say its architecture is almost a yearly victim of the Masters tournament?

That's where you and most others don't get it.
The club HAD two Masters, the members and the tournament.
With the advent of hi-tech and the impact that had on the Pro game, ANGC decided to defend the golf course as intended by BJ and AM.  The club has chosen to serve one Master first, The Masters.

While I might lament the choice, I understand it.[/color]

As you seem so fond of telling everyone else, Patrick, you can't have it both ways!  

Sure I can, if you understand the nuances and the prioritization of choices made by the club.

As to NGLA, my views are in perfect harmony with CBM.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I really find this thead and the one on which course don't value to be very repetitive.

Both judgements are subjective to who is looking at the situation.

There's no doubt that those clubs who altered or disfigured their golf course thought they were improving it.

But, your position would have us believe that there are no absolutes.

I challenge you and that Cretin, TEPaul to answer this question.

If Merion was to flatten their greens to accomodate higher speeds for the U.S. Open, would you consider that an improvement or a disfiguration ?

It's a simple question, with but a one word answer.
"Improvement" or "Disfiguration" ?

You make the call[/color]

The members may think that what they are doing is in keeping with the history and tradition of the club.


How can altering a hole, disfiguring it be in keeping with the golf course's architectural history ?

Case in point ?  Oak Hill
Did the work at Oak Hill represent an alteration in "keeping witht he history and tradition of the club"

GCGC, the 12th hole ?
[/color]

We, as outsiders may think its blasphemy. Either way, these things are not set in stone ideas. Not to mention, as I have said before, if the club is owned by the members, and those members as owners decide to change something, for worse or better (but again, according to who's point of view?) is it not their right as the owners to do as they please?

You're confusing "right" with "power"

Aren't outsiders "independent analysts", better able to evaluate changes since they're not invested in them ?

If clubs got everything "right" as you allude to, why are they spending considerable sums to undue the disfigurations and restore the features/holes to their prior configuration ?

You want to look at but a single frame.
I prefer to look at the entire film.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

JohnnyM:

You might want to ask Pat Mucci if he's inclined to criticize owners of significant building architecture for altering those houses.

I am.
And, I'm not alone.[/color]

If he says no,


But, I didn't say "no"[/color]

then you might want to ask him what he thinks the difference is with members who own golf clubs and golf courses that are altered.


Ah Grasshopper, you have so much to learn.

That's why they have preservation societies.

That's why they have buildings designated as National Landmarks, just so they can't be disfigured and lost to morons who want to follow the latest fad.

Doesn't the clubhouse at Oakmont fall into that category ? [/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()