What clubs value their pedigree ?

[John Moore II]

Patrick--I cannot really answer that question about Merion directly. But I can put it like this, IF those greens are too severe, like say, the 17th at Olympic (remember the 4 putts from '97?) and they would cause undue stupidity, then yes, break out the bulldozers. Pete Dye has admitted to doing much the same to many of his courses, saying the speed of the greens are out of control for the original contours. Now, if they greens are simply undulated with some flat spots as to allow for reasonable putting at the given speeds, then no change is needed. I can't give a real answer to the question since I have never played Merion. (Now if you are a member at Merion and would like me to come play to validate the theory, I will certainly come, wasting no time)
--I do not know Oak Hill prior to the restoration to give comment.
--Clubs are spending money today to "restore" the clubs because that is their view of what the clubs heritage is. Many years ago, the members that changed the club had a different view on what that heritage was. Which ones are right? I'm not sure.
--You are correct, there are no absolutes, not in situations like these. What is correct to one is incorrect to another. What is disfigurement to this person may be beautification to another. I may say that by doing a certain thing a club is valuing its pedigree, whereas you may say they are destroying it. I do look at the entire film, however, just like your analysis of the ending of Citizen Kane may be different than mine, your analysis of the end result of course redesigns may also be different than mine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick--I cannot really answer that question about Merion directly.

Then don't offer a hypothetical situation that suits your position, deal with the facts, not guess work.[/color]

But I can put it like this, IF those greens are too severe, like say, the 17th at Olympic (remember the 4 putts from '97?)


I think you mean the 18th.

To severe ?

Those greens have served the members and the golfing world for decades upon decades, they're perfect for that hole, UNLESS, someone makes them so FAST that the slope can't handle them.

Any YOU, You would destroy those greens so that once every 10-13 year 150 guys can play golf for 4 days on super fast greens.

Do you realize how insane your argument is ?[/color]

and they would cause undue stupidity,

The stupidity lies solely within those who would have them putt at speeds they were NEVER meant for.  So your solution is to flatten them.   Great, then we can get faster and faster speeds, BUT, we'll have to flatten them some more, until every green is the same, DEAD FLAT.  Where will the character and uniqueness of greens be then ?[/color]

then yes, break out the bulldozers.

NO, break out the straight jackets[/color]

Pete Dye has admitted to doing much the same to many of his courses, saying the speed of the greens are out of control for the original contours.

HINT:   Then don't speed them up.
Otherwise, the ultimate end result is nothing but FLAT GREENS[/color]

Now, if they greens are simply undulated with some flat spots as to allow for reasonable putting at the given speeds, then no change is needed.

"given speeds"  ?

So the quest for speed dictates contour and slope ?
Ergo, NO CONTOUR AND SLOPE equals the fastest speeds.[/color]

I can't give a real answer to the question since I have never played Merion.

Then don't make up foolish hypothetical situations that serve your purpose.[/color]

(Now if you are a member at Merion and would like me to come play to validate the theory, I will certainly come, wasting no time)

Make sure you tell all of the members that you endorse destroying the contours and slopes in favor of higher speeds for 4 days out of 10-13 years.[/color]

--I do not know Oak Hill prior to the restoration to give comment.

--Clubs are spending money today to "restore" the clubs because that is their view of what the clubs heritage is.


What changed ?
The "Heritage"  or the member's views ?
And, if that was the case, why did they change the course in the first place ?[/color]

Many years ago, the members that changed the club had a different view on what that heritage was.

How is that possible ?

For decades and decades the golf course remained static, with it's heritage clearly intact.

Then, someone disfigured the golf course.  WHY ?
The heritate didn't change.

Then, years later, they restored the golf course.  WHY ?
Because the morons before them disfigured the course and disconnected it from its heritage.  And now, the members see the error of their predecessor's ways and set about undoing the mistakes, restoring the golf course and reconnecting it to its heritage.[/color]

Which ones are right? I'm not sure.

The failing of your position is as follows.
If you continue with alterations/disfigurations, the process never stops, so, which version will be the right version ?

Tis better to leave well enough alone and preserve the unique qualities that seperate this golf course from all others.

Far more mistakes are made by altering a golf course than by leaving it as it is.[/color]
 
--You are correct, there are no absolutes, not in situations like these.

I believe that there are absolutes, with allowances for fine tuning[/color]

What is correct to one is incorrect to another.


Ah, that's where common sense and wisdom enter.
But, there can be an objective standard.[/color]

What is disfigurement to this person may be beautification to another.

Again, common sense and wisdom know which is which.[/color]

I may say that by doing a certain thing a club is valuing its pedigree, whereas you may say they are destroying it.

How can you value your architectural pedigree if you destroy it ?[/color]

I do look at the entire film, however, just like your analysis of the ending of Citizen Kane may be different than mine, your analysis of the end result of course redesigns may also be different than mine.

I trust my common sense and wisdom in this area.

Where is Tom MacWood when you need him ?[/color]

[John Moore II]

My ideas about Merion and Olympic were not really meant to be serious, but do we really think the USGA, or even the golfing public will support slower greens? I think not. If we insist on and demand fast greens, then either the contours must be changed or we are left with greens that are impossible to putt. I, myself, do not care how fast the greens are or how undulated they are, however, I understand that many people do. The quest for speed should not dictate contour, but in reality it does. Greens designed in the 20's or 30's when the grass was tall and greens rolled slower than many of our fairways cannot be used today unless we want to return to the days of incredibly slow greens. (maybe we should start a thread about green speeds...)
-Members at Oakmont years ago felt it was in character with the club to plant many thousands of trees along the golf course. At some point in time, someone decided that was not in character with the original club. Who was right? Well, the trees are gone, so its apparent who won the battle, but again who was absolutely right? Both groups thought what they did was in keeping with the character of the club.
--As far as common sense and wisdom...the tree planters at Oakmont thought they were using common sense and wisdom. We think they were not. Who is correct? Can we really know who is correct? No, we can not. There are no absolute certainties, only "Traditions," "Pedigrees" and "Stature." All of which can be changed to meet the needs of whatever group has power.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My ideas about Merion and Olympic were not really meant to be serious, but do we really think the USGA, or even the golfing public will support slower greens?

YES.

The public, and most golfers, don't have a realistic sense of what very fast greens putt at.

Greens in the 8-10 range on sloped or contoured greens are more than most golfers can handle.[/color]

I think not. If we insist on and demand fast greens, then either the contours must be changed or we are left with greens that are impossible to putt. I, myself, do not care how fast the greens are or how undulated they are, however, I understand that many people do.

The quest for speed should not dictate contour, but in reality it does. Greens designed in the 20's or 30's when the grass was tall and greens rolled slower than many of our fairways cannot be used today unless we want to return to the days of incredibly slow greens. (maybe we should start a thread about green speeds...)

That's simply not true.
While greens may not have been cut to today's low heights, they weren't as wet and green, they were dry and brown/yellow/green in color, and putted faster than most think.[/color]

-Members at Oakmont years ago felt it was in character with the club to plant many thousands of trees along the golf course.

How do you know what motivated the members ?
How do you know what triggered them to plant trees ?
It might have had nothing to do with the character of the golf course.
Many of those trees were for perimeter planting, and that doesn't count as impacting the golf course.[/color]

At some point in time, someone decided that was not in character with the original club.

It's clear that it was decided that the interior trees that had been allowed to invade the golf course were not in keeping with the golf course's origins.[/color]

Who was right? Well, the trees are gone, so its apparent who won the battle, but again who was absolutely right?

It's clear that a golf course without internal trees is in keeping the architectural origins.[/color]

Both groups thought what they did was in keeping with the character of the club.

You don't know that because you don't know what the motivating factors were when it came to allowing trees to populate the interior of the golf course years ago.[/color]
 
--As far as common sense and wisdom...the tree planters at Oakmont thought they were using common sense and wisdom.

Not necessarily.
They may have had an agenda.  And,
Agendas usually trump common sense.

To borrow a line from "Midnight Express", "The bad machines don't know they're bad. "

Common Sense isn't necessarily a factor when it comes to making changes to a golf course.[/color]

We think they were not. Who is correct? Can we really know who is correct? No, we can not.

Sure we can.[/color]

There are no absolute certainties, only "Traditions," "Pedigrees" and "Stature." All of which can be changed to meet the needs of whatever group has power.

You're confusing fads with enduring values.

Tradition doesn't change to meet the newest need and neither does pedigree, nor do enduring architectural values.  The changes you reference are changes of convenience and nothing more.[/color]
 

[John Moore II]

Pat--Why do you insist on commenting on every sentence? (Oh wait, I know, because you can) In dealing with the green speeds, here is what Pete Dye had to say: "The other cost escalation the USGA has encouraged is with speed of greens. When Ben Hogan won the U.S. Open at Oakmont [in 1953], then considered the fastest greens in the history of the world, the Stimpmeter was maybe six or seven." So, if thats what he thinks about green speeds in 1953, does it not stand to reason that most likely the greens did not roll that fast normally and certainly woulld not have rolled that fast in, say, 1920? Does the public really know how fast green speeds are? Probably not. But for a club, like say Merion, if they want to host US Opens on a regular basis, and the greens are too severe to run the speeds the USGA desires, they are left with the choice of not having the tournament or reworking the greens. Which MASTER do they answer to, as you so put it when referring to Augusta National? Do they answer to the master of daily play and average members, or do they answer to the master of being a championship host?
--As far as common sense goes-it depends on who is using it. thats why its called common, some people might have different ideas on what it means. Its not like a law of nature that can't be changed. I don't know what motivated the members, but I can't believe that members of a prestigous club like Oakmont would do something that was knowingly out of character with the origins of the club. Something made them think that what they did was in line with what the club stood for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In dealing with the green speeds, here is what Pete Dye had to say:

"The other cost escalation the USGA has encouraged is with speed of greens.

It costs more to maintain fast to super fast greens.
What's that got to do with contour and slope ?[/color]

When Ben Hogan won the U.S. Open at Oakmont [in 1953], then considered the fastest greens in the history of the world, the Stimpmeter was maybe six or seven."

That's a guess on Pete's part at best.
And, while I'm a big fan of Pete's, I don't consider every one of his utterances...... the Gospel.

The Stimpmeter was invented as a result of Edward  Stimpson watching the 1935 U.S. Open at Oakmont.

He watched Gene Sarazen putt off of a green and thought the green was unreasonably fast, but, he had no way to prove it.  So, he invented the Stimpmeter.

Don't you find the event that caused Stimpson to invent the Stimpmeter in direct conflict with Dye's alleged statement ?[/color]

So, if thats what he thinks about green speeds in 1953, does it not stand to reason that most likely the greens did not roll that fast normally and certainly woulld not have rolled that fast in, say, 1920?

NO, it doesn't, because the very reason for the invention of the Stimpmeter was the excessive green speeds at Oakmont as witnessed by Stimpson.[/color]

Does the public really know how fast green speeds are?

Probably not. But for a club, like say Merion, if they want to host US Opens on a regular basis, and the greens are too severe to run the speeds the USGA desires, they are left with the choice of not having the tournament or reworking the greens.

Those are the extreme choices, but, not the only choices.[/color]

Which MASTER do they answer to, as you so put it when referring to Augusta National?

ANGC hosts The Masters EVERY year.
Merion will host the Open once every 13 or so years.
You can't equate the two.[/color]

Do they answer to the master of daily play and average members, or do they answer to the master of being a championship host ?

They SHOULD answer to the members and to their storied history.

If they sell their golfing soul to the USGA and higher green speeds, at the expense of the spectacular character of their greens, then, they, as a membership, have lost their way.
[/color]

--As far as common sense goes-it depends on who is using it.


That's absolutely untrue.
Common sense isn't evaluated in the context of who's using it, it's a "standard", not a subjective variable.[/color]

thats why its called common, some people might have different ideas on what it means.

That's also untrue.
It's a standard, like the "prudent man" rule.
[/color]

Its not like a law of nature that can't be changed.

I think you'll see that under the law, "common sense" or the "prudent man" rule is a standard, not a variable dependent upon individual interpretation.[/color]

I don't know what motivated the members, but I can't believe that members of a prestigous club like Oakmont would do something that was knowingly out of character with the origins of the club.

If you don't know the motivation, you can't assume member intent.[/color]

Something made them think that what they did was in line with what the club stood for.

You don't know that.
That's what you want to believe, but, you don't have the facts to support your conclusion.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--What facts do you have that membership at clubs do things that are doing things that do or do not value their pedigree?? That is the key to this whole arguement. I do not THINK most clubs do things that they know are not in line with the tradition of the club. I do not go with what Dye says as Gospel either, however, he does make a good point that it is likely the greens then were slower than now, so if greens are to be the speed some people desire, greens must have less contour or be unfair. The situation with any club wanting to host major championships on a regular basis can easily be compared to Augusta, the time periods between tournaments are just longer. It just depends on what the membership wants, do they want to be a very upper end member club or a Championship club? If that decision is necessary does it mean a club has lost its way if it chooses the Tournaments over the member club experience? I think that is does not.
--While I may not have facts to support some of my ideas, unless I am wrong, and you are a member of Oakmont and Merion, you do not have any FACTS to refute what I say about what the membership might think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--What facts do you have that membership at clubs do things that are doing things that do or do not value their pedigree??

You'll have to rephrase the question, I don't understand it.[/color]

That is the key to this whole arguement.

Johnny M,

You can't claim that a club or clubs have altered their golf course for reasons known only to you.  You can't present a hypothetical as "factual"[/color]

I do not THINK most clubs do things that they know are not in line with the tradition of the club.

You're assuming that MOST clubs know what their tradition is, and that they value that tradition.  If that was the case, why did they disfigure the golf course in the first place ?[/color]

I do not go with what Dye says as Gospel either, however, he does make a good point that it is likely the greens then were slower than now, so if greens are to be the speed some people desire, greens must have less contour or be unfair.


How can you ignore the facts relating to the creation of the Stimpmeter and their direct conflict with Dye's statement.
Obviously, Pete doesn't have his facts right, and you're willing to blindly perpetuate the error.[/color]

The situation with any club wanting to host major championships on a regular basis can easily be compared to Augusta, the time periods between tournaments are just longer.

That's absurd[/color]

It just depends on what the membership wants, do they want to be a very upper end member club or a Championship club?


Those aren't the only choices available and those aren't the only two categories of clubs.

Did you ever consider ego and bragging rights.
Did you ever consider that some are williing to disfigure their golf course in order to gain notoriety ?[/color]

If that decision is necessary does it mean a club has lost its way if it chooses the Tournaments over the member club experience?

YES, when they disfigure the architecture for convenience for 150 guys who play the golf course once every 13 years.

If the "membership" is deemed to be the "curator" of the golf course, they have an obligation to protect the golf course from transients, in the form of ideas and/or events.

Absent a protectionist attitude, the golf course will be altered time and time again, until it loses its unique design, that which seperated it from all others.  Once you begin the alteration process it never stops, and, those altering the golf course don't alter it in consistent, universal context, rather, the alterations are piecemeal and random, with too many cooks spoiling the broth.[/color]

I think that is does not.

We disagree[/color]

--While I may not have facts to support some of my ideas,

Absent the facts, your ideas lack credibility and your conclusions are flawed[/color]

unless I am wrong,

We agree on that[/color]

and you are a member of Oakmont and Merion, you do not have any FACTS to refute what I say about what the membership might think.

Your reasoning is flawed.
I don't have to be a member of Merion and/or Oakmont in order to be privy to certain facts and/or circumstances relating to those clubs.

There's a distinct difference between NOT having any factual information about a club, ergo you create convenient hypotheticals, and having reliable sources within a club that provide accurate information.

In addition, I didn't posit what the motivation behind the alterations were, you did.  I merely challenged your ability to know what the motivation behind the alterations were.

If you don't have the facts, then you can't declare what the motivational forces were, you can only guess, or create hypotheticals that are predisposed to facilitate your argument.  In both cases, the lack of supporting facts invalidates your conclusions.

The long and the short of it is that you feel that the members can do whatever they want to a golf course that they currently belong to.

While I feel that the members have to adhere to a higher standard, one that views the architecture as too valuable to destroy in favor of the lastest whim.

There's a concept that holds that a club should at least attempt to preserve the architecture to one of two benchmarks, either the original architecture, or to the golf course's "architectural high water mark".

Your premise encourages alteration or disfiguration of golf courses at will, for whatever purpose seems practical at any given time, as long as them membership is in favor of it.
[/color]

[John Moore II]

We always seem to look at the high end clubs, I am guilty of this. If less known clubs, by lesser known architects want to change, what is your thought then? The principle of the arguement is the same. Both clubs are changing the original product. It should not be different. Also, who is to determine the 'high water mark' of the clubs architecture? Many people may wish to change the club in order to establish a high water mark. Changes to clubs like Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley, etc., should be very limited, I suppose. They are elite clubs, I do not sense that any of the membership there would change on a whim.

[Patrick_Mucci]

We always seem to look at the high end clubs, I am guilty of this. If less known clubs, by lesser known architects want to change, what is your thought then?

There's an inherent dilema with clubs that host Majors.

The problem at "lesser known" clubs is the trickle down effect.

In the NY/NJ/CT Met area, there are an abundance of wonderful courses that few have ever heard of, yet, many have strong pedigrees.

I feel the same way about those courses as I do their better known big brothers.

In many cases, when alterations are resisted, those clamoring to alter the golf course cite ANGC as a prime example, and state that if ANGC can be changed, so can their club.

I think that's dangerous thinking.

Many of those clubs have seen the error of their ways and now realize how valuable their pedigree is.  Hence, they've embarked upon restorations.

TV has been a terrible influence.

Chipping areas have come into vogue lately, so you see courses that NEVER had these features, replete with an abundance of them.

And, I've seen some great greens destroyed, never to be recreated again.

Now, I'm not advocating leaving every course as it was on opening day, although, more good than bad would probably come from that.

But, when a course of architectural significance contemplates "modernization" I've always advocated getting second and third opinions, just like we'd do if we had an illness where surgery was recommended.

Wouldn't courses benefit from outside, independent architectural consultants, consultants who had no vested interest in any change, who were brought in to evaluate the work contemplated ?[/color]

The principle of the arguement is the same. Both clubs are changing the original product. It should not be different.

It's not with me.[/color]

Also, who is to determine the 'high water mark' of the clubs architecture?

That's not always easy.
But, my concept of bringing in independent architectural consultants, and paying them handsomely, might help solve that dilema.[/color]

Many people may wish to change the club in order to establish a high water mark.

That's true and a valid point.
And, that's why I believe that outside, independent architectural consultants could help make that determination.

All too often, knee jerk reactions, plugging into the latest fad, or catering to the personal whims of those now in power, dictate the alterations to the golf course, and not, prudent thought grounded in sound architectural tastes and practices.[/color]

Changes to clubs like Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley, etc., should be very limited, I suppose.

There are certain architectural treasures, worthy of preservation, that would have tolerable margins for fine tuning, that should be protected.

But, there are a great number of clubs with less celebrity, but, with equally great architecture that should also be protected.

It's the merits of the architecture, not the perceived stature of the club that should be the determining factor.[/color]

They are elite clubs, I do not sense that any of the membership there would change on a whim.

That's not always the case.
You'd be surprised how quickly some "name" clubs forget about their architectural pedigree and make themselves available to a D-6 or BobCat.

Some clubs get blinded by the potential for notoriety, and others want to defend par at all costs, even if it means disfiguring the golf course and making it less member friendly.

TEPaul brought up an interesting theory about change in general, the culture of the club, and how it relates to clubhouse and golf course alike.

Tournament golf, and tournament golf at the highest level exerts a pressure that's almost irresistable when it comes to altering the architecture.

The heart of the matter is determining which master to serve.

Some clubs value their architectural pedigree above all else, others see the golf course as "open season" to the newest fad.[/color]

[John Moore II]

So, changing a course is ok, as long as another highly paid architect changes what a previous highly paid architect did? That goes against what you have been saying. In many ways, if the membership wants change, they will get an architect who will change the course the way they want, if not down to the exact details, the general ones. If a club wants to look like, say, Shadow Creek, the club will simply hire Tom Fazio (if they have the money that is) and say here's the land, you have to keep the basic routing because we're surrounded by houses, but make us a Shadow Creek. Would Fazio do it? I'm not sure, but he did a real rework of Pinehurst #4. And you would think work by Ross would be thought of as nearly Holy by a fellow architect. To say that its ok to do changes with a consulting architect is flawed, I think, because clubs will simply hire someone who will build what they want. In my humble, simple man's opinion, that is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, changing a course is ok, as long as another highly paid architect changes what a previous highly paid architect did?


Go back and reread my post.
Obviously you didn't understand it.[/color]

That goes against what you have been saying. In many ways, if the membership wants change, they will get an architect who will change the course the way they want, if not down to the exact details, the general ones.

I don't know how you could have gotten so far off base and so misquided.

Please go back and reread my previous post.

I've been unwaiveringly consistent.[/color]

If a club wants to look like, say, Shadow Creek, the club will simply hire Tom Fazio (if they have the money that is) and say here's the land, you have to keep the basic routing because we're surrounded by houses, but make us a Shadow Creek. Would Fazio do it? I'm not sure, but he did a real rework of Pinehurst #4. And you would think work by Ross would be thought of as nearly Holy by a fellow architect. To say that its ok to do changes with a consulting architect is flawed, I think, because clubs will simply hire someone who will build what they want. In my humble, simple man's opinion, that is.

It's either way past your bedtime, you've had too much to drink, or you need new reading glasses.

What you've posted isn't remotely close to what I recommended.  You're 180 degrees off course.

Take two aspirin and retype in the morning.[/color]

[John Moore II]

I get your point about 'independent architectural consultants" but wouldn't clubs simply hire someone from a specific school of thought who would potentially advocate the changes they may be looking for? Thats how I got to my statements about Fazio. But again, even if a consultant is hired, what if his recomendations are wrong, or they are 'right' based on a clubs incorrect thinking? But you didn't answer my question, Is changing a course ok as long as another highly paid architect changes what a previous highly paid architect did? As in Pinehurst #4.

[David Lott]

Pat:

Valuing the pedigree does not exclude trying to improve the breed. Problem is, most changes are made without understanding the real genetic heritage. Other changes just creep in through careless maintenance or even the unavoidable consequences of careful maintenance.

The recent post with old photos on Oakmont was instructive. A lot of tinkering over time, and changes in fairway width, bunkering, trees etc that may or may not have been fully conscious. But the basic shape of the course remained, and the basic philosophy--difficulty and challenge--is intact. I think this was respect of pedigree.

[Anthony Butler]

This is the bag tag supplied to all members of New South Wales Golf Course for 2008. Examining this against what has happened at the course over the last 8-9 years, I would speculate the directors have a guiding principle of keeping the spirit of the course that Mackenzie designed for us (wild, spectacular, challenging, subject to the elements) and make appropriate changes for how the course plays in the modern era.

That means revetting of most greenside bunkers to keep the sand in the bottom of them and keep the challenge of playing from them somewhat consistent. It means levelling some of the putting surfaces (7,14,17) not because of the increased green speeds, but simply because at 10 on the stimpmeter they become quickly unplayable when the wind gets over 20 mph.

It also means redoing the 18th hole which should take away some of the let down you currently experience after playing 5 of the most exhilarating holes in golf in 13-18. Hopefully the hole will be open when I visit in late March.

As a philosophy, I think this makes the most sense. With such a unique site for a golf course, the club's philosophy has been to make changes only when they reinforce the challenge and enjoyment that Dr. Mac and Eric Apperly provided for us. Many other clubs have not shown a similar restraint. Unlike ANGC, I think Mackenzie would approve of the changes made at NSWGC since he handed in his routing and topgraphy maps.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I get your point about 'independent architectural consultants" but wouldn't clubs simply hire someone from a specific school of thought who would potentially advocate the changes they may be looking for?

If that's the case, then they DON'T value their pedigree.[/color]

Thats how I got to my statements about Fazio. But again, even if a consultant is hired, what if his recomendations are wrong, or they are 'right' based on a clubs incorrect thinking?


If you approach this as you would a medical problem, when you get conflicting first and second opinions, you seek a third opinion in an attempt to "get it right"[/color]

But you didn't answer my question, Is changing a course ok as long as another highly paid architect changes what a previous highly paid architect did?

No.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Valuing the pedigree does not exclude trying to improve the breed. Problem is, most changes are made without understanding the real genetic heritage. Other changes just creep in through careless maintenance or even the unavoidable consequences of careful maintenance.

Agreed.

Diligent research is critical.

But, it goes beyond due diligence, the culture of the club is really the heart of the matter.  Clubs with a good "sense of self" are familiar with their genetic heritage, or will become familiar with their genetic heritage before putting a shovel in the ground.  Other clubs couldn't care less and proceed with the flavor of the decade.[/color]

The recent post with old photos on Oakmont was instructive. A lot of tinkering over time, and changes in fairway width, bunkering, trees etc that may or may not have been fully conscious. But the basic shape of the course remained, and the basic philosophy--difficulty and challenge--is intact. I think this was respect of pedigree.

Difficulty, which was a critical component of the foundation of Oakmont, has to be contexted.  Is it solely in the context of the best golfers in the world ?  If so, then I might agree.

If the degree of difficulty is beyond the ability of the members to cope with it, then I have to question it.

Had the 2007 Open never come to Oakmont, along with the preceeding Amateur, do you think they would have made those changes to the golf course ?  [/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I don't know if this has been asked in this thread, but it has in previous discussions on GCA.com.....it is directly related to this discussion:

What clubs SHOULD value their pedigree?

Joe

[Anthony Butler]

Patrick Mucci wrote:

Had the 2007 Open never come to Oakmont, along with the preceeding Amateur, do you think they would have made those changes to the golf course ?  

Pat,

When I played at Oakmont in 1995, I got the feeling from my host + others I met at the club there was considerable agreement amongst certain groups of members that turning the course back into an 'inland links' (despite the fact this is an oxymoron) was the correct thing to do. That being the case, the USGA tournaments were simply the catalyst to make those changes... not vica versa.

[Jason Connor]

Pete Dye from a Links Magazine interview

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/personalities/pete_dye_golf_course_design.aspx

"This is why when everyone says that they are going to restore a Donald Ross course, it is the most disrespectful thing that they could ever say about the man. Because if he were alive today he would not do anything like he did, or what people think he did, 80 years ago."

You and I update our kitchens, and our computers, etc.  Granted golf is a more timeless game.  But due to changing technology golf is merely more timeless, but not altogether timeless.

It seems important to stick with the intent of the architect's design -- to maintain "shot values" (whatever that means) and his perceived strategies to get around the course.  But as technologies improve some altering of a course seems necessary to actually maintain what the designer had in mind.

Donald Ross didn't design #2 then watch players go by from his verandah for the rest of his life.  He keep tweaking the course.  So if you wanted to restore Pinehurst #2, where do you go back to?  His original sketches?  Day 1 when it opened? The day Ross died?  Or the plans for an update that lay on his desk the day he died?



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete Dye from a Links Magazine interview

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/personalities/pete_dye_golf_course_design.aspx

"This is why when everyone says that they are going to restore a Donald Ross course, it is the most disrespectful thing that they could ever say about the man. Because if he were alive today he would not do anything like he did, or what people think he did, 80 years ago."

I disagree with that.
I don't think that Ross would reject his core or inherent design principles.  

Pete has been known to contradict himself as TEPaul can attest.[/color]

You and I update our kitchens, and our computers, etc.  Granted golf is a more timeless game.  But due to changing technology golf is merely more timeless, but not altogether timeless.

I think you're confusing the preservation of the "style" and the design "integrity",  with a substantive departure from it.

"Disfiguration" conveys a fairly clear meaning and it's not to be equated with continuity of design principles.[/color]

It seems important to stick with the intent of the architect's design -- to maintain "shot values" (whatever that means) and his perceived strategies to get around the course.  

But as technologies improve some altering of a course seems necessary to actually maintain what the designer had in mind.


There's a distinct difference between alterations in harmony with the style, design and challenge, and alterations which are clearly out of snyc with the above.[/color]

Donald Ross didn't design #2 then watch players go by from his verandah for the rest of his life.  He keep tweaking the course.  

Yes, but Ross had the most in depth understanding of the intent of the original design and could envision the evolutionary process that would be in harmony with it.

His thoughts and ongoing work were closely connected to what was already in the ground.  That's not the case when strangers seek to impose what they think Ross wanted, 80 years later.

He didn't wake up one morning and reject his prior work.
His evolving work was in harmony with his previous work.
And, that's another major distinction.[/color]

So if you wanted to restore Pinehurst #2, where do you go back to?  His original sketches?  Day 1 when it opened? The day Ross died?  

I think it's clear.
The day he died has to be the baseline.[/color]


Or the plans for an update that lay on his desk the day he died?

That's a questionable premise, one that attempts to predispose the viewer to a predetermined answer.

It would have readers believe that he had plans, ready to implement.

If he had NONE, then the question is disengenuous.
If he had formal plans, then they should certainly be considered.  However, if plans did exist, you would also have to consider Richard Tufts' comments on those plans.

Nothing would happen at Pinehurst without Richard Tufts approval.

Hence, any plans Ross may have had can't be viewed in a vacuum.  They would have to be viewed in conjunction with Richard Tufts' critique of them.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick Mucci wrote:

Had the 2007 Open never come to Oakmont, along with the preceeding Amateur, do you think they would have made those changes to the golf course ?  

Pat,

When I played at Oakmont in 1995, I got the feeling from my host + others I met at the club there was considerable agreement amongst certain groups of members that turning the course back into an 'inland links' (despite the fact this is an oxymoron) was the correct thing to do. That being the case, the USGA tournaments were simply the catalyst to make those changes... not vica versa.

Anthony,

I would disagree with your conclusion.

You stated that you got the "feeling", that they wanted to return the course to an "inland links" in 1995.

That's subjectively interpretive on your part.

But, let's say that your "feelings" were correct.
That would lend credence to an effort to embark upon a tree clearing program absent outside influences.

But, it would in no way explain the narrowing of the fairways, moving the bunkers in to match them, and deepening the bunkers.  A process that some would say was solely fueled by USGA needs when hosting the U.S. Amateur and the U.S. Open.[/color]

[David Lott]

Pat:

Valuing the pedigree does not exclude trying to improve the breed. Problem is, most changes are made without understanding the real genetic heritage. Other changes just creep in through careless maintenance or even the unavoidable consequences of careful maintenance.



Difficulty, which was a critical component of the foundation of Oakmont, has to be contexted.  Is it solely in the context of the best golfers in the world ?  If so, then I might agree.

If the degree of difficulty is beyond the ability of the members to cope with it, then I have to question it.

Had the 2007 Open never come to Oakmont, along with the preceeding Amateur, do you think they would have made those changes to the golf course ?  [/color]

I haven't played Oakmont since I was a kid growing up in Pittsburgh. So I have no present basis to respond your question that is specific to Oakmont. In the 1960's I played it quite a bit. It was damn hard, but not so hard that I could not enjoy it, even though I was only a middling skill golfer and I always scored higher at Oakmont.

As a general matter, I agree that a course should remain accessible to the games of its members. That is, the best players should have a fighting chance of making pars consistently, and the middle players should have a means to play with their brains instead of their balls that will afford a chance of success at their level.

Whether Oakmont strikes this balance today I don't know. But it seems unlikely that changes that upped the difficulty would not have been made without the high profile tournaments.

Contrast Fox Chapel, across the river from Oakmont, which did a lot of work trying to restore some of the lost Raynor nuances in preparation for the Curtis Cup. Perhaps because par was not in danger from Curtis cuppers, there seemed to be little emphasis on making the course more difficult. That would be a mistake for Fox Chapel, which is a wonderful and challenging course for players of most levels, but which would have to be bent out of shape to restrain low scoring from "the best players in the world."

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Lott,

That's a good summation of the architectural tug of war that involves trying to serve two masters.

[Tim_Cronin]

Nobody -- not even St. Andrews -- beats Chicago Golf Club in this regard.  They value their pedigree so much that 98% of the golf world still thinks the golf course is the oldest 18 in America and was designed by CBM, even though it's on a different property 10 miles away and was completely re-done by Raynor!  

Now that's[/i] hanging onto pedigree that would make even The Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews blush...

I'm going to stay out of the rest of this pedigree argument, but do want to note that there is considerable disagreement on whether or not the original site of Chicago Golf Club in Belmont (now in Downers Grove) had 18 holes, even though CBM said so. If it did, it had to be simply playing the course in reverse (a la St. Andrews Old), because no land was added for nine more holes.
Logic thus suggests that among the reasons to move to Wheaton within three years of commencing play at Belmont was to have the room for 18 holes.
Incidentally, the current 9 at Downers Grove is only partially on the original plot of CGC 1. Some of the original land was unavailable for the reopening of the course as Belmont GC (following Illinois GC, which followed CGC) in 1899, the farmer who first leased the site for three holes unwilling to do so again. And the course has since been redone in the last 10 years, eliminating back-to-back par 3s which some said was part of the original.
As to Wheaton, which in my mind is the oldest true 18-hole site in America, I think it's the first, second and 14th holes which are still CBM holes, though 18 might be as well, and if not, it seems Raynor didn't change much.