TV and "the Open Doctor"

[TEPaul]

How can you deny it boys--TV and somehow becoming the "US Open Doctor" is the unquestionable combination for fame and fortune in golf architecture!

Whether your work is good, bad or indifferent there never will be a consensus on your work anyway with the way the thing is presented and the spectrum of people watching and hearing about you!

You're the Open Doctor--you must be the best! And even if you're not--you are!

RTJ, Tom Fazio and Rees Jones, three of the heavyweights in the world of modern golf architecture, all perennial "Open Doctors" in their times! Pete Dye made his fame the old fashioned way!

And some of you are still wondering why Tom Fazio is still doing restoration, redesign, or even restaurantization work at great American classic championship sites?

It's probably even why he's doing it pro bono these days! He's giving back to the very thing that made him in the first place!

[David Kelly]

Also once a classic course has been restored/renovated the architect who did the restoration work will forever have his name linked to that course. This weighs heavy with a TV viewer watching a US Open with no previous knowledge of a particular course's history.  At this year's US Open, NBC will put up a graphic at some point that will state Bethpage Black's architects as: "A.W. Tillinghast (1935), Rees Jones (1999)" So for the non-GCA enthusiast Bethpage Black is not a Tillinghast course it is a Tillinghast/Jones course or even just a Rees Jones course because many will think that Jones "redid" the course, having no idea what design features were there to begin with.  To take it a step farther many viewers, having heard Rees Jones name brought up a few times during the US Open weekend by Hicks and Miller, will then remember him as a top architect and maybe look to play some of his courses because after all he was the architect at Bethpage Black. How many times was Fazio's name mentioned during Master's week and how much free publicity did he receive?

This is fine when an architect does good work - he should be lauded for his achievements.  But whether the work turned out great or horrible that architect will forever be linked to that course and the average golfer/viewer will really have no idea who did what.  Oak Hill is a Ross/Fazio course now as is Inverness. Ray Floyd will always be mentioned with Doral's Blue Monster even though the work he did was so bad they almost immediately started changing it.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

About Doral---it was so bad that even the good Lord tried to send a Hurricane a few years back to clean it up!  What was that Hurricanes name?

[TEPaul]

Maybe Merion will never hold another Open but if it does for some reason I will absolutely guarantee you this. No one, including television commentators will be allowed to say Merion is a Wilson/Flynn/Fazio golf course if the club has anything to say about it-and they would.

Ron Whitten basically did in Hanse/Kittleman over there by writing an article (without checking with anyone first, apparently) that Merion was a Wilson/Flynn/Hanse/Kittleman design and the club went ballistic! Gil and Bill didn't want that, didn't ask for that, and once it happened could scarcely have it taken back although they did try to have it taken back. But once that stuff gets out there, it's 1000 times harder to take it back.

Maybe some of the classic championship Open rota courses will have the restoration architects name attached to them but Merion will never be one. No matter what it will always be a Wilson/Flynn design period--if the club has anything to say about it--and they would!

I frankly like it much better that way! Riviera, a Thomas/Fazio design? No matter what he does there that sounds terrible to me!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

So you're doing recon work on Medinah, are you?

Well take it from me and do what Recon Marines do by practicing their ultimate tenet--"Never let the enemy know you were ever there!" This takes much training, specialization and a certain mentality!

I was once in Camp Geiger, a division of Camp LeJeune, NC, and among us greenhorns in a part of the camp were a number of Recon Marines who were rotating in and out of Vietnam. I got to talking to a bunch of them one time about their MOS. They were actually great guys when in relaxation mode but it didn't take much more ability than to tell the difference between a tee and a green to tell that there was basically a general insanity to those fellows. They had much to teach even the best thieves and assasins! And it was a snap to see they were the types you wanted on your side at all times and never against you!

They were in and out of enemies camps in no time with what they needed to know and get--but the fact that the enemy never knew they were ever there was what it was all about.

They had great interest and pride too in their battle garb and getups--it actually created a certain pride and morale in their work. They could look like a bush, the desert or a sleeping bag if they had to. And they never killed anyone unless that someone figured out they were not actually a bush or a sleeping bag! If that ever happened though, they could snap a Pat Mucci's neck before he could get from Pat to Mucci and Pat is one of the fastest talkers you ever saw.

Anyway, if you're doing recon work at Medinah, do it like real Recons do and never let the enemy know you were ever there! If you happen to smoke cigarettes do what the Recon Marines do--field strip them. Sprinkle the remaining tabacco to the wind and ball the paper up into a tiny ball and flick it--both are biodegradable and will never be found. But you have to eat the filter because it isn't biodegradable and could be found by the enemy! You could put the filter in your pocket but there's a chance it could slip out when you're slithering along the ground acting like an irrigation hose!

Take it from me when I smoke on golf courses I'm not supposed to smoke on--it's better to eat the filter than put it in your pocket. The reason being if you forget to take the filters out before putting your battle garb in the washer and dryer they can make a helluva mess and your pockets will never be the same again!

Good Luck--don't get caught, don't kill anybody and try to never let the enemy know you were ever there!

Semper Fi!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Medinah might actually benefit from Rees work. The course has been operated on by just about every Chicagoland architect who ever lived and really doesn't have any distinguishing character. Other than an abundance of trees, the course does not possess any interesting features or distinctive hazards. Even if you are not greatest fan of his work, you have to admit Rees does have a dsitinctive style and perhaps he can give the course some character and at the same time give a singular style after so many piece meal alterations. Removing some trees, increasing the widths of some coridors and introducing some strategy wouldn't be bad move either.

[Matt_Ward]

David Kelly:

I love the Black as much as anyone but it's still unclear in my mind how much "hands-on" role Tillie really had with the layout. From what I understand the plans were implemented by people not connected with Tillie and if anyone really studies the Black you will easily notice the greens presently there bear little, if any resemblance, to what you normally find at other renown Tillie layouts (i.e. Winged Foot, SF, Somerset Hills, Quaker, etc, etc).

As far as credit is concerned think of the listing you would have to provide for Augusta National. It makes me laugh when I see all this talk about Mackenzie and Jones and for some reason you have "creative editing" that forgets all the rest of the people who've had a hand in what has happened there. I really believe Trent Jones gets the short stick because he fundamentally played a major role in taking two holes (#11 and #16) and making them better.

Tom MacWood:

Agree completely with your take on Medinah. If there was ever a course that has no real character / definition it's Medinah. I will be very interested in seeing what is done with the involvement of Rees Jones. I really think the members should create a hole lift for #17. Whenever they get tired / bored / fed-up with the hole they can simply push a button and wa-la the hole will either move closer or further away from Lake Kadijah.

Someone needs to explain to me how Medinah has consistently placed so high in any course ratings. Bring out the buzz saw please and fix some of the dog-leg holes.

TEPaul:

Clearly, you make a good point that a smart architect will certainly try to get into the loop of major championship golf. What better vehicle can there be in maximizing your name recognition and building up your portfolio. Trent Jones understood this in the 1950's and so does his son Rees and a number of others. I don't blame anyone for attempting to build your business. Clearly, though I think it's important that whoever does the work understands its genesis and not attempt to pervert it beyond what is needed given the advances made in golf over the years.

I think you have to be fair when people say you should not add an architects name on with the original designer. If someone has come in and done work are you supposed to say it never happened? Can't buy that argument. Courses are upgraded, restored, modernized, whatever the word that applies all the time. I understand some clubs wish to keep this info from getting out but one simply cannot say it never happened when the facts say otherwise. We may disagree strongly about the involvement / result (i.e. Merion) but one cannot say it didn't happen.

I will say it's important to have some perspective on what work did happen and often on TV there is a very poor job in explaining this. CBS did not do a good job with this year's Masters on this score -- Augusta is not a PURE Jones / Mackenzie collaboration no matter what the network and green coats say.

To be fair to Rees I am quite confident if he's asked about the Black he will say he did some upgrading and touching up but that the original / core elements of the course are someone else's work -- whether it be Tillie or the construction team that worked off his plans.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

You say it doesn't seem fair to you that if an architect comes in and does work that his name should not be tacked onto the architects that built the course when design attribution is given.

It may not seem fair to you but I tell you what. Some architects clearly saw the facility to their careers in being "Open Doctors" and/or REDESIGNING classic courses so their names could be tacked on.

While others have gone in and really tried to RESTORE classic courses and isn't it just completely ironic that those latter architects did not mind at all if their names were not tacked on to the original architect! Some of them even insisted their there names not be and never be tacked on for design attribution! Count among those ones Coore and Crenshaw (Ben said this should be done so you never know we were here at Riviera) and maybe even Hanse at Merion despite Whitten's article!

If you ask me the latter type of architect shows a real respect for the golf course and surely the thing that Lynn Shackelford mentioned in another thread--a real RESPONSIBILITY to respect the course and consequently the original architect and his intentions!

I think history just might show that you can really draw a line that way. Some are in it for the true essence of the architecture and its value and others are in it for other reasons as well!

And again there just might be a few very distinct ways to tell which kind of architect is which. With one his name will go on to the list of architectural attribution and the course will probably look and play different than it ever did or was ever supposed to, where with the other type architect the course will look the same, play the way the original architect meant it to and no one will ever even see the name of the architect that did that work for the original architect's course!

[David Kelly]

Matt:
We are not talking about who deserves credit but who is going to get the credit.  And the people who determine who gets the credit for the general public are the sportswriters and TV people.

TEPaul:
Someone on TV may say that Riviera is a Thomas/Fazio course but the person watching won't hear the slash between the names so he'll be thinking, "Oh its a Tom Fazio course."  

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

Was it the Recon guys who taught you the "I lost my dog" trick for getting a peek of very private courses?  Hard to see that one working in the Mekong Delta or the moutains around Khosh........

[TEPaul]

Funny you asked me that Rich: Some of those Recon Marines liked to play golf and I taught them the little dog trick--that mighta been why they liked me. I kept trying to tell them that trick was only if you wanted to sneak onto a course and look at it--not to play golf on it. I never could seem to make them understand what "private" meant.

They said the little dog trick worked great anytime they saw anyone on any of the courses they walked onto and played and I figured whoever it was who they were talking to probably just thought maybe it wasn't such a good idea to ask them what they were talking about or what they were doing there. Maybe whoever the people were they talked to thought it was probably a good idea just to leave them alone.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Did Rees just happen to be driving by when he looked over and thought, hey, this course could use a revision to 17 of its 18 holes, I think I'll knock on their door and tell them what I think, or..... did MEDINAH's Membership decide that their course needed to be altered, to undo all of the previous changes in one harmonious effort.  And..... having decided that, did they seek out third parties for consultation before begining the process of determining the architect ?

IN most cases, the "CLUB" has a clear agenda.  The "CLUB" then undertakes an action plan to implement their agenda.
The "CLUB" usually gives the consulting architect their marching orders,  and directs him to comply with their instructions.

Stop blaming architects, REES, FAZIO or anyone else,
IT IS THE "CLUB'S" FAULT, they and they alone control their destiny.  Will you guys get that through your thick heads  

TEPaul,

If the USGA or PGA and the "CLUB" decide they want changes,
and the architect provides them exactly what they want, and
those parties are very satisfied with what they get,
why wouldn't a club desiring changes along those lines seek out architects who have successfully done it before ?

David Kelly and RC,

I liked the old Doral, a Dick Wilson creation.
I was surprised when Ray Floyd was awarded the work, but,
Ray was local, popular and a good player, and the OWNERS of
Doral wanted a FACELIFT.  Well, they got what they wanted.
Now, after looking in the mirror, or seeing the horror on the faces of those who see and play the course, guess what.
They just might be changing their minds, perhaps even admiting they made a huge mistake, the shame is, the original course is lost and may never be retrieved.  One would hope that the OWNERS revisit their thinking, and decide to restore Wilson's work, but I'm not holding my breath.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

David K. I agree with you completely. I find the need to fill the time during the breaks in the action creates the significant amount of promotion time for the architect combined with the broadcasters to give the perception that the course was significantly his and he even more so than the USGA in creating the venue for the championship. The last few years have been too much and no doubt again this year this will happen again. This open doctor must stop now and the usga need to take the lead.

[TEPaul]

Pat;

We've been through this before and will probably continue to go through it for the rest of time.

You say and you think the club comes up with an agenda, the club creates an action plan, they give the architect his marching orders and direct him to comply with their instructions!

Yes some clubs do that but are you really trying to tell us that if they do those things the same way with ANY architect they can expect to get the same product? Because if that's what you're telling us you still think that any architect is interchangeable and can and will do exactly the same thing, the same way and come up with the same product.

That is just patently not so! Merion, for instance, probably had the same agenda, the same action plan, the same marching orders and gave the same instructions to Hanse as they gave to Fazio. And if Coore and Crenshaw had agreed to come on board when asked before Fazio they would have given them all the same things and said the same things.

So are you really trying to say that Hanse, Coore and Crenshaw and Fazio all would have come up with the same product, the same bunkers that looked exactly the same?

I hope that's not what you're trying to say. They just don't all work the same way, they don't even use the same techniques, so how would they come up with the same thing?

If you really think that you just can't understand the distinctions between some architects or else you just can't see the distinctions in the product when they're done.

There's just no other explanation! Not all architects are going to do the same thing, the same way.  Not all architects are interchangeable just because you or a club might expect them to be!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Judging an architect's work and assigning blame are two different things. If an architect is successful in symaptheticaly restoring golf course certainly he will and should recieve credit. The opposite is also true. When we discuss the greatness of Cypress Point do we credit the club for hiring Dr.MacKenzie or do we give credit to the good doctor? Just the other day you were commenting on the work of Brian Silva at your home club - if you were consistant you would have taken the blame yourself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You refuse to acknowledge the club's culpability in this process.

To refresh your Euclidian Geometry, they would come up with similar, but not congruent designs.  They would not be
EXACTLY the same, but the general thrust or global direction would be the same.

Tell me how different would the short course at
Pine Valley be if C & C or Gil Hanse did it, versus the version
FAZIO provided.  Are we now talking congruent triangles ?
The identical or near identical product ?  You know it would be an almost mirror image of what exists today, because that was the direction, the marching orders the club gave, without room for deviation.

It is the CLUB that has to approve the work, in general, and in detail.

Each architect is going to provide subtle variations of the general theme, any major departure from the general theme usually results in dismissal.

Work order changes usually have to be signed off by at least two officers of the club, or go through committee and board approval, or both.

A club doesn't contract a project, select an architect, begin construction, and wake up one morning with a finished product that is a huge surprise.

Get with the REAL WORLD !      

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

My last post was addressed to Patrick 'the Assayer' Mucci.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Not untypically, you just don't know the facts, yet you offer a conclusion.

Would you please enlighten all of us and tell us about all of Silva's work at Preakness Hills.

To help you get started,

Was the intent to undertake a sympathetic restoration ?
What was the intent ?
Did he submit a plan ?
Did he or others change the mission, mid-stream ?
Who was in charge of the project ?
What type of approval was needed to alter the scope of the work or any aspect of the project ?
Was I on the committee involved in the project
Who was on the committee involved in the project
Was I on the Board at the time ?
Was I a member at the time ?

You know next to nothing about a project, yet you've made pronouncements, SOP for you !

To get a better level of understanding with respect to your expertise, how many golf course projects have you been intimately involved with ?

Before you open your mouth to change feet, know what you're talking about, at least you might be able to get the correct shoe size, along with a palatable flavor.

What did Charles Blair MacDonald say about assaying a golf hole or golf course ?  

Does he agree with me, and disagree with you ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Was Brain Silva to blame at Preakness Hills?

Did Silva just happen to be driving by when he looked over and thought, hey, this course could use a revision, I think I'll knock on their door and tell them what I think, or..... did PREAKNESS HILLS' Membership decide that their course needed to be altered, to undo all of the previous changes in one harmonious effort.  And..... having decided that, did they seek out third parties for consultation before begining the process of determining the architect ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Typically, you can't answer any of my questions, but I'll answer yours.

A unique situation unfolded, the fault of the Board, and a member.  The member was the green chairman.

The Board was sold a bill of goods by the chairman.
The chairman received approval of the Board
The chairman bypassed the committee on all field decisions.
The chairman changed the scope and nature of the project without notification, authorization or approval from the committee or board.
The work was done.
The chairman was fired.

His successor was worse !!!!!

There were those at the club who knew the chairman, who felt an oversight committee was necessary, in addition to the green committee, but the President, who's wife was friendly with the chairman and his wife, trusted that he would do the right job.  The President was not a good judge of character.

Now, if you want to know about the controversy surrounding the election of the President, we can get into that as well.

This entire fiasco is solely the fault of the Club, its President and its Board.

Had Tom Paul or I been chairman, you can bet the results would have been different, with the same architect.

Now, could you tell me what Charles Blair MacDonald said about evaluating holes and courses ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Why is all right for you to criticize Silva's work at PH, but not all right for someone to question Rees' work at Medinah? That wouldn't be another case of hypocracy would it?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm not refusing to acknowledge culpability (as you call it) at all, whether it be the club, architect, contractor or anyone else.

Any golf club who assumes that any architect will do the same thing is failing to see reality, in my opinion. That most certainly pertains to a contractor too. And by that I mean the club's responsibilty to understand the distinctions and differences between what contractors do. I don't blame MacDonald & Co for restoring bunkers on classic courses all over America that look oddly familar course to course. That's just the way they do bunkers, apparently.

But you're right, a club does have responsibility! They should  understand architects and contractors aren't interchangeable. Most don't seem to understand that and it appears you don't either! Certainly a club should understand that a contractor like MacDonald & Co is not going to restore bunkers and have them look like Coore and Crenshaw might restore bunkers--and Merion could be an example.

But if what they got is just what they wanted, fine! If they had hired C&C and they agreed to do that project, though, they would hardly have looked the same, in my opinion. Would the club then have liked what C&C might have done? It is certainly my sense that they would have, but we can't really know that now, can we? But what I'm certain of is they would not have looked like what Fazio and MacDonald & Co did despite whatever point you're trying to make about Euclidian geometry and similar but not congruent designs.

It may even go deeper than that. If Coore and Crenshaw had taken on the restoration project at Merion they very well may have convinced the club to not touch the surrounds of Merion's bunkers except to repair them. Have you ever thought of that Pat?

 A club who is interested in really good restoration just might bring in a very good restoration architect (or a number of them) and start by asking his opinion first about what their agenda should be--what their action plan should be. Have you thought of that approach? Like show him their aerials, photos, documentation and consult with him about what he might think is the best approach and action plan for restoration and what it would look like exactly.

Ask him what his techniques for restoration are--like with bunkers if it's primarily a machine method vs handworking the details--some fundamental distinctions and differences like that. Some clubs may not even know that there are such differences and distinctions, they may not even know to ask, most probably don't, but ultimately they may find out they are fairly fundamental.

That's some of what I would do anyway. That's a lot of what we did too to come up with our restoration plan that took about 18 months to develop through many meetings almost all of which were with our architect developing every single step of the restoration plan, hole by hole, piece by piece! And then we took it to the membership and that took about one more year and then it was approved.

[Mike_Cirba]

After seeing quite a few bunkers in my time, in "restorations" and elsewhere, I beginning to believe that trying to create a  detailed, intricate, naturally-integrated look can only be achieved through meticulous, time-consuming handwork.  Clearly, not every course is worth that level of effort, but the Merion's and Riviera's of the world certainly are.

The alternative to me seem akin to attempting a Rembrandt reproduction with a ceiling roller.

[TEPaul]

You're so right about that MikeC but most clubs don't know that. It's not really that they just refuse to acknowledge it they obviously just aren't aware of it.

If you think about it, why would they be aware of it? They aren't architects and contractors. The clubs job though, at least, in my opinion, is to at least get enough research done and get to the point where they begin to understand that not all architects and contractors are alike--they just aren't the same and their products can be very different particularly in the essential detail of some projects which can make or break some projects.

But your point about most courses is a very good one! On many courses it probably just doesn't matter--they actually might have a good deal of latitude in what they can do--since their bunkers, for instance, just might not be complicated to restore--their particular look just may be generic or slightly so and it really might not matter much who does the work or how.

But clearly that is not so on some course--generally the famous classics who have a good deal of uniqueness to them for one reason or another. Certainly Merion's bunkers fall into that category bigtime and possibly Riviera's too.

Every restoration has to be looked at carefully and in detail to see what your up against--and that takes time, effort, research and a certain responsibility (as Lynn Shackelford said) on the part of the club and architect.

The bunker restoration at Merion was very complicated and requiring much research and careful decision making about many unique things and the understanding that not any architect and contractor could do justice to them was necessary. Hand work vs machine work was certainly part of that necessary understanding and decision making. Another part of that understanding and decision making may have been they may not have had to redo the surrounds at all--they may have been able to comprehensively repaired them instead!

GMGC will have all its bunkers restored but we have far more latitude than Merion had with theirs. We do understand the differences and distinctions between handwork and machine work and although it may not be absolutely necessary on our bunkers a lot of hand work will be done anyway!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I am infinitely familiar with Silva's work at Preakness Hills.

Are you, or anyone else infinitely familiar with Rees' work at Medinah ?

What has Rees done at Medinah, to date ?

Could you answer these and the other questions I asked you, as I've answered yours.