[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Here's where you, repeatedly, don't get it.

Atlantic City was never intended to be a sensistive restoration.   Why is that the contractor's fault ?
Another one of your Ivory Tower theories ?

The owner's mandate was not to restore the golf course, but to alter it, and the contractor had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, nor did they have any influence over the owner.  So why are you blaming them for a decision totally beyond their influence and unrelated to the construction work they performed, capably ?

At Aronimink, Ron Prichard used Donald Ross's original field notes and drawings.  You can't get more sensitive than that, and the contractor had nothing to do with the decision regarding restoration, so why are you blaming them for a decision beyond their influence and the excellent work they performed for the architect and club.

At Bethpage, the goal was not restoration, any moron who has seen the 18th hole could have figured that out.
Once again, the contractor had nothing to do with the decision making process.  They built the bunkers as they were directed to, very capably.

Have you visited Atlantic City CC, Aronimink and Bethpage and viewed the finished product, the bunkers built by MacDonald & Co. ?

Or, is your judgement regarding the construction of the bunkers at Atlantic City, Aronimink and Bethpage based on third party information with absolutely no first hand experience ?

That you blame the contractor for a club's decsion regarding restoration is the most naive and stupid concept that I've heard of in a long time.  Further evidence that you just don't get what goes on in the real world.  

Stay in your Ivory Tower Tom, and continue baying at the moon, you're good at it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I would not be opposed to you making any positive comments about work performed by any architect or contractor. Ditto for any negative comments you might care to make.

The key is to stick with commentary about the "final product". While some commentary about "project management" is inevitable and sometimes appropriate, as a general rule we should stay away from it. Just sharing our opinions - pro and con - about the finished work is enough.

Project management commentary really should be left to those with direct involvement in the project - if they care to. But, surely you recognize that for practical business reasons, people in the business can't always come on here and share their true feelings about what occured during the course of a project. This means that "project management" discussions are inevitably incomplete and superficial. So, why get into them all?

I can't speak to the bunker work at either Aronomink or Bethpage but I have seen the work at both Merion and Atlantic City. The "final product" results are mixed, in my view. The work at Merion has to be among the biggest disappointments in the world of golf architecture. The work at Atlantic City is really cool, in my opinion.

I have no desire to get into what I know about what led to either failure or success. It wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be appropriate.

Pat, I'm really surprised that you believe we as lay people should be discussing anything more than our opinions about the "final product". We are "consumers" of golf architecture. We aren't the people who do the work itself. Why not be clear about our roles and our limitations and generally restrict our commentary accordingly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I suppose, if you want to emulate the three blind men examining the elephant, you can form your opinions on architecture, without pertinent information.  But, I would think that the introduction to material information would enable one to make a more prudent judgement and offer more credible opinions.

Tom MacWood's above post is a perfect example.

He tries to blame the contractor for the club's decision relative to the intent and scope of the project at Atlantic City, yet he knows absolutely nothing about the intent and scope of the project, and has never seen the project pre and post the recent work.  He makes a gross error in stating that the club intended to embark upon a sensitive restoration.
I know for a fact, that nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that Arthur Goldberg and I had spoken about this project on numerous occassions appears to be something that you want to disqualify.  
WHY, when it's fact based, sheds light on the project, and refutes Tom MacWood's erroneous speculations.

Do you want to embark upon a thorough and complete examination of golf course architecture or an incomplete examination based largely on speculation and the opinions of those who have never examined the finished product ?

If it's the later, I'm not interested, and you can go back to the days of hero worship, agenda reinforcement and demonization, without the facts.

Have a good time.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I don't want to "disqualify" private discussions. But, I do want us to be realistic. The content of private discussions can't always be shared. That's why going down the road to discuss "project management" issues is problematic. We are never going to get a "thorough and complete examination" of "project management" issues and it is silly to even suggest it is possible. Reasonable confidentiality concerns make it impossible.

Pat, I never saw Atlantic City prior to the recent work. I just know that I like how things turned out and would be happy playing there any day. Why bother getting into all the mission statement stuff? Why pretend that we can really talk about how each party performed during the project?

We're here to be art critics - that should be our only agenda.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Pat
You've always been a great judge of talent. A, B, and C - not exactly the triple crown of sensative restoration work. Throw in D....Merion.

And your point is....its not their fault....just following orders....I get it.

Here is the crux of the problem with judging the final results, the CONTEXT in which they are judged.

Tom MacWood slams MacDonald and Co because Atlantic City didn't complete a sensitive restoration, which was never their goal.

Tom MacWood seeks to deliberately deceive you by implying that the three courses failed in their attempts at sensative restorations, when that was not the intended goal at Atlantic City and Bethpage.

He knowingly falsifies the club's intent, trying to convince you that they failed to reach an objective that was never their goal, or even in their sights.

He judges the final product in an absurd fifth dimension, his own.  Forget what everyone wanted to accomplish, the club, the architect and the contractors, it only matters what Tom MacWood wanted them to accomplish, and he judges the final product according to his fantasy goal, that even he can't define, despite his attempt to declare a nebulous, consensus high water mark as some sort of definition.

Remember too, that this is an individual making judgements on the construction of, and the final product, despite the fact that he has never seen the final product.  And, he has never seen what existed before the project began.  So you tell me, how does one establish a fact based, credible opinion without ever seeing the work.  

It's an insult to this site.

I'm glad that you enjoy Atlantic City, so do I.
I think that Tom Doak did a very good job, based on the directive that he was given by the owner, and the bunkers are just fine.

I'll guarantee you one other thing.
If Tom MacWood didn't know in advance who designed or constructed the bunkers at Atlantic City and he came and played Atlantic City, he wouldn't have a clue as to who designed and built them.  He only knows what he reads.

What you are missing is that Tom MacWood's judgements are preconceived, due to knowledge beforehand,  before he ever lays eyes on the finished product, if he ever lays eyes on the finished product.

Do you want to judge architecture by actual experience and the facts entwined in the project, or do you want to judge architecture by phantom standards created by someone who has never seen the golf course and doesn't understand what the club was trying to accomplish ?

As I said, CONTEXT is an important factor, critical to a truer evaluation.

Tom MacWood,

I can understand you forgetting about the reasons each club initiates a project, it undermines your phantom conclusions.

You bring up sensative restoration, yet you are in conflict with respect to what that means.  You mention a "high water mark", as if their is universal agreement as to what time in the club's architectural history that represents.  And, could it be that by making alterations, or modernizations to classic courses, that that time is in the future, hence we should modify classic courses to improve them, just like you alleged Maxwell did to GMCC.

You're so out of touch with reality that it's comical.  
I would suggest that you continue with your forte, research, and let people more in tune with reality, who have actually seen the golf courses discussed, render their opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat
You've always been a great judge of talent. A, B, and C - not exactly the triple crown of sensative restoration work. Throw in D....Merion.

And your point is....its not their fault....just following orders....I get it.

You did write this, didn't you ?

I'd say that you've been critical of MacDonald & Co's work and the above post is but one example of your snide criticism.

Another example of your arrogance and fallacious conclusions is in the assertion that I haven't looked into the architectural history of golf courses.

But, then again, you're the expert when it comes to drawing conclusions without the facts.

Stick to research, field work is not your bailiwick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

So you're the guy from Ohio whose lawn is almost four (4) feet high.

Tom your neighbors didn't want to tell you, so they asked me to step in.  They weren't concerned about the height of the grass in your yard, but the fact that both of your hands are bandaged and bloody.

You would think, after three months of trying to mow the grass, without any results that you would have figured it out.

Please, let go of those reels and stop pushing the handle along the ground.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Context is not important for any "final product" analysis. All you have to do is tell us why you liked or disliked the golf course. No research, no material facts. You don't even need to know who the developer, architect or contractor was.

You want to keep blurring the distinction between "final product" and "project management" analysis. I think it is better to keep a clear head and keep them separate.

People have a right to be consumers, to like or dislike something based on their own subjective feelings. They don't need to go through a project review before expressing an opinion about whether a course appeals to them.

Again, the key thing for the discussion group is simply that the writer shares why he came to the conclusion he did. As long as you understand that, you can evaluate how much weight you want to put on his input when deciding to play the course.

For example, just yesterday by coincidence I happen to run into someone actively trying to raise money for a new swimming pool at Yale University. So, I mentioned that I was playing at Yale on Monday.

"Oh, the hell with that......I'll never play that course again", he told me. When I asked why he replied "it is much too hard....I can't play it anymore".

Now that's a perfect example. This gentleman was a proud
Yale alumnus who had enough of their famous golf course and in just a few words he explained why.

I sure don't need to review the mission statement given to CB Mac to know I still want to play it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

You're lecturing the wrong guy, and context is important.

Over and over again, Tom MacWood will comment that a golf course or hole that has been worked on is a failure because it's not a sensitive restoration.

He has repeatedly condemned work, including a good deal of work he has never seen, on the basis that the hole or course wasn't restored.
And you accept his evaluation, without question, time and time again, despite the fact that he judges the "final product" not in terms of the holes worth, but in terms of whether or not it's a "sensitive restoration", a totally seperate context.

My point is, that if the club never intended to restore the hole, how can you evaluate and condemn it in the context that they didn't restore it ?

Like you, I've played Atlantic City CC, and I like it, especially when the wind is up.  Tom MacWood was critical of the bunkers, and MacDonald & Co because the course wasn't "sensitively restored".  What has that got to do with one's evaluation of what's in the ground today, understanding that the owner didn't want to restore the course, he wanted to alter it, and did ?

Are we now to go through the, "woulda, shoulda, coulda" form of mental masturbation when evaluating a golf course, in Tom MacWood's CONTEXT of whether or not the work is a "sensitive restoration" ignoring the fact that the club didn't want to restore the course ?

I'm the one who said that you should evaluate the hole based on its strategic merits, not that it failed his idealistic fantasy test of whether or not it's a "sensitive restoration".

He's the one making the abstract analysis, while I've tried to confine analysis to the play of the hole/s, and their strategic merit.

I also played Aronimink, Bethpage, Hollywood, Baltusrol, TCC, Congressional and Merion, and all are great golf courses as they are.

I think you addressed your above post to the wrong person.

Sorry that I'm going to miss you at YALE tomorrow.
I was supposed to play, but work got in the way.
What are you doing tuesday morning ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I’m surprised you care so much about what Tom MacWood may have said about Atlantic City. The golf course is a treat to play and I’d be happy doing so any time. If Tom has a different view, fine. Note it and move on. He’s entitled to his view, but I’ll stick to mine. Atlantic City is pretty cool. Anyone fortunate enough to be invited should go and enjoy it. Period.

Again, I’m convinced that project management discussion is inherently problematic. People who really know the inside scoop usually can’t share more than a few tidbits and most discussion group participants don’t have such information. That’s why it is usually better to concentrate on sharing views about the “final product”. That’s as far as most people can go most of the time. Hell, we have a hard enough time just doing that!

Sorry you can’t make Yale. Just to see Tommy tackle #18 is going to be a blast, I’m sure. Tuesday may be a possibility. Let’s touch base Monday afternoon/evening.

[TEPaul]

Patrick quoted me in the first paragraph and then in caps said:

"If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MACDONALD & CO DIDN'T BUILD THOSE BUNKERS TO THE SPECS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN?


Patrick;

Why answer my question with another question? No, I don't know for a fact that MacDonald & Co. didn't build those bunkers to the specs they were given? Do you? But if they did build those bunkers to specs they were given then who do you suppose gave them those specs? You just said above that 'CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS'.

So then who's reponsible for the mistakes made on those bunkers at Merion---mistakes you yourself acknowledge? You've just said it can't be the club because they don't hire contractors and they don't prepare construction specs---so the only one I can see left to lay responsiblility on (in your mind) must be the architect---an intermediary by the name of TOM FAZIO!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"I think Pat's imagination may be getting the best of him...not uncommon for these conspiracy theorists."

Tom MacW:

I don't believe I'd say Pat's imagination may be getting the best of him---but I think I would say that Pat's complete lack of logic and commonsense has gotten the better of him a long long time ago! I don't think Pat actually likes to contradict himself all the time---it's just that he's totally unaware of it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS

You've just said it can't be the club because they don't hire contractors and they don't prepare construction specs

That's some leap in logic ?

I never said that it can't be the club, I said clubs don't create a plan and hire a contractor to implement it.

Clubs hire an architect who creates the bid specs for contractors, based on their interpretation of the clubs intent, as communicated to the architect by the club.

Your conclusion is flawed because you WANT to arrive at a conclusion that you support, therefore you make a quantum leap, absent logic or a logical progression.  
I've never exculped the club from responsibility.

Tom MacWood,

You have been critical of MacDonald & Co and their work at many sites, in a variety of threads.

You've had a history harping on the issue that they and the architect didn't successfully complete a sensitive restoration, when that was never the intent of the projects at several courses, like Hollywood, Bethpage, Baltusrol, etc, etc..

You deemed their work, "failed" because they didn't achieve
YOUR objective, despite NEVER seeing the work.

What I don't understand is how their can be any inkling of credibity to your assessment of the finished work when you've never seen it, and the project was never intended as a restoration.

You have a prejudiced position not in tune with the reality of the project.

Tim Weiman wants us to comment on the finished product.

When I told you and others that Rees Jones had dramatically improved the 14th hole at Hollywood, your parrot like response was, he didn't restore it to the original or near original course.  On a zillion occassions, I told you that restoration was not the clubs goal, yet you want to continue to judge the final product in the context of a fantasy standard of sensitive restoration, when Rees Jones improved the hole, just like you allege that Maxwell improved the holes at GMCC.  You accept Maxwell's work at GMCC and reject Rees's work at Hollywood, even though you have seen neither
golf course. why, because you are clearly biased and have an agenda.  Otherwise, if you had a discerning eye, you would recognize the improvements to the 14th hole due to Rees's work.

Hopefully, you'll see your inconsistencies and the errors of your way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

But, you've NEVER seen the changes that you're critical of.

So how can you make the determination that you don't like them, if you've never seen them  ?

The extending of the green to the stream wasn't the only change made to # 14 at Hollywood, but then again, since you've never seen the hole, pre and post change, you wouldn't know that, yet you claim you don't like something that you've never seen.

I think it is a good thing to expose people to architectural history, but when a club embarks upon an alteration that was never intended to be a restoration, you can't judge the "final product" that Tim Weiman references in the context of its failure to be a restoration.  

According to Charles Blair MacDonald and others, it's impossible to make a prudent judgement on the architectural merits and play of a hole if you've never seen it.

In most cases I think it's a good thing to support restoration work, but when a club doesn't perform a restoration, judge the "final product" based strictly on its architectural and playability merits, not what you would have liked to have seen accomplished.

If you want to say that any work that doesn't gravitate toward a sensitive restoration is contrary to your basic philosophy, fine, I wouldn't disagree with that.  But, don't judge a hole that you've never seen based on the clubs failure to restore it.  Let the worth of the hole speak for itself.

Tim Weiman,

This is exactly what I mean.
Tom MacWood has never seen the "final product" you reference, yet he draws a harsh opinion of it, repeatedly.
If that's not a biased or predisposed view, I don't know what is.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

When it comes to expressing "final product" opinions the best thing you could do is just go ahead and do it. Spending so much time attempting to disqualify someone else's point of view really doesn't add much.

Let's take the 14th at Hollywood. I haven't seen the work Rees Jones did. So far all I've learned is that Pat Mucci doesn't think Tom MacWood is qualified to comment on this subject and/or on plenty of other topics

Pat, I already knew that - from a couple hundred posts ago!

What I'd much rather hear about is your view of the work itself. Is Rees' work worth going out of my way to see and, if so, why?

That would not only help me, but it would also help other people here with an interest in such things.

I certainly don't need to hear for the 1,000th time that you don't think much of Tom MacWood's views about golf architecture. That stopped being news a long time ago!

We all know that Tom takes an interest in the historical aspect of golf architecture. The list of people who do serious research on the subject isn't very long. If that is Tom's thing, why do you care so much? If you don't get anything out of his essays or comments, fine. No problem. It is still better for you to share your own thoughts on "final product" than to remind us once again that you think Tom spends too much time in the library.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I love reading these incredible posts of yours. I'm convinced very soon you'll attempt to insert both your feet in your mouth while trying to stand!    

[Tim Nugent]

For those "not-in-the-business" let me shed some light.

Yes, clubs do hire contractors.  I have done jobs where the contractor was already choosen.  Mostly due to a prior relationship with the super or that the contractor did work at another club that impressed the board.

Not all crews of a contractor are created equal.  Unless it is a small outfit, you may get a completely different set of guys. 

Guys within a crew may have different abilities. 

The architect is typically not there every minute or even every day. 

Plans and  specs are not the end-all.  They are open to interpetation and it needs to be realized that they are prepared to allow the contractor to get areas and quantities in order to have a scope to bid.  Sometimes you get lucky and the architect/contractor are on the same page from day 1, other times they eventually get there and still other times - never.

Your best bets are to 1) hire a team that have worked together before,
2) Allow the architect to submit a short-list of contractors he deems suitable for the result he wants, 3) hire an architect who does design-build -so there's no finger-pointing and you know for certain that the finished product is exactly what the architect intended.  If Doak had done the work himself, this thread would have ended months ago because you speculators out there wouldn't have much to speculate on.  All you could do is to comment on what's important - the finished product.

[TEPaul]

TimN:

Your last post is a good one for observers and contributors on here, particularly those who don't have much in the way of the details of how various restoration projects worked.

This is an old thread, and it's also five pages long so I'm not going back through it to check, but if one reads Pat Mucci's first post (he started this thread back in 2003) and the various questions he asked in it, particularly between Merion's bunker work and Aronimink's bunker work and using the same contractor, there sure are some interesting and detailed answers to Pat's questions on that initial post (again whether they've been put on this thread or not).

I guess I might be the only one on here who saw both projects happen, who went on site from start to finish and in pretty good detail including speaking with the architects and committee people involved about various things (since I live nearby both courses and I know both clubs well).

I think most all the detailed answers to Pat's initial questions about the differences between these two projects are on here. I realize some may not have agreed with those answers but I've always maintained that is because they either never got involved in them or even saw these courses or else they just never want to or will agree for whatever their biases and reasons, probably mostly to do with just automatically not liking various contractors or architects no matter what they do.

But that's fine----everyone seems to have opinions on these restorations and their architects and contractors no matter their familiarity or not with them. And there is a lot to be said for the finished product and anyone's review of it in play or aesthetically. But I've just always felt it's better with the producing of a competent review of a product if one plays and sees a golf course rather than trying to review the whole thing over the Internet.

[Tim Nugent]

TEP - to take it one step further - to be in from the beginning, through the process, and then being able to comment on the final product.  Often times, things like personalities, egos, bullying, budgets, weather, environmental concerns play a greater part in these projects than people realize.
Rare is it that an architect gets a free hand to do exactly what he wants.  The mark of a seasoned veteran is how close he can get to his goal and still please a majority of those involved.   This is unfortunate because many courses would be much better if the owners found someone with passion - that they trusted - and left him alone.  Nothing is worse than members coming out in the middle of a project to comment on unfinished work.

[TEPaul]

TimN:

With the Merion and Aronimink projects (both basically bunker restoration projects) I'm not so much thinking of say extraneous members complaining about things before or after the fact, I'm talking more about the dynamics of say a committee (or those leading a committee) trying to accomplish something vis-a-vis the architect or contractor used or just the on-going working relationship with a contractor (or shaper) and the architect.

In that way, the dynamics involved in the Merion project compared to the Aronimink project was pretty different but no less educational for me and probably all those involved including the committees from those two clubs.

I have always wondered if Merion would've done things somewhat differently if they had the luxury going into it of seeing what the finished product was all about. I sense they would've done some things differently but this in no way means to me they did not go into it with the very best of intentions both for themselves and for the golf course. One pretty much has to realize that with most any committee from most any club doing a restoration project that it is very likely the first time they have ever been involved in something like that----and for that reason alone their experience level just can't be all that high.

This is why I so much believe that any club and any committee involved in a restoration project should do everything they possibly can to collaborate on information with other clubs and other committees that have done restoration projects before them. But for some odd reason they rarely think to do that. Unless of course someone really impresses on them the importance of doing that before they start! 

[Tim Nugent]

TEP - Agreed.  The projects that seem to have the best outcomes tend to be ones where a small "demostration" project was done first.  This allows for the members to actually live throught he process and see if the end results are what they envisioned.  Sometimes they are, sometimes not.  In the case of not, they have the ability to address their concerns before proceeding with a flow-blown, invasive and expensive project.
A renovation/resotation project will have to be lived with for a long time (unless the club has very deep pockets) so my advice is go slow and be certain that you are on the right path.  This, as you point out, is required as board members need to spend the time  to research the process.  Unfortunately, board terms expire and not enough clubs have long range planning committees.  Nor do they keep an architect on retainer to provide continuity from board to board.  Some clubs (and it's something I promote) have a 'Past-Presidents' council.  This can be a wealth of trial and error knowledge - especially if there is turnover on the supt. side - that can keep new boards from committing the same mistakes of past boards.

As my mother was fond of saying, "experience is a dear school, but only fools will learn".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()