"The Philadephia Question"--and answers..

[TEPaul]

On another thread Mike Cirba said that I might want to shoot him for mentioning that Wayne E. Stiles was an excellent architect worthy of recognition because Wayne Stiles made some very questionable redesign recommendations at my Ross course in 1940. Not at all--I wouldn't want to shoot Mike Cirba for his remark or Stiles for his 1940 recommendations!

Mike's remark and my feeling about it goes to the heart of the excellent architectural "forum" we had last week in Philadephia with the panelists being Tom Fazio, Wilson Greenwood of Merion and Brad Klein.

The subject of the "forum" was "restoration", the moderator was Ed Abrams and although Ed Abrams apparently had an agenda of many questions, his first question; "Define the differences between restoration and redesign?" basically dominated the entire 90 panel discussion. Thinking back on that panel discussion I'm going to call that question "The Philadephia Question" and the answers to it were very good, very honest and very indicative of architecture both long ago and now!

Some purists may have expected Tom Fazio (or even Wilson Greenwood) to "spin" the question and couch "redesign", or aspects of it as just a form of "restoration" or even "restoration" in fact. Neither did that at all. And Brad Klein did an excellent job of explaining to the audience exactly, and in some detail, what "restoration" truly is, in his opinion.

In a nutshell Tom Fazio explained that he didn't think a clearcut distinction could or even should be made between redesign and restoration and utlimately his responibility was to serve the needs and wants of his clients on classic courses. Tom explained that his responsibility was to look forward not backwards to the architectural needs of today.

Wilson Greenwood (not an architect--but Merion's Green Chairman) explained in detail the very interesting 15 year improvement and restoration effort of Merion culminating now in the final phase of Merion's so-called "1930 restoration" including its now well known bunker project.

Brad Klein stressed that it was the responibility of those members of a classic course responsible for the course to understand the intentions of their course's architect, to understand all the design features and ramifications of them, the courses "design intent", in fact, and to restore them in such a way that their use and functionality is returned to its maximum effectiveness in today's game. Brad made the point of the meaning of "today's game" by mentioning that "pure" or "absolute" restoration may be an impossibility today in many cases. But still, he punctuated his points by saying that if it's restoration, a club should learn to pay "homage" to some very valid architectural principles and the architects who created them!

So the audience should have been able to see from these very honest explanations (even though Tom may not realize that he really does contradict himself in the same paragraph about not wanting to do restorations but doing what some expect to be restorations anyhow) that there are two quite distinct ways of how to maintain the classic golf course into the future, even in the context of so-called "restoration".

Wayne Stiles in 1940, and his redesign recommendations on my course was different, almost entirely because it was then and not now. The recommendations that Stiles made in no way "respected" the design ideas of some of Donald Ross's design features.

Frankly, I don't know that any of us could find a single architect before maybe the 1980s who respected the design ideas or the design philosophy of a golf course's original architect. If one of them happened to it was probably just coincidental, in the fact that the redesigning architect may have personally shared the original architects philosophy for some reason.

So the answers to "The Philadelphia Question" ("The differences between redesign and restoration?") became much clearer the other day.

Clubs with classic courses should realize at the start of their projects that there are two very distinct ways to go. And they should realize that there are two very distinct types of architects (and contractors) to use in their projects or at least in their consultations on their projects. The differences and distinctions should not be fuzzy or unclear anymore!

And I certainly don't blame Wayne Stiles for making the recommendations he did to my Ross course in 1940. In that time (and before it) I'm not aware of a single architect who actually "respected" a course's original architect or his intentons! Every architect back then (and probably until sometime in the 1980s) recommended and did what he alone thought was the proper thing to do to a golf course in its evolution! In 1940 the whole idea of "restoration" or "perservation" was obviously never even heard of!

Like Tom Fazio, every single architect seemed to look ahead, not back, in making architectural recommendations! But the culmination of that decades long general modus operandi is an interesting one and somewhere along the line (probably around the late 1980s) a good number of architects came to realize that the net effect of those cumulative architectural recommendations had, in fact, corrupted the golf courses and the architecture of some very good designers! Even more interesting those architects came to realize that the net corrupting effects were almost identical across America!

So for clubs thinking about architectural projects, particularly real restorations, don't assume that any architect will or can do it for you. And don't hang your hopes on an architect's use of a term ("restoration"). Just ask them what it is they do exactly--and better yet go out and look at what they have done--or at least make a few phone calls!

From what Tom Fazio said the other day he will likely tell you exactly! But you have to ask about the differences and distinctions first! And the so-called real restoration architects will obviously tell you too. And if it's redesign you're looking for they probably aren't the ones to do it for you.

To a couple of hundred people who run clubs around here  that forum the other day made things much much clearer--"The Philadelphia Question" got some very good answers, in my opinion.

Times change and personally I believe Wayne Stiles was a very good architect who practiced valid classic/strategic design principles--obviously just not all of Donald Ross's.

Today architects seem to look at other architects and those that came before them differently than they did long ago--at least some of them do and I believe if Stiles was around today he would not make the same recommendations to Gulph Mills as he did in 1940!

[redanman]

This a.m.'s early broadcast from the Deutsche BAnk SAP had a short interview with Dave Thomas the designer of the aforementioned course as well as the Belfry Course for the Ryder Cup this year.  Just as Fazio, he talked about satisfying his owner/financeer in each case.

Good on Warren Humphries and Reton Laidlaw, especially Warren as he quite forcefully said tht he didn't like all the "Fiddling  around" the old historic courses and spoke out against technology and in favor of a limited performance ball.  Looks as though the Euros endorse the idea as well.


As for Fazio, he has proven before and replicated his own information last week, showing that he has no regard whatsoever for the history of the golf course.  He designs serviceable modern courses and an occasional very very good one, but on the whole is proibably not anywhere as good for golf course architecture as he believes that he is, nor as able to create truly interesting courses.

PAradoxically, by terraforming the earth to create exactly what he wishes he limits himself from hte mental exercise and expansion one gets when utilizing only natural features or enhancing them and/or replicating them to blend into a site.  The future of golf's loss.  Being recognized as "The Leading Living Architect", he has a greater responsibility than that.

As far as any architect prior to 1980 being sensitive to the original intent of the original architect two points

-I can't speak for Europe, but they don't seem to have screwed up too many of their courses to date, it seems to be an American thing (Just like Hollywood Trends, "If it is American , it must be good and worthy of converting the rest of the world")

-One can make the case that RTJ in several instances, left enough of Ross, for example at Aronimink, intact to just supplement with his own style rather than wholesale slaughter as at Inverness.

Still, one of the greatest changes , easily reversible as an American trend, is to remove the overplanted trees of the post WWII era.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

A couple of thoughts/questions:

-  It's interesting that in 1935 and again in 1940, Gulph Mills chose to hire someone other than Ross to "renovate" your course,  even though at both times Ross was alive, well and eager for all the new business he could get.  Why didn't Gulph Mills pick up the phone and call Ross himself?  Why not go back to the master?

Given the attitudes of the time, my guess is that the club itself wanted new a "newer" or "better" course.  They hired Maxwell and Stiles and RTJ to "improve" the course.  So they didn't go back to Ross.  Anything in the club records that discusses why Ross was excluded from follow-up work?

-  Though you didn't say so explicitly, the Fazio approach to restoration/restoration is really a throwback to the 40's and 50's.  He is remarkably archaic, having much more in common -at least in terms of his approach to the restoration question - with a Stiles or a RTJ than to modern sensitivities to historical issues.  Another way in which C&C, Hanse, Eckenrode, etc. inhabit very different architectural universes from that of a Fazio, Dye, or Nicklaus.

The contrast in views between a Brad Klein and a Fazio must have been stark.  I'll bet if there had been more time, it might have gotten downright ugly.

Wish I could have been there.

Bob

[TEPaul]

redanman:

"Being recognized as the "leading living architect", he (Tom Fazio) has a greater reponsibility than that."

It's a pretty good post you wrote but in a real way you're missing the point of much of the validity of the answers that came out of that forum, particularly Fazio's answer to "The Philadephia Question" ("Explain the differences between redesign and restoration?").

You may think Tom Fazio has a greater responibility but apparently he does not and does not mind making that very clear! He believes he has another kind of responsibilty and said so very publicly in not uncertain terms (excepting his contradictions which apparently he's no in the slightest bit aware of). It's pretty clear what Tom Fazio meant to say!

And so the only solution now is not to get Tom Fazio to accept some responsibility that you think he should have, although he doesn't, but to make the people who hire him aware of exactly what he thinks his responsibility is and isn't!!

To further elaborate on just how straightforward Tom Fazio was on this particular issue and what he thinks his responsibilty is, he even said this:

"We (architects) are aware that in these projects there can be many different opinions (amongst club memberhips) and I really don't listen to them if I even hear them at all."

Mentoning this on here is in absolutely no way any kind of "bashing" of Tom Fazio! That's exactly what he said, and I, for one, admire him for saying it!

So now, the responsibility is not Fazio's, in my opinion, it's the responsibility of those people with projects who might consider hiring him to simply listen and understand what he said!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'll cross you off my list of those who want to shoot me.  

479 to go.  

I think you make a really good point about what Wayne Stiles might do if he were around today, and how there was really no such thing as "restoration" back then, so each architect was more concerned about earning their fee through suggesting course "improvements" that may or may not have been architecturally consistent with the original design intent.

In the case of Stile's 1940 recommendations, how much of this do you believe was motivated by the pure economic uncertainty of the times?  If I recall, isn't he the one who advocated the elimination of the top-shot bunkers, etc.?  

But, back to the subject at hand.  

After hearing the presentation, would you still maintain that "ego" has no primary role in Fazio's "restoration" work at famous classic courses?  What do you believe is his primary motivation, especially given his contention that he doesn't believe in "restoration"?  And, perhaps most importantly, what do you believe would be the primary motivation of any club hiring someone who doesn't believe in restoration to restore their course?

 

[redanman]

redanman:

"Being recognized as the "leading living architect", he (Tom Fazio) has a greater reponsibility than that."

I probably should have said

"He SHOULD HAVE a greater responsibility than that".
or
"In my mind, he has a greater responsibility than that".

In my opinion, (For those who can't read between the lines) he does not, will never and worstly, doesn't care.  

This is based on encountrers, printed word and other sources.  This is not Fazio bashing.  It does not bias me in rendering valid objective opinions on his modern golf courses (I do really like a whole lot of Galloway National), but I wish he would stay the hell away from classic courses (Which he "doesn't even know what that is" (Direct, minimal, if any, paraphrased quote)).  He appears to only wish to leave his personal mark.  (As do most wildly successful peole who become surrounded by synchophants.)

 I'll stop now, before this post gets deleted.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

If that forum had gone on all day I seriously doubt it ever would have gotten even remotely ugly!

The contrasts between the opinions of Fazio and Klein were stark anyway, despite the fact Klein's points took 1/4 the time to make than Tom Fazio's did! If the meeting had gone on all day the distinctions in their opinions would only have become more detailed and probably clearer or even starker!

The point is that neither one was trying to obfuscate anything they were saying or might have felt in the name of a term or a concept (restoration). All three (including Wilson Greenwood) are gentlemen, knowledgeable and were acting like professionals would toward each other and with their personal opinions on a particular subject!

Why didn't Gulph Mills hire Ross to do rennovations? Probably for most of the reasons you cited. Today, looking back on those times if we are to consider golf architecture seriously and accurately we must look at it in the context of its time, in the context of any particular time and very much NOT ONLY in the context of our own time! In an odd way that just might be what Tom Fazio is doing too much of!!

GMGC had been in play for approximately 14-15 years when the redesigning of it began with other architects. By that time it was very clear that certain holes had problems for the play of our general membership! These were and are real and true concerns in golf architecture and were obviously dealt with in a logical way, although it might not seem to us now that they were.

It should be understood and accepted, by us anyway, that even a Donald Ross was certainly not beyond making architectural mistakes on certain holes to some degree. Over a period of say 15 years of these holes being in play those mistakes become apparent! Other than bringing Ross back and possibly arguing with him (or even appearing to insult him) the club probably just felt it better to get another architect in to make recommendations and do the work!

There's that combined with the fact that these courses just weren't considered the treasures (or some aspects of them) that we might consider them today! And also architectural evolution (redesign) or improvement (more redesign) to address the changes in the game and in architecture was just a very accepted and popular thing to do!

With our own club, in my tracking the architects that we tapped to make recommendations in about half the cases happened only because some central person in our club found out that those architects happened to be right in our area at that time (Maxwell, G. Fazio, RTJ and T. Fazio)!

But the more I get into this stuff the more I realize that to do it right, to understand the whole evolution better and also very much to avoid casting needless blame around, the best thing to do is to try as best you can to look at all of this in the context of its particular time and not always through the "eyes" of our own time.

The "eyes" of our own time will ultimately come into the process but it will make it better to see it first through the "eyes" of other times! I really believe there is so much more validity in that than most people seem to understand! It's also a "friendlier" way to go that makes it easier on everyone both dead and alive! It's also far more logical, in my opinion!

[Ed_Baker]

Right on the money Tom;

The club must consider what they are trying to accomplish and hire the best man(firm) for the job and then let him do it.Nobody would hire a plumber to fix their car, but unfortunately country club life does not mirror real life.

The trouble comes from clubs not really defining their objectives from the get go, simply because the golf course "problems" are different to each member.

The "education" of the membership,getting them to realize that they are not operating in a vaccuum, and that there are many good examples of scopes of work out there ranging from "subtle restoration" to redesign with various levels of success is one of the most important steps.

Once the research begins it is quite astounding to become aware of the commonality of golf course problems based on the age of the club. The need for green expansions,tree removal and pruning, restoring fairway width, inability to sustain golf quality turf because of competing species,light and air circulation issues particulary on back tees,bunker erosion and footprint migration as well as loss of depth, and generally inadequate greens budget funding are some of the more common and universal problems. It seems that all but the most elite and enlightened clubs(Pine Valley,Seminole) have neglected their greatest asset to an alarmingly similar degree for a very similar time period. Those common dynamics,coupled with the club and ball technology assault make the ultimate "fix' for each club more ambiguous and many try and fix everything under the guise of restoration.

The club has to ask itself what are they trying to accomplish.
Are they trying to "fix" something or are they trying to "change" something. These fundamentals should be considered mutually exclusive. The problem is that most members will consider a return to the original a "change" in itself. As far as playability and shot options it is a change but only because the course had deteriorated to the point that the design intent had already been compromised for a numbers of years anyway.

A "restoration" process should be a repair of what has been lost, while any other project is a CHANGE from the original. The best restorations that I have seen have been started and finished with that one purpose, fix what was lost. During the restoration process it becomes apparent that some courses can be significantly improved by adding tees (and length)ect. This should be an entirely different project and stated as such. The intent of the additional projects should be stated as enhancements to the original, like additions to a house. If length is the issue,say so, and hire the appropriate firm to deal with it. Most "additions" are only going to benefit the best players and will concern the "championship" course. That's fine, just as long as the ability to tee it up on the original co-exists. Too many classics have been "changed" (read butchered) because the club really had no clear definition of desired result(objective,product,insert label here)
from the start.

Clearly state the objectives,hire the best firm(s) to do that, let them do their work.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Once again, for those who were at that forum and for those who understand a bit of what I'm trying to say here, I don't think it's that necessary to read between any lines anymore with Tom Fazio! It was very clear what he meant to say with the very lines he uttered!! Plain and simple--period!

In my opinion, it's now not up to Tom Fazio but for others to just understand exactly what he very clearly said--period!!

MikeC:

Do I think it's just "ego" that makes Tom Fazio take all these restoration projects at classic courses? Hell, I don't know, but at this point even if I did know if it was "ego" it really doesn't matter to me anymore.

Again, I think Fazio stated his case and his feelings very clearly (other than his apparent contradictions) about true restoration projects. But maybe his apparent contradictions are more indicative of his feelings than anything else.

Tom Fazio appears to truly feel that the things he does in new construction and probably even in restoration projects is the best thing for all architecture, including classic course architecture. Why even bother to call that ego if he truly believes that?

He probably feels that the way he does things is the best for the future of architecture generally--including classic courses. He might feel that some of these classic old courses should not be left as relics of another time and some bygone game! He might very well feel to do that would be to leave them in obsolesence! He did make an interesting distinction about the work he'd done in 1974 at Inverness and he voluntarily admitted he considers today that was a mistake! No one even asked him about Inverness, he volunteered it on his own!

I think I would only feel that Fazio was really arrogant and egotistical if he actually did feel that he was hurting and corrupting something that he truly valued and respected for some reason and just choose not to admit it for reasons like business or other things.

I don't think he is egotistical--or if he is, again, I don't care anymore. I think he may really not see the value in some of the older aspects of architecture (classic architectural principles) that some of us apparently do.

At this point the only negative thing I would say about Tom Fazio is that if I were involved in a classic restoration project I would simply not recommend hiring him--and I bet he wouldn't hold that against me, certainly not after what I consider he clearly said the other day!

I'd just recommend that thought for anyone else. Understand what you want and what you should plan to do that's best for your course first and secondly pay attention to the very clear distinctions that both Tom and Brad made the other day!

At least they both made it clear that there is a choice and they made it clear honestly.

Tom Fazio may continue to solicit or take restoration business offered to him--he may tell you he thinks your classic course should be taken into the modern era of golf by him! So What?

Now that some pretty clear distinctions have been made all you have to do now is tell him that's not what you want for your classic course. The choice is up to the clubs to understand and make that decision and at this point if they fail to understand there is a distinction or that they have a choice--well, that's their problem--and I don't believe that's Tom Fazio's fault--not anymore!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could you expand on Brad Klein's statements as described in paragraph VII of your initial post ?

Is Brad saying that it is the club's responsibility to oversee everything, to make sure they know what they want, and that it is their repsonsibility to get what they want ?

That opinion has a familiar ring.

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps it's me, but I still find something disengenous about the most successful living architect offering his services to classic courses for FREE, all the while claiming that he doesn't believe in restoration.  

From what was reported, Merion went to Fazio and told them their desire for a 1930 "Restoration".  If he doesn't believe in restorations, the conversation should have ended there, wouldn't you think?

It's one thing to suggest that those of us who study architecture and trends and philosophies should "know thy architect", but I can't imagine that too many clubs would turn down the following offer;

"Hey, I've got Tom Fazio on the phone, he says he'll do whatever we ask, and he'll work for free!"    

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You'd have to ask Brad exactly how he feels on that question.

For me personally, I feel today after that forum that sure it's up to the club to figure out what they need and want and who can give it to them! And furthermore, I think that amongst the GAP clubs that came to that forum that the understanding of the importance and the necessity of that responsibility is much clearer!

So sure those clubs should understand it's their responsibilty. If you're wondering if I agree with what you've been saying all along that ultimately all this is the responsibility of the club, sure I do!

But I hope that you now agree with something I've been telling you all along too. And that is that no matter how much planning and research a club may do and no matter how clear and defined a club's mission statement and vision is, if they still think they can hire any architect do give them what they want and are looking for that they could be wrong!!

If they still think that, after what I heard the other day, at most they are rolling the dice on their project and they may end up being very unpleasantly surprised!!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

No, I really don't think it is disingenous on Fazio's part for doing those restorations--even Merion's--at least not after the way he explained himself the other day.

Here's why:

The same question was asked of the three panelists: "Explain the differences between restoration and redesign?"

Fazio went first and basically said he couldn't or wouldn't make a distinction between restoration and redesign. He sort of left it up to the club to tell him what they wanted to do.

Curiously he also said sometimes he doesn't even listen to what members say or some members say or something like that! Tom Fazio, who I've never met, really did appear to be the very nice man we've all heard he is but the rapidity with which he appears to totally contradict himself on certain points and issues is very startling! I can't imagine he's aware of it but I can tell you there were plenty of people there who were!

I just don't think he knew he was apparently contradicting himself or even saying two things at once so despite the curious contradictions I don't feel he was. To me it was clear that he feels his ideas about architecture and the future of it, perhaps even classic courses, is the right way to go and that's what he said or at least that's clear to me what he meant to say.

I also feel that if this question was asked and Brad Klein had not been on the panel the audience probably would have had no real idea about the differences between restoration and redesign. Fazio was saying he apparently doesn't think there is one or at least not a very clear one. But Brad said there was one and he explained in some detail what it was.

Bill Greenwood didn't really attempt so much to answer that question but he explained in detail what Merion had been doing in that vein for about the last 12-15 years and exactly why.

I feel if Tom was being disingenous he probably would have said he was doing the things that Brad explained was as close to real restoration as a club could get--but he didn't do that. The distinction about what Brad recommends and the way Fazio goes about it, and said so, were clear.

Put a simpler way, which I probably should have done in the first place, might be what you and Brad Klein consider restoration apparently Tom Fazio does not and he said so. So I don't see that he's disingenous and now clubs should have a clearer idea of what the distinctions and choices are.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom
Reading over the "Extracts from Minutes" Gulph Mills Golf Club 1916-1976 by A. Willing Paterson, pg 24.
"June 25, 1924 - After a full discussion of the present condition of the Club greens and the necessity for the rebuilding of the entire 18 greens, it was decided that the chariman of the Green Committee be authorized to contact with Flynn & Toomey for the rebuilding of the entire 18 greens at a cost not to exceed $650 per green." (Note at the bottom of the page *Joe Canty thinks that the name was Toomey and Flynn and that Ben Mantell worked for them until he was employed by the Club as Greenkeeper.)
I'm sure you knew this, but I was unaware that Flynn did this at Gulph Mills, and do you feel his greens still exist there?

[Willie_Dow]

Sorry it was "contract", not contact with Fllynn & Toomey.

[TEPaul]

Bill:

This question may be in the wrong thread but anyway I've never really figured out what exactly Toomey and Flynn did to 17 (not 18 as was reported in those minutes) of GMGC's greens. Clearly they do not appear to be redesigned as Flynn never built greens like the ones we have but what exactly he did to is not apparent.

All I know is that he did something and was paid $650 per green by the club which is even more confusing because that was not an insubtantial amount of money in 1924! My supposition is he probably completely regrassed them and possibly took care of whatever problems the greens had with their grass in the first place.

It's frustrating not to be able to figure it out better and that really shows how difficult it can be when architectural work precedes the first aerial of the course! If he did the work following the first aerial I would be sure what he did or didn't do!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Free advice is usually the most expensive advice one can get.

Why did Merion select Fazio ?

Was it the price ?
Was it the Pine Valley connection ?

Knowing their wonderful architectual history,
why select a revisionist ??

Who made the call for Merion ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I have no idea who made the call to Fazio from Merion and even if I did I would never say. As to why they selected him, I don't know either but he definitely has a ton of friends in Philadephia (where he grew up). Did you know his uncle George was the pro at Pine Valley?

As to Merion's wonderful architectural history and your question of why would they select a "revisionist", I would say with some certainty that they obviously don't consider him to be a "revisionist".

Do You?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Yes, unless someone strong has the reins !

[TEPaul]

Pat;

Deep in my heart and mind I really do know that that someone strong with the reins is you!!!!

I can see it now:

Poor Tom Fazio and poor Chip MacDonald with a double bit in their mouths attached by harness to reins with Pat and a big whip on the other end saying;

"You boys are gonna do detailed bunker handwork the way I see it and the way I tell you to or I'm just gonna continue to beat this "revisionism" out of you boys!!!!"

Poor Chip MacD:

"Please Mr Mucci, I swear I don't know how to use my hands, I want my kubuto, I know I can do it right!"

Poor TomF:

"Please Mr Pat, I swear "restoration" is anything I say it is, I swear it, seven million people can't be all wrong, I swear!"

[Mike_Cirba]

All I know is that I want to see THOSE bunkers!!!  

But, I wonder...who's going to teach old dogs new tricks?  :-/

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Mike Cirba,

I was refering to ERNIE RANSOME !

[TEPaul]

Oh, Ok, those are some strong reins!

[Brad Klein]

I'm a little reluctant to try clarifying someone else's (TEPaul's) characterization of my position. I think he has done a fine job of explaining Fazio, though. What Fazio basically said is that

-I (Fazio) don't believe in restoration
-I'm not interested in any attempt to distinguish between restoration and renovation
-I just want to use the latest technology (and the most money) to improve a golf course.

Insofar as he says that, it's great. There's no disingenuousness, and you know what you're getting - and the results bear this out, esp. at Riviera, ANGC and Merion.

I have more trouble when he uses his own position to deny that I made a clear distinction, when in fact I did make a clear explanation that was very much at odds with his view, but he couldn't recognize it. My points were very clear, and very different:

-Restoration, as opposed to modernization or "improvement," means paying homage to the ground game, to classical shot-making, and to existing ground features, as well as to the intent of classical designers

-Restoration means using technology to reclaim these features (modern irrigation to keep courses firm and fast; new grasses that will roll better; bunker liners to keep sand up; lightweight mowers to maintain vertical slopes)

-It means worrying less about length and more about the integration of all surface contours - such green surfaces with fillpads, surrounds and greenside bunkers

-It means tree removal

-It means a match play rather than a stroke play ethic

-It means accepting uncertainty, vagary, bad luck and the odd bounce and forgetting about lush, perfectly manicured courses.

The last third of my Ross book deals with all of this, and can be neatly juxtaposed with Fazio's book in terms of his regard for classical features.

[Willie_Dow]

Patrick: Ernie has given more to Tom Fazio than he has taken from Crump!