[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You stated that, "Winged Foot recently rejected another Open..."

It is my understanding from some private sources that WF & the USGA have undergone talks about the club hosting another Open Championship.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "I never said all of Tilly's courses (or any other architect's courses) should be preserved. I have consistently advocated preserving the best of the best. By the way adding length to a course with new tees is not redesign IMO..."

In your opinion, what constitutes a "redesign?"

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

In reality, there are many, many questions surrounding any functioning golf course.  There are even many, many questions regarding "preserving work."  I will let Phil answer, if he cares to, about how they feel about preserving Tillie's work, but for example,

Just preserving the course as an open golf course, rather than housing or a mall is one level.

Then, preserving it as a good golf course (in terms of maintenance - grasses, bunker quality, etc) and a good business (i.e., still able to attract play) is another level. This level may, for the best courses, include redesigning a bit to make it relevant to major championships.

Then, preserving it as closely as possible to some point in time, best (in someone's opinion, which we all know will vary) representation of that architects work on that course is another level that you seemingly strive for (or think others should using their money to suit your tastes)

These are all questions we have debated here before, apparently with no answer.  As Phil has said, given the competing needs at any specific course, we simply have to cede the "right" to do with the course to the course's owners.  We can lobby for our own tastes all we want, but in the end, someone else will answer the questions on what is best for them.

BTW, while I agree that no gca's reputation is created solely from championship courses, I think it goes a long way towards it, since they get so much attention.  My personal recollection of Tillie as a youngster was the USGA article about him in 1974, which noted that he is largely forgotten, but that many tournaments were being played on his courses that year.  So, at least for me, that article and those tourneys put Tillie back on the map, since there were so few Tillie courses anywhere I ever lived.

Lastly, you have some facts wrong in your not so veiled insults to me and other gca's, and for some reason, you decided to take a mully (a term invented at a Tillie course, according to legend) to insult me yet again.  I say its the sabbath, and the bible tells us to rest on the sabbath, so I suggest you take a break from being a jerk, at least until tomorrow.  Thanks in advance.

Jeff
In my opinion it is about time golf architects realize their profession is on par with architects and garden designers, and that best designs preserved for those who follow to study, not to mention these great golf courses are hell of a lot of fun to play. Mediocre golf architects have been great golf architectures greatest enemy.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Watching the Solheim Cup today, another thought struck me, if we can discuss it civilly.  (I will try)

Even the best courses of the best gca's are found wanting to some degree.  As much as some, for example, call for the original incarnation of ANGC to the Jones/Mac design, that is based on general principles as much as the original hole design, no?  Few argure that RTJ's 16th insn't better than the original, or the new 10th didn't solve some drainage issues, etc.

I don't know the entire design histories of WF, BP and Balto, but I presume there were many changes in advance of Rees coming in that we don't discuss.  I also know that if those (or any) original features hadn't been touched - like new grasses, new bunkers, new drainage, the course would be unplayable today, even if touching them gives an opportunity for "design improvements" as well as infrastructure/maintenance ones.

My questions are twofold,

Is remodeling for a tournament any better or any worse than remodeling for every day play? No.

Do we presume that even the best of the best had no flaws and/or that we could tell how the course would have evlolved naturallly as opposed to with the intervention of the hand of man? All golf courses evolve - that is a given. This idea that those who are interested in preserving golf courses want to freeze dry a particular golf courses is mistaken. That they are crackpots who would remove all modern conveniences in order to recreate the exact situation in 1920s. I'm not in favor of that, in fact I'm a skeptic when it comes to the restoration craze. I think it often does more damage than good.

Lastly, is the whole argument we are engaging in just too general to draw conclusions.

I await your reasoned response.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My questions are twofold,

Is remodeling for a tournament any better or any worse than remodeling for every day play?

As a general matter, yes, since remodeling for a tournament primarily remodels the course for a very, very narrow spectrum of golfers, not representative of the general membership, who will use the course for four days and then disappear for a decade or more.

Do we presume that even the best of the best had no flaws and/or that we could tell how the course would have evlolved naturallly as opposed to with the intervention of the hand of man?

When I first saw my wife I knew she wasn't perfect, but, she was perfect for me.
I was crazy about her for who she was, not who I wished she could be.
Architecture, like beauty is often in the eye of the beholder.
Unfortunately, the beholder is often a committee with diverse self interests.
Most on the committee see the golf course and the architecture through their self interested eyes, whereas architects must forge a balanced challenge that favors no particular faction or game.

Fads and membership perspectives come and go.
If we allow the golf course to be "open season" for every change in fads and/or perspectives it won't be long before the golf course shows the signs of the unending surgical scars and ends up looking nothing like the original architect intended.  When the original, distinctive design integrity is disfigured and destroyed, the course loses that which differentiated it from every other course.

Over the years, alterations to the courses I've seen have been generally disappointing, and often motivated by the self interests of those in charge.
Therefore, I'm reluctant to endorse them, in general and specifically.

Lastly, is the whole argument we are engaging in just too general to draw conclusions.

I think this is a general theme, but, one that can be drilled down on to the particulars

[Tom MacWood]

I can see that not visiting the site for 15 hours has put me more than a bit behind!

Tom Macwood,

Let's get to your points first.

You firs quoted yourself stating, "Hosting modern major championships and redesign go hand and hand, and as a result his original designs have been compromised. What is your position on the redesign of his courses in preparation for major championships? Which is more important to the Association - preserving his original designs or hosting major championships?"

This was followed by part of my answer, "Let's answer the second question first. We have no stand on that as we don't recognize the premise of the question."

You then asked, "What do you mean you don't recognize the premise of the question?"

Tom, your premise contains the following statements presented as facts, NONE of which we accept as such, "as a result his original designs have been compromised..." That is your OPINION, as we disagree that his original designs have been COMPROMISED; they have not, and that is our opinion. Also, as this answer was given in response to the second question, "Which is more important to the Association - preserving his original designs or hosting major championships?", we do not recognize this as having any validity as a question whatsoever. Neither is "more important to the Association" and we will not be asked to CHOOSE simply because you ask us to.

His design at Bethpage has been seriously compromised; it has become increasingly a Rees Jones course. You do have a choice. If you object to his courses being redesigned, you can express concern when one of his courses is being considered for a major championship. If you sit back and do nothing no one will take notice. You can choose to be an advocate for preservation of his best designs or you can sell more books with each US Open.

In addition, we have been the biggest single aid to any & all Tillinghast courses in promoting the preservation of Tilly's work and providing research to enable proper restorations of it when asked... and we have been asked QUITE OFTEN!

That is encouraging to know...I think. Restoration is often a crap shoot and it depends largely on the architect chosen. Rees Jones is not known for sensative restoration work and the Tilly Assoc seems to have close relationship with him.

You also asked another question that I am forced to repeat the preceding  portion to it in order to put it into context and properly answer it:

Quoting me, "Actually, a better question, and feel very free to tell me that it isn't, is one that goes hand-in-hand with your first question. That is:

How would Tilly view minor changes to even complete changes on some holes on his courses for any reason, but especially in preparation for major championships?"

You stated and asked, "Minor changes? There have only been minor changes to Bethpage and Baltusrol? So if I am to read between the lines you are saying the Association does not object to redesign of Tilly's courses in preparation of major championships?"

Tom, not only can't you read between the lines you can't seem to even read the lines themselves! I ASKED A QUESTION OF TILLY! The question wasn't simply MINOR CHANGES but minor changes to EVEN COMPLETE CHANGES ON SOME HOLES..."

The point of that, and what followed directly after was to show that Tilly himself had APPROVED of making everything from MINOR CHANGES TO EVEN COMPLETE CHANGES TO HOLES ON HIS COURSES PRIOR TO THEIR HOSTING MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS."

Since Tilly himself approved of this in order to make the holes better then who are we to tell him he was wrong? That since Tilly was hired to examine and make recommendations for possible changes to courses prior to hosting major championships on courses that were not designed by him then objecting to other architects being hired for the same purpose on his courses would be a bit hypocritical.

Based on that logic all architects should have carte blanch on all of Tilly's courses. Yes most golf architects approve of minor changes to their own designs, however most architects of Tilly's ilk don't look kindly on lesser architects improving their courses. Any golf architect (or biographer) who says 'so and so dead architect would have approved of this redesign' should not be let near any of that architect's golf courses.

Going further, you used the phrase "does not object to redesign of Tilly's courses..." Again, we don't recognize that "premise" behind your question. Again, as I stated previously, "minor changes to even complete changes on some holes..." DOES NOT CONSTITUTE  the REDESIGN of a COURSE."

Evidently you have a very liberal definition of minor changes.

Again, you asked and stated and then asked, "How little the Lower course has actually changed? The bunkering has changed on every hole except 10, 12, 14 and 16. Do you have any idea why they haven't restored the HHA bunkers at #17?"

You really do need to learn the phrase "In My Opinion" as you once again have demonstrated that quality of pronouncing things as facts those that are simply your opinion, a quality that so endears you to many.

Tom, you need to get yourself a copy of the Baltusrol history book. One of those who worked on it, Bob Trebus, a member of Baltusrol since before you were born Tom, emailed me this in response to your question regarding the "Hell's Half Acre"

Bob - "What is he talking about? The bunkering at Baltusrol is pretty much as the original. The Hell's Half acre is still there. In fact plans are to let the grass grow as it was in its early days. The routing is intact... I note MacWood isn't even a member of the Association so how does he know what we do? Tell him to join and he will receive our emails that demonstrate all we do to assist clubs with their restorations..."

I know it still there but it looks nothing like the original or any other of Tilly's original Sahara bunkers. This is what Rick Wolfe wrote about it.

Today the Sahara bunker complex on 17 Lower is higly manicured.  The old look had clumps of fescue randomly spaced.  Personally, I like the old look.  As I mentioned before, we are working to increase naturalization areas.  

Of course you simply can't help yourself and must once again resort to insults that display your COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE on the subject:

"Could the Tillinghast Association's laissez-faire attitude toward preserving his work be a result of the founding members coming from a golf course that is an established Championship site (Baltusrol)? Because of the experience at their home club they more readily accept redesign, and based on that history its difficult for them, and the Association, to be outspoken advocates for preserving his work."

"Laissez-faire attitude toward preserving his work?" You are VERY MISTAKEN and GRSOSSLY UNINFORMED!

"Because of the experience at their home club they more readily accept redesign, and based on that history its difficult for them, and the Association, to be outspoken advocates for preserving his work." This statement just once again shows how ignorant you are and how little you know.

You asked two questions of Jeff. "Jeff, I can understand why some architects would not be in favor of preservation, after all that could affect their livelihood, but the question is should the Tillinghast Association be in favor of preserving his work. If an organization formed to celebrate his work isn't in favor of it then who would be?"

Once again you display ignorance and lack of any knowledge on the subject.

I don't think so.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You stated, "I never said all of Tilly's courses (or any other architect's courses) should be preserved. I have consistently advocated preserving the best of the best. By the way adding length to a course with new tees is not redesign IMO..."

In your opinion, what constitutes a "redesign?"

Redesigning the original contours and reshaping greens, moving greens, adding new bunkers, removing original bunkers, moving bunkers, redesigning and reshaping bunkers, etc. Of course adding new holes and/or re-routing, and generally leaving your mark, be it stylistically or physically.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom, Pat and all,

Some good points while I was away.  I certainly understand where everyone is coming from.  That said, in the earlier days of this board we discussed "restoration" a lot.  I don't see that much has changed, and that its a matter of perspective that cannot be won or lost via debate.

I will say that TMac brings up a point that I am not sure is universal outside gca.com and a few other places.  Around here, if Doak, Hanse or CC is hired for a restoration, its presumed good. If Rees or Faz is hired, its presumed bad.  If Doak says there are value judgements to make, its presumed his value judgements are good, whereas others would be bad.

In other parts of the golf world, certainly Rees has a good reputation as a restorer of old courses.  In any restoration, there are certainly value judgements to make, including where applicable, what is best for a tournament.  At BP, I know Rees had to decide whether to pull the bunkers in to the shrunken from their original size greens, pull the greens back out to original size (not wanted by USGA to keep course difficult) or leave the greens and bunkers in the original Tillie fill pads and connect them, resulting in some of those long fingers which change the look of the Tillie bunker.

All I can say is, tough call for Rees, but it seems to have worked out well.  The USGA is now firmly entrenched in bringing Opens to a wider variety of classically designed public courses (which most think is a good thing) BP has improved its maintenance and conditioning as a result of USGA funds, etc. and so on.  Overall, its been a great success and yet to a few, their value judgement is that somehow the greens should have been enlarged, or bunkers scaled down, etc.

It is true what Tom and Pat say - sometimes a tournament means the course is "disfigured" from its original design.  But, it works in the here and now and I still think its a great tribute to Tillie that his work in the midst of the depression has brought so much joy to public players, and is still tournament tough, just as his original vision stated.

[john_stiles]

All this,  all these course changes for a $1 ball and once in 10 year tourneys,  unbelievable.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom, Pat and all,

Some good points while I was away.  I certainly understand where everyone is coming from.  That said, in the earlier days of this board we discussed "restoration" a lot.  I don't see that much has changed, and that its a matter of perspective that cannot be won or lost via debate.

I will say that TMac brings up a point that I am not sure is universal outside gca.com and a few other places.  Around here, if Doak, Hanse or CC is hired for a restoration, its presumed good. If Rees or Faz is hired, its presumed bad.  If Doak says there are value judgements to make, its presumed his value judgements are good, whereas others would be bad.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make, but I'm not a big ban of modern restoration. I've criticized Doak, Hanse, Prichard, Fazio, Rees and others.

In other parts of the golf world, certainly Rees has a good reputation as a restorer of old courses.  In any restoration, there are certainly value judgements to make, including where applicable, what is best for a tournament.  At BP, I know Rees had to decide whether to pull the bunkers in to the shrunken from their original size greens, pull the greens back out to original size (not wanted by USGA to keep course difficult) or leave the greens and bunkers in the original Tillie fill pads and connect them, resulting in some of those long fingers which change the look of the Tillie bunker.

Rees has a good reputation as restorer of what? Which courses? Actually Tilly's bunkers were closer to the fill pads than the current bunkers. I believe one of those long fingers is a middle one and its being given to Tilly. What about the fairway bunkers and the new and improved par-3s and with their new greens. What about the new 18th hole?

All I can say is, tough call for Rees, but it seems to have worked out well.  The USGA is now firmly entrenched in bringing Opens to a wider variety of classically designed public courses (which most think is a good thing) BP has improved its maintenance and conditioning as a result of USGA funds, etc. and so on.  Overall, its been a great success and yet to a few, their value judgement is that somehow the greens should have been enlarged, or bunkers scaled down, etc.

It is true what Tom and Pat say - sometimes a tournament means the course is "disfigured" from its original design.  But, it works in the here and now and I still think its a great tribute to Tillie that his work in the midst of the depression has brought so much joy to public players, and is still tournament tough, just as his original vision stated.

I don't believe disfiguring any architects work is a good way to pay tribute.

[Mike_DeVries]

1. Since Pat Mucci listed Sunningdale in Scarsdale, NY as a Tillinghast course that doesn't get the recognition it may deserve, what exacltly did Tillie do there? It's not an original design of his as Raynor designed the original course. The Tillinghast Ass'n website lists the work done there as a reconstruction(R) and addition (A) on the website. Now, Mike deVries has done work on 5 holes. What remains of Tillinghast's work, if anything?

Steve,

Not much was done by Tillie and not much remains -- in fact, not much remains of the true work of Raynor or Travis either, since multiple generations of committees have had a hand in what goes on as well as architects.

Tillie's work was around 1930 at Sunningdale, when the pool was added, taking the place of the 18th green site.  The drop shot par 3 was added, the original Redan 17th removed, and the 18th changed to a short drive, dogleg left par 5 -- it is a weak hole compared to the original.  I am sure Tillie may have had some other influence on course features but that is less well known.

One of the holes I have worked on so far is the 12th, where we had to rebuild the green while replacing a storm drain that runs directly underneath the green.  The green had been through some previous work and was a flat circle with circular bunkers.  There was poor visibility to the putting surface from the tees (it is a drop of 50-60 feet) and the maintenance environment was not good.  The green I built is much larger, has a lot more interest with regard to recovery shots and putting, and has been very well received by the membership (so far at least!  ).  As to the 18th hole, it is a poor finish to a very good golf course on really good land.  The long range plan looks at moving the practice facility to a portion of the current 18th and building a new 18th hole adjacent to #1 -- but let me emphasize that is only a concept and has not been approved to be done, so I don't know if that will ever be biult.

Best, Mike

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You continue to simply ignore everything that is stated and continue to spout the same ignorant nonsense that simply is not only untrue but has no basis in reality whatsoever. You do it continually in what you state the Tillinghast Association is doing and what individuals, including and especially myself, are doing.

You stated that in regard to Bethpage that I am sitting back and doing "NOTHING" and that I am only interested in "selling more books with each US Open."

I have stated before and do so now in no uncertain terms, you display GROSS IGNORANCE when you make statements such as that! Call David Catalano, the Superintendant of Bethpage. Ask him of how much I sit back and do nothing. Ask him if I haven't uncovered more of the original information and history of not only the design and construction of the course and park but of the features of the Black course and how much of an advocate I have been in pressing for there restorals! Call Mike Davis at the USGA. Ask him how many times since 2002 I have been on site to discuss the course prior to the Open. Ask him how strong an advocate I was to see that the course would play as close to Tilly's original design features as possible. Ask him who pointed out the need to expand the greens and it both happened for some prior to the Open and will be happening more so in the next few years. Ask him If I have contacted him SINCE the Open to talk about any plans for the NEXT Open.

Yet according to you I sit back and DO NOTHING!

Tom, all you ever do is snipe and complain about what you see as wrongs and yet I have NEVER SEEN YOU LIFT EVEN THE SMALLEST FINGER TO DO A SINGLE THING ABOUT ANY OF THEM! NOTHIN!

You are the first to criticize and as you never have, not even the last to help. The only thing that can make this worse is if you then criticize without any knowledge or understanding... and as I have shown with every answer to these that is what you continually do.

For example. I wrote, "In addition, we have been the biggest single aid to any & all Tillinghast courses in promoting the preservation of Tilly's work and providing research to enable proper restorations of it when asked... and we have been asked QUITE OFTEN!"

You responded by stating, "That is encouraging to know...I think. Restoration is often a crap shoot and it depends largely on the architect chosen. Rees Jones is not known for sensative restoration work and the Tilly Assoc seems to have close relationship with him."

The Tillinghast Association has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with Rees Jones other than he is a member in good standing. WE have never and will never recommend him for a project of any type whether it be for a new design, renovation or restoration. That is because the Tillinghast Association NEVER RECOMMENDS ANY ARCHITECT... EVER! We have been asked for our opinions and recommendations and we say the say thing to every club or individual member. "Here are the names of the architects who are members of the Tillinghast Association..." and then we give them that list.

So, ONCE AGAIN it is shown that a statement you made has no semblance to being anywhere near the truth.
 
You also constantly display a gross disregard for what is plainly written

I stated "Going further, you used the phrase "does not object to redesign of Tilly's courses..." Again, we don't recognize that "premise" behind your question. Again, as I stated previously, "minor changes to even complete changes on some holes..." DOES NOT CONSTITUTE  the REDESIGN of a COURSE."

You responded with, "Evidently you have a very liberal definition of minor changes."

Even though I have done so several times in trying to explain that simple statement to you, you simply refuse to accept that my phrase "minor changes to even complete changes on some holes..." refers to things that aren't minor changes.

To once again show how you miss what has been clearly said, in your response as to why the HHA at Baltusrol has not been restored, I posted a statement from Bob Trebus. Evidently all you saw that it said was that it "is still there." I say this because you responded with, " I know it still there but it looks nothing like the original or any other of Tilly's original Sahara bunkers. This is what Rick Wolfe wrote about it.

Quote from: Rick Wolffe on July 04, 2001, 11:51:00 AM

Today the Sahara bunker complex on 17 Lower is highly manicured.  The old look had clumps of fescue randomly spaced.  Personally, I like the old look.  As I mentioned before, we are working to increase naturalization areas."

Tom, look at what Bob wrote DIRECTLY AFTER SAYING THAT IT WAS STILL THERE: 
 
"In fact plans are to let the grass grow as it was in its early days."

You are complaining that it doesn't look like the old look and that the "Tilly guys" are doing nothing about it and yet then quote Rick from EIGHT YEARS AGO saying "The old look had clumps of fescue randomly spaced.  Personally, I like the old look..." as if to rebut what Bob has said when he said the SDAME THING THAT RICK DID!

Rick: "we are working to increase naturalization areas."
Bob:  "In fact plans are to let the grass grow as it was in its early days..."

Who do you think has been involved in seeing that this will eventually get done?

In response to my statement that, "Once again you display ignorance and lack of any knowledge on the subject."

You responded with, "I don't think so."

That you can neither see it nor admit it is the biggest shame of all.

Tom, it is time to stop arguing and move on. I am sorry if you don't agree with my responses, but they are what they are, and in this caase, the truth about what the Tillinghast Association is doing in some areas.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
It will require more than just letting the grass grow. Either you have no eye for architectural detail or you have spent no time studying Tilly's original architecture or both. I'm beginning to understand why you are so confused when it comes to the architectural details at Bethpage (and why you believe only one bunker was not restored there). Back to my question, do you have any idea why the Sahara bunker has not been restored?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Once again, I won't answer for Phil, but will wager a guess.

Baltusrol simply followed the trends toward higher maintenance at some point, and wanted both a cleaner look than the original shown in the photo, perhaps more walking access (thus two major paths between bunkers rather than one) and ability to mow and rake those bunkers mechanically.

While the scruffy look is definitely back in vogue, who is to say that given natural and unatural evolution of golf courses that it HAS to be restored to that photograph?  You?  The Tillie Association? or Baltusrol?

You know the answer, and you know that the answer to your question to Phil is that the members have not yet decided to go back to the original look. I presume they can afford it and that it is technically possible.  But, they may simply like the course better with a cleaner look, don't like to lose golf balls, etc.

Which brings up an interesting question.  I think Baltusrol and most would consider bunker edging to be a maintenance issue, not a design issue.  I sense that Phil, Rick Wolf, Bob Trebus, etc. fall into that category, whereas you do not.  Coult that be corrrect?  They feel the design in intact because all the bunkers are in the same places, and you feel it is not because of how they are maintained, or how they have evolved?

I see a broad range of renovations call "restorations" that really just improve playing surfaces, but don't seem to really be trying to recapture either the scruffy look or the exact bunker placement of the course.  In their veiw, its still a restoration, but to modern standards.  You seem to understand that in one answer to me.

Perhaps if both parties (and I am not asking you to spend time doing it) defined what their idea of a restoration is, we could end this debate.  At the same time, we wouldn't end the argument because the opinions would vary and because there will always be value judgments considering much, much more than "original intent" at nearly ever redo of a famous name course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I will gladly give you an explanation regarding your statement and questions contained in your post:

"It will require more than just letting the grass grow. Either you have no eye for architectural detail or you have spent no time studying Tilly's original architecture or both. I'm beginning to understand why you are so confused when it comes to the architectural details at Bethpage (and why you believe only one bunker was not restored there). Back to my question, do you have any idea why the Sahara bunker has not been restored?"

Before I do I'd like you to answer a single question... What are the dates of the two photographs that you posted?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Phil,

I think part of the problem Tom has is understanding how clubs function.

Typically, there is no monolithic thought or decision when it comes to a golf course.

Sometimes a chairman or superintendent does things on their own.
Sometimes the committee is of one mind, however, more often than not, they're very fractured.

The committee recommendations usually flow to the Board.
Sometimes the Board rubber stamps them.
More often, the board picks them apart, puts in their own imput and passes an amended recommendation or redirects the recommendation back to the committee for further analysis.

There used to be a great picture in the lower bar at Baltusrol, it showed Trevino behind the 4th green at the 1967 Open.
The grass was whispy and knee high in some areas.
I believe that was the first time I ever saw someone use the bladed sand wedge from the rough around the green.

I played Baltusrol when it was relatively shaggy and I've played Baltusrol recently.

The "shaggy" look, which I like, went out of style at most, if not all courses in this area.

As Jeff alluded to, maintainance practices change.
Irrespective of the cause, courses transitioned from "shaggy" to "crisp", and it wasn't a Rees Jones conspiracy that started the trend.
The likely beginings were probably in Northern Georgia.

Another factor contributing to the demise of the shaggy look is "Galleries" attending tournaments.
If you go back to the 1967 Open and other earlier Opens, the fans were much closer to the golf course.
They weren't in specifically positioned bleachers, but roamed rather freely, especially during the practice rounds.
In some instances during practice rounds, golfers called members of the gallery out on the golf course to hit shots.
Fans had a much closer connection to the golfer and the golf course.
It's hard to maintain the shaggy look when thousands of fans are trampling the grass.

The departure of the shaggy look was an evolving aspect of the game, irrespective of whether you're in favor of it or not.

However, there are other areas where I think Tom's points have merit.

Those areas are primarily architectural in nature.

One could look to the redesign at Oak Hill and the furor it caused.

I know that Brad Klein and others were horified in Feb, 2004, to learn of prospective architectural changes to Baltusrol for future tournaments. 

I don't recall what the Tillinghast Society's position was, but, I do know that their position wouldn't have mattered.
Those changes were going to take place.

Philosophically, one has to ask, is narrowing the rough, bringing the bunkers in to match, and moving bunkers to challenge the best players in keeping with AWT's design integrity, or does it represent a departure, and if so, how ?

I don't think anyone objects to added tee length, but, once you start altering, moving, adding or eliminating features, the course has to lose some of its distinctive character unless the amendments are highly sympathetic to the design integrity.

However, how many times can a course go under the ether before it loses its distinctive architectural qualities ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I guess that depends mostly upon whether the greens are changed, no?  I think WF is substantially the same because the greens are the same.

If some fw bunkers are moved out in connection with moving tees back to bring them into championship play, is that a bad thing?  Again, value judgement - putting bunkers where they were vs where they were intended to affect play.

[TEPaul]

"Tom & Phil,
I think part of the problem Tom has is understanding how clubs function."



Patrick:

You are undeniably right about that. And you can add to that he has no interest at all in what a club or its membership thinks about their own golf course (he's actually admitted that on here in the past saying his only function on here is to be a defender of "The Old Dead Guys" ). Pretty unrealistic combination, I'd say, if one wants to be a realist on this particular subject of golf course architecture at existing golf clubs! There is actually something of an indicative stat on here in that a very large percentage of the most seemingly unrealistic architectural critics on this website since it began have never belonged to a golf club. I'm sure great umbrage will be taken somehow on that observation when it is actually nothing more than a FACT!   

But of course who has ever accused Tom MacWood of being realistic? Perhaps, even he does not believe he should be realistic!

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link from a previous thread. Evidently the bunker was converted from a naturalistic Sahara bunker to six separate bunkers in the late 70s, and Joe Dey may have been behind the change.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,5520.msg106444/

Here is another old photo of the bunker from 1931.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I really would appreciate an answer to my question, "Before I do I'd like you to answer a single question... What are the dates of the two photographs that you posted?"

[Charlie Goerges]

[Phil_the_Author]

Thank you Charles... That was certainly needed!  

Everyone, after the latest nonsense from Tom (strictly my opinion) that he wrote about me on the Tillinghast Bias thread, I am choosing to stop my participation in this thread as well. Tom doesn't want to discuss; he wants to argue and tell me what the Tillinghast Asociation is and isn't doing, what individual members of the Association are or aren't doing and what i am doing and not doing. All of that in the face of specific explanations, denials and proofs.

To continue responding to him is dishonoring the site and all of you. If you have any questions about the Tillinghast Association I will gladly answer any and all sent to me by either private message or email.

My apologies for letting this get a bit out of control...

[Ian Larson]

None needed Phillip. His silence was almost deafening.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I'm sorry if I seem argumentative. I'm afraid my frustration has been building ever since I read your book and how little you understand his architecture.

[Ian Larson]

Tom,
 
If Mr. Young and The Tillinghast Associations knowledge of Tilly and his architecture could never match yours. Wouldn't you think it would be imperative for you to start your own Tilly organization to uphold Tillys true legacy which you are so passionate about? I would think it is a crime and a shame for his legacy to be so tarnished by such a faction. Or maybe you could be a smidge less arguementative and just answer questions that are asked of you so that the thread can make the turn from arguing to educational. Mr Young, IMHO, has been very forthright with his questions and answers. You have come across almost defiant. As neutral observer and someone who loves to have this opportunity to read a frank discussion on Tilly to learn, I'd rather listen and learn from Mr. Young. Your defiancy makes me question your motives and credibility on the subject.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()