Pat Mucci:
Your question about Ernie Ransome is interesting.
Tom Fazio has been the consulting architect at both Pine Valley and Riviera and, if I'm not mistaken, Tom Marzolf has been the design associate on site at both venues. Yet, perceptions of the work done at Pine Valley and Riviera differ greatly.
Why is that? How significant has Ransome's influence been?
While I would certainly give Ransome all the credit in the world for his leadership, I wonder if other factors are equally important. Clearly, there is a relationship between the architecture of Pine Valley and the fact that changes to the course have been minimized.
Here I don't just mean to simply suggest that Pine Valley is so good that changes aren't necessary. Rather, I'm referring to a particular feature of the design, specifically, the absence of galley space making PV an excellent venue for amateur events but unattractive for large professional tournaments.
Pine Valley differs from venues like Riviera in that seeking a US Open is just not what the place is all about. The ideal event for PV is a Walker Cup, which I so much enjoyed in 1985.
By not seeking professional events, Ransome & Co, have been able to focus on preserving PV's architecture and minimizing changes. My understanding is that Marzolf has softened a few of the greens, changes largely motivated by today's faster green speeds. But, really, there hasn't been much else done.
What I'm suggesting is that keeping professionals off classic courses may do more to explain the preservation of great architecture than anything else done by people like Ernie Ransome or architecture firms like Fazio.
Let me cite several examples.
Ballybunion: Several years ago the club hired favorite son Tom Watson to make some subtle changes. But, the changes were so subtle I doubt most visitors would even notice. It is true that some members looked forward to the club hosting the 2000 Irish Open, but really, most members view the course as something for the members first and travelling visitors second. Attracting professional events doesn't rank as a priority (other than the millinenum Irish Open).
Crystal Downs: Is there any doubt the place is run with an emphasis on member play and absolutely no interest attracting professional events. Hence, the architecture is preserved.
NGLA: Essentially the same situation as Crystal Downs.
Chicago Golf Club: I stopped in a few weeks ago to check out Tom Doak's work and preparations for the 2005 Walker Cup. I'd say the situation is very similiar to Ballybunion. The club has no interest in professional events and the work Tom is doing could barely be noticed.
So, Pine Valley, Ballybunion, Crystal Downs, NGLA and Chicago Golf Club all keep the pros away and successfully preserve what Crump, Simpson, Mackenzie and MacDonald created.
Riviera is a different animal: They are trying to attract professional events. So, plans like tearing up #14 are considered when, I'm reasonably certain, most members hardly find it a pushover.
I've yet to see John Zimmers' work over at Oakmont under the guidance of Fazio, but, here again, one finds the desire to attract professional events as the driving force. That's Oakmont. That's the Pittsburgh culture, a macho desire to erect another "steel curtain" for the pros. It's all about winning another Super Bowl.
If the USGA doesn't act to restrict the ball, keeping the pros out may be the only way to preserve classic architecture.