[Tom MacWood]

Mayfield in Cleveland; Eastward Ho! and Oyster Harbors on Cape Cod; Culver Academy in Indiana.

[Sean_A]

Mayfield in Cleveland; Eastward Ho! and Oyster Harbors on Cape Cod; Culver Academy in Indiana.

Tommy Mac

I too like the idea of preserving certain courses (though I am not sure which ones) just because they are in some way significant.  Your selection of Oyster Harbors is interesting.  Why preserve this particular Ross?  Are there elements which need to be brought back?

Ciao

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

[Sean_A]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

Philip

To be fair, maybe #2 and San Franciso are not courses which Tommy Mac believes should be preserved - for whatever reason - including changes made throughout their history.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

I believe this is the first highly acclaimed classic course and a favorite of many GCA members (myself included) that Trump has got involved with.

Not true.
He attempted to buy Hidden Creek some time ago.

Mucci selective reading strikes again.  While I agree that Hidden Creek is VERY good, I don't think it has aged enough to be considered "classic."

[Robert Emmons]

Tom D.,

From past experiances with you at Huntington Country Club, when we were hell bent on renovating a green you convinced us that restoration was the way to go. You turned down the job at the time and I have always been thankful for your honesty...RHE

[Chris_Blakely]

Tom D.,

From past experiances with you at Huntington Country Club, when we were hell bent on renovating a green you convinced us that restoration was the way to go. You turned down the job at the time and I have always been thankful for your honesty...RHE

I know I am glad Huntington CC was restored!!!  That is one hell of an Emmet course!!!   

Chris

[Chris_Blakely]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

I never get argument for the sake or arguing!!!


And I would simply say, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves!!!  For example with Grand Central Terminal in 1968!!


Chris

[Tom MacWood]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

Philip

To be fair, maybe #2 and San Franciso are not courses which Tommy Mac believes should be preserved - for whatever reason - including changes made throughout their history.

Ciao

Pinehurst #2 is a very good example of a golf course that should be preserved. It is considered by many to be Ross's masterpiece largely because he worked on it and perfected it over three or four decades. SFGC would have fallen into the same catagory had the course not be redesigned in the early 50s by Sampson. IMO the course was at its architectural peak prior to those changes thanks to Tilly, Billy Bell, et al.

[Sean_A]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

Philip

To be fair, maybe #2 and San Franciso are not courses which Tommy Mac believes should be preserved - for whatever reason - including changes made throughout their history.

Ciao

Pinehurst #2 is a very good example of a golf course that should be preserved. It is considered by many to be Ross's masterpiece largely because he worked on it and perfected it over three or four decades. SFGC would have fallen into the same catagory had the course not be redesigned in the early 50s by Sampson. IMO the course was at its architectural peak prior to those changes thanks to Tilly, Billy Bell, et al.

Tommy Mac

#2 may be a masterpiece, but the greens are the star of that show and it seems rather obvious that what is in the ground now isn't what Ross built.  Does the course need to be brought back to Ross' creation after grassing the greens to be a real Ross masterpiece?

Ciao

[Brad LeClair]

i recall someone had posted a nice set of photos on here but i am having difficulty locating with the advanced search tool. could someone kindly link?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

Philip

To be fair, maybe #2 and San Franciso are not courses which Tommy Mac believes should be preserved - for whatever reason - including changes made throughout their history.

Ciao

Pinehurst #2 is a very good example of a golf course that should be preserved. It is considered by many to be Ross's masterpiece largely because he worked on it and perfected it over three or four decades. SFGC would have fallen into the same catagory had the course not be redesigned in the early 50s by Sampson. IMO the course was at its architectural peak prior to those changes thanks to Tilly, Billy Bell, et al.

Tommy Mac

#2 may be a masterpiece, but the greens are the star of that show and it seems rather obvious that what is in the ground now isn't what Ross built.  Does the course need to be brought back to Ross' creation after grassing the greens to be a real Ross masterpiece?

Ciao

I've read and heard all the crazy stories about the greens, and I'm skeptical. I believe they are very close if not identical to the original.

[Bill Shotzbarger]

The other night on Trump's show he was talking about how a good driving range is one of his most important parts of a course. He said something to the effect of:

"There are some highly regarded courses in Westchester that don't even have a driving range and I'm not going to name names. In my opinion those courses should not even be ranked."

What clubs is he referring to?

[Sean_A]

Tom.

Your statement "the most outstanding works of historically important architects would be examples of golf courses I believe are worth preserving..." would seem to preclude ANYONE from redesigning "the most outstanding works of historically important architects" including those architects themselves.

So in the mid-1920's you would have told Donald Ross he could no longer tinker with Pinehurst #2?

In 1935 would you have told Tillinghast that he could not redesign the 1st, 2nd & 12th holes at the San Francisco Golf Club? By the way, that was the THIRD time he redesigned those same holes. So at what point should he not have been allowed to do that?

Philip

To be fair, maybe #2 and San Franciso are not courses which Tommy Mac believes should be preserved - for whatever reason - including changes made throughout their history.

Ciao

Pinehurst #2 is a very good example of a golf course that should be preserved. It is considered by many to be Ross's masterpiece largely because he worked on it and perfected it over three or four decades. SFGC would have fallen into the same catagory had the course not be redesigned in the early 50s by Sampson. IMO the course was at its architectural peak prior to those changes thanks to Tilly, Billy Bell, et al.

Tommy Mac

#2 may be a masterpiece, but the greens are the star of that show and it seems rather obvious that what is in the ground now isn't what Ross built.  Does the course need to be brought back to Ross' creation after grassing the greens to be a real Ross masterpiece?

Ciao

I've read and heard all the crazy stories about the greens, and I'm skeptical. I believe they are very close if not identical to the original.

Tommy Mac

I too was dubious about claims, but reading Dunlop White III's stuff and seeing the photos convinced me Ross didn't intend for #2's greens to be as they are today, domed and small.  It makes sense that #2's greens weeren't so different from other Ross courses and that changes happened after Ross died.

http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Green_Evolution_Report.html

http://www.carolinasgolf.org/carolinasgolf/rossgreenslongfall2010.pdf

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

The other night on Trump's show he was talking about how a good driving range is one of his most important parts of a course. He said something to the effect of:

"There are some highly regarded courses in Westchester that don't even have a driving range and I'm not going to name names. In my opinion those courses should not even be ranked."

What clubs is he referring to?

QR?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Having been under the weather and unable to see your response to my question before now, acouple of questions:

"Pinehurst #2 is a very good example of a golf course that should be preserved. It is considered by many to be Ross's masterpiece largely because he worked on it and perfected it over three or four decades."

Wait a minute now, haven't others worked on the course since Ross passed away including what is being done by C&C right now? Are you stating that C&C shouldn't touch the course and that it should be left alone, "preserved" as you put it?

[Tom MacWood]

I have no idea what C&C are doing at Pinehurst...what have they done?

[Phil_the_Author]

They are "restoring" Pinehurst #2, or as the Pinehurst website states, "We're honored to have the renowned firm of Coore and Crenshaw Inc., working with us to return both the natural and strategic character to our championship No. 2 course..."

So I ask again, wouldn't your statement mean that you would not have them touch the course?

[Tom MacWood]

Yes, others have worked on the course. When the Diamondhead Company owned the course in the 70s they removed the sandy scrub rough areas and planted wall to wall grass. After ownership changed hands the sandy areas were thankfully restored. Nicklaus' outfit I believe resurfaced the greens several years ago (Bermuda to bent I believe). There were some wild stories about the process that I'm skeptical of. Rees Jones was brought in by the USGA to tidy up things, and it did appear he messed with some of the bunkers' shapes. They didn't have the same look they previously had. I have no idea what C&C have done...and it doesn't appear you know either.

There have been no major changes to the course Ross left that I'm aware of, which is rare for a course of its vintage, especially one that has hosted major championships. Yes, I would prefer Rees Jones, C&C and other architect would leave it alone.

[Phil_the_Author]

.

[Brad LeClair]

Supposedly deal is off?

[Mike Sweeney]

Supposedly deal is off?

I heard the membership did indeed reject the Trump proposal.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Great news. A rejection an hour for Trump might humble him to be tolerable in a decade or two.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The deal is back on.

This was posted at Geoff Shackelford's site:

http://rothmanevan.blogspot.com/2010/12/trump-national-long-island.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Giving "Trial Members" a full membership vote has to be one of the bonehead moves in golf in recent years.

One thing about the letter to the members jumps out as a conflict.

On one hand the letter states that next year (2011) will be the best year yet, and on the other hand, the letter indicates a degree of disappointment that the club wasn't sold.  If 2011 was going to be the best year yet, why even consider a sale.

It sounds like lower dues and/or initiation payments are part of the Trump offer.

Just the other day I had a conversation with the President of a local club who was informing me of the financial pressures associated with a reduced membership.  I advised him to cease looking at the club from a historical perspective, culturally and financially, and to view the club and operations from the perspective of a new purchaser.

It might be that Trump's organization can make prudent operational decisions that clubs have a hard time making for sentimental or cultural reasons.

This is a very interesting situation.

If Trump buys Engineers, perhaps it will be an eye opener and a financial model for other clubs to adopt if they want to survive.
Another Sputnik moment...... for golf
Time will tell 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()