Is GolfClubAtlas Imploding Modern Architecture

[JakaB]

I have to question what good the Riviera threads have done for current and future restorations or remodels as they will occur in the future.  Memberships, Architects, Owners and even Historians are real people with emotions that are manipulated by outside agencies they sometimes do not even know are at work or want to admit are at work.  Will the tone of our bitterness lead to changes out of spite...to classical cleansing for the sake of an arian pruity that can't be questioned.   How many times can a member of a classic course hold knowledge close to his vest because he can not afford to be party to the rape of his darling.   How many times will we alienate the membership of a great club by posting clandenstien pictures taken from cars.  How many architects will be considered stupid or puppets of a Fazist conspiracy before this site would be more productive by simply shutting the hell up.  I would really like to know what good has come from either the Merion or Riviera theads because from my reading I think this site has influenced future work to not even use the word restoration which can only be a bad thing....especially for the Historian///////////////////Architect.

[John Nash Jr.]

why don't you go and get a job and forget particpating on this website if it bothers you so much? better yet, why not just disappear altogether? do yo have a life outside of gca? sure seems like you are in the throws of an all out emotional crisis where you find need to stiffel discussion with your constant drivel.

[SL_Solow]

I have a real problem with much of what JakaB has to say and with the invective contained in his remarks.  However, having participated on this site for some time I must respectfully suggest that the tone and language of the most recent response has no place here.  This has always been a place for individuals who have a common interest in golf course architecture to exchange ideas.  I emphasize the terms"exchange" and "ideas".  While we may often disagree, respect for each other's right to hold their own views has allowed many of us to maintain an ongoing dialogue.  Ultimately, our respective persuasiveness and knowledge will cause others to agree with, disagree with, or ignore our views.  But when the discussion degenerates into name calling, no one is educated, no one is convinced, and no one is interested.  Rather than responding to posts such as these I suggest that those of us who are truly interested in learning should simply ignore them.  I plan to do so in the future.  I don't think this is an elitist view, I simply don't have the time to engage in preadolescent repartee.

[JakaB]

SL,

I needed a good laugh and John Nash Jr. gave me a good one...tell me...how was I off base on anything I said...I don't think it can be disputed that many of the things done on this site by the most well intentioned people is a detriment to future restorations.

[John Nash Jr.]

well said mr solow, and i'm real sorry for offending you. its just that i find this ignoramous's remarks usually appalling while he has no regards for what is ever being said here other then to make fun of everyone that wants to have an opinion or offer knowledge he does this under the cloak of many other names or with innuendo here he is poking fun at those who have opinion and i would wish he take to another area where he can find some cause for meaning in his life he certainly doesnt find it here and he has nothing to benefit anyone

[Brian Phillips]

John Nash jr.,

I think some of what jakaB is saying is true.  Maybe I for one shouldn't be giving opinions of bunkers from pictures taken from cars.

I don't know.

I didn't like the bunkering.  It had nothing to do with whether or not it was restoration.  By what TEPaul was saying the size of the bunker wasn't that far wrong from the original anyway.

jakaB's thread is quite valid.  However I don't think this site has that much influence on any club's decision to restore or re-design.

To be honest I think that some people overate what influence this site has on any architect.

You don't need to get personal though, it isn's neccessary.

I like a lot of what jakaB has to say and often if you re read what he has said it is often tongue in cheek!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jaka B,

I think most architects know what they are getting in for, criticism wise, when doing any kind of "celebrity"work.  It goes with the territory, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, as it were.  BTW, I have historically stayed out of the kitchen for such work.

I do agree that the thread got a bit testy.  With Geoff being a member and historian, he is likely to have strong feelings.  I'm sure he would agree, that if he did in fact participate in the actual renovation process, he would have had to use more diplomacy than displayed here to be effective.  Being the journalist who raises a ruckus over important issues is a far different skill than sitting around a table hammering out a "messy" political solution, and Geoff knows he doesn't want to do it.

It seems the questions faced at Rivera are pretty typical of those facing any good course being remodelled.  There are lots of difficult decisions,a nd lots of emotion from the members.  It's clear that restoring a course, and preparing it for a major championship are getting to be mutually exclusive.

Regardless of style, that the bunker on seven would not get put back in its original location, as it would not affect any tournament player, and might make the fairway too narrow for the club player, while more open for the pros.

As for 8, any pro will tell you that it doesn't take long for them to figure out the best way to play a hole that has clear options.  As much as we like to think that's not true, any course played year after year on the tour has had scores come down.  That's true of the original monsters - like Butler and Firestone - and perhaps less true of the classics like Augusta and Riv.  

So, its a nice addition for the members, and who cares what the pros do once a year.  I like bringing that back, even if some of the details have changed.  The comment about leaving it a sandy waste jogged my memory.  We designed a similar sandy waste at springhouse golf club in Nashville, site of a senior event.  The tour groomed the center bunker so well, it became the preferred target!  Who is to say that the same wouldn't happen if the ditch was left sandy?  And who's to say the high falutin' club members (or homeowners looking over the ditch) would have wanted the less refined look after all these years.  Sadly, not everyone thinks its cool.

John Nash, Jr.,

I was going to post recently about the intelligent level of discussion on this board.  I participate on some other boards of interest to me, and this is by far the best level of intelligent and non belligerent discussion.  For instance, as a hockey fan, I go to some chat rooms where the most intelligent statement is something like "Red Wings Suck".  And I participate in some railroad history discussion groups where guys go on for months - sometimes violently -  about whether a specific steam locomotive built in 1928 had 4978 rivets or 4979.  Now, to me, that's drivel!  But, to each his own!

With your permission, I will use your post word for word on that site to convey my true feelings about the "rivet counters".  My normal phrase is "here's .50 - go call someone who gives a hoot!"  Get a life and dissapear altogether works so much better as an insult, and it's a nice touch to question his - and by extension, all of ours - emotional suitability

Have a nice day! .

[Steve Okula]

To answer JakaB's original question - "what good the Riviera threads have done for current and future restorations or remodels as they will occur in the future" - the answer is, not a lick.

This DG has no effect whatsoever on anything actually happening in the reality of golf course architercture today. Anyone who thinks differently is suffering from delusions.

We here are responding to GCA, not implementing it, with a few exceptions of professional designers who post here, and who I very much doubt are influenced in their work by opinions voiced on the DG.

Is it not absurd to think that any owner/developer anywhere is considering the views of a few dozen fanatics on this site to make multi-million dollar decisions?

I enjoy surfing here, and adding the occasional post, but when I go to work tomorrow on the golf course the opinions of this group will be inconsequential in formulating my decisions.

Let's wake up to reality, guys.

[GP]

JakaB -

Has there been any attempt at all by those performing these "restorations" to intellectually defend their rationale? If there were, particularly from the beginning, maybe it would not be necessary to shout from the mountaintops about what is happening.

Many have attributed the butcherings to "ego." I actually think it is the lack of a healthy ego that is causing this - anyone with a healthy amount of self esteem would gladly welcome criticism, using it as an opportunity to defend his decisions.

Do you really think the answer is to ignore these situations & hope that if everyone buries his head in the ground the problem will go away?

I can't help but think you had the typical reaction to Tommy's work: "There he goes again, just bashing Fazio." If you read the threads closely, you will see concrete specific reasons why Tommy & others feel these changes are wrong. Do you see even one defense of these changes that uses any sort of reasonable rationale? "You're biased" is hardly an attempt at reasonable discourse.

[Mike_Cirba]

JakaB;

Do you have a favorite classic course?  One you love so much that your mind's eye immediately conjures it up whenever someone mentions the game of golf?

If so, which one is it?  Is it a course filled not only with historic tournament lore, but also with such unique individual character that it's like a fingerprint, with every nook and cranny permanently emblazoned on your mind like the most beautiful sunset on a late summer day?  Are there parts of it that are sacrosanct in your mind; where the hand of man and the vagaries of nature have so tightly integrated as to approach perfection on this vastly imperfect orb?  

If so, you are a poetic dreamer like many of the rest of us.  Your words indicate to me that you are.  If so, that's a good thing...the world needs more of us.  

Now, imagine your favorite course, and imagine bulldozers and heavy equipment out there "restoring" it.  Next, imagine that said restoration effort fails to even grasp what made the course so special in the first place.  Imagine what you used to love about the place forever and unrecoverably changed for the worse, in the name of technology, modern maintenance, modern construction techniques, ego-driven agendas, and just plain expediency.

Now, ask yourself why some of us are so vocal about such changes.  Is it to make names for ourselves, by being some type of contrarians opposed to seeing our greatest favorite courses improved in stature and challenge?  Some here have taken on personal and professional risk by doing so; what could possibly be motivating them?  Money, fame, and notoriety?  Or, simply a love of golf courses and a desire to see them preserved in a way that respects their history and architectural intent?  

But, I think the real reason some of us are so vocal is because this is a trend that is becoming more and more pervasive and seemingly more acceptable.  Perhaps some member of some classic course might come upon some of this and really do his homework before deciding that some gem somewhere needs to be modernized.  

And; because the next classic course to be altered in this manner might be your favorite.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Jeff,
Unfortunately, your comments raise the point that may be what bothers many of us about the work at Riviera or Merion. When it comes to restoration, what is there to spin when the ground and photographs speak volumes? Either something is done to follow the information, or it's not. When it's not, but the parties involved throw "restoration" out there along with the old architects name to promote their own cause, some of us see this as spin. Spin is a nice way of saying we are not getting the full truth, and no one really likes being lied to, do they?

Some of this addresses part of Jaka/Barney's post as to the trouble many are having these days with honest discussion about architecture, and the anger these issues elicit from those who refuse to accept that sometimes things in the golf world just are not done in an honest, intelligent manner. Shocking, I know. But that is all this web site provides, a forum for discussion for the purpose of enlightenment. If people don't agree, they can post something in response. If they don't like the discussion and have nothing to say but to simply complain about it, then they should start another site devoted to complaining about people with opinions.

Jeff, I resent your comment regarding knowing why I would not get involved in a restoration project. I would love the opportunity to undertake and sell a pure restoration of a classic course. I'm bored with architects always blaming politics, superintendents, members or "what if's" as an excuse for bad field work or work done too quickly, or poorly researched efforts. The work at Riviera faced no membership opposition, the architect has been given free rein to develop a plan, he has two books to refer to and countless photos/articles to study, all with one caveat: incorporate what the USGA staff thinks the course needs. I don't call that dealing with politics, I call that compromise at the expense of the architecture. Yet, they want to be praised for doing restoration. So why is it that we when people are not being honest and we call people on that, we are in the wrong?

You are right in the sense that some don't have any desire to get involved in projects where compromise is the driving force behind the work, particularly when it does not have to be that way (no on is forcing Riviera to listen to the USGA, according to David Fay). Some people have grown to embrace compromise as the key part of any project, fine, that's a choice. But some have no problem with compromising the truth, all the while expecting to be lauded for doing pure, honest work. Can't have it both ways in my view.

I understand your views about the changes at Riviera, but if you knew where the old bunker was, you might understand that the work on #7 did not have to look or function the way it did for the bunker to come into play. This work did not require stretching the bunker to ridiculous lengths (and heights!), nor did it need to be out of character with the rest of the course if it were in fact, a restoration as it is being branded by those involved.

As for the eighth, the hole is a failure to some of us because no player ever considered going left and the players celebrated it because it was easier. The architecture is so off kilter that it never crossed the player's minds to consider OPTIONS on an option hole, so the lack of choice was not a matter of players figuring out a secret backdoor passage over time thanks to playing in multiple Nissan Opens. The lack of options on an option hole came as the result of poor design work.

I also think it's a form of spin to ask questions like, "Who is to say that the same wouldn't happen if the ditch was left sandy?  And who's to say the high falutin' club members (or homeowners looking over the ditch) would have wanted the less refined look after all these years." In my book, that's spin to avoid dealing with tough questions. In this case, no one asks tough questions. The members are afraid to talk and the club management treats them like dirt. The management just wants an Open and will gladly compromise their $108 million property to get the Open. So the architect here is making the call to do what is necessary and it just didn't work on many levels. That's their right to do as they please. But when people try to pass something off as something it's not, then they have to understand they may be called on it. But they'll  consider such feedback controversial, not-diplomatic, unfair, wrong, etc..., no matter how this differing point of view is presented.

Geoff

[A_Clay_Man]

The most important result of the McRiv threads is that it leads to educating. It doesn't take a specialist to see the abonimations being created and passed off as high end. It just takes a little more research and the knowledge that you get what you pay for, and out, what you put in.

[Neal_Meagher]

Steve Okula,

? I guess I know where you are coming from but I don't agree.  Your post has the tone of a most pragmatic individual who has perhaps had more than one or two good ideas shot down in the past.  Well, so have I but you learn from it and go on and don't get discouraged by it.

You say "...This DG has no effect whatsoever on anything actually happening in the reality of golf course architecture today."  And this is based upon what?  If you are saying that the overall structure and way that renovations are undertaken at existing courses are still the same as always, yes, in most cases you are right, and you are also right that far fewer people know of this site than know of who Jennifer Flowers is, for instance.

But, I suppose I'm seeing this in a glass is half full way.  I have learned a great deal from the comments and varying thread subjects here.  Imagine that you design golf courses, or maintain golf courses, (which you may well do for all I know) or own a golf course or want to know more about the inner workings of a specific club, where else can you possibly learn straight from the horses mouths than right here!  And with complete and brutal honesty.  I'm not just talking about the theoretical stuff, either, but actual factual things.

Last year I asked no one in particular out there what their ideas may be in dealing with a particular green chairman and/or committee who had some pre-conceived notions that I wished to gently sway.  I had many responses from many informed individuals, such as the esteemed Tom Paul, whose opinions I respect very much.  Where else would I have had this kind of opportunity?  

You say that you doubt that the few professional designers who post here are influenced in their work by what they see here.  I can't speak for all (and there are many architects worldwide) who post here, but for me this is another resource just like trade publications, industry meetings and seed catalogs.  It is what you make it and I believe that there are more and more people, not just designers, but those in all fields connected with constructing, managing and maintaining golf courses and just players who benefit from this (mostly) intelligent discourse.  

So, will all of this change how the next high profile club chooses to renovate or restore their course?  It might not.  But it also very well may.  Do not underestimate the power of the people who post and lurk on this site.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't think anyone knows what effect threads like the Riviera and Merion threads have -- to say they have no effect is I believe inaccurate. They have had an effect, the question is the effect negative or positive, and what will be the long term effect, if any. Some of the short term effect has been a few upset and defensive Merion members, a few upset contractors and a few upset architects. I doubt there will be any postive effect on those three groups -- they were all well beyond being influenced.

The possible positive effect might be those who will be on those contemplating future restorations/remodeling jobs. I like the fact that these threads have been biting, no one wants to be thought of as an idiot and Fazio & Co., MacDonald & Co., Riviera, and Merion have been painted as insensative idiots and hacks - if you don't think that disturbs them at some level, perhaps I am suffering from some serious delusions. Who knows how many powerful members look at this site, probably not too many, but there are plenty of architects and a few contractors and there are probably a percentage who are effected by these attacks--maybe only subconsciously. And I personally think there has been plenty of detailed explantions and illustrations as to why many are upset with changes to Yale, Bethpage, Merion, Riviera, etc. to go with the lambasting. In my mind its about time these high profile architects and clubs are being pressured and held accountable. Time will tell if it has long term effect, all I know is sitting back doing and saying nothing hasn't protected a single course from the Trent Jones, Dick Wilsons, Rees Joness, Tom Fazios, USGA's, etc. of the world. All that being said I would like to see a little more emphasis on the postive restoration work that has and is taking place -- praising good work has an effect too.

You know the ironic thing is that someday these architects work will be in need of protection and restoration. I'm not sure if Steve Okula is an admirer of the old gems like Merion and Riviera, but I do know he admires the work of RTJ and I personally believe his best work should be protected, as should the others. I think ASGCA has a responsiblity to protect the greatest works of their profession, and should be looking long term at protecting the very best work of their current members. I have seen no evidence of any move in this direction.

Jeff Brauer
How many architects are you aware of that are restoration specialists - who are actually interested in accurately restoring some of these old gems. Is there any talk about introducing a 'Restoration University' to along with the 'Remodeling University', especially with new construction possibly slowing down? Is there a certain percentage of the member of the ASGCA who would be sensative to a 'Restoration University' that might naturally point out some of the pasts most glaring mistakes?

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve Okula:

If you believe GCA has no effect on anyone in the golf industry, why did you bother to post?  Why are you trying to influence a group you say has no influence?  Who do you think is suffering from delusions?  Who do you think exaggerates GCA's limited influence?

JakaB:

Why would it be more productive for people at this site to simply shut up?  Which projects would that help?  Couldn't one argue that far from shutting up, it might have been better if Geoff's comments had been on CBS rather than the Golf Channel?

One last thing: do you disagree with me that Fazio would be far better off concentrating on building new courses than getting involved with projects like Riviera/Merion?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Well said Tim Weiman. I for one would certainly respect the man much more for doing exactly that.

Jonathan Kay/JakaB/Barney F or whatever you are calling yourself today or tomorrow. If you gave me one good argument of why this stuff at Riviera seems good to you or the fact that my efforts are less then passionate, I would think about keeping quiet.

The fact is that both you and Sean have offered nothing other then your opinion of us or me and yet offer nothing of substance to at least suitably debate this work.

Yes, John Nash Jr. (Who just happens to be the name of the guy from the movie "A Beautiful Mind.") is out of line, but you are a well-versed persona that likes to insult or mock people that have a different opinion then yours. Please tell me how anyone is supposed to respect that?

[Brad Klein]

I think there's a tendency on this thread and throughout GCA to overstate the role of this discussion group. These discussions are not revolutionary; nor are they ignored. As Neal M. suggests above, they help[ some peope do some work. That's more than was available 5-10-15 years ago, and in that respect, it's an asset.

But a limited one. The views here are a distict minority. I know because I spend a lot of time dealing with clubs, committees, owners, members - most of whom don't understand classical values. Some of whom are really interested in trying to get it right. Pure restoration is a market niche, but thankfully a growing one, and this is the one public resource - other than some recent books - devoted to it.

I have no doubt that there's a purist's ideological bent, even a fundamentalist spirit, here, that creates invective and overwhelms certain discussions. It's regretable. That gives certain people reason to laugh at and dismiss the views expressed on GCA. But those people who dismiss GCA as a bunch of wonkers are unable to grasps the basics of traditional design and are looking for an excuse no to deal with classical design, and they find an excuse in the occasionally fanatical tone of some postings. But I have no doubt that what drives them away is not the overly emotional tone of discussion but the basic underlying idea. They don't get it and they never will.

So the site, despite its flaws, is a remarkable resource for people genuinely interested in restoration, the ODS, the rules of golf, and the soul of the game. We're not going to save the game - just a small piece of it. And my sense is that the minority, while small, is growing. So warts and all, the discussions of Riviera, Merion and Bethpage are very helpful, even if over the top. I think Shackelford expressed it best above. The site helps distinguish sincere regard from self-promotional shilling and lying.

[BillV]

I agree with Brad that there is a minority view here being hammered, but on hte other side, it amazes me how many people that I encounter who are good, learned , knowledgeable people who abhor any inkling of quirk, unfair, blind and non-green and have no concept of from where the game has come.

The trend of TV golf and the professional game as played is certainly in America changing the face of the game and certainly to much of this group, not for the better.  There are modern concepts especially in construction that are to be applauded (At least California can have some courses that are not winter quagmires now!).  The attitudes of some that anything not pre WWll can't be any good are just as over the top as PennG2 greens with Ross' original contours on Pinehurst #2 and the complete ignorance of Thomas original intent in the other direction.

I know from personal communications directly with architects that many may of them read this site and checking the names we see the ones who are brave enough to get into the fray, but more than the names who post are reading, too.  As long as it remains civil, GCA is good for golf as it is more educational to many.  Virtually every search engine you enter "Golf Course Architecture" into the query bar will get you to this site in the top ten and mostly 5 links. Tolerance is the key to real discussion.

I recently revisited some modern/restoration bunkers that had been totally out of place and are still out of place.  Apropos to those so many velcro covered CAD-adds-on that they are and the Riviera disregard of what little remains of Thomas in the world I think we need to get the history of architecture and the game out to even more people. An understanding HAS to exist in the purely modernists.

I am fair to these people if they don't try to change and eradicate history. So don't call me a basher.


The biggest concern to me however is the underappreciation in the general masses and even in some who consider themselves erudite of the basic history and conceptual theory of the game.  The golf experience has taken over, instant gratification rather than self-examination and true reward.  The Game (Somewhere between a religion and a disease).


That game which is a hell of a lot more interesting than "split the fairway, stick it where you fly it (Or, "get in the *!@*#&in' bunker), 1 or 2 (NEVER 3 !!) fair, nearly level putts",  -4, -6 -8 mentality, shoved down our throats by the Jim Nantzes of the broadcast world, simply because it makes a lot of people a lot of money.

OK, OK, OK, OK.   I'll stop now.  

[SL_Solow]

At the risk of not taking my own advice I will respond to JakaB's request to identify the problems I perceive in his original post.  Much of what was posted by Brad Klein reflects my views in a form that is more articulate than I can muster.  But I will give it a go.  The central point made by JakaB is that the criticism of current "restoration" efforts put forth by what he perceives to be overly traditional members of this group will serve to chill future creative efforts.  I cannot comment on how much impact the discussions contained on this site have on contemporary design; none of us have any empirical data although the presence of many professionals either as participants or lurkers woul lead one to conclude that we may have some impact.  More importantly, this complaint is one that has been leveled at critics of all art forms by those wishing to suppress discussion or dissent.  The function of a critic is to analyze and speak regardless of the popularity of his opinions.  His ideas will compete in the marketplace of ideas with those having different opinions and with a little luck the art form will develop.  But this development depends on an intelligent articulation and exchange of ideas.  My primary criticism of the original post is that it substitutes invective for ideas.  Calling those with whom you disagree "fazists"sic. is not a new tactic, many of my contemporaries in the late 1960's resorted to labelling in lieu of reasoning.  It was distasteful and unenlightening then and now.  Similarly when people such as Geoff merely insist on "truth in labelling" by requiring that purported restorations remain true to the original projects, you do not advance the discussion by suggesting that it is akin to a pursuit of "arian" sic. purity.  Many architects use more accurate terms to reflect an effort to remodel a course in a style consistent with the original,e.g. "sympathetic renovation."  Thus the accurate labelling goal is achievable.  Accordingly, my greatest critique of this post is that it adds nothing analytical to the discussion but only seeks to suppress honest and well reasoned criticism.  To seek to suppress ideas while associating their proponents with a facist label is more than ironic, it is almost Orwellian in its use of "newspeak."  Of course none of this is all that serious in this context but the marketplace of ideas is a central feature of our  political system.  It requires an exchange of ideas.  JakaB, your post did not repond to any ideas and sought to limit the exchange.  Hence my criticism.
As long as I am here I'll comment on the substance of the Riviera controversy.  I have played the course several times and found it to be fascinating.  I have not played it since the changes and I will reserve final judgment until I do(maybe April with luck).  But based on the television pictures and those posted here along with the commentary I have read, I am in the camp of those opposed to the changes.  I am not one of those who believes evey old course should be preserved and that nothing new can measure up. For example, I have been amazed by those who from time to time speak about Bendelow as if he were a master. But Riviera ia different.  Thomas was a very special figure in this game and too much of his work has been altered to the detriment of the courses in particular and the art form in general.  There is no need to continue down this path.  Most of us who have played the course and/or read Thomas' book or The Captain can identify with Geoff and MIke even if we are not as passionate.  Many older courses can be improved although work should be done carefully and not in reponse to a momentary trend.  But true classics should be cherished and studied so that the lessons they teach can be applied to new work.  It is this process that allows the Doaks, Crenshaw and Coores, and the other new outstanding architects to advance the art form.  

[Tim_Weiman]

All this talk about an "ideological bent" overwhelming certain discussions at GCA is overdone, in my opinion.

It's true we have people like Tommy and Geoff who are very passionate about classic design.  It's true certain architects are favored and others are mostly criticized.

So what?

Anyone who disagrees is quite free to express any other point of view.  They only need the self confidence to do so.

Much of the heat seems to center around work done by the Fazio organization.  But, what is the big deal?  Much of the work they have done is widely enjoyed and that view it is expressed (e.g., a recent thread about World Woods).

But, some of their work isn't particularly good (e.g., the Riviera project).  That should also be expressed.  We can't simply say that ANY criticism is "Fazio bashing".  

I'm all for diplomacy, but we shouldn't attempt to cleanse all criticism from GCA or other public forums about golf architecture.

Building a great golf course isn't easy, but that doesn't mean architects should be exempt from criticism.

[JakaB]

SL,

That is the most beautiful argument ever made against the thousands and thousands of stupid comments I have made in my life be they verbal or written.  I am truly moved....thank you.

I think some excellent points are being made on this thread and in order that they may continue it is best for me to take my own advice and shut the hell up.

[SL_Solow]

JakaB , Just trying to be of service, nothing personal, maybe we'll hit some some time.

[Richard_Goodale]

JakaB

Since you are temporarily in purdah, I'll take it on myself to try to say what I think you were saying, and with which I generally agree.

Is it not your point to question not the motivations behind or even the merits of people's thoughts about the changes at Merion, Riviera, etc., but rather their effectivenss, then, now and in the future?  To put it another way, if we (or any of us) feel passionately about what should or should not be done to a favorite course of ours, or to all "classic" courses in general, what is the most effective way to have our point of view communicated to the powers that be?  The "facts" as I see them in terms of the two prime cases (Merion and Riviera) is that all of the good thinking and hard work done by the passionate opponents of the changes which were planned and now have been "completed" has gone for nought.  As you imply, beating this horse after it is "dead" may make some people feel better in an "I told you so!" sense, but what good does it do in terms of "our" ability to influence future actions by current or future owners of our favorite courses?

Isn't that what we want to do--influence future actions?  If so, let's think about the best way to do that.  Maybe dead horse beating is the most effective methodology, but I would doubt it.  I don't know what the "right" answer is, but I think that some serious thought by the impressive collection of talent and passion and experience which exists on this site might come up with something.

Cheers

Rich

PS--I thought that "Fazism" and "arian pruity" were very clever or very serendipitous tyops.

[Dan Kelly]

Rich --

I didn't think that Fazism was a tyop at all, but a clever bit of wordplay!

As to your bigger question:

Were these horses being discussed here before they were dead? If not: Why not?

Surely the only POWER this DG has (if it has any, or ever will have any) is the power to enrich the thinking of those who will make the decisions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich,

A LOT of well-meaning, knowledgeable people tried the 3 R's (Research, Reason, and Respect) beforehand...and were all politely but summarily disregarded.

One proposed chaining himself to the gates to stop the onslaught of the bulldozers.  Perhaps a GCA Tianamen Square standoff is the next logical step?

So, we bitch and argue and complain and at the end of the day we haven't changed a thing.  The work is done, the issues are spun, and our merry band of world's greatest architects and contractors heads down the road to perform their modern magic on the next big name course on their growing resume.  

Rich; I defer to your admittedly superior intellect to come up with a better plan of how we can make a difference by changing tactics.