News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

configuration.
 
My first concern has always been the domino theory, that an alteration of a hole in good/long standing will lead to an "open season" mentality with respect to the other holes.
 
A second concern is: where does it stop ?
 
A third concern is: who decides ?
 
But, recently, I came across a hole that I always thought was a terrific opening hole.
 
Not a long hole, in fact a short hole of approximately 300 yards.
Well bunkered, fairly benign green with wind as almost a constant factor.
 
The changes to the hole were relatively simple.
Very little to the body of the hole, mostly toward the green end.
 
The change in the visual from the tee and DZ is incredible.
 
What was once perceived as a flat hole, has had depth added to it, and not by excavating beneath the grade, but, but removing some above grade flanking mounding which blocked the view of an adjacent gully, exposing a significant gully, previously known, but not threatening.
 
Now, what previously looked like a benign approach suddenly looks like a treacherous shot should the golfer pull, draw or hook his approach.
 
The change, the visual improvement is dramatic to the point of stunning.
 
Yet, the change seems so simple in terms of concept and construction.
 
The product is the result of clever, creative thinking, while keeping within the flavor of the original design.
 
Come next spring, rave reviews will abound.
 
 

Patrick_Mucci

What course ?

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
GCGC?

Peter Pallotta

Patrick - I just noticed this thread a few minutes ago, and your "what course?" follow-up was not the first thought/question that came to me. Instead, what came was a compliment: I thought that was a terrific post you wrote -- an excellent description/evaluation of what (modest design) changes can ideally bring about both aesthetically and playing-wise, and a genuine lesson in how creatively restrained conceptualization and construction can pay wonderful dividends.
So, my compliments.
But yes, I do now wonder "what course?"


Peter

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Don't forget kiddies - NORAD has added an Official MucciTrackerŽ to go along with its  SantaTracker.  ;)


Agree with Pete, and what course Pat?




"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

RSantangelo

  • Karma: +0/-0
this sounds like #1 at Garden City to me

Patrick_Mucci

It is # 1 at GCGC and the change is outstanding.
 
Ditto # 2.

RSantangelo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat

Post a pic when it's easy...have not played there since I was a kid...fun first hole...curious to see the new look

Best

Patrick_Mucci

Pat

Post a pic when it's easy...have not played there since I was a kid...fun first hole...curious to see the new look

Sorry I didn't think of it at the time.
 
Don't know when I'll be back, but, I'll try to remember next time.
 
I was very impressed with the look of the hole, it's now more intimidating from the tee and the DZ.


Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
   I don't have Pat's visceral aversion to change.  If the changes are good, then the course gets better.  If they're not, it gets worse.  I don't think it's any more complicated than that.  I don't see any difference between Doak or Crenshaw coming back to one of their own courses 15 years later and trying to improve it than if they were hired to improve a Ross or a Tilly.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
its been discussed before, and this is the thread to mention it again..., but I'm pretty sure a better hole could be envisioned and put in the ground in place of #18 at CPC.

Patrick_Mucci


   I don't have Pat's visceral aversion to change. 
 
If the changes are good, then the course gets better. 
If they're not, it gets worse. 
 
I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
 
Jim,
 
It's far more complicated than that.
 
Who decides if the hole needs change ?
 
And, who decides what those changes should be ?
 
Once you make one change, the entire course becomes "open season" for change, even including changing the hole you just previously changed.
 
It's a process frought with danger.
 
I don't see any difference between Doak or Crenshaw coming back to one of their own courses 15 years later and trying to improve it than if they were hired to improve a Ross or a Tilly.
 
I do.
 
How about bringing someone in to try to improve a Doak or C&C course 15 years after inception ?


Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
   If the changes improve the course, who cares who makes them?  Yes, it's dangerous, and can be done ineptly.  But a bad architect can build any course ineptly.  Good architects can build good courses, and good architects can improve old courses.

Patrick_Mucci


If the changes improve the course, who cares who makes them?
 
How do you know if the changes will improve the course before the changes are made ?
 
How many courses/holes have been disfigured by those advocating change ?
 
You're making a flawed assumption that the change/s will be an improvement.  How do you know that prior to the change ?
 
And, who decides what needs to be changed ?
 
How often ?
 
Yes, it's dangerous, and can be done ineptly.
 
History is certainly on your side.
 
But a bad architect can build any course ineptly. 
 
So can a mediocre or good architect.
 
Good architects can build good courses, and good architects can improve old courses.
 
Really ?
 
Who would you retain to change and improve Pine Valley ?
 
Merion ?
 
NGLA ?
 
Shinnecock ?
 
You're missing the entire point.
 
Architects don't just make wrong turns into club entrances.
They're invited in because a faction or factions of the membership have either specific changes in mind or a general desire to change the course/hole.
 
The club is the curator of the course.
The club decides if they want change and the club invites the architect/s of choice to implement those changes.
 
This pattern repeats itself every generation or two.
 
What's the need for the change ?
 
If an old club has remained relevant from 1926 to current date, what needs to be changed ?
 
And who decides what needs to be changed ?
 
Please answer my question regarding a 15 year old Doak or C&C course.
 
Thanks


Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
    This is a Twilight Zone discussion.  You're the guy who likes what been done at Garden City.  All I'm saying is, that can happen anywhere.  Pine Valley's had lots of changes in the last 20 years, I assume with Fazio's consult; and I suppose someone thinks it's an improvement.  Maybe even you do.
   As for who will improve a Doak or Crenshaw course 15 years from now, I would hope several great architects will surface by then, although I suspect and hope that both will still be kicking.

Patrick_Mucci


    This is a Twilight Zone discussion.  You're the guy who likes what been done at Garden City.  All I'm saying is, that can happen anywhere.  Pine Valley's had lots of changes in the last 20 years, I assume with Fazio's consult; and I suppose someone thinks it's an improvement.  Maybe even you do.


Jim,

Could you list the "lots" of changes at Pine Valley over the last 20 years.



   As for who will improve a Doak or Crenshaw course 15 years from now, I would hope several great architects will surface by then, although I suspect and hope that both will still be kicking.


What needs to be improved on Doak and C & C courses ?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
    This is a Twilight Zone discussion.  You're the guy who likes what been done at Garden City.  All I'm saying is, that can happen anywhere.  Pine Valley's had lots of changes in the last 20 years, I assume with Fazio's consult; and I suppose someone thinks it's an improvement.  Maybe even you do.
   As for who will improve a Doak or Crenshaw course 15 years from now, I would hope several great architects will surface by then, although I suspect and hope that both will still be kicking.


Jim:  I hope so, too!   :D


As for making suggestions to alter classic courses, I do so with an abundance of care.  I've been consulting at Garden City for 25 years now, and the left side of the first green always looked weird to me ... like it just sort of evolved as the quarry was being cleaned up, and nobody really thought about how it should be.  It was like they were trying to keep the quarry out of sight and out of mind, even though the first and second greens are right next to it.


But I didn't say anything about it for a very long time, because I am not there to put my mark on the course.  It was only now, when the club had decided to renovate all the bunkers anyway, that I raised my hand and said those ones could be improved.


I hope whoever consults on my golf courses in the future shows the same deference.  If they do, then it should be longer than 15 years before they start messing around, no matter what happens to me   ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Tom,
 
The change to the area around the 1st green is spectacular, from the tee, DZ, around and on the green the hole looks and plays better.
 
Great job.
 
 

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat, is "disfigurement" in the eye of the beholder?


You ask how many holes have been disfigured by those advocating change. I'll respond with another question - how many of those holes that you mention were thought to have been disfigured when the work was originally done? I doubt that the intent was to disfigure, although that may end up being what was done, at least in the eye of the modern player, or perhaps even in the eye of the club members who belonged to the faction opposing the change!
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick,

I've long felt golf architecture writing is more difficult and rare than many people assume.

Your description of this change on #1 at Garden City is excellent. My compliments.

Tom Doak's perspective is pretty darn interesting as well.
Tim Weiman

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick,

I've long felt golf architecture writing is more difficult and rare than many people assume.

Your description of this change on #1 at Garden City is excellent. My compliments.

Tom Doak's perspective is pretty darn interesting as well.

Tim,

Tom's incorporation of the quarry, from a visual and playability perspective is simply brilliant.

The change is incredibly dramatic.

Now, the golfer, standing on the tee, receives a completely different tactical signal to his eye.

What was previously perceived as a fairly benign miss to the left, looks like a disastrous miss.
This will cause the golfer to over-compensate, on the tee and with their approach shot.

What wasn't in evidence the other day, that when combined with Tom's change/s, will make the hole even more dramatic, is wind from either the North or the East.

I was very impressed by the changes and the impact that they'll have on the golfer's brain and the golfer's resultant play.


Patrick_Mucci


Pat, is "disfigurement" in the eye of the beholder?

Kirk, to support that position, one would have to discard standards or benchmarks.

"Disfigurement" like "obscenity" is known when you see it.


You ask how many holes have been disfigured by those advocating change.

I'll respond with another question - how many of those holes that you mention were thought to have been disfigured when the work was originally done?

In other words, you're not going to answer my question.
But, I'll answer yours.

Very, very few.

Architects generally design courses that tend to adhere to a general style or continuity.
Rarely, is a singular hole totally out of context with the other 17.

On the other hand, almost universally, golfers recognized that the 12th hole at GCGC was completely out of context with the rest of the golf course.  Now, despite the uniqueness of the hole, it's in perfect harmony with the rest of the golf course.

I know golfers, who upon walking off the 11th green, refused to play the 12th hole, choosing instead to walk directly to the 13th tee.  They recognized the disfigurement immediately.

Some things are architecturally self evident.................. to some, and I don't mean that in an elitist context.

Those with less discerning skills may take longer to recognize the disfigurement and some may never recognize it.

Subtlety isn't a facet of disfigurement


I doubt that the intent was to disfigure, although that may end up being what was done, at least in the eye of the modern player, or perhaps even in the eye of the club members who belonged to the faction opposing the change!


Of course not.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But, we're talking about architectural talent, the ability to discern amongst the members.
Usually, one faction, the faction in power, advocates for the changes, changes that they perceive will appeal to their game. 
What's funny is that those members advocating for the change of a given feature or hole, joined the club because they liked it just the way it was, and now they want to change it.   WHY ?

Some people have bad taste, bad taste comes in many forms,
whether it be in their choice of clothes, decoration, partners or preference for golf holes.

What you fail to understand is the myopic nature of individual golfers.
Most only see the game and the field of play through their eyes and their play.
Thus, unlike the objective architect, their assessment of a hole is often dependent upon their particular style of play.
The architect has to forge a disinterested, balanced challenge, one that doesn't favor any particular golfer's game.

Whereas, when a golfer analyzes a hole, they tend to ONLY analyze the hole as it pertains to and favors their game.

Enter "disfigurement", stage left.

Hope that helps