[rgkeller]

The bunkers were wet.

See my modifications to my previous post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

Your response would seem to indicate that you agree with me relative to work done post 1936.

If one looks to Pine Valley and NGLA, very few alterations have been made to those golf courses in the last 80-90 years, and I don't include tee lengthening as a substantive alteration on those courses.

Some how, Pine Valley and NGLA were able to protect their golf courses from over active green committees, boards and Presidents.  Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from them.

My concern is as follows.
Once you deviate from the architects design principles by allowing committees to interpret how the golf course should be designed, the golf course becomes open season for every new committee, every hair brained idea.

But, by adhering to a signifcant and specific time in the club's history, traditions and architecture, you prevent any deviations in the future.

There is another reason to adhere to 1936 as a target year, as the benchmark for the golf course, and that is the abundant evidence of what existed in that year.

One only has to look at the sad state of affairs that has befallen the 1st hole, the loss of all of those fabulous bunkers, allowed to just fade away through benign neglect.
Can you imagine how spectacular that hole would look if restored to 1936 standards

Creating a by-law that the architecture should preserve the design principles as they existed in 1936 would give the club a clear blueprint, a map to the future, restoring the architectural glory of the golf course, and NOT allowing disfigurations to take place, such as the right green side bunker that was chopped up into three sand bunkers and one grass bunker a year or so ago.

Only a targeted restoration will prevent future disfiguration, and place the club alongside Pine Valley and NGLA in preserving this great golf course.

[TEPaul]

Bring this rgkeller guy right up into the treehouse and sit him at the head of the table! This guy's got the stuff!! And I've already forgiven him for his off the wall facetiousness on Coore & Crenshaw and Bandon Dunes's 3rd course.  

rg makes his points, certainly there'll never be even a consensus agreement on the things he says (and who cares about consensus?) but contributors come back at him, ask him why he says what he does and he offers intelligent answers, cogent points and counter points, right or wrong, black, white or gray. rgkeller is the way Golfclubatlas's discussion group ought to be---he makes for good discussions! And last but not least he's got a good dry sense of humor--it seems to me--and he doesn't seem to get in the slightest bit offended by some nuancy statement or remark or the occasional  Golfclubatlas "free for all" barroom brawl.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

If that area is so wet, why does the pond require a liner to retain the water

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
I wasn't aware the bunker was wet. If the bunker weren't wet would the pond still be an improvement?

From I understand the pond was built in the late 70's...why in the previous seventy odd years didn't Travis, Emmet, Colt, Tillinghast and any other architect who worked on or advised GCGC suggest a pond?

(By the way in 1936 there were four bunkers on the left [off the tee] on 16, two were removed between 1936 and 1947,  one has been restored)

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

My concern is as follows.
Once you deviate from the architects design principles by allowing committees to interpret how the golf course should be designed, the golf course becomes open season for every new committee, every hair brained idea.

But, by adhering to a signifcant and specific time in the club's history, traditions and architecture, you prevent any deviations in the future.

There is another reason to adhere to 1936 as a target year, as the benchmark for the golf course, and that is the abundant evidence of what existed in that year.

One only has to look at the sad state of affairs that has befallen the 1st hole, the loss of all of those fabulous bunkers, allowed to just fade away through benign neglect.
Can you imagine how spectacular that hole would look if restored to 1936 standards

Creating a by-law that the architecture should preserve the design principles as they existed in 1936 would give the club a clear blueprint, a map to the future, restoring the architectural glory of the golf course, and NOT allowing disfigurations to take place, such as the right green side bunker that was chopped up into three sand bunkers and one grass bunker a year or so ago.

I do not disagree with much of what you have posted. I am at a loss why the seventeenth hole was disfigured. Maybe someone who was on the GCGC Green Committee during that recent time and who posts here could enlighten us.

The pond on sixteen was built/enabled to solve a problem. The old bunkers had become untenable some years ago - more than twenty five years - and the wet mushy area was replaced with the existing pond. It has proven to be a worthwhile addition/replacement and serves much the same purpose as did the 1936 bunkers.

The pond's fate was determined after much discussion in the early nineties. It was NOT rushed through a Green Committee meeting and hidden from the board as many of the other "improvements" have been.

The present pond fits the land, provides value to the hole and has lessened the expenses of upkeep.

Would that the other improvements have done as much.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

If that area is so wet, why does the pond require a liner to retain the water

The liner is required to ensure water in the pond during all seasons and all cycles of rainfall.

Just as is Lake Cornelia.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

If that was the case, why the need for a pipe to supply water to the pond ?  

If it's a naturally wet area, it wouldn't need man's assistance.

And, why was it designed and played as a bunker and sand area for 70+ years before anybody discovered the problem ?

Or, is it possible, and more likely that the irrigation system was the cause of the problem ?

[rgkeller]

rgkeller
I wasn't aware the bunker was wet. If the bunker weren't wet would the pond still be an improvement?

From I understand the pond was built in the late 70's...why in the previous seventy odd years didn't Travis, Emmet, Colt, Tillinghast and any other architect who worked on or advised GCGC suggest a pond?

(By the way in 1936 there were four bunkers on the left [off the tee] on 16, two were removed between 1936 and 1947,  one has been restored)

I believe that had the bunker complex been maintainable (dry) the pond would never have even been considered.

I have no idea why or if anyone considered a pond before the 70's. Several long time members told me that the area was a mess before the pond and I can attest personally that the area was a often a mess before the liner made the pond viable.

It is my recollection that the architect under a consulting contract when the liner was place in the early nineties was against the project - but I could be mistaken. There was considerable discussion at the board level and among the membership about the pond at that time.

Now that a new regime is in place, the discussions have evidently begun again. Some people who lose an argument have long memories and a thirst for winning.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

If that was the case, why the need for a pipe to supply water to the pond ?  

If it's a naturally wet area, it wouldn't need man's assistance.

And, why was it designed and played as a bunker and sand area for 70+ years before anybody discovered the problem ?

Or, is it possible, and more likely that the irrigation system was the cause of the problem ?

I have explained the circumstances several times. If you chose not to believe me that is your right but I must admit it is somewhat tiresome.

There was a problem and the pond was the solution. Evidently because the solution was not to your liking, you chose to ignore the reality of the problem.

[rgkeller]

This discussion has been very enlightening to me and I thank those who participated.

My intent was to discern the depth of commitment among the cognoscenti to the design features of the orginal architects of a classic course.

Not to my surprise, I find many who believe that change is to be avoided at all costs. Personally, I am unable to accept as gospel that any golf design is sacrosanct.

As regards GCGC, of course, if that precept had ruled in its early years, then Travis would not have been permitted to so convincingly alter the designs of Emmet and there would have been few bunkers at Garden City to save and restore.

[TEPaul]

Pat & rg:

If an area is naturally wet as the area to the left of #16 may've always been making a bunker in that area problematic it certainly does not mean that area can automatically be turned into a pond with a consistent level of water without a liner or something as effective to both catch and retain that  water from running away somewhere else. I know that from my own farm here. We used to have an area that was  constantly marshy but it didn't consistently hold water--only sometimes. To create a consistent pond we had to build something to hold the water and anything in excess of full would simply run over a "spill" and away.

The pond in place of the bunker to the left of #16 probably created a consistent situation in a natural area that never had a consistent situation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

We disagree, and that's okay.

I maintain that it was the irrigation system that caused the problem in the first place.

It seems strange that at the begining and for a great many years no problem existed.  Irrigation is put in, and suddenly there's a problem.

There is also a great distinction that you're overlooking.

That distinction is Emmett and Travis, two eminent architects who created the masterpiece, and green committees who altered it after their demise.

I'd rather stand true to their work, and use that as a benchmark, rather then let committees or a referendum decide the future of the golf course.

But, that's just my opinion.

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
I don't know any thing about the club's internal politics. I hope there aren't individuals who are simply motivated by winning or losing arguments. IMO what is important is preserving what Travis put in place and preserving the architectural history of GCGC.

I think if one looks at the long architectural history of GCGC, it is clear something occured rather recently (relative to the overall age of the course) that created the condition near the 16th green.

And if one is to study the work of Travis, building a lateral tub or small tank isn't consistent with his architecture IMO. You may love the tub, but I don't think its appropriate to claim the Old Man would have loved the tub too.

[TEPaul]

Maybe the irrigation system that obviously didn't exist when the course was built or in the early days does have something to do with the fact that area to the left of #16 became wet and made the original bunker(s) there problematic. But maybe too that's not true--maybe that area was always a wet area for some other reason.

The point is that probably isn't too hard to figure out now and correct. Hydro-engineering is a well known science--and if for some reason restoring a bunker or bunkers there that are original and do not have a wetness problem is truly important in place of the pond that can certainly be done.

Pat's got a point that it's probably safer in a general sense with a golf club to restore to what's original and preserve it just to prevent ever-lasting tampering by people who really don't know what they're doing.

But if a club is to do that they should figure out first what all that was original is about and was about. If they don't do that they run the risk of recreating and restoring original problems. All architects, including the great ones, made mistakes, and if a golf club isn't aware of that or doesn't admit it they're deluding themselves and are bound to repeat those mistakes.

But I don't really tend to go as far as Pat might about the inability of clubs to do better than perhaps it ever was before. I think that's possible but the right people have to be involved--they've got to do their homework and figure out what was, why, what the problems were and what the best solutions are.

It's possible to do that and right or wrong only time can tell. And ultimately time always will tell.

[rgkeller]

I find the arguments of those who always believe the "original" to be be somewhat amusing when they use in their arguments examples of courses with irrigation systems installed decades after the master architect finished his construction, with plantings of grass strains that did not exist when the architect was alive, with the orginal bunkers' sand replaced  and with green speeds so far greater that the master architect envisioned that the course plays nothing as orginally designed.

[Tom_Doak]

I stayed entirely out of this discussion because I am the consultant to the club, and I don't believe the club wants its business debated in this forum.  Patrick Mucci obviously disagrees.

For the record, I've recommended that they remove the pond.  My original consulting report some 18 years ago rationalized that it could stay or go ... because I was led to believe that the members would vote to keep it, and because I have never [to this day] seen water removed from a golf course.

You can make a case for the water.  But, on reflection, I believe that if Travis or Emmet came back and saw that pond, they'd probably try to drown someone in it.

[rgkeller]

Emmet's supposed aversion to water hazards is curious since he designed the eighteenth hole at GCGC over Lake Cornelia.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

rgkeller,

I think invoking the original is a desparate attempt by some to reclaim a starting point, sometimes the beginning of the course, before historically incompetant members began the process of correcting the architect's vision, or upgrading the course to meet the modern.  And i do not mean desparate in a disparing way, but it is desparate in the sense that there are many more members whom impose their knowledge on a course in a bad way, and there is a minority that when weighing the original with all of the many changes that have happened can simplify the thinking by going back to a point , sometimes the beginning of the course, and use that as a benchmark to start the discussion as to what the course should be, otherwise you get into judging the merits of each change over the 100 year period.  It is much easier to go back to the beginning, and that is worthy to do.  The original design is as worthy an alternative as all of the cumulative changes.  The course is at a point where it needs direction, it needs a vision for the next 100 years, and every course whose architect is dead, needs to find a live architect to help them through the next 30 or 40 years, they need someone whom has the interest of the golf course, not the members deep in their heart.  Crazy as it sounds but the architect should be working for the golf course, not the membership, because left to the members it typically because a very sad process of destruction.  Every course needs a live architect. How do you find the right architect, it can be painful, but as a member of a club I would much rather take my chances on hiring the right architect as comapred to trusting the chairman and the committee.  And, depending on the quality of the course, the architect would do well to put forward a very simple master plan, here is the vision for the future of your course, here is our beginning point, and that is the original design.  Whether you like the design or not, whether you like a particular shot, or green, the membership has no right whatsoever to deviate from the original design, none.  You crack open that door, just a bit, that leads you into modifying the original architect's vision, and you end up allowing the door to be knock done by a lot of incompetant amateur architects.  The hole is there, that is the design, you figure out how to play, does not fit your style of play, can't keep the ball on the green, find a way to over come it, find a way to moderate the impact on your score, but do not start the campaign for change, bring in the dozers.  It says a lot about a man's character as to how he faces a challenge, how he preceives life's tough bumps along the way and golf is a little micronism of that.  It is so easy for some to throw money at something, to disparage something they find unfair, but it is much too difficult for most to face the truth to move beyond the little bumps, the unfair pin positions, bunker placements, to look beyond it, and enjoy the overall experience, to see it as a battle of skill and mind, rather than an excuse for poor performance or lack of charater in the face of adversity.  

[T_MacWood]

I don’t think it would be difficult to figure out when the problem first occurred and what caused it at #16. The club must have a wealth of documentation over the years (unless the clubhouse burned, which I don’t believe happened). I don’t know if there has been American golf course, throughout history, that has had more written about it. Travis being an editor of American Golfer, wrote volumes about the course and its development. Emmet wrote extensively about the course. Those two had public debates about the course's maintenance. The great writer HB Martin also wrote quite a bit about the course.

An individual architects certainly can and did make mistakes (even the great ones)….but half a dozen normally don’t.

rgkeller
What do you find amusing about studying the architectural history of the course and questioning the pond’s merit in that scheme (a scheme created by Travis, Emmet, Tillie, etc)?  Pointing out that the sand has changed, irrigation introduced and the new grass really shouldn’t have anything to do with judging the architectural appropriateness of the tank.

[rgkeller]

I am very much interested in the history of the course at GCGC.

What amuses me is the Apostles' refusal to admit that irrigation, maintenance standards and equipment and breakthroughs in agronomy have done more to change the playing characteristics of the "Classic" course than the addition or subtraction of a bunker or two.

More classic courses have been ruined by course maintenance and agronomy than by conscious changes by green committees.

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
But what does that have to do with the pond?

[rgkeller]

I have expressed my views on the pond ad naseum.

The pond will die if those slavishly devoted to all features of a course built by a favored architect prevail.

Those same Apostles ignore the more meaningful changes that affect the PLAYABILITY of the course as intended by the orginal architects.

I thought my comment was germane to the discussion. If you do not, feel free to ignore it.

[rgkeller]

Guys, I'll admit that I didn't know that there was originally a bunker there until Tom came forward with that precious bit of information, but I tend to agree with Pat, Tom and Tom that -- if feasible- the pond should go and the bunker should be put back.  Why?  Well, not because every golden age architect got everything right in the first place and was infallible.  That's clearly not the case.  Why then?  Because there is not a shred of evidence that the bunker was such a bad bunker that even Travis and Emmitt themselves would have replaced it (and even that's a tenuous rationale) or that the change to the pond was a marked improvement.  If that evidence exists, then it's worth examining.  But this is NOT Goat Hills or Generic Meadows Golf Club we're talking about.  

This is GARDEN CITY.  This is a golfing treasure!  If Garden City is to be tinkered with, then every course is subject to tinkering.  And if every course is subject to tinkering, then NONE of the golden age courses will survive.  Garden City is a special place.  It is historic.  Due primarily to it's special place in golf history, it should be today as it was then.  Some courses are just so special that the notion of letting them evolve and change, whether naturally or by man's hand, over the years just makes no sense.  Garden City is one of them.

There have been hundreds of changes to GCGC over the 104 years of its existence. What should be the "then" to which GCGC is restored? If "then" is 1936 then the improvement which has made the most difference in its playability should be the first to go - the irrigation system.

[TEPaul]

"I stayed entirely out of this discussion because I am the consultant to the club, and I don't believe the club wants its business debated in this forum.  Patrick Mucci obviously disagrees."

TomD;

I agree with you that the club probably doesn't want its business debated on this forum. From all I can see I'm not aware of a single club that's wanted its business debated on this forum (yes, actually I do know of one) but I can't see that that has slowed down Golfclubatlas.com even one MPH from doing it anyway!    

We are without question the forum that many golf clubs and others out there love to hate!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()