NGLA gets it !

[Patrick_Mucci]

A while ago, a post suggested that NGLA might have lost their way and didn't know what they were doing.

Many took the bait of the thread, jumped to conclusions and jumped on the threads bandwagon.

I've heard from very reliable sources that it appears that just the opposite is true, and that NGLA has reved up the reclamation process, with some stunning results, with more work planned and in the works.

Has anyone been to NGLA lately to observe any of the recent changes ?

TEPaul,

I think that you're going to love it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You had wanted an arm of GCA to become a resource for clubs and I would think that you would welcome posts from individuals associated with these clubs, especially from the professionals or members intimately familiar with the operation and planning stages.

When high profile clubs embark upon restoration/improvement plans it serves to encourage other clubs to embark on similar programs.  Hence, participation should be encouraged.

It's also interesting to note the attention that a negative thread, which had little basis in fact, receieved versus a thread that posts positive news.

[SPDB]

Maybe they are going to bulkhead the Bay and restore the teeth to 14 (routing the road in front of the green?  

seriously, though, what have they in mind?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,

Thanks for this detailed and factual "positive news." I've gleaned so much from your insights and as always, you really nailed the facts.

Can you post any details? Have you seen the work in question? ?

Funny, my reliable sources were bad and yours are good. I still think it is a scary day when Rees Jones is in any way entrusted with discussing "restoration" at The National.
Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Just as negative threads without detail are insubstantial and misleading, positive threads without supportive evidence are also at risk of seeming to be vacuous public relations efforts.  I'm encouraged to hear that you are encouraged, but it's hard to know what I'm encouraged about, if that makes sense!

Can you outline their major goals for us, as well as the progress of any work done to date?    

[George Pazin]

Just last month I attended a seminar where Tom Marzolf and others spoke glowingly of the restoration of Riviera.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Mike_Cirba]

George Pazin;

Marzolf's comments sound to me like the General who was being badly beaten and suggested that his men "declare victory and retreat".  

Anyone familiar with the work at Riviera would be hard-pressed to find anything positive to say, in all fairness.  The 8th has now become one of the stupidest holes in golf.

[Carl_Williams]

Geoff Shackelford,

Why do you find the need to post a snotty, personalized attack ?

Pat Mucci,

Can you post information on the work you're talking about ?
Details would be good.  Thanks

[Paul Richards]

I played the National just last October.  What I found was that Superintendent Karl Olson did a wonderful job of restoring CB MacDonald's original intentions there.  Unfortunately, Mr. Olson has moved on to another club out west, so I cannot say if this pace of restoration will continue.

However, the one thing that I can say is that the National is every bit as spectacular as I heard it would be, and, in fact, it was even BETTER than what I had heard going into my visit there!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

CW,
As you might understand, it grows tiresome to see Mr. Mucci trash people on here for not sticking to the "facts" and their first person observations. He has repeatedly attacked contributors like Tom MacWood for posting non-factual comments in his view, and yet, here he is referring to his "reliable sources" with none of the "facts" he seems to have knowledge of. I felt the urge to point that out and apologize if it came off poorly. I should have stuck to my policy of not reading any post started by Patrick Mucci, but since it was directed my way, I felt the need to address his attack and should not have stooped to his level.

I look forward to hearing the details of the "good news" regarding all of the restoration work undertaken during this warm, mild winter.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Things are sort of starting to fly over my head here on this thread. I'm not sure what the gist is here regarding what's going on at NGLA but I've definitely lost that gist except to say this thread seems to be devolving downward rather rapidly.

[TEPaul]

HowardB:

Whoa--my hair has flown back like a guy listening to a Bose sound system turned up full. OK, I'll think about getting Mad as Hell and screaming out my window but first you have to answer a question for me.

Was Howard Beale the guy played by Jason Robards in the movie Network? If so, all I can say right now is I'm just God-damned sorry--mad actually--madder than hell frankly that I didn't put that guy in Network in touch with Dr Katz before he lost his mind--I might've been able to save him.

[George Pazin]

A brief recap for those who haven't been paying attention:

Some time ago, someone started a thread questioning why Mr. Olsen left NGLA & whether this was a bad thing for both NGLA & all of its many fans.

Patrick, in his normal charming style, questioned whether or not anyone had any facts, rather than simply relying on rumor.

Many (I think even me, if I remember correctly) felt that it was, at the very least, prudent to ask these questions. Some felt a little stronger & some harsh words were thrown around.

Some people, possibly even members of said national treasure, posted various responses, mostly reassurances, but a few, shall we say, polite brush offs as well.

Now Patrick has seemingly started a thread of exactly the same nature of the thread started many moons ago - hence the various queries for more FACTS. Turnabout is fair play, most would say.

As for myself, I'd simply like to clarify that my tone is more of the nature over questioning a friend, perhaps even a bit pointedly, over a beer at the 19th.

If we can't ask questions in an attempt to further flesh out discussion, what's the point of even discussing things at all?

Lastly, anytime a thread that's goes down to one's passionate core pops up, various anonymous posters like to chime in, usually adding nothing substantive to the discussion, but rather simply add fuel to an already burning fire.

Let's try not to let the anonymous posters sway us from simple & frank discussion...

Now, a few more facts, please, Patrick, if you will....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

I find it interesting that you would want to hold me to a higher standard, a higher degree of accountability, then you yourself adhere to.

In your negative thread about NGLA and Rees you never offered one piece of evidence, not one scintilla of fact to support your contention.  Yet, you want me to pour forth with everything I know.  Isn't that disengenuous of you ?

Not once did you name your source, yet you want me to name mine.  Isn't that also disengenuous of you ?

Do you think it is appropriate to question someone who is presenting an evaluative analysis of a golf course that they have never seen ?

Howard Beale,

Calling Rees a liar is in the lowest and poorest possible taste, and you can't even do it as a man, chosing instead to hide behind anonymity.  Why don't you come forward and identify yourself, and I'll fill you in on what's in the works.

I have not had any communication with Rees Jones, his office, his friends and acquaintances for well over three (3) months.  He has nothing to do with my information, so I don't know what you're ranting about.

George Pazin,

It's not exactly the same thing.

One was a smear campaign with not one iota of facts presented to support the bashing of the club and Rees.

I'm not bashing anyone, merely reporting on some positives.

Tell me that you do see the difference !  

Howard Beale,

You want facts, start with your real name.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

As usual, you have taken a discussion and distorted matters, and as usual, in a particularly eloquent manner. You obviously don't recall that the previous post you have re-spun into a nasty attack simply asked if the membership of The National appeciated what it had. I ask this question of most classic courses these days because they are often filled with members who have an exaggeration of ego, placing their golf game or their ideas ahead of the architecture (or the input of experts).

I believe Karl Olson did wonderful things for The National, as did many others like Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, etc...  So I just wondered if the club really appreciated his efforts because there were many indications he was subtly driven to look for work elsewhere. I also still question how Rees Jones could be someone who could improve on Karl's efforts, and somehow you take that as a personal, nasty campaign to spread awful rumors and information and contentions without fact.  It's simply a matter of asking questions out of concern for a national treasure and Jones's track record of "restoration." Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, I just don't think he's shown the sensitivity toward classic courses that the National demands.

Yet you still haven't presented any information, just your belief that positive things are going on, with a host of oddball questions and the message we doubters have been proven wrong. (By the way, what does this mean: Do you think it is appropriate to question someone who is presenting an evaluative analysis of a golf course that they have never seen?).

Have you not one bit of substantive information to share? We'd all love to hear some good news.
Geoff

[Michael Dugger]

Wow!!  Will you look at this.  Pat  has all his favorite friends gathered together for the argument to end all arguments.  Keep up the good work, Mucci, you are making friends and changing the way the world thinks about golf course architecture all in one.  I just had to climb aboard this one before it got too far away.  

I don't even know what we are arguing about but if it involved Rees and Pat I'm there.  As a matter of fact, let me hang my head out the window for a second cause I'm MAD AS HELL AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT.  

Oh, and Pat, in your next post try to open up the vocab a bit and spare us another diatribe involving "disengenuous" and "scintilla"  I so tire of the same crap.  At least make it new crap, all crap being equal.  Ah, I mean all your crap being equal.  It is all just that, crap.

[Brad Klein]

This thread is part of the reason why two things are happening simultaneously with respect to GCA:

-regular posters are getting increasingly wrapped up in personality issues, taking positions based upon reputation and excess rather than evidence, and taking themselves too seriously;

-industry observers and professionals increasingly dismiss GCA as self-indulgent and not-to-be-taken seriously.

[JakaB]

Brad Klein,

Thank you...those are the words I have been searching for..."self-indulgent and not-to-be-taken seriously"...At least this site was fun while it lasted and I just wish it would get a mercy killing like I proposed over six months ago..maybe it could return in a year or so and be worth while again.

[TEPaul]

You're right Brad. The discussion group is getting sort of out of control and probably needs to go back to its roots. There're a lot of good things on here, though, other than the discussion group.

JakaB:

The one thing Golfclubatlas does not need to do, though, is go off the Internet and reappear in a year.

Frankly, this NGLA thread is representative of how things go on here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if whatever's going on at NGLA could be discussed on here--and certainly with the club? But less than ten posts into this subject and anyone can see why that can't happen now and rarely ever does. Many are demanding they be told about the architectural affairs of that golf club. Do you think some might logically ask first if the club wants that on the Internet? No member seems willing or interested in that and anyone who may have some information probably ought to be damn sure whatever they do have is accurate and also that the club wants it known.

Why would anyone on here expect less than that first?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Fear not, let them dig themselves a deeper, more embarrassing hole.

MDugger,

Would posting photos taken 5 to 10 miles from NGLA satisfy you ?

Whomever you've chosen to read these posts to you must have missed the point that Rees and I haven't spoken.

Howard Beale,

You do recall the lecture you received from the head of the network don't you ?  Be prepared to be lectured again.

Geoff Shackelford,

Last September I played golf with a fellow who belongs to Tuscon Country/Golf Club.  He indicated that he was on the committee that brought Karl to their club. He indicated that he/they had been talking to Karl over time, and that Karl had previously expressed a desire to return to the southwest.
The impression that I received from him was that they had made overtures over time and that the move benefited everyone.  I also know that many at NGLA were surprised by Karl's annoucement.  You seem to feel that he was forced out, but this individual and others at NGLA didn't give me that impression.  So, perhaps there's more than one side to your story.

I also recall asking you for specific facts to support your insinuations, but none were ever forthcoming.

You seem so intensely focused on the belief that Rees and/or NGLA can't accomplish any positive work on the golf course, it's almost as if you're blinded by enmity.

But, you've asked a fair question, despite its insipid form, so I'll offer the following and provide additional information subsequently.  

Also, try to understand, that like Oakmont, the club may not want to have planned changes commented on until they are
implemented.

Behind the 14th green many trees have been removed and bunker and "dune area" restored.

Trees to the right of # 17 fairway have been removed to show more inverted bunkers and mounds.

How do those initial FACTS sound ?

Gotta catch a plane, but, hopefully, I'll be back.

P.S. TN you can come out now.

P.S.S.  Go back and read my initial positive post.
           I would have thought that everyone would have been
           delighted at what is happening, but I guess some
           would prefer to see good work fail.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

Thank you for providing more details.

I disagree, I think virtually everyone on this board wants to hear positive news from NGLA.

This is the opening post from Geoff's thread on NGLA, before it was dragged down:

We've seen many of the supposedly "elite" clubs display unfathomable stupidity with regard to their golf courses in recent years. People pay a lot of money and they put up with a lot of banal cocktail party conversation, all to get into these old clubs with classic designs. Then, once there, they seek to change the course, to leave their stamp, all because their sense of self is so sadly inflated or they're just uninformed enough to listen to the USGA.

So I guess I'm wondering these days, is the membership at The National Golf Links going this way too?

Do they understand that superintendent Karl Olson restored their course after years of neglect, and what that restored architecture means to the prestige of their club?

Something tells me the answer is leaning toward "no," but I will try to remain hopeful that I'm wrong.

As I said at the time, I think it was fine to ask this question. If I were a member at a private club, I'd be flattered that an outsider, particularly someone as insightful & passionate as Geoff, cared about my course. If the answer to Geoff's question was yes, they understand, why not simply say so?

As I said in my recap, I'd simply like to set aside personal issues & see frank discussion. Thanks again for providing some facts.

[TEPaul]

"You gotta take into account the guys who pay the freight 'cuz as a lucky man once said "it's all about bucks kid, the rest is just conversation", which isn't true, but is a good quote anyway."  

Shivas:

You've got that so right! Look, this thread is about NGLA and some potential changes, so-called improvements, good or bad or indifferent---who knows?

But the fact that this site has danced around since the beginning is who does pay the freight here? Who does make the decisions there? Who gets things done? Who's willing to listen or be influenced by anyone?

Obviously, the club and particularly those members that have something to say about the golf course. Forget about the architect for now even if there is one. Why would he come onto an Internet site and ask anyone on here for any kind of opinion if those running the golf club and those who he's working for don't want him to?

If this website EVER wants information involving a golf club and it's architecture the place to go to is the golf club. If that golf club doesn't want to give information for any reason whatsoever those such as us aren't likely to get much and we sure aren't going to have much influence on anything.

And obviously the only way to even begin to establish a connection with a golf club is to do it intelligently, do it nicely, civilly and prudently. Anything else is doomed to failure.

Why should it be any other way? These people pay the freight, they own the golf course--it's theirs--not ours! Any of us who think that just because WE think a golf course is a national treasure we should have some say about what happens to it is simply dreaming.

So unless and until this website learns how to establish a relationship with a golf club we're going to continue to have threads that quickly devolve like this one has.

Establishing a relationship with an important golf club so that they may listen to the opinions on architecture of people who don't have much or anything to do with the club can't be easy--but that's certainly not to say it's impossible. But to do it, clearly we have to earn their respect first.

It's probably hard enough doing it anyway but assuming things we may have no reason to assume or insulting them or anyone who has something to do with them first is never going to accomplish a thing except a good deal of animosity--and that's unfortunately already happened between some well known golf clubs and this website discussion group.

This is all so obvious! It's a clear as the noonday sun! So the first thing we need to do on here is begin to figure out how to establish relationships. Maybe some on here do know more about architecture than the people running some of these clubs but if they don't respect us because some of us show no respect for them or who they are what in the hell difference does it make?        

[Curious_George]

"-industry observers and professionals increasingly dismiss GCA as self-indulgent and not-to-be-taken seriously. "

Brad Klein
Could your opinion of GCA be coloured by the claims you are guilty of conflict of interest? Soliciting clubs as a restoration consultant while controlling the GolfWeek ranking. Accepting free accommodations at GolfWeek meetings from resorts who benefit from the GW ranking. Speaking of self-indulgent and not-to-be-taken seriously.....

[Carl_Williams]

george Pazin,

that post from september that you quoted sure sounds negative to me.  reread the first paragraph and then everything else posted afterwards and tell me if the members at NGLA weren't being put in a negative light at the very begining by Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

I forgot to include that fairways are being widened.
Which should appeal to just about everyone.

Just yesterday, the 12th was taken out a good bit.

As additional projects that have been approved are completed, I'll let you know.

I'll also try to be as factual as possible.