[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

It sounds to me like the changes are positive.  But I can't understand the way you started this thread.  Why did you start it if you are not really going to share details of what is happening?

"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."

I am just a little lost with this thread and what is the point and where is it going?

Brian

[SL_Solow]

Curious George;  I won't repeat my disdain for anonymous posters with hidden email addresses whose hidden identities give them the "courage" to indulge in personal attacks.  Rather I'll focus on the substance of Brad's initial post.  First, anyone who has spent any time on this site over the past few years cannot help but notice that we are becoming increasingly distracted by arguments that focus on personality and not on analysis/opinion of GCA.  While some of this is amusing, it really detracts from the benefits of participating.  Those of us who participate regularly should be less self indulgent and try to regulate ourselves in order to set a tone.  Private messages are available anytime anyone is angry enough to "take it outside."  Second, while I am not in the industry, my anecdotal experience with any number of people who are suggests that while there is some respect for this  site, it is viewed as overly doctrinaire and intolerant of those who do not toe the party line of minimalism/classicism.  While I do not think that view is entirely correct, it is reinforced when we indulge in the petty arguments that seem to crop up at least once per day and continue on ad nauseum.  It may not be our role or our goal to be taken more seriously and the "fun" of these kinds of exchanges may be more appealing to some than more reasoned discussion of the substance of architecture but if that is our choice, we should not be angry with the messenger who informs us what informed outsiders are thinking.  I continue to enjoy the site but I would enjoy it more if we sharpened our focus and came back to the topics that brought us here.

[George Pazin]

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

I would characterize Geoff's tone as one of concern. Having witnessed first hand the universally acknowledged poor "restoration" (even the TV guys, who don't generally criticise anything, had bad things to say) at Riviera, I think Geoff has every reason to be concerned with how a course like NGLA might proceed.

Does that post have a negative tone? Maybe.

Is it "... a smear campaign with not one iota of facts presented to support the bashing of the club and Rees."? I would say no.

How are we to have any discussion if anything less than 100% positive is viewed as slander?

I'm going to try to bow out now of this line of discussion & let Patrick's facts speak for themselves. They sound encouraging to me.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean;

While I can't say that I completly understand the purpose of the "imaginary exercise" put forward on Geoff's website, I can tell you that I saw something that looked remarkably similar in my Philly neighborhood in the past couple of years, by a certain modern architect.  

The fact that later that year I saw the exact same thing done to a famous course on the west coast by a certain modern architect seems to me to be part of a trend, to put it mildly.

If I can speculate, I think it's a trend that Geoff is trying to use his pulpit to make people aware of.

The irony is that for many modern golfers, they'd prefer picture #2, which makes me believe that is the reason that a certain modern architect builds those type of fair, "consistent" bunkers in the first place.    

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,
Thanks for posting some facts. While good news, I would hardly call this major compared to the work Karl Olson undertook, but certainly is better than the idea of Bethpage-like work to Macdonald-era design features. We at least agree on the excellence of Karl's work, right?
Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Geoff,

In all fairness, Karl was there for about 15 years, Bill Salinetti just arrived.  You can't compare the scope of the work done over 15 years to the work done in a couple of weeks, especially in light of the terrible weather in the northeast this winter that even you commented on.

I think that a prudent person would conclude that even in this abrupt time frame positive work is well underway.

There is more positive work that will be done on certain holes that I believe will be applauded, some of which could be considered major, but, I'd rather that the work be completed before commenting on it.

There is additional good news about NGLA, but, I'd rather wait until it is announced officially before commenting on it.

I've always felt that Karl's efforts were very positive with positive results, but that doesn't mean that the architectural mindset at NGLA is coming to an end just because he's no longer there.

I think Karl's efforts will be continued, and that they may be improved upon with the arrival of new talent.

Brian Phillips,

When did I ever say that I wasn't going to share the details ?
I have no problem with providing information but you have to understand that some discretion must be exercised.  As to, what's the point, and where's it going ?  The point is that NGLA is undertaking positive work on their golf course, and hopefully other clubs will follow suit.

The point is, that NGLA gets it, and is pursuing it.

George Pazin,

It shouldn't surprise you that we disagree on the implied thrust of Geoff's post last September.

The phrase "unfathomable stupidity" leaves me with a pretty clear picture with respect to the gist of the thread, especially when it's followed by the phrase "is the membership at the National Golf Links going this way too ?"

Now, if that's not a negative question, or predisposed mindset to you, I don't know what is.

But, let's not dwell on the negative.  We should applaud the positive and use NGLA as an example of a great club that continues to pursue excellence, and hold it out as an example for other clubs to emulate.
 
Howard Beale & Mdugger,

Where'd you guys go ?

Did the facts scare you off ?  

[T_MacWood]

Pat
It's great hear they've taken down a handful of trees at NGLA. Is that under Rees's directive or the new Super, and does that imply the changes will be relatively minor?  From what I understand the most positive change would be an effort to get the course playing firm and fast.

Shivas
"I hear so-and-so is robbing XYZ club blind, doing shoddy work and beats his wife" Is that how you would characterize the common ‘negative’ opinions of so-and-so’s work on this site?

I see it differently. When I think back to the discussions of Fazio’s work at Inverness, Oak Hill, Merion and Riviera…there was a great deal of factual documentation and thoughtful opinion. The discussions of Hollywood, Bethpage and Baltusrol…a great deal of factual documentation. In the discussions of Yale there was a great deal of factual information and honestly passionate points of view. Questioning the restorations/renovations efforts by a multitude of architects at courses like NGLA, Aronimink, Oyster Harbors, Mountain Lake, Pasatiempo, Cape Breton, Dornick Hills, Michigan, Seminole, Banff Springs, LACC, Ridgewood, Equinox, Westchester, Columbia, Ohio State and Olympia Fields among others is IMO an honest and important product of a website devoted to great architecture. It is important to discover or uncover if precious architectural treasures are being dealt with responsibly - identifying the good and the bad. You and others evidently don't see it that way.

I’m not a fan of the personal anonymous attacks, but it is no coincidence that Pat/LIRR is a target. He turned up the rhetoric a very long time ago.

It appears this thread was intended to be more a trap than an honest attempt to discuss the NGLA. Pat admits above that his previous NGLA thread was meant to bait others, it looks to me like that was the goal here also. And it may have worked.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

From what I understand the most positive change would be an effort to get the course playing firm and fast.

Pat admits above that his previous NGLA thread was meant to bait others,

Are you saying that karl Olson had the course soft and slow ?

What previous NGLA thread are you talking about ?
I never admited in any previous thread about NGLA that it was meant to bait others.

If posters choose to open their mouths to change feet, that's their choice.

You mentioned Hollywood, Baltusrol and Bethpage, three clubs that you offered evaluative analysis on, that you've never seen, and that was what I objected to.  Definitive statements and conclusions drawn by you on golf courses that you've never set foot on.  I took you to task for your evaluative methods and conclusions relative to golf courses that you've never seen and for your attacks on Rees.  
I believe Geoff Childs also joined in rather ardently.
But, I forget, you don't like it when you're questioned about whether you actually have any personal experience with a golf course that you're offering your expert opinion on, despite never having seen it.

[Steve_L.]

I wonder if we should take proposed revisions at face value, and wait until changes are implemented before making judgement...  I don't know the "temperature" regarding industry's perception of GCA as Brad has implied, but I know I enjoy the conversation of golf architecture - not the personal criticism...

Geoff - I admire your work a great deal, but shouldn't we wait to draw judgment...?  Is everything Rees has done worth panic relative to NGLA?  Even if it is, shouldn't we give him benefit of the doubt until changes are complete..?  Certainly Fazio has done some nice work (World Woods, etc) but many agree Riviera hasn't delivered results many have hoped for...  Maybe they could have, or maybe his next work will...

I've learned a lot about NGLA here, and reading George Bahto's book...  I think its a treasure of golf design, and I hope any changes are improvements...  Can we stick to discussion of the course and debate ideas vs personalities...?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Documenting changes is not evalutative analysis - there is difference beteen fact and evaluation. I deal with facts.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

If you'll reread your posts, you'll see a repetitive pattern of making evaluative analyses and drawing conclusions about courses you've never played or seen.

[T_MacWood]

If you consider making the point that Rees made numerous changes to Bethpage, Hollywood and Baltusrol an analysis or conclusion, you are absolutely right. Of course those conclusions were based on facts in the way of before and after photos and written statements from Rees. It is unfortunate you always fall back on this tired arguement in the face of facts. I have detailed numerous changes to these three courses, I don't recall you presenting any facts to dispute my information - only attempts to disqualify. It grows tiresome.

[TEPaul]

To discuss what may be happening at NGLA it has to be more productive to just stick to what appears to be happening and leave it at that. From what I can tell on a number of holes trees are being cleared back. What's wrong with that?

Karl Olsen cleared back a huge amount of trees during his tenure there. Sounds like that work is ongoing under Salinetti. Firstly, NGLA doesn't have any trees that come into play for golf shots so what we're talking about here is back-drop trees mostly. It also sounds like they might be thinking of RESTORING one or two of Macdonald's old tees or tee angles. That would seem positve to me. It sounds like they're into widening some fairway lines back to what they originally were. This is something Karl Olsen did so it sounds like something restorative that's ongoing.

Maybe one of the old green-sections will be restored. Personally, I think that would be interesting if in fact the club knows that was something Macdonald either did or at least once planned.

Personally, I feel adding NEW (not restored) tee space anywhere on that golf course that was NOT part of Macdonald's course probably shouldn't be considered. The course is a real classic treasure and if additional length is something the club is looking for, again, as mentioned many months ago, NGLA has the very unique luxury of simply dropping down the par on those holes (the course has always been a par 73!) instead of ADDING NEW tee length and keeping them as par 5s. That would include #5, #7 and #18. I think moving the Macdonald gates and the driveway looking for more length on #18 is not a good idea. I also think looking for more yardage on #14 is a poor idea unless Macdonald had planned that and I'm pretty sure he never did. One can get in serious trouble on that hole by getting too aggressive on that tee shot anyway so why does the hole need more length?

The other dedication of Bill Salinetti appears to be to really speed the course up--real firm and fast, particularly the approaches.

So to me it sounds like a number of interesting restorative changes and maybe a few that aren't.

From the things I've heard are happening or might be considered, that's my opinion of things right now.

But I think for any of you who want to discuss any of these things about NGLA you should first learn what's restorative about what's planned and what isn't. If you don't even know that you certainly don't have a very logical or intelligent baseline to work off of to discuss any of this.

Basically, my feeling on NGLA is because of what it is anything that's really Macdonald restoration should be considered carefully and anything that isn't from Macdonald should not be considered by the club. If any golf course deserves preservation it would be NGLA in my book. So they should draw the baseline here and whatever they do should only be in the context of C.B Macdonald and not something completely new that he never had there or never planned.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I took those changes into account. If you will recall the Hollywood thread involved comparing photos of the original Travis course, the pre-Rees course and the post-Rees course. Here you go, knock yourself out:





http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?zoom=9&mapdata=cbPRZSKSHGQSdjY7ugwIfKzz
JyPlSKt3V8e9ETioksIyBJTL6g2Lsd4is6rJ3e4uW68x4oEJrPwwZOKxSIH%2b%2fssXK%2bO429ZAAa
Ewcm2o6fxW7rxcNgb%2faumfiUKZxHnpa3p6I%2bblZ5cdGcL027YGB89JQG8R9vY23lnSkTUpIR3tO%
2b%2bYXuQQ1JM5imjKZ2QUC6HexOf3LnzQjTwN2YWRVBs42g0dCoj2cnFx53hFtwtrD2HdKEIqPfsl1N
8RiYxZ2rzB8xCTEEhxhJFe8py8Kg%3d%3d

[T_MacWood]

The link is not working, perhaps Tommy or Scot Burroughs can manipulate the modern mapquest image so it matches the size and direction of the two older images (or at least get the link working). At which point Pat can detail the changes post and pre-Rees....as well as the features that Rees restored (and correct any discrepencies in my findings). I have a feeling we might have a club mandate discussion coming on.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Do you think that Patrick is going to answer my questions? Or is he going to continue to run around it?"

HowardB:

I have no idea if Patrick is going to answer your questions. Perhaps he will if you can explain to him first what they have to do with NGLA and the subject of this particular thread.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Are those aerials of Hollywood? If so, that could be a worthwhile subject to discuss with Pat Mucci but this thread is about NGLA not Hollywood.

Perhaps it would be a better idea to cut and paste those aerials and the subject of Hollywood off onto its own thread.

[George Pazin]

George Pazin,

It shouldn't surprise you that we disagree on the implied thrust of Geoff's post last September.

The phrase "unfathomable stupidity" leaves me with a pretty clear picture with respect to the gist of the thread, especially when it's followed by the phrase "is the membership at the National Golf Links going this way too ?"

Now, if that's not a negative question, or predisposed mindset to you, I don't know what is.

If that is all you took from that post, then your own bias speaks for itself. "Unfathomable stupidity" refers to other clubs who chose to alter their course in a poor fashion. He even states that he hopes the membership at NGLA doees not follow this path.

Geoff asks a simple question. I think you are underestimating the self esteem of the NGLA membership if you think they are going to be offended by said question.

But, let's not dwell on the negative.  We should applaud the positive and use NGLA as an example of a great club that continues to pursue excellence, and hold it out as an example for other clubs to emulate.

I agree completely with this. Let's hope the good news keeps coming & that you are able to share it with us.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I disagree. It relates to the issue of credibility.

The title of this thread is 'NGLA gets it!'....the premiss of the thread assumes the author gets it.

Perhaps you know the answer to these questions: Do I get it, do you get it, does Pat get it, does Geoff get it, does Howard B. get it?

What is 'it'?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

A few apparent or apparently planned changes to NGLA, restorative or otherwise, have been listed on here. It would be nice to be able to discuss the architectural merit and validity or them and not the credibility of people and what they've said on other threads and other subjects.

Is someone questioning what Pat Mucci has said on this thread about what's going on at NGLA? I thought they were just asking him to supply more facts. Are they now questioning the credibility of whatever facts Pat Mucci has supplied? If so, maybe those people should start supplying their own facts.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Discuss away!

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated.  Will you be able to post pictures or will it be a description of the changes.

This is one area I wish Tom Paul could improve on his posts.  He says a hell of a lot but a few pictures could save him those thousand word essays.

It is very difficult for someone who hasn't played the course yet to understand the changes.  The only literature I have on NGLA is George's book and CB's book.

Is there a five year plan or a ten year plan?  

If Olsen has been there for 15 years and his work apparently is good then what other changes are being made that he didn't carry out and why are they being carried out now?

Sorry for not knowing what the hell has been going on lately, so I thought I should ask as I have always been taught the only stupid question is the one that never gets asked!

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Howard Beale,

I believe I asked you first..... to identify yourself, and I'm still waiting.   When you answer that one, I'll answer yours.

I also believe that you set the negative tone on this thread by calling Rees a liar.  How courageous and noble of you to do it anonymously.

George Pazin,

You can't be that naive.

With the negative reactions of Howard Beale, Geoff Shackelford and Tom MacWood, why would I want to share additional information about NGLA ?  Sorry George, but they have a destructive and disruptive agenda and I won't waste my time on this subject any more.

Brian Phillips,

This may sound foolish, but I don't believe photos have been able to capture the essence of NGLA.  I've never seen representative photos of the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 15th greens.  Perhaps its the two dimensional nature of the camera that fails to extract their details.

TEPaul,

I'm not so sure that I agree with you with respect to the elasticity factor at NGLA.  I think # 7 is a perfect example where the tee can be moved directly back, enhancing the hole.  I also believe that other holes could benefit from lengthening.  But, I would like to see the restorative work continue as well.

Geoff Childs,

Do you have any pictures taken 5 to 10 miles away from Yale that you can post ?

Tom MacWood,

You never addressed the question about your conclusion that Karl Olson kept NGLA slow and soft.  This should be duck soup for you, after all, it's just another course that you've never played that you're an expert on.

M W Burrows,

I was excited to learn of the work being done, and contemplated at NGLA.   Unfortunately others want NGLA to fail, hence, I will restrict the communication of the positive work to private communications to those who really care.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said:

"TE
Discuss away!"

Tom:

I tried to do that on post #51. I don't think this particular thread is doing much architectural discussion of NGLA though.

Brian Phillips made a good point to me that might be indicative of the difficulty of productive discussion of NGLA. I think he said it would be much more helpful, to him anyway, if I could post aerials with what I said about my impressions of some of the apparent work that's being or about to be done on the course so he could understand them better. I agree with Brian on that but I don't know how to post aerials.

Even with aerials I think it would be a bit hard for anyone who's never seen the course to follow some of the details and nuances of many of these apparent changes. I think this is one time when you just have to be familiar with the golf course. And I think it would probably take more than just playing the course. To understand and discuss some of these things I think it's almost necessary to be able to actually go out there and look at what's being discussed. So maybe this thread is somewhat futile even if it did stick to the subject.

[T_MacWood]

TE Paul said:

Even with aerials I think it would be a bit hard for anyone who's never seen the course to follow some of the details and nuances of many of these apparent changes. There might not be a golf course in the world in which the tracking of changes is any easier - nuances or no nuances. A dramatic design with dramatic changes. Have you cared to study the three aerials....obviously not.

I think this is one time when you just have to be familiar with the golf course. You would have to familar with the course to judge its quality. I was simply documenting the changes and clearing up previous misinformation as to the nature of the recent work. You, Pat and anyone else are free to sing the praises of all the changes, I was simply informing those who might care that there were numerous changes and little or no restoration.

And I think it would probably take more than just playing the course. To understand and discuss some of these things I think it's almost necessary to be able to actually go out there and look at what's being discussed. So maybe this thread is somewhat futile even if it did stick to the subject. Come again. I know one thing, it doesn't take a round at Augusta National, Aronimink or Yale to see those courses were not accurately restored. It is a convenient refrain when the facts might cause discomfort or you don't have the ways, means or desire to search out the facts regarding the courses architectural history.

Pat
I have never played NGLA. I hope this is not out of line, but from what I understand the course has played a little soft in the recent past.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()