Ron Prichard Restoration work

[Sean McCue]

Tom,

RTJ did not rebuild the greens they were" brought back to where the original grass lines were".

Sean

[TEPaul]

"TE
There is no large single bunker behind the green in the sketch...there is a line running through the green that differentiate upper and lower levels (its easy to confuse). Ross placed numbers beside each bunker, 1, 2, 3."

Tom:

That's a very fine pick up on your part. That drawings a bit hazy on the computer and that green is a two tier affair if I ever saw one!

[TEPaul]

Sean:

I'll ask Ron again about the pratical aspects of that pond on #17 but in the mean time, to the best of my recollection there's a significant water management problem along the low corridor on that property from #17 green to #10  green and #8 green.

I didn't exactly get into all this but you'll notice originally there was a pond front left of #10 and no pond in front of #8 or left of #17. Then they took it out on #10 and apparentlt built the ponds on #17 and in front of #8. The origianl pond front left of #10 was restored in the recent Prichard restoration.

There're also a number of "chipping areas" around some of the greens which definitely aren't original. I do remember when they built the huge chipping area connecting the back of #8 and #10 green there was a bit of a drainage flow problem to solve around those two greens.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not commenting on the quality of the rebuilt Aronimink...I'm sure its excellent. I'm looking at it strictly from a historic standpoint, and in my view its not a restoration. Some people care about such issues others could care less....although I think there is a certain appeal today for courses that claim to be restored."

Tom MacW;

That's one of the reasons I think I have a hard time  understanding where you're coming from sometimes. You say you're not commenting on the quality of the rebuilt Aronimink? I guess the obvious question is why not?

You said:

"I'm looking at it strictly from a historic standpoint, and in my view its not a restoration. Some people care about such issues others could care less...."

Tom:

Aronimink isn't a true restorationl, nobody on here I know of said it was. But they did bring back a lot of Ross and added some modern tweaks to the course that most all think has made the course better than it ever was before. You say that Aronimink was some unique and rare example of Ross. I'm not sure where you got that. Not many around here ever thought that. The course always had the reputation of being just long and hard. For whatrever reason the course after the Prichard restoration seems to have taken on a whole new reputation. You can't help but notice the things out-of-towners Geoff Childs and Bob Crosby said about it---eg it's really fun now.

So I'm not sure what this big fixation of yours is or is really for. Ultimately, what's your point? It seems the course is now better than it's ever been. If so many people agree that it is then isn't that essentially the ultimate purpose of really good golf course architecture?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom M

I don't want to divert things (although that might be a good thing   ) ,however, Bethpage IS NOT as you claim "a rebuild". From 6000 feet as you like to view courses it is closer today to its 1939 aerial then today's Cypress Point is to its corresponding aerial at opening day!

I have played Sea Island. It is clearly a new course. I've seen ANGC and its a new course every year. Please do not put Bethpage in the same category. To call it a rebuild is historically inaccurate and you don't do that.

The 17th at Aronimink was the closest thing to typical RTJ at the course. The green is pretty darn good and those two humps in the back make positioning of the ball and putting really interesting.

I think redanman's comment about the current course having a pretty high (75) course rating but a modest 128 slope very telling. Its a course that anyone can play and enjoy. I believe that Ross would be pleased that his course could be described as such about 75 years after it was built.

[Mark_Fine]

Geoffrey,
All this stuff is very subjective.  I was fortunate to have a one on one discussion with Pete Dye about Bethpage Black and when I asked him if Tillinghast was the original architect he said, "It doesn't matter if he was.  It is now a Rees Jones golf course."  But what does Pete know  
Mark

[GeoffreyC]

Mark

Sorry but this point is not really so subjective. When you hear the word "rebuild" when referring to a golf course its pretty clear what's meant. All due respect to Pete Dye but when he has played the course as much as I have before and after Rees' work then he can speak with authority.

When Pete has studied and compared the 1939 aerial and played the course 60 times from 1969 to 1976 and then again a few times after the work then he can speak with authority. Same for Tom MacWood.

From 6000 feet with an aerial view, Bethpage Black is today very close to what it looked like in 1939.  I defy anyone to put up aerials of Cypress Point today and in 1927 when it was built or the 1930's when it was still at its pristine hight of glory and say that Bethpage is changed any more then CP. THat's a challenge to anyone.  To call Bethpage a rebuild is itself dishonest and factually incorrect. It is not Oakland Hills, Augusta or Sea Island. It is functionally nearly the same course in terms of routing, strategy playability of the hazards (bunkers) as it was when I first played it in 1969.  I will not let stand Tom MacWood or Pete Dye saying otherwise.  just because Tom repeats this over and over does not make it true!

[Mark_Fine]

Geoffrey,
I was not taking a position on this.  I was just making a point that what one person thinks is black, another person thinks is white.  Pete is know to say what he thinks and this is clearly what he thinks and must have some reason for it.
Mark

[GeoffreyC]

Mark

I did not say anything about your stand or lack of one on this issue.  I refuted Pete Dye's and Tom MacWood's.  

Now if Pete Dye is saying that Bethpage Black is a "rebuilt" design that should now be creditied to Rees Jones and in agreeement with Tom MacWood then I strongly disagree. If however, Pete might be referring to some recent credit as "The Open Doctor" where publicity to Rees (mis)leads the public to think he had design credit then there might be some merit to the argument.  Clarify exactly what Pete was talking about and we can better dissect his reasons for what he told you.

Actually, yesterday Tom MacWood played Bethpage Black on a beautiful late summer Saturday!  I will let him speak for himself about what he thought of the complex and the Black in particular.  I can say he was impressed and I'm extremely pleased that he got out in the field to see for himself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Geoffrey,
All this stuff is very subjective.  I was fortunate to have a one on one discussion with Pete Dye about Bethpage Black and when I asked him if Tillinghast was the original architect he said, "It doesn't matter if he was.  It is now a Rees Jones golf course."  But what does Pete know  

The off the cuff remark attributed to Pete Dye needs clarification.

Has Pete Dye been on site to closely examine the golf course pre and post Rees's work ?

Was Pete aware that the routing hasn't been changed, nor have any green contours been changed, and the bunker locations remain mostly intact,  so how did Pete determine that the golf course was no longer Tillinghast's, but Rees Jones's ?

It seems like an irresponsible statement, or perhaps, a statement taken out of context.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I can say he was impressed and I'm extremely pleased that he got out in the field to see for himself."

Geoffrey:

It doesn't surprise me at all! Isn't it amazing how some of these brilliant architectural analysts on here know everything about how an old course once was, how it should be again and how it's been screwed up and then they actually go there and very little is the way they thought it was. Old photographs, old newspapers and old magazine articles are one thing, but.....