[TEPaul]

"O/T
Whats interesting is how TF has used the "puffy" look since."

Adam:

Didn't you know that "puffiness" is having a real renaissance in restoration projects? There's a bunker on the third hole at the great Royal County Down that is so puffy I actually got under its overhang to get out of a quick rainstorm. It could be the ultimate natural prototype for restoration puffiness.

Puffy bunker surrounds can be cool, man. It's the look of decades of unaltered maturation. It takes time, huge amounts of rounds and Nature herself to create the look of really mature puffy naturalness. Obviously Tom Fazio and Merion can't help it if it looks like furniture during that time it needs to evolve and mature into really cool looking PUFFINESSNESSNESS.

Furthermore, Adam, Merion has developed a new and novel way of maintaining its cool looking puffy bunker surrounds. Obviously mechanized maintenance is totally out on really cool puffiness. Weedeaters and such are out. Matt Shaeffer's new technique is to go out there about once a year, unholster his blow torch and torch the stuff. That actually makes it come back ultra puffy the next year, that is if he didn't burn down most of Ardmore in the process.

I hear Shaeffer found some maintenance guy out there within five yards of one of the puffy bunker surrounds with a weedeater. Matt dragged the guy back to the maintenance barn, took that weedeater and gave the poor guy an instant buzzcut haircut with the weedeater and told him never to come within 100 yards of the new/old Merion "puffiness" with a weedeater or flymow.

[JESII]

Kyle,

The fact that Mike started this thread is enough acknowledgement that his thoughts at the time about instant gratification were flawed. Or do we need an explanation of an apology?

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

Because I never believed (re: I was wrong) they would evolve to the wonderful aged look they had before that I believe should have been preserved.  It seemed to me that they were being modernized, cleaned up for fairness and definition purposes, etc.

Whether their present evolution is due to normal wear and tear of golfers, or is being helped along by a benificent maintenance team, or some combination of both, it's all for the good and it's great to see.

George,

I've been trying to get Patrick to admit he's wrong now for most of the week.   What are my odds?  

[George Pazin]

George,

I've been trying to get Patrick to admit he's wrong now for most of the week.   What are my odds?  

Even a math geek like me can't count that high.

Kyle, I didn't think you were piling on, I was just attempting to answer the question in the context of the Merion project.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Because I never believed (re: I was wrong) they would evolve to the wonderful aged look they had before that I believe should have been preserved.  It seemed to me that they were being modernized, cleaned up for fairness and definition purposes, etc.

Whether their present evolution is due to normal wear and tear of golfers, or is being helped along by a benificent maintenance team, or some combination of both, it's all for the good and it's great to see.

See, I don't necessarily think it's a question as to whether or not you were wrong or right. But in terms of the product since your initial assessment, you've obviously changed a bit of your values.

Does a course like Merion, which has seen an evoluation of greatness through the years have a higher standard for renovation or restoration work than a course recently built or of "lesser" caliber?

Is there a critical time or point in its architectural evolution, at which point a golf course's requirements for successful restoration or renovation become more stringent?

I'm sure much of your criticism centered around the fact that the golf course was, in fact, Merion East and not say, Reading CC or Llanerch CC.

At what point do restoration architects bridge the gap between the ends desired by the original architect and the means desired by the original architect to get to that end?

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Wait a minute. I hope you're not saying that you think the present Merion bunker surrounds are beginning to look like the Merion bunkers BEFORE the restoration project. If you are trying to say that you're gonna be apologizing to all kinds of people all over the place for the remainder of your life.

The Merion bunkers today don't look anything like they did before the bunker project. It's just that today they really are beginning to look very cool. Puffinessnessness is BACK---it's having a real renaissance at Merion, and the thing is no one knows where the hell it came from anymore than they know where the hell Hugh Wilson got his idea for the way the Merion bunkers once were, and once looked.  

[TEPaul]

As one astute observer said, the Merion bunkers look sort of topheavy to him, compared to the way the used to be before the recent bunker project. They still do look sort of topheavy but the good news is another astute observer said he thinks the sand is being flashed up on them more and the surrounds are beginning to get that sort of crumbly look to them which is very cool too. "Crumbly Puffiness" or "Puffy Crumbliness"---let me tell you guys----it takes some real talent to create it. Mother Nature is actually a bit pissed and she's been saying; "Damn, you dudes are starting to get as good at this shit as I am."  

[Mike_Cirba]

See, I don't necessarily think it's a question as to whether or not you were wrong or right. But in terms of the product since your initial assessment, you've obviously changed a bit of your values.

Does a course like Merion, which has seen an evoluation of greatness through the years have a higher standard for renovation or restoration work than a course recently built or of "lesser" caliber? Yes to a subjective degree.  That doesn't assume that other courses shouldn't also have a high standard, but simply that the very top courses have a higher standard based on the fact that we view them as our shrines.  It's the same reason I can be critical of the work done when Yankee Stadium was renovated.   I didn't own it, I wasn't a stakeholder in the organization, but there is a public trust involved on some esoteric level.

Is there a critical time or point in its architectural evolution, at which point a golf course's requirements for successful restoration or renovation become more stringent? Totally subjective again, but I think any course should have some type of architectural continuity if it's something worth preserving.

I'm sure much of your criticism centered around the fact that the golf course was, in fact, Merion East and not say, Reading CC or Llanerch CC. No, I've criticized other work at other courses, much less renowned than those two, where I felt there was incongruity between original design intent and new modern features.  The Merion discussion simply had "legs".  

At what point do restoration architects bridge the gap between the ends desired by the original architect and the means desired by the original architect to get to that end? Not sure I understand your question?

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

I think you'd agree that most things involving golf architecture are subjective to a point.

My last question is meant to address the disparity between what technology today can do, and what technology in Hugh Wilson's era can do. We've spoken about my desire to understand and study the older construction methods as a means to understand older designs and why certain things look the way they do.

As a budding architect, one of my goals is to provide a formulaic approach to bridging that gap and using modern methods to achieve old results.

In doing a restoration, how much of the process should be replicated in order to achieve similar results?

Maybe Fazio just devised a quicker (cheaper?) method of getting the bunkers to a desired state with a few years of questionable results in between.

[Bryan Izatt]

If the bunkers have evolved to an acceptable (or even good) state now after four years, what is the possibility that the evolution can be frozen in this state.  Does nature not continue to evolve even when man tries to maintain?  How long until these bunkers need to be "restored" again?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I think you'd agree that most things involving golf architecture are subjective to a point.

My last question is meant to address the disparity between what technology today can do, and what technology in Hugh Wilson's era can do. We've spoken about my desire to understand and study the older construction methods as a means to understand older designs and why certain things look the way they do.

As a budding architect, one of my goals is to provide a formulaic approach to bridging that gap and using modern methods to achieve old results.

In doing a restoration, how much of the process should be replicated in order to achieve similar results?

Maybe Fazio just devised a quicker (cheaper?) method of getting the bunkers to a desired state with a few years of questionable results in between.

Kyle,

I think that frankly would be a complete misassessment of what's happened here.

According to a number of sources I've heard, there have been problems with the rebuilt bunkers of a structural nature.   I've even heard from one or two people not connected with the club directly that several of the bunkers will need to be rebuilt prior to the US Open because of issues with the liners and bunker woll.   I have no idea if this is true, but I'd say that I'd heard about structural issues over the past few years from enough different and reputable sources to sense that there is at least smoke, if not a full blown fire.

However, it was the aesthetic of the bunkers that I had the most issue with, and that's where I'll limit my own observations.   Tom Paul's post on "crumbling" and raising up the sand by cutting away some of the offending grass gets to the heart of what I'm applauding.  

To me, there seems to be a conscientious effort on the part of the club and Matt Shaffer's team to get these bunkers looking (and I'm sure, functioning from a maint. perspective) terrific.   Also, it seems to me that the devolution and erosion of the surrounds due to usage is happening at a quicker rate than I'd ever imagined, likely accentuated through maintenance efforts.

My comments are also based on the fact that the grass faces are presently cut back extremely short, so the erosion is clearly visible.  I think they're starting to look like their old selves to a much higher degree than I would have ever anticipated within five years, and I think that saying I was wrong about that is appropriate at this point.

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks Mike, having not read the intial discussion, it's good to get things in a perspective of a few years time.

By the way, an idiot on a string trimmer can make a bunker look nice and eroded in about 10 minutes. Maybe less.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()