Engineers, WOW!

[Jason Blasberg]

I toured the property today and must say that the work Tripp Davis has done, irrespective of it's being a "restoration" or sympathic renovation, etc., appears to be fantastic (only caveat is I did not play the course today and haven't played it in over 3 years).

The tree removal and bunker restoration work has added a lot more openess off the tee and restored the sense of grand scale that the undulating property naturally inhabits.  One can now gaze across the width of the property and see multiple pins flapping in the North Shore winds.

I walked around the newly contoured 6th green and while the green site itself is more open due to tree removal it has at least 5 pin placements that I could see, far more than the former and one dimensional (IMO) green.  

While the hole was closed to play, my walk around the 16th green showed that they've reclaimed most of the putting surface although I don't know if any contouring was changed.

Another interesting note, #1 green is as grand as ever and today's pin was in the middle right side bowl.  Talk about a wake up call on the first hole.    
 
The tree removal and added visual width between 1 and 18 immediately notifies the player on 1 tee that this property is not like anything he's seen lately . . . or perhaps ever (especially if you catch a glimpse of the 18 green site before teeing off #1).  

A truly unique property where holes are routed mostly up and over ridges, not between them, so the elevation is always changing and the players lie never level.  

If given the chance . . . get out to see this gem as soon as possible.  It's like I used to say of something in admiration as a skate-boarding teenager . . .  "Now that's Old School!"

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

For years I have proclaimed its greatness.  A few people may be hurt by Gil Hanse not being the one who finished the job, but Tripp deserves an apology from some people on this site.  He did a great job.  Sometimes you have to be realistic about conditions.  There were 4 greens that did not have more than one or two pin positions with less than 4degrees slope.  Holes 6 and 8 were in the 6-8 degree range pretty much throughout the greens.  Aside from a couple of plateau spots, 16 had the same problem.  I have some pictures taken a couple of days ago.  Hopefully, they will be posted soon.

[TEPaul]

To me this thread totally underscores some of the misdirection and misinterpretation of some of the so-called "purists" on this website. I recall how Tripp Davis was grilled on this site by some for not doing a project at Engineers that was architecturally pure enough.

The longer I'm on this website the more I realize many of these so-called architectural "purists" on here have a whole lot to learn about golf course architecture.

In my opinion, they should take more time and get out in the field on some of these restoration/renovation projects and they'd learn some valuable lessons that would probably change a number of their opinions.  

[Chris_Clouser]

I haven't been on the Engineers site, but Tripp is one person that I have talked to more than a few times and is truly understanding of the history of courses like Engineers.  He truly respects the past and the original architects like Herbert Strong and their efforts.  If he was involved with what he called a restoration, I'm sure he put as much effort into the project as possible to make it as great as it once was.

As for the subtle differences that may exist between the original and the Tripp's version I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to why it ended up that way.  Chances are he has a better understanding from actually working on the site and with the client than any of us spectators have from our comfortable seats in front of a computer screen.

To follow that up, I hope to get there and congrats on any kudos you get for the effort Tripp.  If you read this, that is.

[redanman]

Engineers is under the radar.  It is quirky, fun challenging, madddening at times, but overall a real gem.  I suspect that many have not played there.

And the 2 or 20 is still in play, I love the way they have 3 different scorecards there.

[ed_getka]

Tom Paul,
   When you say "architecturally pure" are you referring to a restoration, or are you saying something else?

    I haven't seen Engineer's at all, but in my travels I have seen more than a few courses that could be improved in some way. I would rather see a course improved than simply restored. Those old dead guys weren't infallible.
     What I saw over the past 5 years at Meadow Club by Mike DeVries were he restored a lot of the original Mackenzie stuff, and otherwise went for what he felt the architect's intent was is probably the most reasonable way to go in many cases.

[George Pazin]

Restoration is probably the most difficult topic on here.

The problem is, one man's improvement is not necessarily another's. Does someone want to try to make the case that the Fazio were actually trying to screw things up at Inverness or Oak Hill? I think they thought they were improving the course. Not many others agree. I don't even think they agree now.

Where do you draw the line? I, for one, don't know, and wouldn't pretend to be able to tell anyone what they "should" do. But the most logical thing to me is to restore original features, contours,  remove unintended trees, etc., while accepting that things may have to be lengthened (may being the key word there). I have never understood the desire to remove contour in order to be able to increase green speeds.

I personally would rather have a Strong original than an XY improvement, even if that improvement is by one of the most respected names on here. But I also understand that is my opinion, not necessarily shared by others.

Heck, I sent Tom D my entry into the Golf contest and he told me what it felt is was lacking and what he liked. I respect his opinion and thank him for sharing it with me, but I'm not changing my hole for that guy!

I don't really think it's fair to deride someone as being a purist. They simply disagree with the given position. Doesn't necessarly make them right or wrong, or the other person right or wrong either. It's just different.

Having said all that, I do miss Tripp's posts on here. I don't recall anyone being especially rude to him, but I guess different people have different levels of sensitivity.

[Jason Blasberg]

Engineers is far the better for the work Tripp did, I had a golf cart and full run of the course, it has come out great.  

Tree removal and bunker restoration is what struck me the most, and, as I didn't play I couldn't get a playing sense of the new green work but I watched a group play #6 and it rewarded good approach shots and chips.  

I had forgotten how narrow 11 green is and how wavy 12 green is. I had also forgotten how much the 17th green runs away from you front to back.  

So long as some people get out to see it, I think you're going to hear a lot of great things about Engineers.  I just hope the Super keeps the fairways wide cut and firm.  They were quite wide yesterday and reasonably firm.  Pin position really dictates the proper side of the fairway to be on off the tee and if out of position it really is a challenge but if the fairways are not maintained wide enough hacking it out of the rough to those greens would be over kill.  

Engineers is a text book example of defending par at the green without a lot of length but, at the same time, has some very tough par 4.5 par 4s.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The best part of the renovation is how the bunkering remains consistant with the origainal bunkering; with the exception-the 9th to 12th sand dune bunker.  Sure this bunker would be awesome to have in play.  I'm certain a few of the Supers could comment on the expense of maintaining a sand dune on a 20degree slope!  Sometimes you have to be practical.  

[Jason Blasberg]

Robert:

Do you know what the plans are for moving patterns?  Average fairway width?  It seem to me that Engineers shines best when there is ample width off the tee to force players to both focus on proper placement off the tee considering pin placement and also give those playing from the wrong side of the fairway the false hope of being able to play at pins aggressively.  

Being on the far left side of #1 fairway to a back left pin is a prime example.  Seems to me it's very difficult to get it to the back left shelf from that angle.    
 
Jason

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

An interesting part of Engineers revitalization is the restoration of width in the fairways.  They are very generous with the exception of #13.  Average width is probably 45-50 yards.  The greens are generally maintained firm and fast, so angle is a very important part of playing the hole.  Though there is width, holes #5,6,12,14,15 are hard fairways to hit.  There is no such thing as a flat fairway.

[Peter Galea]

Hey Bill, please post some photos from our round there last summer.

[redanman]

Pete, will do
(edit)
but only one, the 2 0r 20

I'm not sure that the club wants them up here.  Pictures of the 2 or 20 are in the public domain

[Jason Blasberg]

Dr. Bill your first photo of 2 or 20 requires no label, man is that a good little hole!

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

For those who wonder why # 16 green had to be modified, look no further than the photo above.  Anyone care to calculate the difference in height between the two gentlemen?  The reworked 16th has reintroduced the pin positions of the past.  Tripp Davis probably has come as close as possible to recrreating the original green while giving plenty of pin positions that had been lost for years.  There really were only 3 pin positions prior to the work, and the entire right 2/3 of the green was unpinnable even at speeds of 8-9.