News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2002, 06:37:35 PM »
Paul Richards,

I guess I look at tree and underbrush clearing in a different light then I do, the term, RESTORATION.

Both NGLA and Shinnecock have cleared a good deal of underbrush and a few trees over the years.

Hopefully, more clubs will cite them as examples and rid their courses of underbrush and trees that have become invasive over the last 8o years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #151 on: October 09, 2002, 07:01:21 PM »
Patrick:

Amen to that! ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #152 on: October 12, 2002, 04:09:21 AM »
Patrick:

As promised, here is the information on the work that Karl Olson did in restoring the National:

"OLSON LEAVES NATIONAL GOLF LINKS FOR TUCSON CC"
by Bradley Klein, Superintendent News, October 18, 2002

Marl E. Olson, CGCS, superintendent at National Golf Links of America in Southampton, N.Y., since 1986, has left to assume the head job at Tucson (Ariz.) Country Club. Along with his work at Tucson CC, Olson will continue a consulting relationship with Rancho Sahuarita Golf Club, a public access course being developed in Tucson by the Arizona Golf Association.

In his 16 years at NGLA, Olson became legendary at the club and throughout the industry for his persistent restoration of the Charles Blair Macdonald layout that dates to 1911 and is ranked No, 11 on the list of GolfweeKi America's Best classical courses. He oversaw the reclamation of long-lost playing areas, including fairways, bunkers and putting surfaces that had become overgrown with trees, shrubs or rough,
Olson, 52, is originally from New Mexico and holds a four-year turfgrass degree from New Mexico State University
(1973).   He was superintendent at University of New Mexico Golf Course - South Course (1974-79) and then at
Hidden Valley Country Club in Sandy, Utah (1979-82). For the next four years he worked at the US. Golf Association, first
as a Green Section agronomist and then as Championship agronomist, before joining NGLA.

"Few supers have ever gotten the chance to do what I've done - to restore The National," Olson said. "We've done pieces and parts of every hole; it's a continually evolving restoration. The hardest thing is leaving the crew. They don't get the credit they deserve for making it happen."

Much of Qlson's restoration work was undertaken with the blessing of Nationals longtime green chairman, T. David Mullen. In the last few years, Olson has reported to a green committee that includes chairman Michael Conroy andi architect Rees Jones, who is a member of the club. Both of them praised Olson's work and regretted his decision to leave.
"What Karl did was remarkable," Conroy said. "The visual and agronomic benefits of what he achieved are very impressive. The club has a great history and is such an architectural gem. We might alter a few mowing patterns, but there are no plans for any major changes."

Conroy said that a small in-house search committee has been formed to find Olson's successor. The post has not been formally advertised, but the club has contacted the Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Association, Resumes from other parts of the country also are coming in. The club hopes to name a new superintendent by mid-October.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #153 on: October 12, 2002, 07:04:25 AM »
Paul Richards,

Interesting.

I noticed, in paragraph four, that they used the same word I used to describe his work, RECLAMATION.

That would seem to reinforce my position

It's unfortunate that they didn't list the work, specifically.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SPDB1

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #154 on: October 12, 2002, 08:19:28 AM »
I also note that there are "no plans for any major changes"

thus obviating the paranoia caused by this entire thread.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #155 on: October 13, 2002, 01:35:54 PM »
Patrick:



So your argument is that it should be listed as a "reclamation" and not a "restoration"?


What, exactly, in your opinion, is the difference?

Thanks.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #156 on: October 13, 2002, 02:17:33 PM »
Paul Richards,

You asked for my interpretation of the difference and I'll try to convey that to you.

Restoration in my mind indicates some type of construction or reconstruction.

Reclamation is more along the lines of reclaiming what hasn't essentially changed in the foot pad of the golf course.

If you would like me to provide some examples, let me know.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #157 on: October 13, 2002, 02:30:28 PM »
Patrick:

Some examples would be great.  

In my mind, the two concepts are pretty similar, so if you could compare/contrast the two, that would be great.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #158 on: October 13, 2002, 04:33:45 PM »
Paul Richards,

Years ago I was playing the 11th hole at NGLA with Joe McBride, a long time member, extraordinary golfer, and Board Member.  As we were walking off the green I told Joe that the rear tier of the green, which was a plateau, grown as rough, was intended to be green, and should be returned to green through mowing and agronomic treatment.  That regaining that portion of the green would provide additional diversity and challenge to the hole.

We reexamined the area and had some further discussions about this unusual foot pad adacent to the green, covered by rough.  I suggested that it was totally unexplainable, with one possible exception, that the area had once been an integral part of the putting surface........ green.

I then asked Joe to view the green as if the fairway came from the direction of the 12th tee, and what he thought of the tier that would then exist at the rear of the green from that angle.

Joe indicated that it was sllightly higher than the other tier, but he clearly got the concept, agreed, and indicated that he would look into it.

My point is, that I think most on this site would have recognized that the rear tier, then grown as rough, was at one time a portion of the putting green, and that returning that portion as putting surface was more of a reclamation, achieved through MAINTAINANCE practices, than a restoration, achieved through RECONSTRUCTION.

I feel the same way about the front of the 10th green, which was reclaimed from rough, all the way back to the front bunker.
No construction was necessary, only maintainance practices.
With a little time and very little in the way of cost, the green was reclaimed.

Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but to me restoration implies some sort of construction whereas reclamation doesn't.

If the 12th green at GCGC was returned to its 1936 form, that would be a clear RESTORATION, due to the scope and nature of the work.  If the 7th fairway at GCGC was shifted to the right, and the right side bunker filled in with sand, that would be a RECLAMATION, due to the scope and nature of the work.

I hope I've helped you understand MY view in distinguishing between the two.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #159 on: October 13, 2002, 04:49:13 PM »
Pat:

I thought it was the rear of the 10th green that was "reclaimed" as green space, not the front!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #160 on: October 13, 2002, 04:59:49 PM »
TEPaul,

For years, the U shaped penisula fronting the 10th green was maintained as rough, for about 10-20 yards.

It is beautifully bunkered.

The green was reclaimed almost up to the bunkers, providing incredible pin positions, especially when the hole was downwind.  Any reclamation to the rear was minor in strategic importance, when compared to the reclamation of the front penisula.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Does The National's membership know what it ha
« Reply #161 on: October 13, 2002, 05:03:53 PM »
Patrick:

Thanks for the explanation.

I think you are right when you say:
>Perhaps we're splitting hairs
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up