[T_MacWood]

I was fortunate to visit Engineers during my visit to NY last month. In fact, of all the courses I played or saw, it may have been the biggest surprise. I anticipated it would be good, but it was much better than I expected....especially the original Strong holes, in their original configuration. The greens are world class. I am very glad I got to see it before it is ruined.

One of the most interesting holes was the famous and controversial "2 or 20 hole" which had been elimated from the routing at some point, but restored by Gil Hanse several years ago (giving the course 19 holes). The day I was there, the hole was inserted into the layout because they were rebuilding/redesigning another hole.

Here is a view of the short par-3 from the tee.

This is another view of the green from the side. One can see the small green in combination with severe drop off results in a very intimidating short hole.

Right after I took these pictures, I turned to study the previous green. All of a sudden I heard a horific scream coming from the '2 or 20'. I imediately looked back toward the green, and saw rush of golfers and caddies running to the green. Evidently an elderly golfer I driven his cart too close to one of Strong's deep bunkers and tumbled in.

God rest his soul. Strong takes another victim.

[T_MacWood]

I tried to make the photos gigantic, so you would get the feeling you were actually there!

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
Great photo, the cart tipping is clearly a sign that Strong was walking course guy.

It is amazing to see the sharp lines, which are similar to the Strong holes that exist at Lakeview in Toronto. Some of Lakeview has been altered, but the original holes show the same flair you describe.

Best,
Ben

[Andy Hughes]

Not only is that the last photo great, but I am amazed by the gent strolling to the green, putter in hand, to play out as his playing partner is apparently still lying in the bunker!  

[ChrisHervochon]

Tom,
Was the first photo taken from the tee?  How far would you say this hole is and what green size is it?

[BCrosby]

Strong didn't mess around. He built tough courses.

Is Strong's Ponte Vedra (Ocean) the only example where RTJ (the creator of the USGA "Monster Course", the baddest, nastiest dude in the architectural saloon) was hired to soften a course up?

How much of Strong's work is still around?

Bob

[John_Cullum]

Far too little is left.

When is Engineers going on the chopping block?

[T_MacWood]

Bob
Engineers might be the best preserved Strong course left, which makes the current redesign/remodel effort even more tragic. Inwood is pretty well preserved. Canterbury is missing his detail work, but the bones of the course are original...I'm pretty sure. Saucon Valley-Old has very little left, it was another testing course with very bold bunkering. I believe the Gordons softened that course. I don't know about Lakeview. Manoir Richelieu has been totally blown up in the last year...from what I understand.

Very sad...but it appears Strong isn't going to take it sitting down....as evident in the last picture.

Ben
The '2 or 20' hole does have some sharp edges. And some of his bunkering (as seen in old pictures) is slightly angular, but for the most part they are iregular and/or curved, flowing. In fact what stands out to me is a very appealing sculptural quality, especially his fairways and the contours of his fairways (and greens).

[Tripp_Davis]

Tom,

I am handling the current work at Engineers.  We are working on #2 green to rebuild the original shape (slightly softened to allow it to play similar to the speeds found in 1917) after a renovation a few years ago that did not work out.  We are also building new bunkers to recapture Strong's original intent of having multiple bunkers set amoung irregular hillocks and native fescues (which had been filled in many years ago).  Other than what I have found to be 11 or 12 original greens (most of the others were redesigned by D. Emmett back in the 20's), Engineers was changed significantly by the loss of his dramatic fairway bunkers.  We can't restore the bunkers exactly as they were unless the club decides to go back to wooden shafts and old balls.  But, his original intent is being brought back.

All golf courses change, as does the game, and it is sometimes necessary to change with it.  This is not always a bad thing.  If I get frustrated about anything on this site it is that there is at times a prevailing thought that anything done to our older courses is tragic.  In the case of Engineers, a significant trait of the original design, the dramatic fairway bunkering, was lost (that was tragic) - we are putting it back in a way that reflects what was originally intended and in a way that will allow the modern player to best be tested by it.

As for greens on our older courses, is it not better to have these greens be able to test players and give them options as was original designed.  Sure, the evolution of some of the older greens definitely adds character, but when a green, or a portion of a green, gets to the point that you don't have the option of placing a pin there anymore (when one was orginally intended), you lose the originally intended variety.  I think that is tragic.  There are many great old houses in our country, but would you live in them today without plumbing or electricity?

I love Engineers for the severity of the greens and its' extraordinary use of the land, but I assure it will be a better reflection of what Strong originally intended when we are done.

[T_MacWood]

Trip
What was your thought here? Is this your idea of Strong's original intent having multiple bunkers set amoung irregular hillocks?



Emmet made some minor changes to the eighteenth and sixteenth greens in 1921.

[TEPaul]

These are the things that make GOLFCLUBATLAS.com as good as it can be---eg a really excellent text post by Tripp Davis followed by a photo of the course with Tripp's work and an obviously pointed question vis-a-vis what he did by Tom MacWood.

Don't get frustrated and please don't go away Tripp. I'd really like to see a great dialogue back and forth from those two excellent posts!

This is what it's all about on here---this could be as good as it gets from a thoughtful golf analyst not in the business and an architect/restorationist who is in the business.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have driven by Engineers every day during golf season for 10 years now and play it several times a year.  I played there several times before Gil's restoration, during the restroation, after Gil's rebuilt greens, and with the new greens.  I love what Gil has done at other courses in the area as far as restoration.  However, he scored higher than a double bogey on the rebuilt greens--they ended up more severe somehow. There literally were only 4 pins on the 8th green ( I am certain the superintendants on this site would not be happy working a 4 pin rotation on a course that does get 100+ rounds a day during the busy season).  Gil did an unreal good job restoring the greens to their original sizes--most greens probably doubled in size.  As for the bunkers on #7, I don't think they have been restored, rocks were coming up on the short greenside right bunker this year{ my wedge has the marks as proof).  These bunkers were all in existence in 1990 when I first played the course.  Supposedly there were over 30 bunkers between holes 2 and 15--that might be a maintenace nightmare today.  Also, the think the new greens are really good.  #9 tends to play very much like it did when it had to be kept very wet to keep balls on the green--the spirit of the green has been restored and it now plays firm with quite a few cool pins and movement very similar to the original green.  #8 has the devilish pins that could only be used on 6ft stipmeter speed in the past now able to handle 11 ft stipmeter speeds.  I was very reserved and ready to criticize the recent greens work, but it was done great.  However, I do hope that #1 remains the same--it is playable in its current form.  #16 does not have enough pins--very wild green.

[T_MacWood]

Robert
I don't believe there were 30+ bunkers between #2 and #15. In fact if you exclude the string of pearls on #16, there weren't many more than 30 fairway bunkers on the entire golf course--Strong chose to emphasise his bold greens and the interesting terrain.

Which goes back to #7 and those fairway bunkers.  You are correct, they did exist ten years ago, although not in the form they exist today.  They have been stylized, and supplemented  by an additional bunker or two. I'm not certain if Gil  Hanse or Tripp is responsible, but IMO they are hideous and do not reflect the original Herbert Strong design of this hole (no fairway bunkers).

[JakaB]

Trip
What was your thought here? Is this your idea of Strong's original intent having multiple bunkers set amoung irregular hillocks?



Emmet made some minor changes to the eighteenth and sixteenth greens in 1921.

In all seriousness....Is this what people want to see on a classic course...

[Andy Hughes]

In all seriousness....Is this what people want to see on a classic course...

Maybe the better question for this case is is this what the members at Engineers wanted to see?

[Tripp_Davis]

Robert,

I appreciate your comments about the work we did on the 8th and 9th greens at Engineers.  #8 was the first work we did at Engineers, the fall after it had been done the first time (which was visually an intresting "restoration" - but took a green with one pin placement and add 0 to it).  We were only going to do #8, but it turned out well and they asked us to do #9 the week after.  The only regret on #9 was not being able to work on the left greenside bunker (which we are doing this fall).  We are redoing a recent redesign of the 2nd green now.  We are doing work to #1 green this fall, but we are only enlarging it in the front, more to what found was the orginal style, but we are not touching the contours in the green.

Tom,

There were about 10 bunkers between #1 and #18 and about the same number between #2 and #15 that are visible in photos I found.  In starting work between #2 and #15 this fall, we found remnants of these and a bunch of horseshoes in the bottoms of them.  There were also around 10 bunkers right of #16 fairway.  

The work we are doing will be done in two phases and the current bunkers on #7 will be addressed next fall.  

[T_MacWood]

Tripp
What is the date of bunkers between the 2nd and 15th & 1st and 18th...and who was responsible for creating them?

I've seen your plan for the fairway bunkers on #1....do they relate to anything Strong created for that hole?

[Tripp_Davis]

First of all, who put this thread in Omnivision?  Its like reading a book wrapped around a bottle.

There are no Strong plans for Engineers - if there were any in the clubhouse they burned.  The photos we are working from are from the US Amateur and I don't know of anyone who worked on the course other than Strong between opening and the US Am.  

The bunkers we are doing are not of the exact shape and size as the photos and we are pushing bunkers down the fairway to have more impact today.  There are two things a golf architect might be doing when designing and placing bunkers.  1.  Creating a strategic impact (should be doing).  2.  Creating a visual impact (might be doing).  The bunkers that Strong built at Engineers were often not in play and were "stylized" with "native" grasses in and around the bunkers.  He was creating a visual impact.  However, he also used a portion of this "clusture" for strategic impact.  If replaced as the photos suggest, we would building them soley for visual impact due to the increased distance over the last 85 years.  Do you think Strong was doing bunkers just for visual impact?  If Strong were here today, would he be concerned that reintroducing the visual impact should also include strategic impact?

[Tyler Kearns]

Tripp,

Was there an opportunity to add a new back tee along the same centreline that the present (original?) tee resides? I can only imagine that this would require a fair amount of real estate to re-institute the original design intent of Herbert Strong, but does any exist?

Tyler Kearns

[Tripp_Davis]

There is no room on #1, #2 was actually a par five originally that used to play over Motts Cove Road (not viable today).  The site is really pretty constrained today, which is not such a bad thing.  I have done two new courses in the past three years that play under 6700 from the back tees and don't consider length to always be the most important thing in testing the player, especially when you have greens such as those at Engineers to back you up.  However, bunker placement off the tee still must relate to the tee shot.  At 6700 yards, bunker placement off the tee should at times suggest something other driver, both to add challenge, but also to add variety.

[Tyler Kearns]

Tripp,

I agree, length is very overrated. I was simply suggesting that adding a new back tee would offer the ability to a) restore Strong's original bunkers, and b) make up the technological gap that has most likely eliminated some of those bunkers' strategical placement.

Tyler Kearns

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tripp,

Glancing over your comments here, and previously at another thread discussing Engineers, you're sorta on both sides of the fence per se - claiming to be restoring Strong's design, but also moving bunkers downrange and softening greens.

Now, the club's entrusted you with the course. Which is fine. I have no comment about your plans, or direction. Principally because I don't know the details. Nonetheless, I'm interested to know if you consider your work at Engineers restorative-based, or not.

If you do consider your work there restorative-based, how so?

Curious,

[T_MacWood]

This is a photo of the 2nd hole from the 1919 PGA. There was very strange bunker backed by a half moon mound in the left rough. The 15th fairway is to the left.


Another photo from the 1919 PGA of the 17th green with the 2nd and 15th fairways seen in the background.


An aerial from 1920 US Amateur article. The 16th hole is closest to the viewer. The 15th and 2nd are across the road to the left. The 17th hole is to the right of 16th. The green adjacent to the 17th is the 1st green. The 1st fairway and the 18th fairway are parallel.

[T_MacWood]

Tripp
How much have you been able dig up on Strong and his architectural philosophies?

I shudder when I read a restoration architect claim the dead architect would do it this way if he were alive today...especially when the result is often an introduction of that architect's interpretation of the dead guys style (and sometimes a blatent introduction of the architects style...a problem common with many Rees Jones' projects). Conjectural restoration is nothing more than redesign and destruction of the architect's original work.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There is a picture somewhere of the area between #2 and #15 that shows multiple bunkers--it might be safe to assume that the serpentine bunker in the US Am picture at some point was segmented into many small bunkers.                      

As for the stylization of the bunkers on #7, there is a good chance that Duane could have been responsible.  Current #3 is a Duane hole--purists may hate its existence for the removal of the great 2 and 10 baby redan--it is a hell of a hole with a green that I think fits in well with the rest of the course--there is a back falloff, a false front, a tricky middle right section, and a sucker pin behind the front left bunker.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()