John,

You want "revisionism"?

I think what this proves is simply that Merion and Yale are such great golf courses that the combined revisionist architectural powers of evil-doers Fazio and Rulewich couldn't completely screw them up.

So, as a result, at both courses you had  some fugly looking bunkers created that two very capable superintendents are fighting everyday to knock into some type of respectable look and appearance.  

At the end of the day, that's the whole story.
 

In the case of Merion, I agree with what you are saying John. The work of Fazio needed time to mature and it has. It is no longer the "White Faces Of Merion" according to some, but they did what they did to get, and did get, a US Open.

Fazio is building a pretty good track record with Winged Foot, Merion and Augusta of taking old courses and setting them up for the modern championship game. The problem is the courses can't stand up to players and technology, it is not his fault that he has to deepen bunkers and lengthen courses and move bunkering.

Yale is a different story. Unions cost and lack of money were the real problems at Yale. Rulewich did not help by building RTJ bunkers next to Mac/Raynor bunkers. The original project was simply to put more sand in the bunkers. It evolved, so Rulewich was probably stuck in certain spots with inadequate funding.

To paraphrase Paul Turner, the greatness of Yale is defined by its terrain, not its bunkering. Scott Ramsey, and the people who hired him are the real saviors of Yale. Scott worked out deals with the union and the pictures in Dan's thread speak for themselves about Scott's work. It brings out a real interesting question of who is more important, the Super or Architect in a restoration?

He is not loved in New Haven, but your friend Dr Childs being a pain in the butt probably pushed Yale to look at what they had. Scott has said a number of times that he is just getting started. I hope he is not taken by some other club in the next few years!

I think what this proves is simply that Merion and Yale are such great golf courses that the combined revisionist architectural powers of evil-doers Fazio and Rulewich couldn't completely screw them up.


 

Mike,

I find it funny that in a discussion about the credibility of this site one of the outstanding and well spoken voices in the world of golf course criticism calls Tom Fazio an evil-doer while at the same time we have a 10 page thread defending Arthur Hills...

Mike,

I find it funny that in a discussion about the credibility of this site one of the outstanding and well spoken voices in the world of golf course criticism calls Tom Fazio an evil-doer while at the same time we have a 10 page thread defending Arthur Hills...

John,

I refer you to the phrase "tongue-in-cheek".  

There are several Rulewich & Fazio original designs that are superb courses.  

Their bunker work at the courses you mentioned here sucked eggs, however, and in the the case of Merion, despite the line-up of apologists here who confuse growing long Don-King like hair weaves on the faces with rugged bunkering and who think that the bunkers were deepened on purpose (they weren't) in some type of prophetically-inspired, USGA required modernization to get the course ready for the "big boys".  

The fact is that the USGA did want Merion to "clean-up" their bunkers, so that very clear lines of delineation existed between the bunkers and their surrounds.  Prior, the line was blurrier, creating a look that seemed to blend into the surrounds.  Now, no one will ever again mistake where the sand stops and the grass starts.

But, who cares what bunkers look like, right?

John,

I stand by my criticism.  The fact that they need to be covered with comb-overs speaks volumes about the work and even if others from the region do not wish to type here what they whisper elsewhere, I see no reason not to be honest about it.

As far as "tongue-in-cheek", you know I was just using the term "evil-doers" in that manner.  They're designing/revising golf courses John, not plotting tyrranical world domination and subjugation.  

As far as the good of this site, I have no idea what you mean.  Should we all just line up behind the PR machine or is this still a place where we can have meaningful, frank discussion?  If some architects are offended that we dare to question their work, that would be soooooo horrible....their itty-bitty feelings might get hurt.....

sheesh....

As far as my own credibility, I respect the opinions of many people on here, John.  

How can we as a group of architecture loving individuals expect to impact future projects when we have a history of getting it all so wrong..Or, is there a revisionist click that may eventually prove it was us that made everything so right.  I'd love to hear Tom Fazio's or Roger G. Rulewich's opinion on the above..

I see this post from that idiot JakaB and I just have to respond because his lame attempts to revise history and facts need to be set straight.  Just because he repeatedly posts this propaganda will never make it true.

At Yale without GCA and efforts from George Bahto,Tony Pioppi, Brad Klein and yes myself included there would be no job for Scott Ramsay to accept.  The original bunker plan of a donor giving $5000 and doing one or a few at a time piecemeal was an incompetent butcher job that was well documented here on GCA.

hole 1
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6624;start=msg127109#msg127109

hole2
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6867;start=0


Hole 4
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6952;start=0

hole5
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7001;start=msg134352#msg134352


hole6
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7082;start=msg136251#msg136251

hole7
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7159;start=msg138277#msg138277

John Beinecke was made aware of this by me and ONLY then did he begin a fund raising plan for the restoration of the back nine.  That was miles better then the work on the front but still not good.  Even so none of this would have transpired without GCA and the individuals mentioned who made the school acutely aware of the treasure they oversee. Some of this work was documented as well and the beginnings of the committee “getting it” were accepted on the redan thread below where they made Rulewich change his original rendition of the fortress redan bunker. Restoration was not a work on their tongues until AFTER all the criticism here, in Golfweek and privately. To imagine that they had this plan all along as JakaB would try to have us believe is pure fantasy.

hole 17
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7977


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=18980;start=msg336657#msg336657
 
The work going on now is nothing short of astounding and Scott Ramsay should be nominated for superintendent of the year.  However, the expansion of the greens, removal of trees and altering of mowing patterns should have all been done BEFORE the bunker projects.

JakaB has never seen Yale yet he tries to make us all seem like idiots for loving the course and fighting to do what is right.  We helped a great deal and nothing he can write in his ignorant revisionist tone can change that.

If the school continues on course and redoes the bunkers and restores the wild double punchbowl 3rd green then Yale will be recognized as one of the 20 best courses in the US.  I hope I see that day.

Geoffrey,

Good to have you back.

Even w/the current 'boring' (and much smaller) 3rd green, #3 was one of my favorite holes on the course, along w/#9, #10, #17.  Always surprised that few talk about #3.  Most talk about other holes.

J.B. I got a sneak peak at BN this weekend. So, the answer is ...
Saved the world. Particualrly mine.