[Mike_Sweeney]

In the past two-three weeks, I have played Engineeers CC on Long Island and Hollywood CC down on the Jersey Shore for the first time.

On Tom MacWoods found list from 1939 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood6.html), Engineers (Strong) was ranked 52 and Hollywood (Travis) was ranked 59. Just for comparative purposes, Yale was 29 and Garden City was 49.

Engineers has had some pretty heavy debates between Tom MacWood, Tripp Davis, Jason and some others here on GCA, and it is just one man's opinion, but I wish that Yale would have done a similar restoration/renovation from day 1, and I would love to see Hollywood do a similar job.

I think Tom MacWood is wrong about Engineers, but I don't know what was there before Tripp and very little about the orininal course. It sounds like some of the greens were too severe for modern greens, and I would classify Engineers as very nice/moderate paced greens. To my friends at Merion, I sometimes think #5 and #12 are too fast for the club player.

On the other hand, you need a nut like Tom MacWood around for a novice like me to see the potential for Hollywood. It sits just about a mile from the beach, you can feel the wind, yet there are trees blocking the wind. It has the potential to be the Jersey version of Garden City with better land! It is still a great course with great greens (I love Travis greens), but it could be even better, and I will state blasphemy here at GCA and say that it could be better than Plainfield!! Take out most of the trees, add back in some bunkers, don't touch a green except for expansion, and you are back home to 1939 and the aerial sitting in the men's locker room.

Thus, thanks Tom MacWood. In a era of memberships, maintenance cost, money and modern technology, I think Engineers is a model for historic clubs to look at and Hollywood should be first in line.

[George Pazin]

People give Tom MacWood a lot of crap, but I think it's great that there is someone out there who cares enough about classic architecture that he's willing to do a lot of research and put his own opinion out there.

I'd say the same about a lot of other posters on here, both Geoffs, Tom P, Pat Mucci, etc.

One of the best things about this site is that the rest of us get to eavesdrop on these discussions/arguments.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Hollywood has grand potential -- of that there's little doubt. Just begin to realize the improvements that have been made over the last several years -- although some have downplayed the work of Rees Jones there.

Can it be better than Plainfield -- well -- if a return to the aerial you referred did happened it's quite possible.

Nonetheless, Hollywood easily merits attention among the best half dozen courses in the Garden State.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

If Hollywood was restored to the aerial that resides in the Men's lounge area, it might give Pine Valley a run for its money.

It had to have been an awesome golf course, especially with the winds from the west and off the ocean.

Take down the trees, restore to the aerial and I can't see many courses being its equal.

[T_MacWood]

That's a question my wife asks herself everyday.

I think Tom MacWood is wrong about Engineers, but I don't know what was there before Tripp and very little about the orininal course. It sounds like some of the greens were too severe for modern greens, and I would classify Engineers as very nice/moderate paced greens. To my friends at Merion, I sometimes think #5 and #12 are too fast for the club player.

Mike
What was I wrong about with Engineers?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Is there a possibility that Tripp enhanced Engineers by creating a couple of superior greens?  Quite possibly, the new 6th could be better than the original--a green that unfortunately was partially placed in a neighbor's yard.  Tripp replaced the severe back to front Duane green.  The same can be said for the 8th.

[Mike_Sweeney]

That's a question my wife asks herself everyday.

Mike
What was I wrong about with Engineers?

Tom,

I am sure there are a few people here who are shocked to hear that you have a wife.  

I wrote out a lengthier response but lost it.

In a nutshell, wrong was the wrong choice of words. You had an opinion that was difficult to support based on the realities of Hollywood and Engineers being local family clubs that happen to have great historic courses that are trying to deal with modern technology, green speeds and membership priorities. I think Tripp Davis and Engineers did a pretty good job.

RMD,

Nice to meet you, perhaps we shall play someday, and hopefully in cooler temps.

[TEPaul]

"Is there a possibility that Tripp enhanced Engineers by creating a couple of superior greens?  Quite possibly, the new 6th could be better than the original--a green that unfortunately was partially placed in a neighbor's yard.  Tripp replaced the severe back to front Duane green.  The same can be said for the 8th."

RMD:

It would seem to me there could be that possiblity from those who know that golf course best.

But obviously Tom MacWood does not seem to share that opinion. I don't believe he has even seen Engineers before and after the Tripp Davis project. Some think that's pretty important to do but obviously Tom doesn't agree with that either.

However, it seems to me that Mike Sweeney's thread here may be asking if opinions like Tom MacWood's belong on this website---eg do his opinions serve an important part of this website?

In my opinion, of course they do, and they should be considered important opinions too, even if some may diametrically disagree with them, and for very good and valid reasons.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
If recontouring the greens was the only issue that would be one thing, but the Engineers debate was more than that. It was about the choice of redesign over preservation and restoration - not only the greens but restoring the original routing and the original bunkering on one golf's most historic designs. I objected as much about the new bunkering as I did the green recontouring.

I agree with what the others have said about the potential of Hollywood, like Engineers it was a transcendent design, totally unique. If they were ever able to open up the land and re-establish the original bunkering and green complexes it would blow people away.

One the difficulties in arguing for the preservation and restoration of these landmark designs - like Engineers, Hollywood, Yale, Bethpage, Riviera etc. - is the fact that they are almost inductructable. No matter what is done to them the designs are so strong people are going to find them appealing.  

[TEPaul]

Inductructable???

I knew they were good originally but I never knew they were actually inductructable good.  

[RJ_Daley]

TEP, you know, like that Nate King Koole song, "unbergetiful" that you always sing after a few cocktails...

[Mike Hendren]

The only Travis course I've played is the 9-holes Great Dunes on Jekyl Island.   Loved it and am really intrigued by Ran's Hollywood review.  That said, would we not vilify a modern architect who came up with this?



Mike

[Sean_Tully]

Bogey-

In defense of the 4th hole that you show, it actually had a bunker that was rather large that streched all the way across the approach. For me it ties in the bunkering in the background and eliminates that ridge that is built up in front of the green. The bunkering is similar to what is found in the 1926 photo beyond the front bunker, yet it is a little more subdued and did not have as much movement.

So in all reality we should actually vilify the architect/green committee that took out that bunker.

Tully

[TEPaul]

Bogey:

Who the hell knows, that hole may play just great for some reason, but architecturally and aesthetically, frankly, it looks just grotesque, in my opinion.

[Andy Hughes]

That said, would we not vilify a modern architect who came up with this?

Bogey, actually no, we would say the approach to the 13th at Tobacco Road is unique and thrilling. Err, but when did they add those bunkers?

[T_MacWood]

But obviously Tom MacWood does not seem to share that opinion. I don't believe he has even seen Engineers before and after the Tripp Davis project. Some think that's pretty important to do but obviously Tom doesn't agree with that either.

TE
I've seen and played the course (pre-Davis), seen the photos of the redesign on Tripp's website, seen some of Tripp's plans, read descritions of his work and studied the original design and studied the work of Herbert Strong. Not everyone cares about some of these grand old architects and the best work, but I do.

Bogey
This is good example of the consequnces of not faithfully restoring a golf hole. As Sean said the original hole had a very large bunker that protected the entire front of the green and would have covered much of the foreground in the photo...which makes a difference aesthetically IMO. It would also help if they would elimate the dopey pampas-grass hedge behind the green (not to mention the trees on this originally windswept sand-infested design).

Even in its prime you knew this green complex was obviously man-made and frankly over the top...but thats the beauty of it and part of its genius...and why it is so much fun to play.

[TEPaul]

"Not everyone cares about some of these grand old architects and the best work, but I do."

Tom MacWood:

Maybe not everyone cares but it would seem you're implying that neither Engineers nor Tripp Davis cares about Strong either. Furthermore, this constant refrain on your part seems to imply you are the only one who cares about some of these grand old architects. I think the time has come some time ago that at least this website knows that is just crap.

If Davis could've put back Engineers to precisely the way Strong built it and been able to make that work effectively today he probably would've done that.

Your problem is you don't seem to understand the difference or at the very least you just don't seem to care.

But obviously Engineers cares.

[T_MacWood]

If Davis could've put back Engineers to precisely the way Strong built it and been able to make that work effectively today he probably would've done that.

Your problem is you don't seem to understand the difference or at the very least you just don't seem to care.

TE
Yes. And Fazio would have put Riviera back precisely the way Thomas had it. And Rulewich Yale, and Rees Bethpage, and Prichard Skokie...Your problem is you don't do your homework and then you interject your baseless opinion into these threads without any knowledge of the original work, the original architect or the changes that were made.

[TEPaul]

"TE
"Yes. And Fazio would have put Riviera back precisely the way Thomas had it. And Rulewich Yale, and Rees Bethpage, and Prichard Skokie...Your problem is you don't do your homework and then you interject your baseless opinion into these threads without any knowledge of the original work, the original architect or the changes that were made."

Riviera is another project and so is Yale and Bethpage.

I do my homework on the histories and the origninal work of the projects I get involved with. On the projects I actually go to, get to understand the course, get involved as the projects are underway, and the projects I understand where memberships are coming from.

I don't critique projects on golf courses I've never even been to during or after these projects. What's the point? How can I know what those projects accomplished.

You criticize those projects you've never even seen, courses you've never even been to. That's the issue I have with you, and always have had.

To me, and obviously to a number of others on here that's precisely what's baseless. It's pretty elementary that to critique intelligently or criticize a restoration project one has to see it and play it and become familiar with it. That's what you've always failed to understand or admit. You say you "STUDIED" Tripp Davis's restoration project of Engineers? That may sound good to some on here, Tom, but that's the baseless kind of BS I'm talking about with you. That doesn't work.

I'm not sure there's anyone else I'm aware of who does that, and one really need not wonder why.

[T_MacWood]

TE
You have no knowledge Strong and Engineers. Correct? You have no knowledge of Davis and what he did at Engineers. Correct? Based on that I don't see you adding much to the discusion of this topic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You keep forgetting a critical issue that I've reminded you of time and time again, "The Will of the Membership"

Over time, Hollywood, without the aid of an architect removed bunker after bunker, and, when they decided to do some work on their golf course, they didn't want to restore it to the aerial photo that hangs in the locker room.

I would have attempted to restore it to that photo as much as possible, bearing in mind that the average age at the time of the project was about 70 and that more women now play the golf course than they did 50-70 years ago.  

Hollywood was a championship golf course, under the radar, but, probably the equal of the championship courses throughout the U.S.

If Tommy Naccarato could post the old aerial, or if someone could retrieve it from the archives, it would help.

Quite simply, the course was too difficult for "today's" membership.

And as such, it wasn't going to be restored.

As to Bethpage Black, management didn't want a restoration as they prepared the golf course to host a U.S. Open, however, many on this site, intimately familiar with BPB, who have played it 100 times or more prior to the work Rees did, who have played it subsequent to Rees's work, have praised the work and efforts to be faithful to AWT's original design.

Your issue seems to be a marginal one at BPB.
If I recall correctly, you didn't like the perimeters of the bunkers and the work done on # 18.

I would have prefered it had they left the rear greenside bunker on # 18, but, I believe that's where they wanted to place grandstands for the tournament.

One look at the 18th green at this year's British Open tells you how that goes.

Having said all this, I think having someone champion pure restorations provides a very valuable point of view.

It also helps mute or make people think twice about radical changes to their golf courses.  It diverts and stifles efforts to change original designs in favor of "modernization"

In general, I happen to agree with Tom MacWood about pure restorations and not altering golf courses.

Some of my beliefs are based upon the results of clubs allegedly "improving" their golf course over the last 60 years.

One of the reasons restoration is becoming popular is because clubs altered and ruined so many holes over the past 60 years or so, and, many of them did the work on their own.

When one looks at the disfigurations that occured at Oak Hill, Yale, Garden City, Inverness and others, one can make a strong argument for "pure" restoration, and more importantly, for not touching your golf course in the first place.

So, in a general sense, I'm with Tom MacWood on this issue.
History has proven him right in a great number of cases.
Unfortunately, memberships don't think like GCA.com and don't share the values and the appreciation for wonderful designs by famous and obscure architects alike.

All too often, green chairman, green commitees, presidents and boards alter the golf course to suit their particular or perceived needs.  Evidence of those disfigurations is legion, and unfortunately, continues today.

Another component assisting in the disfiguration of golf courses is TV and the PGA Tours.

For whatever reason, memberships with average handicaps of 15 to 22 want their course to be like those hosting golfers with handicaps that average + 4 to +8.

Surely, that's the begining of the formula for disfiguration.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You have no knowledge Strong and Engineers. Correct? You have no knowledge of Davis and what he did at Engineers. Correct? Based on that I don't see you adding much to the discusion of this topic."

Tom MacWood:

You just don't get it do you?

I'm not critiquing the Davis project at Engineers. I've never critiqued it, and the reason why is precisely the same reason I'm criticizing you for critiquing it. I don't know the Davis Engineers project because I haven't seen it and either have you.

Again, I'm not critiquing the Davis Engineers project, I'm criticizing you for crticizing it while not being familiar enough with it.

This is the same thing you did with the Aronimink project and God knows how many others.

Your modus operandi of just sitting at home looking at old magazines and newspapers and photographs without becoming in the slightest bit familiar with these courses and clubs and then criticizing restoration projects without even seeing them is what's rife with baseless opinion.

Mike Sweeney's thread here is all about this very thing. He can critique the project because he went to Engineers and played the golf course and he's obviously taking issue with you for what you said about it without even bothering to do that.

You can rationalize this away any way you want to---eg "I STUDIED the Davis project on his website, blah, blah, blah" but that's not going to help you understand that golf course enough to criticize that project the way you do and have with others you've never seen.

This is the problem with you and it's generally the same thing on a number of these restoration projects where you seem to proudly proclaim you are the only one defending these great dead architects.

[TEPaul]

"Having said all this, I think having someone champion pure restorations provides a very valuable point of view."

Patrick:

I agree with that too but with one major caveat.

For someone to champion the pure restoration of any golf course or even any golf hole they simply have to have some pretty intimate knowledge and understanding of not only the golf course or golf hole as it once was and as it is now but also all the reasons WHY something was done in the past to alter it and what it would mean to restore it to the way it once was originally.

The reasons why that is so is just so obvious as to be as clear as the noon day sun.

People like Tom MacWood who merely champion pure restoration without this kind of intimate knowledge of a golf course or familiarity with it and its evolutions may sound good and pure to some but it can be both a waste of time and potentially counterproductive in some cases.

These are precisely the things the Tripp Davises and Ron Prichards struggle with every day.

Tom MacWood does not struggle with these things---he does not even understand them or apparently care about them. What he's concerning himself with is in many cases not reality and, in my opinion, while it is perhaps helpful to some extent and at some point in the beginning to just crow and champion "pure restoration" or "preservation" there is so much more to it than just that.

If Tom MacWood could only find some way to understand that or admit it, then he probably would become helpful to these restoration projects.

Frankly, there are probably a ton of people on this website that need to understand things like that a whole lot better. The only difference between them and Tom MacWood is most of them don't gratuitously criticize these projects and architects for not being pure enough wihtout being totally familiar with them the way MacWood does so frequently.

He seems to want to pass himself off as the sole defender of the dead architects and their original works  . If he really does want to be that or pass himself off as that then he needs to get involved in these projects just like anyone else including the architects or others who are interested in this subject. There's basically no other way around it, but he either doesn't understand that or just refuses to admit it.

If he does not get involved in these projects and at least visit them during these projects when important decisions of all kinds need to be made he will never have much credibilty in my mind.

And that's true of anyone, including architects. This is not just about Tom MacWood, only the way he does things or I should more accurately say does not do things that are necessary to do if one wants to intelligently critique these restoration projects and defend these great old architects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Having said all this, I think having someone champion pure restorations provides a very valuable point of view."

Patrick:

I agree with that too but with one major caveat.

For someone to champion the pure restoration of any golf course or even any golf hole they simply have to have some pretty intimate knowledge and understanding of not only the golf course or golf hole as it once was and as it is now but also all the reasons WHY something was done in the past to alter it and what it would mean to restore it to the way it once was originally.

I'd agree, but, I think your starting point has to be the theoretical one of, "don't alter" or "pure restoration"

And then, from there, get the detailed particulars that surround the issue[/color]

The reasons why that is so is just so obvious as to be as clear as the noon day sun.

Agreed[/color]

People like Tom MacWood who merely champion pure restoration without this kind of intimate knowledge of a golf course or familiarity with it and its evolutions may sound good and pure to some but it can be both a waste of time and potentially counterproductive in some cases.

I view some of his conclusions as "rush to judgements"
But, I think you have to take the "don't alter" or pure restoration" positions as your base position, until you complete the discovery process.  And, at that point you can either reinforce your "don't alter" or "pure restoraton" position, or modify it based on the revealed facts, circumstances and politics.[/color]

These are precisely the things the Tripp Davises and Ron Prichards struggle with every day.

Tom MacWood does not struggle with these things---he does not even understand them or apparently care about them. What he's concerning himself with is in many cases not reality and, in my opinion, while it is perhaps helpful to some extent and at some point in the beginning to just crow and champion "pure restoration" or "preservation" there is just so much more to it than just that.

I'd say that he has a "detached" or "romanticized" perspective that needs to be tempered with the reality of the situation, facts and circumstances.[/color]

If Tom MacWood could only find some way to understand that or admit it, then he probably would become helpful to these restoration projects.

I think one of the problems is that he has a pre-determined perspective which biases or impedes his judgement, but, the purist cause, in and of itself, has merit.[/color]

If he does not get involved in these projects and at least visit them during these projects when important decisions of all kinds need to be made he will never have much credibilty in my mind.

I think it takes far more than that.
Hollywood is a great example.
He should have seen the golf course prior to the project, understood the changes that past memberships instituted and understood the "will of the current membership" prior to criticizing Rees for the work done.[/color]

And that's true of anyone, including architects. This is not just about Tom MacWood, only the way he does things or I should more accurately say does not do things that are necessary to do if one wants to intelligently critique these restoration projects and defend these great old architects.

There's no substitute for all of the substantive facts, pre and post work, in order to accurately comprehend what took place or what's about to happen[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

We certainly agree that pure restoration and preservation should be the logical starting point for any restoration project. Of that there is no doubt.

However, that is not always the way many of these projects can proceed in all cases and with all of the many architectural issues on golf courses, and for valid reasons.

Some just appear to not understand that or be willing to admit it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()