I think it is silly to think that clubs that have made changes to their courses do not value their pedigree.

If they valued their architectural pedigree, why taint it ?
Why create a mongrel when you already have a purebred ?[/color]

I have talked to people at several clubs that truly appreciate where they started but feel like they have made changes that have improved their courses over the years for a variety of reasons.  

I think you'll find the above phrase/concept as the common thread amongst EVERY golf course that was disfigured.

They all say the same thing, they were trying to improve the golf course.

Unfortunately, the resulting product doesn't bear out the rhetoric.[/color]

The people at Dornick Hills in Ardmore, Oklahoma are a perfect example.  

I couldn't comment on Dornick Hills as I've never visited the club pre and post.[/color]

I'm sure the people at Medinah appreciate their pedigree as well.

If they appreciated their architectural pedigree why did/do they almost completely redesign the golf course ?[/color]

We can argue whether those changes truly make the course better or not, but to say they do not "value their pedigree" is a little over the top.

No, it's  not.
If you value something you don't force it to undergo a metamorphosis, in some cases to the degree that it's previous form is no longer recognizable[/color]

Just because you feel that valuing their pedigree means they have to maintain the course as it was in 1925, or whenever it opened, doesn't mean they have to feel the same way.  


I NEVER said that, nor did I define valuing the pedigree in quantitative terms.  Those are YOUR words.

Everyone but you seems to understand "fine tuning" and can differentiate it from "Major Surgery"[/color]

Is this another case where if someone thinks differently than you that they must be wrong or belong to the Flat Earth Society?

They don't have to belong to the Flat Earth society, but, they're probably wrong.

Speaking of the Flat Earth Society, do you know what event triggered the last member to abandon the Society ?[/color]

Chris Clouser is absolutely right and he said it well.

In the name of commonsense you need to get off this broken-record jag you've been on that any club that changes their course is disfiguring it and should be to blame.

You're awfully defensive and touchy on this subject.
Have you disfigured any golf courses lately ?[/color]

Furthermore, you're being hypocritical because you know damn well you've made some suggestions for changing NGLA one of your favorite courses and one of the most important courses in American architectural history.

I haven't been hypocritical at all.
I don't consider lengthening a hole to retain the intended integration of the architectural features, with the golfer, to be a substantive change.  Especially when the club has embarked upon that path previously, on other holes.

Your hero, Flynn himself, advocated elasticity vis a vis lengthening, or perhaps you'd forgotten that.[/color]

You also seem to defend the decades long modus of ANGC, one of the most altered of the really famous courses in America!

What YOU, and others don't seem to understand is that ANGC, chose between serving two Masters.  They chose to serve The Masters and as such, almost all of the changes are withing the spirit of providing a test for the best golfers in the world.

Suprisingly, more changes were made in the early years, that involved moving dirt, then in recent years.  Again, elasticity, that Flynn concept, has been employed by ANGC.

While I don't endorse the swinging of the architectural pendulum toward The Masters, vis a vis, narrowing and tree planting, the golf course essentially remains intact.  It's still wide and an enjoyable challenge for the members.

You may recall that Maxwell and RTJ made the most substantive changes to the features on the golf course, but, that was decades and decades ago.

It's not that I champion all of the changes, but, I recognize that ANGC has a calling that most other clubs will never experience, and that calling, impacts the architecture.

Had I&B been properly controlled by the governing bodies of golf, I doubt that we'd be having this debate.[/color]

The only way you rationalize your suggested changes for NGLA is that it's been changed before with tee length addition and such.

I think "precedent" carries a good deal of weight, architecturally.
And, your idol, Flynn, endorsed elasticity.
Lengthening # 7, # 8, # 14 and # 18 at NGLA makes all the sense in the world.  That's why NGLA has already lengthened # 8 and # 14.  Hopefully # 7 and # 18 will be next.
In doing so, NGLA would restore the bunkers to their intended purpose of interfacing with the golfer.

As to my theory on # 13 and the replication of BOTH # 7 and # 11 at TOC, I think that's equally valid.[/color]

To this day I've never even seen you try to rationalize all the changes at ANGC because who could other than to say its architecture is almost a yearly victim of the Masters tournament?

That's where you and most others don't get it.
The club HAD two Masters, the members and the tournament.
With the advent of hi-tech and the impact that had on the Pro game, ANGC decided to defend the golf course as intended by BJ and AM.  The club has chosen to serve one Master first, The Masters.

While I might lament the choice, I understand it.[/color]

As you seem so fond of telling everyone else, Patrick, you can't have it both ways!  

Sure I can, if you understand the nuances and the prioritization of choices made by the club.

As to NGLA, my views are in perfect harmony with CBM.[/color]

JohnnyM:

You might want to ask Pat Mucci if he's inclined to criticize owners of significant building architecture for altering those houses.

I am.
And, I'm not alone.[/color]

If he says no,


But, I didn't say "no"[/color]

then you might want to ask him what he thinks the difference is with members who own golf clubs and golf courses that are altered.


Ah Grasshopper, you have so much to learn.

That's why they have preservation societies.

That's why they have buildings designated as National Landmarks, just so they can't be disfigured and lost to morons who want to follow the latest fad.

Doesn't the clubhouse at Oakmont fall into that category ? [/color]