Tom MacWood:

I think we definitely do understand each other and where we're coming from. And because I think we do I must admit I really can't believe you think I'm blind about classic architecture and don't have a concern for it. The fact that you keep insinuating that on here I find frankly insulting and pretty callous---and in the end that's probably most of the problem I've always had with you--and always due to this additional reason.....

You don't have a personal stake in anything you do or say as far as I can tell and it seems not only that you never have but you never want to. I can't see that you've ever actually been involved with a golf club and a membership, like actually belonging to one and trying to preserve the course's architecture, as most of the rest of us on here have.

We've put our time, our feelings, sometimes our reputations in those places and other places on the line for what we believe in which is unquestionably the understanding and preservation of classic architecture and you just haven't done that. I doubt you have much idea what it's like---it really can be hell sometimes. Many of us have paid a real price for what we believe in. Have you? Are you willing to? It doesn't seem like it to me. Hence you're sort of sloughing off the necessary importance of a membership as you try to tell us how important it is that you stay out of and above that fray. I don't buy that and I never will and it sure doesn't look to me like many others who put their time and feelings and reputations on the line do either.

I have all the respect in the world for the research you do and the things you can come up with, and I've told you that many times. That's only one part of all this, though--maybe not even the half of it, in the end.

I was just talking to Brad Klein about this whole subject. I admire him because he knows this stuff really well as some of us on here do, he cares about it as most of us on here do but he goes out there and puts his feelings and reputation on the line all the time. He gets in the fray and takes the flack and in the end actually makes a real difference with architecture.

I don't see a guy like you doing that or even willing to and then you have the callousness to crticize guys like us who do for what we've done or what we think!?

On the research side you're terrific--on the other half of what it takes to really get something positive done you either seem to have no clue or claim you really don't care.

To me, and apparently to others on here, that's living in an ivory tower. I just want to know why you do that. And don't tell me, as you once did, you don't have the time and you have a family to think about instead. Most of us have families to think about too and don't really have the time either but we do it anyway.

You actually say to us that you and some others you named need to stay above the fray to really defend the work of the great dead architects! You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to defend the work of the great dead architects you have to really get in there face to face and word to word with the people who are trying to wreck the work of the great old architects.

You don't do that! You should. But unitil you do you should stop crticizing people who truly are trying to defend and preserve the work of some great old architects.

Tom;

There's no question that Dev has that "faraway look" in his eyes in the photo.  What you see as "flat ass dead" I see as the look of a man in some state of euphoric bliss or physical ecstasy.   Tom...look again, my friend.  I think this is even more obvious than the long grass to the right of the #2 hole at Pacific Trails.      

I might even be inclined agree with your "Single Taxidermist Theory" if not for the undisputable fact that the photo was taken in 1914 and either Emmett or someone disguised as Emmett went on through the 1920's to design any number of golf courses, as well as continuing on his hobnobbing ways with the formerly staid members of the metropolitan gentry.

This being a family forum, I'll also simply state that the cut of Emmett's trousers certainly doesn't indicate a "stiff" to me, either.  

The Roaring 20's, I guess!



 

Tom;

If this discussion hasn't proven how much useful information CAN be derived from analyzing photos, I don't know what would.

As I mentioned above, the actual location of Emmett's right hand was the source of much vile speculation, gossip, and innuendo by insiders who were among the few to actually see this photo during those times.  T.R.'s political opponents would have had a field day if the photo had been released, so the Roosevelt-favoring press participated willingly in the hushup.

 

TE
Since you enjoy analyzing me and my activities, perhaps it is time we take a look at you as well. Its not that I think you are blind, but I sometimes wonder if the passion is there in general sense. You appear to be interested in Flynn…no doubt sparked by Wayne Morrison’s passion....likewise with Behr fueled by Geoff Shackelford’s passion, but once you get off a few pet interests, the knowledge and burning desire doesn’t always appear to be there. You obviously have an interest in golf architecture and the history of golf architecture…but is it more an interest than passion?  

What you did for Gulph Mills was fabulous and I’m sure you and Wayne have made a positive impact on a number of Flynn clubs, but when it comes other  clubs and other architects, that come up from time to time on GCA, you often don’t have the historical background…although it never stops you from commenting,  or often criticizing  me. It is as if you resent the fact that I have the information to share about an important design and its possible corruption.

There is no magic secret to good research or a good researcher…it boils down to a desire to seek information, to discover and learn everything you possible can. You might think you have a burning interest, you might tell everyone you have a burning interest, but unless you are actually doing the frantic digging, the interest is only a casual one IMO. And I think it is obvious when you get involve in discussions about courses like GCGC, Engineers or even Aronimink…you really haven’t spent a  lot of time researching their architectural history. And to make matters worse you discount  those  who have.

Perhaps I don’t have a personal stake, and then again it depends upon what you consider a personal stake. I don’t have a membership in a private club to worry about.   I’m not involved in a local golf association….so there are no political considerations. At Ohio State I continue to lend my knowledge and expertise, but I really have nothing tangible at stake.  Its free information and even if I angered someone (which I don’t  anticipate) they can’t kick me out the club or take away a consulting fee.

Would my information change or be more valuable if I were a member of a club? Would my information change or be more valuable if I was an officer of the District Golf Association? I don’t think so. I’d share the information with them for the same reason I share information on this site, I have a passion for great golf architecture, the history of golf architecture and preserving and protecting the legacy of great golf architecture. I’m not really concerned about my reputation…I figure if I’m  honest to myself my reputation will take care of itself.

I think it is great (and commendable) that you have put up in your time, your feelings and your reputation into those places. I wish I had more time and more resources myself. But I wonder if you sometimes worry more about your reputation than you do about the architecture. Criticizing certain famous Philadelphia clubs has become an obvious taboo. And you are more than willing to defend (or rationalize) away any criticism of certain restoration architects…no matter if you have any information or not.

Have I paid a price? I don’t think so. I don’t do what I do for access…so if I’ve been cut off from playing a famous golf course or two, I don’t consider it paying a price. I don’t do it for monetary reasons, so I haven’t paid the price in that way…I’ve never received a dime from anything I’ve written or any research I’ve shared…not that I wouldn’t take it if someone wanted to pay me. Perhaps the only price I’ve paid are the thousands of hours I’ve devoted…but that’s been a pleasure.

You might think my approach is callous, but in my view to remain silent would be the bigger crime. I do attempt to stay clear of personal attacks, so perhaps callous is not the right word to describe it.

Would it be better if I got out into the fray and put my feelings and reputation on the line? I think it would be better if I got out into the field (the feeling is already there), but I can’t be everywhere…it would be impossible for me to be at Hollywood and Del Paso and Engineers and Hirono and Liphook at the same time. And thankfully you don’t have to be member of all those clubs to voice your concerns or share information, and thankfully you don’t have to be a paid consultant to have a voice, and thank God for GolfClubAtlas and the Aussie magazine Golf Architecture which have  given me an ivory tower to express myself. Hopefully slowly but surely it will have an impact…maybe in some way it already has…either way I ain’t stoping.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Tom MacWood & TEPaul,

I think one of the only things that seperates your views is the reality of membership decisions.

In a perfect, ideal world, I think most of us would opt to cleanse the blight of disfiguration from classic or golden age golf courses, keeping most of them intact, as they were originally designed and built.

In an ideal world, the original architects would remain as ghostly consultants long after they've departed this world.

In order to understand changes wrought upon golf courses over the years, you have to understand self interest, ego, power, the psychology of inheritance, denial of legacy, finances and pillow talk.  These are just a few of the factors that fuel and influence change.

Taking a classic golf course today, and restoring it to its original form is like taking a long term marriage and restoring it to the days of courtship.  Too much has happened and too much has changed over the years to permit a return to a blissful time.

But, there is a balance.
Unfortunately, most clubs have neither the knowledge or the desire to restore their club to its mirror image on opening day.

I agree with Tom MacWood in that I almost always oppose change at a golf course because I fear it will be detrimental to the architectural integrity of that golf course.

I also agree that I would like to restore lost features, as close as possible to their original form, where it is PRUDENT to do so.
The problem is, that neither Tom MacWood, TEPaul, Geoff Shackelford, Geoff Childs, myself nor many others are in charge of these projects.  And, even if we were, in most instances, compromises that go against the grain of purist restoration woujld have to be made in order to gain membership support and financing.

We have to discern what is and what isn't possible, and sometimes, like in marriage, compromise is the prudent, but not the purist solution.
Unless you have a good pre-nup  

"Tom MacWood & TEPaul,
I think one of the only things that seperates your views is the reality of membership decisions."

Pat:

Fundamentally, that is it! I think what someone like me is doing and has done is benefically influencing what's inevitable. It seems Tom MacWood's point is that even restorations are too risky to some architecture. I don't believe that. I think the type of restorations I'm interested in doing and inspiring is actually far less risky to the future of classic architecture and its preservation. I believe that doing what some of us do in restoration projects actually preserves architecture from the things that inevitably will happen to it if we were not involved. And I believe ultimately that's preservationist. The alternative would be far worse, in my opinion. The point is if we were not actively involved with and within memberships a far worse alternative would be inevitable! It seems like the history and the evolution of classic golf architecture has proven that beyond any doubt.

I believe that the Tom MacWoods can remain above the fray but the degree to which clubs don't listen to them---which would be a very large degree, in my opinion, is the degree to which courses and great architecture would continue to get corrupted. That's where I think those such as us can definitely minimize corruption of classic architecture. It's never a perfect world but that doesn't mean you shouldn't stay actively involved to make it as good as possible.

Of course its a compromise to some extent. It's a little bit like a deal. You can sit there and say you won't budge on the price but if you do that and the deal never happens where does that leave you and a project? It leaves you with a potentially much worse alternative.

Tom MacWood,

Why should the inter-workings of the membership have anything to do with doucmenting great golf courses?
It doesn't[/color]

If you and TE prefer to concentrate or investigate the political structure and decision making logic of clubs like Hollywood, Sea Island,Seminole, Bethpage, Oyster Harbors, Engineers and Scioto, that's great. It should have no effect on my activites.

It's not a question of concentrating on, or investigating the political structure and decision making logic of clubs, it's the RECOGNITION of those influences, and the ABILITY to deal with them to achieve positive changes, including restoration attempts.[/color]

I will continue to respect those clubs and refrain from any persoanl attacks on their motives.

That's admirable, a worthwhile pursuit. [/color]

But I will also continue to bring out the quality of the original and historic works, and how some of these courses have been compromised.

That's also a noble endeavor, just exercise caution, as many changes at clubswere undertaken internally, and have no trail of documentation.[/color]

We are both interested is fact finding--mine has to do more with historic and architectural documentation; yours and TE's politics and club decision making.

That's a disengenuous statement and you know it.
In fact, it's blatantly dishones on your part[/color]

I am concerned that some of the political decisions are made without benefit of the historic and architectural information.

That's a valid concern, but many decisions are made WITH the full benefit of the historic and architectural information.

Just look at the right, greenside bunker at # 17 at GCGC and the pond on # 16 at GCGC.  Also look at the recommended  disfiguration of the golf course vis a vis the proposed seperate tee for holes # 6 and # 8, and the terrible failure to restore # 7, despite the ease of accomplishment, and awareness of the full knowledge of the history and architectural information.
[/color]

Tom -

The above green and red post has got me in the Christmas spirit big time.

Michael
That was my goal.

God bless us everyone!

"TE
Thats a good idea. I think may go to the next committee meeting at Augusta National, then on to Pine Valley, followed by Cypress Point, Hirono, Morfontaine and Cruden Bay."

Tom MacWood:

That's typical. I don't think you'll ever have the vaguest idea  what we're talking about. Frankly, PVGC, CPC, and probably a few of the others don't really need your help, they seem to be doing just fine. Why don't you start with Ohio State's Scarlett course? That's close to the Ivory Tower, isn't it?

Tom MacWood,

How do  you know what the original architecture was ?

How do you know that one year after a club opened, the superintendent didn't change a number of features ?
And continued doing so every year for 10 years prior to any aerial or ground level photos.

What do you know of the ORIGINAL Hollywood ?
Should Travis be deemed a disfigurer ?
Should the golf course be restored to its original configuration ?

And, how do YOU define the architectural high water mark ?

That's subjective, and your views may radically differ from those of others.

If you made a determination that 1932 was the architectural high water mark of a classic golf course designed and built in the late teen or early 20's, to which date would you seek to restore the golf course ?

I know that you like to avoid answering pointed questions, but, I'd appreciate honest answers to the above inquiries.
 
Thanks.

Tom MacWood,

I asked you first.

Tom MacWood,

For a fellow who is so intelligent you sure draw wild conclusions.

You can suspect anything that suits your need to draw erroneous conclusions, I have no problem with it.

Now, could you answer the questions I asked you ?

Thanks.