In Defense of Baltusrol

« **Reply #25 on:** August 16, 2005, 11:11:29 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 15, 2005, 10:40:58 PM

Ridgewood had two Sahara bunkers...the 4th of the west nine and the third of the east.

Oh really ?
In what year were they removed from the golf course ?
[/color]

Rees' work on the HHA at Quaker Ridge borders on the criminal.

Have you played Quaker Ridge ?[/color]

Do you ever get tired of defending Rees?

Not when he's blamed for doing something he never did.

Again Tom, what year were the bunkers removed from # 4 west and # 3 east ?[/color]

Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?

Could you cite the transgression on # 4 west and # 3 east ?

Have you ever played those holes ?

Why do you blame Rees for the removal of bunkers on those holes ?

Try not to duck these questions as you usually do when you don't have your facts right.[/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM »

Pat
I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore (just like at QR and Baltusrol).

Yes I've played QR. Why? Have you? What do you make of his work there? Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?

You have consistantly defended among the worst offenders to classis golf architecture today...not once criticizing anything he has done. Disgraceful.

Why?

« **Reply #27 on:** August 17, 2005, 08:24:37 AM »

I believe the fact that both Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood are utilizing a new architect for ongoing consultation/restoration speaks volumes about the work done previously.

« **Reply #28 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM

Pat
I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore (just like at QR and Baltusrol).

You're a PHONY and a FRAUD.

There are NO HHA Bunkers at Ridgewood.

This is another example of you not having your facts correct, AND, the result of your never having played the golf course.

Like declaring that Seminole was flat and being dead wrong.

You've made another colossal mistake regarding the existance of HHA bunkers at Ridgewood.

Try playing a golf course or examining a site in person, in its entirety, before you put your foot in your mouth, again.
[/color]

Yes I've played QR. Why?

When, and did you play all 18 holes ?[/color]

Have you?

Yes, many times over the last 40 years.[/color]

What do you make of his work there?

It's exactly what the members wanted at the time.
They called him in.
They told him what they wanted.
He prepared plans for their approval.
They approved the plans.
He did as he was requested.[/color]

Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?

Oh, you mean like you did at OSU Scarlet ?

Where I may have some influence I try to make my position known and get involved, directly or indirectly.

I don't sit on the sidelines baying at the moon like you did at OSU Scarlet.[/color]

You have consistantly defended among the worst offenders to classis golf architecture today...not once criticizing anything he has done. Disgraceful.

Remind me again Tom, of your lack of effort to become involved at OSU Scarlet. Remind me again how successful you were in preventing the offenders of classic architecture from disfiguring that golf course and ignoring MacKenzie's Plans which were at their disposal.[/color]

Mike Cirba,

Hiring a new architect doesn't speak volumes, nor a single word with respect to the previous work done to Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood. When the previous work was done both clubs were very satisfied with it.

Why didn't you answer my challenge to you about your claim that Rees sanitized the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, when none exist. There are no HHA bunkers at Ridgewood.
So why would you bash Rees for the work you claim he performed on bunkers that don't exist ?

With respect to the question or issue you raised about the strategy of the new bunkers on the right side of # 18 at Baltusrol, why didn't you raise the same question about the new bunkers on the right side of # 9 at Pine Valley.

Both sets of bunkers prevent the golfer from bailing out to the right, especially at Baltusrol where water on the left side almost demands a wide right tee shot.

With # 18 a relatively short par 5, allowing golfers to bail right, into the rough, made the hole almost void of strategy, lacking and meaningful degree of risk-reward.

I'll bet that if Gil Hanse, Tom Doak or C&C had placed those bunkers you and others would be babbling about how they made a weak hole stronger.

« **Reply #29 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:14:40 PM »

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr. Macwood. I guess he finds it easier to comment on work thousands of miles away from his home and that he has never seen than get involved in a worthwhile local project that he may actually have knowledge of.

« **Reply #30 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:27:57 PM »

Pat
My...you're in an ugly mood today. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? May I suggest an extra helping of bran.

I'm surprised you were not more familar with Tilly's original architecture at Ridgewood....you would have probably recognized the remnants of the HHA's.

I've played QR once and written a report on the original architecture of the course.

Do Rees's features become less offensive on subsequent plays?

Did the members request ugly totally out-of-character bunkers...is that why they are in the process of removing his work?

Do those Rees bunkers at QR bear any resemblance to the original bunkering at QR or bear any resemblance to anything Tilly ever built?

I believe the root of your problem is twofold: a poor eye for detail and lack of historical background/information...this unfortunate combination is likely responsible for your unwavering support of everything Rees does. Very sad.

Thanks Tommy.

« **Reply #31 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:41:11 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 15, 2005, 11:29:25 AM

I guess I'd like to understand why many in this group love Oakmont, with wall to wall narrow fairways, deep rough, and oodles of penal fairway bunkers yet decry the same type of course at Baltusrol?

Lots to object to in this statement, but I can't comment on the Baltusrol side of it, as I have not played it and my knee surgery prevented me from walking it during the recent winter meeting.

But, with regard to Oakmont:

These features cited are nowhere near the only things Oakmont has to offer, and I'd argue that they don't even necessarily function as implied. The fairways did not appear overly narrow to me (can't judge by my playing, I struggled to hit fairways at Hidden Creek). The rough, while penal, is not as penal as rough on other courses I've played. It is not Augusta rough, obviously, but it does not turn the course into a hack-it-out course, as overly penal rough often does. It penalizes errant driving in a very fitting manner, IMHO. I will grant you the opint about oodles of penal fairway bunkers.

There is a tremendous amount going on with EVERY HOLE, outside of the supposed narrow fairways, heavy rough and penal bunkering. Front to back sloping greens that have to be seen to be believed. Side sloping greens that have to be seen to be believed. Fantastic topography - there is tons of land like this in western PA, and yet there is only one Oakmont.

Bill Coore told me he thought the greens at Oakmont were simply incredible, and speculated that they fit the course in a manner that no one else could have done.

If Baltusrol has a sister course in Oakmont, then it is deserving of a top 10 ranking. I was very impressed with what I saw at the PGA (makes me even sadder that I couldn't walk the course last year) and, from what I saw, Baltusrol deserves your defense, Mike. Just don't try to imply that the defining characteristics of Oakmont are narrow fairways, penal rough and penal fairway bunkers.

« **Reply #32 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:47:50 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 17, 2005, 01:27:57 PM

Pat
My...you're in an ugly mood today. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? May I suggest an extra helping of bran.

Whenever anyone points out the flaws in your position, or the lack of facts to support it, you try to divert attention away from the issue. But, that's just part of your inability to come to grips with being wrong.[/color]

I'm surprised you were not more familar with Tilly's original architecture at Ridgewood....you would have probably recognized the remnants of the HHA's.

Since you've never seen Ridgewood, or the holes and features in question, why don't you point them out to me ?

You also stated that the HHA bunkers weren't completely removed, could you show me exactly where some of them are ?

I also asked you when, in what year, the HHA bunkers were removed, yet, you've failed to answer that question.
For one who claims that they are experts at researching historical backround/information, this should be a snap for you.
Yet, you haven't responded, WHY ?
Don't you know ? Or, Do you not want to provide the answer because it will tarnish your position ?

Just tell us the year, or, don't you know the answer at the present time. Your lack of prompt response tells me that you, like Mike Cirba, got your facts wrong on the alleged HHA bunkering at Ridgewood, and are now scrambling to find out more about those features.

Instead of being quick to make an erroneous statement, do your research first, then, when you have the facts, make a statement.

There are NO Bunkers that weren't completely removed at Ridgewood.

You're WRONG again.[/color]

I've played QR once and written a report on the original architecture of the course.

WHEN did you play Quaker Ridge ?[/color]

Did the members request ugly totally out-of-character bunkers...is that why they are in the process of removing his work?

That's your view.
The members were quite satisfied with the work when it was completed, as they had approved it.[/color]

Do those Rees bunkers at QR bear any resemblance to the original bunkering at QR or bear any resemblance to anything Tilly ever built?

You keep missing the point.
The members, at the time of the project, didn't want the bunkers to look like the originals. When are you going to get that through that MacWooden head of yours ?[/color]

I believe the root of your problem is: a poor eye for detail and lack of historical background/information...

Well then, this situation will allow your sharp eye for detail to identify the HHA bunkers that you say weren't completely removed. Could you please show them to us to prove how sharp your eye for detail is, even from Ohio, all the way to a golf course you've never seen in New Jersey. [/color]

« **Reply #33 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:52:55 PM »

Patrick,

I only have a second right now (will get back on Ridgewood), but did want to point out two things.

1) I DID decry the additional bunkers on the right side of #9 at Pine Valley. They run against everything the course is designed to be.

2) Doak or C&C or Hanse would have refused to add bunkers on the right side of the fairway on 18 at Baltusrol.

3) How would six inch rough on the right not have provided adequate penalty to anyone bailing out over there? It worked for Nicklaus in the last round in 1967, didn't it?

« **Reply #34 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:03:11 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 17, 2005, 01:52:55 PM

Patrick,

I only have a second right now (will get back on Ridgewood), but did want to point out two things.

1) I DID decry the additional bunkers on the right side of #9 at Pine Valley. They run against everything the course is designed to be.

2) Doak or C&C or Hanse would have refused to add bunkers on the right side of the fairway on 18 at Baltusrol.
Oh Really.
Did Tom Doak refuse to alter the golf course at Atlantic City because of features that the owner wanted ?

You're in a dream world, distant from reality.

IM me and I'll enlighten you. [/color]

3) How would six inch rough on the right not have provided adequate penalty to anyone bailing out over there? It worked for Nicklaus in the last round in 1967, didn't it?

Are you sure that Nicklaus was in the rough on # 18 in 1967 ?

Rough means very little to today's players.[/color]

« **Reply #35 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:33:25 PM »

Patrick,

I know that Doak changed Atlantic City quite a bit from the original Flynn design. I haven't played it since then but plan to this winter. I'm also not sure that ACCC is in the realm of a Baltusrol in terms of great courses that should have a heightened degree of sensitivity around preservation.

In 1967, Jack drove into the right rough. Rather than risk dumping his ball into the creek from there, he basically chipped his ball about 50 yards into the fairway from where he hit his storied 1-iron.

He tells the story in one of his books and it was clear that the threat of the creek was a major consideration in his strategy.

« **Reply #36 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:43:31 PM »

Now we are arguing over whether a most favored architect (MFA) would put in one particular bunker on one particular course? Maybe we can get a list of what courses deserve a "heightened degree of sensitivity". We can then make sure the members get approval when they make changes.

« **Reply #37 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:24:26 PM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on August 17, 2005, 02:43:31 PM

Now we are arguing over whether a most favored architect (MFA) would put in one particular bunker on one particular course? Maybe we can get a list of what courses deserve a "heightened degree of sensitivity". We can then make sure the members get approval when they make changes.

Hamilton,

I know for a fact that Doak & C&C have walked away from "restorations" on certain classic courses once they ascertained that what was being proposed was anything but. That's their choice and certainly they have each done some work on other classic courses that I wouldn't call "restoration", either, so if that's an inconsistency I can live with that.

However, I don't believe they would have accepted the work at Baltusrol had they been asked so I think what Pat was asking was hypothetical to the point of being unrealistic.

« **Reply #38 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:51:25 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 17, 2005, 01:52:55 PM

3) How would six inch rough on the right not have provided adequate penalty to anyone bailing out over there? It worked for Nicklaus in the last round in 1967, didn't it?

Mike...FYI Nicklaus did not hit into the right rough in the fourth round. He hit a 3 wood short of the fairway, then duffed a short iron, from there hit the 1 iron. Janzen did hit it to the right in the 4th round of the '93 Open and then I believe hit short of the green but may have gotten on. Don't recall exactly.

« **Reply #39 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:51:37 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 17, 2005, 02:33:25 PM

Patrick,

I know that Doak changed Atlantic City quite a bit from the original Flynn design.

So you concede that he didn't walk away from altering this wonderful Flynn golf course, a golf course with a considerable history including a USGA event.

If he didn't walk away from that project, what makes you think he would have walked away from Baltusrol had they offered him the job at the same time ?

You're confusing reality and the facts with the fantasy of what you would like to believe.[/color]

I haven't played it since then but plan to this winter. I'm also not sure that ACCC is in the realm of a Baltusrol in terms of great courses that should have a heightened degree of sensitivity around preservation.

You must be kidding.

Tom MacWood, did you hear what Mike Cirba is saying ?

That only "SPECIAL" classic golf courses should be preserved.

Mike, who do you think should make that judgement ?[/color]

« **Reply #40 on:** August 17, 2005, 07:05:15 PM »

Quote from: Cliff Hamm on August 17, 2005, 03:51:25 PM

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 17, 2005, 01:52:55 PM

3) How would six inch rough on the right not have provided adequate penalty to anyone bailing out over there? It worked for Nicklaus in the last round in 1967, didn't it?

Mike...FYI Nicklaus did not hit into the right rough in the fourth round. He hit a 3 wood short of the fairway, then duffed a short iron, from there hit the 1 iron. Janzen did hit it to the right in the 4th round of the '93 Open and then I believe hit short of the green but may have gotten on. Don't recall exactly.

Here is what Jack says...

"I played a 1-iron off the tee and ended up in not a very good lie and hit a fat 8-iron trying to land it up short of the lake and left myself 287 yards and had a 1-iron."

The 287 to the pin is a mistake -- the correct number is around 238 I think.

« **Reply #41 on:** August 17, 2005, 08:15:38 PM »

Jim.. guess Jack would know better than me. I was a 17 year old kid at his first open. I remember Jack's tee shot hitting in or near tv cables short of the fairway. After I read your post I thought absolutely it was a 1 iron off the tee. Knew it wasn't a driver anyway and that it did not go right.

« **Reply #42 on:** August 18, 2005, 08:46:47 AM »

Cliff/Jim,

You may be right.

This discussion prompted me to go back to EBay and buy a copy of "The Greatest Game of All", a Jack Nicklaus book my dad got me back in 1971 that probably prompted my initial love for golf courses (I was astounded by the pic of the 18th at Muirfield, having never seen a links course prior). It was also the book where I read about Jack's play of the 18th at Baltusrol for the first time, as I was only 9 when that tournament took place.

I lent that book to a high school friend and never saw it again, unfortunately. It will be nice to have it back in my collection for sentimental reasons, as well.

« **Reply #43 on:** August 18, 2005, 08:58:09 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 17, 2005, 06:51:37 PM

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 17, 2005, 02:33:25 PM
Patrick,

I know that Doak changed Atlantic City quite a bit from the original Flynn design.

So you concede that he didn't walk away from altering this wonderful Flynn golf course, a golf course with a considerable history including a USGA event.

If he didn't walk away from that project, what makes you think he would have walked away from Baltusrol had they offered him the job at the same time ?

You're confusing reality and the facts with the fantasy of what you would like to believe.[/color]

I haven't played it since then but plan to this winter. I'm also not sure that ACCC is in the realm of a Baltusrol in terms of great courses that should have a heightened degree of sensitivity around preservation.

You must be kidding.

Tom MacWood, did you hear what Mike Cirba is saying ?

That only "SPECIAL" classic golf courses should be preserved.

Mike, who do you think should make that judgement ?[/color]

Patrick,

As should be clear from Wayne's and Tom Paul's research on the AC thread, it wasn't a Flynn course, but a John Reid, Willie Park, and WIlliam Flynn course, in pretty equal measures.

Still, I don't think that Tom MacWood has ever argued that EVERY course from that period should be forever preserved as is. I think he quite clearly stated that the best of that time period should be preserved as well as possible, and those clubs should know who they are.

I think the dichotomy comes when those clubs want to still remain viable for Major tournament golf. What do they do? I don't know.

I think a Tom Doak would have argued to Baltusrol that they shouldn't fundamentally change features of their course just to host the pros. I'm not sure there was anything much at AC that was pristine, or unique to the world of golf prior to Doak setting foot on the property.

« **Reply #44 on:** August 18, 2005, 09:57:27 AM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 18, 2005, 08:46:47 AM

Cliff/Jim,

You may be right.

This discussion prompted me to go back to EBay and buy a copy of "The Greatest Game of All", a Jack Nicklaus book my dad got me back in 1971 that probably prompted my initial love for golf courses (I was astounded by the pic of the 18th at Muirfield, having never seen a links course prior). It was also the book where I read about Jack's play of the 18th at Baltusrol for the first time, as I was only 9 when that tournament took place.

I lent that book to a high school friend and never saw it again, unfortunately. It will be nice to have it back in my collection for sentimental reasons, as well.

Mike, I owned that book, too, decades ago. Really enjoyed it. Watched the 67 Open on TV. Remember seeing Jack get in trouble off the 72nd tee -- short with a bad lie -- hit a poor second, then that towering 1-iron onto the green. A much better shot, IMO, than the 1-iron he hit at the 71st at Pebble several years later to wrap up another Open win.

« **Reply #45 on:** August 18, 2005, 10:18:47 AM »

Jim,

Yes, I remember being enthralled with the stories of tournaments on fabled courses (although I didn't know they were fabled at the time

).

Two pictures in particular that captivated me were both the finals holes at Oakmont and Muirfield, pictured from behind the greens looking out over the vast, open expanses of the holes, with pop-up shadowing indicating the back of each bunker.

I probably wore those pages thin like a kid discovering buried treasure. Obviously, I was a weird kid.

« **Reply #46 on:** August 18, 2005, 02:48:16 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on August 18, 2005, 08:58:09 AM

Patrick,

As should be clear from Wayne's and Tom Paul's research on the AC thread, it wasn't a Flynn course, but a John Reid, Willie Park, and WIlliam Flynn course, in pretty equal measures.

Nonsense, it was a good golf course when Doak was retained.
Does its mixed pedigree disqualify it from being preserved in its present form ? Is it any different than Gulph Mills ?[/color]

Still, I don't think that Tom MacWood has ever argued that EVERY course from that period should be forever preserved as is.

That's not how I interpreted his posts.[/color]

I think he quite clearly stated that the best of that time period should be preserved as well as possible, and those clubs should know who they are.

That would mean that a golf course could NEVER improve itself.

In addition, who should make that decision ?
Who should pick the "high water mark" ?[/color]

I think the dichotomy comes when those clubs want to still remain viable for Major tournament golf.

Do you mean Pine Valley, Pebble Beach, Riviera, Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2, TOC or Shinnecock, or are you just citing Baltusrol ?

What do they do? I don't know.

They've chosen their path, some just don't like it.

I think a Tom Doak would have argued to Baltusrol that they shouldn't fundamentally change features of their course just to host the pros.

That's conjecture on your part, wishful thinking.
He might have discussed or debated the issue. He had philosophical disagreements with Arthure Goldberg, but, as I've said before, if you take the King's Schilling you do the King's bidding. That's the reality of life.[/color]

I'm not sure there was anything much at AC that was pristine, or unique to the world of golf prior to Doak setting foot on the property.

What was pristine or unique to the world of golf at Baltusrol when Rees first set foot on the property ?

And, is that the test for determining alterations ?

Pristine ? Even if it's bad architecture ?

How do you reconcile the early work done at Gulph Mills, the alteration of a Ross golf course ?

It seems that you've created a convenient double standard for yourself and architects who do and don't enjoy most favored nation status.[/color]

« **Reply #47 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:01:52 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM

I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed,[/color]
Tom MacWood,

I'm awaiting your reply.

Where are the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood that were never completely removed ?

Could you point them out to us ?

Or, did you make another colossal mistake by not getting your FACTS right ...... again.

What's taking you so long to respond ?

Are you having difficulty backing up your absurd statement that the bunkers weren't completely removed ?[/color]

their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore[/color]

Good, then could you point them out to us ?

Where exactly are the identifiable remnants ?

What's taking you so long to point them out ?

If they're there, they should be easy to identify.
Or, did you make another colossal mistake.

Did you fail to do your research and get the facts ?

You're a phony and a fraud.

And, your remaining credibility continues to erode.[/color]

« **Reply #48 on:** August 18, 2005, 06:24:18 PM »

Why was Don Hedrich's post removed ?

And, who removed it ?

« **Reply #49 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:00:22 AM »

Patrick,

I was in error about the HHA features at Ridgewood. They were already turned to grassed over mounding and swales before Rees Jones did his work there and I'm guessing the club doesn't want to restore them, although I'm not sure why because they were pretty cool. I'm not sure what is in the long term master plan that Gil Hanse is doing with the club.

I stand by my comments about the ones at Quaker Ridge and Baltusrol.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

HamiltonBHearst

T_MacWood

George Pazin

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

HamiltonBHearst

Mike_Cirba

Cliff Hamm

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Nugent

Cliff Hamm

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

Jim Nugent

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba