RTJ revival

« **Reply #25 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:28:55 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on March 18, 2006, 10:05:50 AM

TE

You appear to be confused.

You're just finding this out ? [/color]

Sometime ago I suggested that a panel of experts recognize landmark designs that should be preserved, protected and in some cases restored...

What constitutes a landmark design ?

How would these experts come into contact with clubs all across America ? Do they just show up uninvited ?
Do they make their decisions absent direct involvement with the club ? And then send the club a letter telling the club of their findings ?

The problem with your premise is that it's incredibly unrealistic and doesn't deal with or relate to the reality of how clubs are run and how golf courses are altered and disfigured.[/color]

I'm not in favor of convening a panel everytime Gulph Mills hires another architect.

Herein lies one of the principle problems.
When a club (current administration) brings in an architect it usually means that they want something done to the golf course. And, in that regard, they either have something in mind, or, don't know what they want, except that they want to "change" their golf course and are open to suggestions.

If a club has a "landmark" design as you put it, architectural amendments and/or alterations to it, and I don't include lengthening in that category, will result in a diminishment of the continuity of the original design, at the least, and, chances are, disfigurement.

Once the "do not touch" label is removed, each generation will attempt to alter the golf course so that it mirrors their beliefs in presentation. Once the "do not touch" label is removed, the "domino" effect begins.

In the northeast, an example might be the RTJ trend in the 50's and 60's, the Cornish presentation in the 70's and 80's, the Fazio presentation in the 90's and 00's.

When a decent golf course has gone through the above three "renovation" processes, what part of the original design integrity would you expect to remain ?

And, once one course in the area has "modernized" many surrounding clubs jump on the bandwagon, and the perpetual cycle begins.[/color]

Your blanket restoration policy is not a good idea IMO.

Tom, this represents a major departure from your past position.

I'm familiar with your "high water mark" theory, and while I have a problem with the process of who determines when, and how they make that determination, I always thought that you favored erring on the safe side by advocating restoration in its purer forms.

You know, statistically, what has happened to courses that have gone through alterations over the last 10-80 years.

You know the transient nature of fadish architecture, you know the whimsical desires of memberships and the influence of TV and resort and vacation community golf courses.

How on earth can you abandon what you appear to have fought for, for so long ?

What brought about this 180 degree reversal of opinion regarding restorations ?[/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:40:00 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 18, 2006, 11:23:47 AM

Furthermore I doubt you'd understand the benefits of restorations for the simple reason you really don't know most all these courses very well and you aren't going to know them either by the method you use of never seeing them and just reading about them in old magazines.

TE
Please spare us. I feel confident I have seen more courses designed by Ross, Alison, Thomas, Strong, MacKenzie, Travis, Fowler, Emmet, Raynor, Macdonald, Thompson, Langford, Park, RTJ and just about every other golden age architect than you, with the exception of Flynn and Tilly, and I've seen my share of those as well. From what I understand you just became interested in golf architecture a couple of years ago.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:54:59 AM »

Pat
I'm not sure where you've been, but I've been advocating preservation for a few years now....and critical of the Rossification of Ross and the redesign-in-the-name-of-restoration movement.

Landmark design: Fallingwater in architecture, Katsura in garden art, NGLA in golf architecture

Works that are recongized as outstanding examples of their art.

Architecture has recongized its landmark designs, LArch has done the same, its time for golf architecture.

« **Reply #28 on:** March 18, 2006, 12:09:25 PM »

Tom Paul,
Let me try to clarify, the course was designed at the turn of the century (1909), had revisions done over the next 40 years then was essentially completely redesigned by RTJ around 1960. In the early 1990's RTJ's firm came back in again and redid all the bunkers, etc (which they do not like at all). The club seems to have little interest in us restoring either the orginal design or the RTJ design from the 60's. Is that clearer?

« **Reply #29 on:** March 18, 2006, 12:55:02 PM »

Mark:

Sorry, I thought that course you mentioned was an original RTJ design. Forget what I said.

« **Reply #30 on:** March 18, 2006, 01:15:27 PM »

TE
Have you played Pinehurst #2, Pine Needles, Mid Pines, Canton Brookside, Oyster Harbors, Scioto, Inverness, Broadmoor, Oakland Hills, Franklin Hills, Congress Lake or Southern Pines?

Have you played Kirtland, Timber Point, Plum Hollow, Chevy Chase, Burning Tree, Westwood, Lost Nation or any course designed by Alison?

Have you played Riviera, Bel Air, LACC or Little Marion.

Have you played Engineers, Canterbury, Lake Forest and Winding Hollow? Or seen Inwood or any course designed by Strong?

Have you played Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, Sharp Park, Ohio State-Scarlet, Ohio State-Grey, Crystal Downs and Michigan?

Have you played Hollywood, Columbia, Lochmoor or Westchester?

Have played Eastward Ho! or LACC?

Have played or seen St. Georges (NY), Belmont Hills, Huntington (NY), Crispin (WV) or any course designed Emmet?

Have you played Chicago, Yale, Shoreacres or Camargo?

Have you played St. Louis, NGLA or Old White?

Have you played Cape Breton, Beechmont, Chagrin Valley, Sleepy Hollow (O) or any course designed by Thompson?

Have you played or seen Skokie, Culver Military, Maxinkuckee, Clovernook or any course designed by Langford?

Have you played Southern Hills, Prarie Dunes, Michigan or any course designed by Maxwell?

Have you played Sylvania, Ashland, Marion or Congress Lake?

Have played Bethpage-Black, SFGC, Lakewood or Winged Foot? Or seen Quaker Ridge or Fenway?

Have you played Spyglass, Firestone-N, Firestone-S, Dorado Beach E+W, Congressional or Oakland Hills?

Have you played The Country Club (O), Pepper Pike, Shinnecock, Kittansett or Cascades?

« **Reply #31 on:** March 18, 2006, 02:16:18 PM »

TE
That is just a sample. You can add Oakmont, Olympic, Maidstone, Pebble Beach, Fishers Island, Mayfield, Hyannisport, Plainfield, Century, GCGC, Forsgate, Shaker Hts, Pinehurst #3, Pinehurst #4 (NLE), Cherry Hills, Somerset Hills, Creek, California, Springfield, Monterey Peninsula, CC of Detroit, Detroit, Indianwood, Kenwood, NCR, Memorial Park, etc. I've been very fortunate, and I'm sure you've seen your fair share of courses as well.

I count five you've played off the previous list: Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, NGLA, Winged Foot and Shinnecock. More like 1/16th.

The point is not to bring your credentials into question (although I'm pretty certain you've never played a single course designed by Behr, Thompson, Langford, Alison, Strong or Maxwell) - I'm sure you've played more total courses than I have, hell you're twice my age and have a lot more free time - but only to show it is a canard that I only research great architecture.

Being exposed to interesting architecture lead to research which leads to seeking out more interesting architecture...it goes hand in hand.

« **Reply #32 on:** March 18, 2006, 02:34:50 PM »

TE
Yes. It was such a fiasco at GCGC that two members and the head pro asked me to have lunch with them after I'd walked the course.

I didn't have a jacket so we had to eat on the patio and besides it was a lovely September day. I believe I had chicken salad and a lemonaid. The pro kept going into the clubhouse to take old photos of the course off the wall to bring out to show me. It was a wonderful experience.

« **Reply #33 on:** March 18, 2006, 02:50:17 PM »

Yes, please do. I'd like to know what I did.

« **Reply #34 on:** March 18, 2006, 03:33:15 PM »

Tom MacWood,

I know Tom Paul does not need any intervention, but I thought I'd add a perspective or two.

I find it hard to believe that you've devolved this discussion into a pissing contest. Just like I'd say to Matt Ward or anybody else. It isn't the number of courses anyone has seen or played that matters at all. It matters what you know beforehand and how you study and apply what you know. The depth of study is as important, in fact I think more so, than the breadth of study. One's experiences, tournament play, routing exercises, design exercises, agronomic studies, playability studies, conferences, lectures, discussions with superintendents and architects, historical and archival research, walking and playing the course, seeing it under different circumstances, officiating, etc all are necessary considerations and not just the simple number of courses as if notches on a belt mean squat. Notches on a gun, well that's another matter. That probably meant in the old wild west that you're a pretty good shot. But courses seen? Hardly means anything at all in and of itself.

I am certain I've seen more Flynn courses and studied archival materials far more so than anyone alive. Does that mean if Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Geoff Shackelford and I walked a Flynn golf course that I would a priori be a better analyst than them? I don't think so.

By the way, how many courses in how many days did you see on your NY trip of a year or so ago? How much of each course did you study and or play? Does such an itinerary lead to a comprehensive understanding of those courses? Meaningful, probably but not authoritative necessarily.

« **Reply #35 on:** March 18, 2006, 03:53:05 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 18, 2006, 11:23:47 AM

I don't care how good anyone is with this stuff there is no way anyone can be really informed about the architecture of any golf course if all they ever do is keep their nose in old books and magazines and never even bother to actually look at a golf course in person like you.

Wayne
I would agree with you, and I have historically avoided these head to head who has done more 'heavylifting' exercises. But this is not the first time TE has made these kind of baseless characterisations and I'm getting f***ing tired of it.

« **Reply #36 on:** March 18, 2006, 06:12:41 PM »

Tom MacWood,

That's not exactly what happened at GCGC.

After I spoke to the pro, and made efforts on your behalf, tellling him of your desire to visit GCGC,he explained the rules and indicated that he would call you at the number you had given me [size=4x]IF[/size] a member was available to accomodate you since, I was unavailable that day.

You then took it upon yourself to show up at the pro shop, unannounced, without the benefit of the pro calling you to indicate that he had made the necessary arrangements.

You put me, the pro and the club in a difficult position.

Because I have a very good relationship with the pro he accomodated you graciously, but your brazen act of just showing up when you were told not to, was not welcomed, nor was it viewed in the glowing terms you present.

The staff and members were nice to you despite your blatant disregard of the club's rules and protocol. It also put me in an uncomfortable position that wasn't soon forgotten.
It was improper conduct to say the least.

I've been more than happy to try to accomodate all of the many requests I receive with respect to visiting GCGC, but, your unannounced and unauthorized visit has prevented others from visiting and walking around the golf course.

What you did was not proper by any stretch of one's imagination, nor was it appreciated by me.

What's done is done, but let's not gild the lilly.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 18, 2006, 06:25:25 PM »

Guys,
I mean no disrespect, but I have always felt when discussions get personal or only two or three of the same people are participating, take them offline.

« **Reply #38 on:** March 18, 2006, 07:08:31 PM »

Now back to reviving RTJ

« **Reply #39 on:** March 18, 2006, 07:22:39 PM »

Pat
Brazen is a little melodramatic. I introduced myself to the pro and explained to him that I had tried make arrangments to walk the course (thru you). I also told him if it would not be possible that day I completely understood and I could come back another time. I explained to him that I was leaving shortly but wanted to introduce myself before I left (walking or not walking) because I had done extensive research on GCGC, had written a report on the course's architectural evolution/history and wanted to share with him.

As far as I know introducing oneself is not a blatant disregard for the club's rules or protocol, but I could be wrong.

He was extemely interested in what I had uncovered and was not put out as far as I could tell. Illustrated by the fact I had very enjoyable lunch with him afterward.

If I was out of line I opologize. I was totally shocked when Tommy told me that I had created a serious problem for you at GCGC...when I thanked you afterward for making the arrangements you didn't mention it...so when I learned of the apparent problem you'll recall I sent you another note, explaining what had occured, the enjoyable time spent with the pro and opologized for any trouble I caused you.

« **Reply #40 on:** March 18, 2006, 07:30:21 PM »

TE
I've never critiqued a golf course I've never seen. Bringing to light that a restoration is not a restoration but a redesign is not a judgment of the quality of the redesigned course.

I have no opinion Aronomink today (or Gulph Mills for that matter). I had no opinion of Bethpage before I played it or Yale or Hollywood, what I had was information about the original design and how the restoration architect deviated from that original design.

« **Reply #41 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:42:32 PM »

Tom MacWood,

As I said, what's done is done, but, after you were told that the pro would contact you, you chose to show up, unannounced, prior to him doing so. The pro, being the gentleman that he is, chose to accomodate you on my behalf, but, they weren't happy with the unauthorized visit, especially after you were given explicit instructions to the contrary. It was a brazen thing to do.

Let's move on to discussions about architecture.

« **Reply #42 on:** March 19, 2006, 12:06:39 AM »

I find it amazing how two grown men can make each other look like children.

I may be new around here, but is this website not supposed to be about GCA?

Someone should delete this now-numb discussion.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 19, 2006, 07:36:24 AM »

PatG:

You're right, and I think I'll delete all my childish posts on this thread from yesterday. I'm not sure what got into me, other than I may've watched too many cartoons on Saturday morning.

« **Reply #44 on:** March 19, 2006, 08:59:06 AM »

What does everyone think about Reese Jones' redesign at Bellerive in St. Louis? From what I've heard it could be a dark horse for a US Open.

When I played there this past July, I couldn't help but think that someone needed to come in and soften the edges a little bit.

Any Comments?

« **Reply #45 on:** March 19, 2006, 09:55:03 AM »

"Any Comments?"

PatC:

For the moment, only that you need to learn to spell Rees right.

When Bobby Jr and Reese were little boys they were out back playing Pirates (they've always been unusually competitive with one another) and little Bobby jr took out his sword and just cut the third "e" clean off Reese and so he's been Rees ever since. I heard that Rees is particularly perturbed at Bobby jr right now though and he's been threatening to sew the third "e" back on his name, so maybe you can leave that typo and wait to see what happens.

« **Reply #46 on:** March 19, 2006, 10:42:58 AM »

Sorry for the typo...but maybe worse is that, instead of commenting on GCA, you decided to write a paragraph commenting on a dumb typo.

Funny, I actually came here for a good discussion on RTJ.

TE: How old are you?

« **Reply #47 on:** March 19, 2006, 12:45:13 PM »

PatC:

I'm 61.

And no, I don't have any comments on whether or not Bellerive is riper for a US Open because Reese Jones worked on it or if it's edges are sharp or soft of something in between. Nor do I really give a shit. But who knows, maybe someone else on here will care and comment.

« **Reply #48 on:** March 19, 2006, 08:03:33 PM »

TE:

From what I've seen on this discussion so far, at 61, you are either totally immature or have nothing else better to do than pick fights on a golf course discussion board.

After receiving the following response to a legit GCA topic of mine;

"And no, I don't have any comments on whether or not Bellerive is riper for a US Open because Reese Jones worked on it or if it's edges are sharp or soft of something in between. Nor do I really give a shit."

I have a suggestion, either post on valid subjects or don't post at all.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 19, 2006, 09:31:08 PM »

Tom — Whether restoring a RTJ, Sr. venue is the right choice, or not, is a matter of each project and its ownership.

I agree with Mark that Mr. Jones did a lot of work versue how many are consider "great" courses. Time will tell whether his work is considered worthy of restoration. I will guess that the "great" layouts will be preserved as much as reasonable.

At The Wigwam we agreed that there is a certain charm and legacy to be preserved. Mr. Jones (actually Jay Morrish) performed his work there in response to the Goodyear Co's anguish over the attention given Firestone Co. for their club.

I can tell you that there are a lot of golfers who are intrigued by a RTJ, Sr. course — at least they are intrigued when they hear his name. The Wigwam, for instance, uses this as a marketing point.

I agree that "restoration" should be carefully used. But, I also recognize that nearly every restoration involves change (e.g., a degree of "remodeling", "renovation", "rehabilitation", etc.) Change is mostly unavoidable whenever you dig into a golf course.

News:

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

wsmorrison

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

PCCraig

TEPaul

PCCraig

TEPaul

PCCraig

TEPaul

PCCraig

Forrest Richardson