Engineers CC

« **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:07:01 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on July 03, 2006, 06:58:27 PM

Geoffrey Childs, Jason Blasberg and Michael Whitaker:

Excellent posts and responses on this thread. It's about time the interested and thoughtful contributors on here take to task those who constantly crow about architectural purity for purity's sake, and do nothing much more----and when questioned about the effects of some really good restoration projects contribute little else other than to continue to crow about architectural purity for purity's sake. If one actually continued to listen to some of these people seriously, one might begin to think some of these classic golf courses are nothing more than historic building architecture.

Tom

Maybe you can come up this way and stay at "The Fun House" nearby (and invite me

) and play and see Engineers. I think you will get a kick out of seeing it again and I'd be curious to see where you think any work to the greens was obvious relative to your old recollections.

« **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:19:36 PM »

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on July 03, 2006, 06:34:30 PM

Mike:

Here are the changes that I'm aware of.

1) removed entire stand of trees down left side between 1 and 18, reshaped fairway bunkering and added fescue grasses. Where are the reshaped fairway bunkers? Was Strong's greenside bunkering restored.

I believe the green mowing patterns were enlarged to recapture the original green size.

2) removed trees down left side of hole, reshaped fairway bunkers and added fescue grasses. Are you certain there were existing fairway bunkers to reshape? Aren't those new fairway bunkers? Was the crazy half moon bunker restored?

3) reshaped greenside bunkering and removed some trees ( the par 3 third is the only hole that is not Strong's and I'm not sure when it was added but 4 (the old number 3) was lengthened to a par 5, the current 3rd hole filled the gap from 2 green to the new 4 tee. This is when, I believe, the "2 or 20" was taken out of regular play. I think that change was made some time in the 1960s...Duane?

4) removed large tree down right side of fairway just before the dogleg (right) thereby opening up the fairway width instead of the hole essentially only having the left of the fairway to play from. No new bunkers on this hole?

5) lots of trees removed down both sides of the fairways, and fairway bunkers down right side just short of ridge in fairway were added, and, in addition the bunker down left side of fairway at the top of the ridge was added.

6) major tree removal down left side of fairway and around the green site. The green was extended to the right and recontoured adding 4 additional pin placements. The green side bunker to the right is new I believe.

7) I believe the changes are to the bunkers and trees were removed down the right side. I hope they removed the hideous fairway bunkers...that would be a huge improvement.

8 tree removal down both sides of the fairway and the front left corner of the green was raised a couple of feet. Did they change the greenside bunkers...restore Strong's greenside bunkers?

9) bunkers were reshaped in spots and trees removed. Was Strong's huge fescue infested bunker reeatablished between #9 and #12?

10) lots of tree removal down the left side (inside of dogleg) and the bunkers were added, tempting the big hitter to challenge them for the possibility to reach the green in two.
Not sure what else was done. Strong had a sandy waste area and trees protecting the corner....has that been resturned?

11) I think some tree removal to the left of the green site.

12) big imposing tree with overhanging limbs that was about 50 yards off the tee to the right was removed, this really opened up the original playing angles off the tee. See #9.

13) bunkers down the left side were reshaped, fescue grasses added and large stand of trees behind 13 green were removed to reveal the severe dropp off behind green.

14) trees removed behind 13 green and left side of 14 fairway revealed the chasm that the tee shot is played over and the ridge that must be reached off the tee. The offset fairway orientation from front right to back left is again a prominant feature off the tee and 14 remains the most difficult fairway to hit on the course (for me and most mortals). I believe the back tee location is also recent. some fairway bunkering down the left side may have been reshaped and/or added.

14a ("2 or 20") the greenside bunkers were cleaned up and trees and/or brush removed to reveal more of the greensite from the tee. a new teeing area was added to the back and right, extending the hole from abot 96 yards to 125 or so. The prominent tree in the photo in Ran's review behind the green was removed, restoring the feeling that the end of the earth lies beyond the back of the green. What was wrong with the bunkers there before?

15) not sure what was done other than tree removal.

16) tee was raised a few feet and fairway bunkers were added down the right side of hole, although they remain blind off the tee. Trees removed down left of fairway. Where are the new fairway bunkers? Does the string of pearls still exist?

Green was flatened slightly to recapture original green size with playable pin placements on the right side of green. Some bunkers were restored that were in front and left of the green site.

I would not call those bunkers a restoration, they don't look anything like the originals IMO.

17) back right side of green was lowered and collection area long of green created (green really feels like it slopes away from the fairway now). What about the greenside bunkers?

18) tree removal and bunker restoration, not sure what else was done. What bunkers were restored?

Jason

It sounds like the removal of trees and the expansion of the fairways is a huge improvement. I'm a little concerned about the introduction of so many new bunkers where none existed. I'm not crazy about restoration architects leaving their calling cards here and there and everywhere on historically important designs.

Geoffrey
Do you think these new bunkers capture the essence of Strong's style?

« **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:29:35 PM »

Tom Mac

I don't know is my honest answer.

Have you ever seen or played a bunker that captured the "essence of Strong's style" to really know what that might be?

At least with MacDonald/Raynor, we have NGLA, FIshers Island, Chicago GC where the original style is alive and well to study.

Where can you do that for Strong?

« **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:40:12 PM »

TE
I was under the impression you were attempting to establish a data base of historic material for clubs and architects to utilize when restoring their golf courses. But here you applaud a case where the data was ignored in favor of redesign. You might want to contemplate the inconsistancy of your position.

Engineers is a good study of a restoration that morphs into a redesign...not that I object to everything done at Engineers, it sounds like opening up the corridors and exposing the dramatic ground movement is a wonderful improvement. Unfortunately there are some other changes that appear to ignore the original historic design...I'm affraid your restoration movement is becoming a redesign movement, not much need for an architectural data base if redesign is your inclination.

« **Reply #29 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:49:34 PM »

Geoffrey
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of original Strong bunkers around. Inwood has a few, as does Canterbury, but too few. Gil Hanse did good job of restoring the bunkers at the 2 or 20 hole and the string of pearls at #16.

The best place to find the essence of any old architects work is in historic photos and there are plenty of old photos of Engineers, Inwood, Canterbury, Saucon Valley, etc.

Of all the old time architects Macdonald and Raynor's bunkers survive the best, probably because they were built like a battleship, but even those (as you know) can be screwed up on occasion.

« **Reply #30 on:** July 03, 2006, 08:03:17 PM »

Tom

I think we agree that photos are invaluable tools.

Honestly, I did not know that Gil did the bunkers on the 2 or 20. I also did not see that they were at all out of context with or different from all the other bunkers on the course. Maybe my eye is not so astute but I did my best to take those features into account while also playing the course and enjoying the company of the entire group (including caddie Bobby pointing out differences he observed over the years).

I've said this in a couple of posts recently but I'll repeat. I've come to see that restoration is much more then bunkers. The playing corridors (mowing patterns, trees) and greens expansions are equally or more important in my current opinion. I can't say I will always approve of changes to greens to soften contours but in my opinion they were thoughtfully done at Engineers and the current greens can support multiple pin locations and reasonable (10 or so) stimp readings to all of them.

An aside- I LOVE Myopia Hunt Club but I do not at all love a large majority of their greens which are highly pitched disks with one (if you are lucky) pin location. As they played when I was lucky enough to be invited so many of them were unidimentional and goofy it took away from the enjoyment. Should they do something about that? I don't know and I'm glad that I don't have to make that decision.

« **Reply #31 on:** July 03, 2006, 08:53:32 PM »

Geoffrey
From what I understand Davis re-did Hanse's bunkers at the 2 or 20 hole. From the few recent photos I've seen of Engineers the bunkers are generally in character with one another, but not necessarily with the original design and Strong.

I knew Myopia's greens were simple in shape and pitched (from Ran's lost review) - but I haven't played the course. From what I understand those greens have always presented a big challenge - part of the overall scheme of things at Myopia. You start messing with the greens, then something else might need a little work, maybe some bunkers need repositioned, and then something else, where do you stop? I think preservation is the best policy for courses of Myopia's ilk.

« **Reply #32 on:** July 03, 2006, 08:58:49 PM »

TE
What good is a data base of historic information if you support and applaud the redesign of one of the most historically significant designs of one of the most important architects in golf history?

« **Reply #33 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:02:09 PM »

I also believe that preservation is the best policy provided preservation is the policy that works best for the golf course and the fun, interest, enjoyment and challenge the golf course provides the golfers who play the golf course. If the latter is not satisfied or fulfilled, or is not the goal, then what is the purpose of the golf course in the final analysis?

« **Reply #34 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:07:58 PM »

TE
I gave you a number of suggestions regarding your initiative...if you recall I said plans were well and good, but I thought photos would be more important including historic aerial photos. I have no original material to donate because I have none.

« **Reply #35 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:14:14 PM »

"TE
What good is a data base of historic information if you support and applaud the redesign of one of the most historically significant designs of one of the most important architects in golf history?"

Tom MacWood:

A data base of historic information, in my opinion, is the ultimate baseline resource that provides us today with as complete an understanding of the exact facts and evolution of golf course architecture as we can have.

Against that baseline of historic information there are always a fairly good number of questions followed by decisions that must be made at any time in these restoration projects. Preservation and/or restoration of classic architecture is a noble goal, but all of it takes a second seat to a higher goal in architecture. The problem with people such as yourself is you seem completely intimidated by even the contemplation of the highest goal golf course architecture could ever serve. Ironically, that is the very same goal all the best golf architects in history strove for.

« **Reply #36 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:30:43 PM »

"TE
I gave you a number of suggestions regarding your initiative...if you recall I said plans were well and good, but I thought photos would be more important including historic aerial photos. I have no original material to donate because I have none."

Tom:

I guess I should thank you for your suggestions regarding this initiative but statements such as that are like kindergarten to me. This initiative can be, and I'm fairly confident will be someday, of huge proportion and scope that goes so far past a suggestion like that (which is so obvious anyway) as to be laughable.

Try to open your mind some and use your imagination instead of presiding over this little one dimensional world of exact purity despite all else. Golf architecture and of course golf itself you might find is much bigger and much less limited and limiting than just that.

We have been through one early era of real redesign of many classic courses and then we went through another era of redesiign that was even more destructive of much classic architecture.

During those two waves, the thought or practice of "restoration" not only did not exist but the word itself did not even exist in the world of golf architecture.

I just find it so ironic that after that and in the midst of a wave of restoration that is so helpful compared to what preceded it that you are so resistant to it.

« **Reply #37 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on July 03, 2006, 08:53:32 PM

Geoffrey
From what I understand Davis re-did Hanse's bunkers at the 2 or 20 hole. From the few recent photos I've seen of Engineers the bunkers are generally in character with one another, but not necessarily with the original design and Strong.

Tom: what information forms your understanding? I'm not sure Tripp touched the bunkers on 2 or 20, but I think they cleaned out a lot of over grown undergrowth.

How could you possibly tell by looking at photos what bunkers are or aren't? You cannot comprehend the depth, severity of face slope, probability of recovery with a well played shot . . . it simply astounds me how you presumptously opine on what is or isin't some long dead archie's intent.

It's either getting comical or you've got one hell of a time machine.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:03:43 PM »

TE
There have been a lot of architects making changes over the years and no doubt they all thought they were improving the golf course in question.

Why did Engineers, Yale, Canton Brookside, St. Georges, Lawsonia and Pasatiempo need to be restored...to reverse the changes made in the name of "fun, interest, enjoyment and challenge." And why do courses like Bel Air, Quaker Ridge, Banff Springs, Ponte Vedra, Dornick Hills, Hirono and dare I say ANGC need restoration...to reverse the well meant changes made in the name of "fun, interest, enjoyment and challenge."

Older courses can be improved and not every old course is in the stratosphere of Bel Air, Engineers, Yale or Myopia. And even those landmarks can be improved subtly, but one hopes they put in the leg work to research and study the architectural history of the golf course and the golf course architect in question. Anything above subtle improvement of courses of this stature is a big mistake IMO.

The reason I've been resistant to restoration as a general rule is because of the Engineers example, we are sold restoration and given renovation. From the Rossification of many Ross's courses to Fazio and Rees (and Rulewich) leaving their calling cards on some of our most precious designs we are in period where redesign is legitimized and repackaged as sensative restoration.

Again, what good is a baseline of historic information if you support and applaud the redesign of one of the most historically significant designs of one of the most important architects in golf history?

« **Reply #39 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:15:58 PM »

Jason
Tripp's website (which seems to be currently under reconstruction..ironically) highlighted his work at the 2 or 20 hole...either he remodeled Hanse's bunkers or he is taking credit for cleaning up Hanse's restoration work. That website also had photos of other new and improved bunkers, easy enough to compare those photos to what I saw on the gound and the old photos of the original work. Why do you think restoration architects try to get their hands on old photos (sometimes above plans) when trying to re-create a lost feature? If you think that is comical no wonder you support redesign.

« **Reply #40 on:** July 04, 2006, 02:32:39 AM »

Knowing the course very well, Tripp's work on the old 14th involved tree and brush clearance, green size restoration, and maybe restoring a few bunker bottoms ( no new bunker excavations, ect.). There is now a skyline look to the green that had not previously existed. By the way, both the 6th and 8th greens were changed ages ago. I was shown where parts of the old 6th were today. It was a punchbowl in the front area. Unfortunately, whatever work had been done ages ago would have made it very difficult to competently restore. Fortunately, the new green is awesome in contouring and is a real plus to the current course. And what is wrong with the new fairway bunkers? The pictures that Tommy posted should indicate how well the bunkers work to the benefit of Engineers!

« **Reply #41 on:** July 04, 2006, 07:54:47 AM »

Tom MacWood:

Of course there were redesign waves in the past. I'd say there were two major waves of redesign---before WW2 and by some of the greatest architects in history---ex Colt, Alison, Park, MacKenzie, Ross, Maxwell, Flynn et al, and after WW2.

Do you think those architects and the clubs involved were trying to destroy those golf courses? Of course not. Back then those now august architects were trying to improve those golf courses. Did they ever attempt to stay in tune or in type or style with the original architect? Not a single time that I can see. Was restoration a word or even a concept back then? Of course not.

After WW2 there was another dedicated wave of redesign. Were those architects and clubs trying to destroy those golf courses? Of course not. They were doing what they felt was "improvement", sometimes called "modernization".

Was the concept or even the word restoration heard of during that time? Not at all, and there was not a single instance of it anywhere.

Beginning perhaps in the 1990s the concept of restoration came about and gradually gained popularity. Was it ever redesign passing under the name or label of restoration? Of course.

But during this time were there restoration projects that used old plans, old original drawings, old photos and aerials and other supporting material to restore a great deal about many of those courses back to the way they originally were? Of course. Is that a good thing? Of course it is.

That is the endeavor I support now. Is it always and exact restoration or replication in every detail of what once was? Of course not. Should it be?

That is the question that architectural archiving can best answer. That is what a baseline of architectural research and information can best answer for the architects and the clubs involved. Every restoration architect I know of needs to weigh a number of the realities of today's game against the realities of the game in the 20s and 30s, 40s, 50s etc. That architectural archiving and architectural research can best answer the difficult questions involved in those comparisons that lead to all kinds of decision making.

If you think that restoring all great courses to precisely what once was, particularly in a general spatial sense then you simply fail to recognize the realities of architecture, and the game of golf itself.

Has an Engineers, for instance, been made a better golf course for those who use it and play it than it ever was? That is the question. Apparently some, perhaps many, of those that know it and use it think so. Apparently you don't. Who's opinion, in the end, is more important, more relevent---eg yours or those who use and play the golf course?

Did Tripp Davis consult all available architectural information, including original architectural information available to him in this latest project? He says he did. Did he precisely restore or replicate every single thing Strong originally did? Perhaps not. Was there good reason not to precisely restore or replicate everything that was originally Strong in an attempt to make the golf course as good as it can be? Apparently so, and Tripp Davis's detailed explanations are contained in those past threads that are hyperlinked onto this thread. Obviously you disagree with his thinking and the club's thinking. But whose opinion is more relevent---yours who hardly knows Engineers or theirs? Who's right? That, as well, will always be just a matter of opinion, and there obviously is not going to be a consensus on that.

But my concern with you and your position is that you very likely are just not in a position to make those kinds of judgements because you simply don't know or understand a course like that as well as those who have to do with it everyday.

The same is true of a course such as Aronimink. Despite your protestations to the contrary you are simply not in a position to understand many of these things. Again, I don't care who you are, you simply don't have the credibility to make some of the statements you do and the opinions you have if you've never even laid eyes on a golf course---as you haven't in the case of Aronimink.

You seem to think that since you are interested in original architectural research information that your opinions on these things just must be right. In some ways that may be so but in others it's extremely debatable.

On the other hand, if you were as familiar with these courses and how original architectural information plays into them and their projects as their architects and memberships are it would perhaps be a different matter. But the fact remains you are not, and so, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinions of those on here who know and understand these courses better than you do, your credibility in many of these matters suffers---as I, for one, believe it should.

« **Reply #42 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:05:58 AM »

The Engineers CC website states: In 1921, Engineers Golf Course was remodeled by Devereux Emmet. Emmet had also designed courses for Cherry Valley, Garden City, Glen Head, Salisbury, Seawane, Meadowbrook and others. Engineers was listed in Frank Menckeís Encyclopedia of Sports as one of the best courses in the U.S.A.

This remodel was less than three years after the course opened! THREE YEARS!!! Why did they feel the course needed remodeling? What was the problem? And, why didn't they bring in Strong to make the changes? What were Emmet's changes?

The website also states that "critics" of the day had mixed feelings about Engineers when it opened: Some thought Engineers to be the finest course in the country. Others felt it was no more than a "bag of tricks" (as quoted from publications of that era).

Was that the motivation for the remodel? Is that why they didn't choose Strong?

« **Reply #43 on:** July 04, 2006, 02:29:57 PM »

Robert
I thought the previous bunkers at the old 14th were closer to the original...I'm not crazy about the new lines of the bunkers. That is a minor concern. Removing the big tree behind was a good move.

I knew the 8th was changed slightly by Emmet...he added an extension to a green that was already huge - 60 yards x 30 yards. And then it was changed again…probably more than once. It doesn't appear there was any attempt to recapture the original shape and dimension of the green or to restore Strong’s greenside bunkering.

I didn’t know about the 6th, but it doesn’t surprise me…that’s too bad…when was it changed?

From what I’ve seen of the new fairway bunkers on Tripp’s site they are not unattractive…a kind of cross between Morrish/Weiskopf & Tillinghast with fescue a la Shinnecock as added flavor. They have been described - by the green committee chairman I believe - as ‘Little Shinnies’. The problem is they bear no resemblance to Strong and the original bunkering at Engineers. I think the large greenside at 16 is particularly out of character.

TE
“Has an Engineers, for instance, been made a better golf course for those who use it and play it than it ever was?” No, not in my opinion. It was considered by many to be one of the finest - if not the finest - course in the country in the late teens and early 20s. It was never a long course and no doubt modern equipment has prevented it from being a legitimate modern championship test, but if restored properly it could easily have held its head up with other well respected sporty courses like Somerset Hills, Fishers Island and Crystal Downs – one of the top 50 or so courses in the world.

“Did Tripp Davis consult all available architectural information, including original architectural information available to him in this latest project?” I don’t know. Do you see any evidence that he used historical information when making his changes? I don’t.

Again, what good is a data base of historic information if the person pushing for the data base supports and applauds the redesign of one of the most historically significant designs of one of the most important architects in golf history?

Michael
Emmet added an extension to the current 8th green, put French Drains in at the 16th and 18th greens, and raised the rear bunker at the 14th which used to be at the bottom of the hill….nothing earth shattering.

I don’t know the reason why Strong did not do the work…he’d left the club right before that - moving over to Mountain Ridge – that may have had something to do with it.

If you can’t come up with comment or comments I made to Tripp that embarrassed you, would you please remove that line from your original post? That’s very bad form on your part.

« **Reply #44 on:** July 04, 2006, 02:44:38 PM »

Tom:

I answer your question and then per usual you simply ask the same question all over again, tjme after time---so what's the point of trying to discuss anything?

Engineers is a good course, an unusual course and Strong was a good architect but in my opinion, you are probably going a bit more than just a little overboard on both.

What Trip Davis consulted in architectural research is probably explained by him in those threads, just the way the research used at Aronimink was explained to you over and over and over again to little to no effect as it seemed to continuously go in one ear and right out the other. Don't bother asking all over again---I'd say the fourteenth time should have been the charm.

But more to the overall point, it seems to me I have just seen so many clubs in the last five or so years that have been so improved in so many architectural aspects and most certainly in the necessary playabilities (particular firm and fast and green expansions) that I have to think the relatively recent restoration wave and its growing popularity should not be considered anything other than a good thing for classic architecture and potentially a wonderful thing in comparison to the state so many of these courses (including my own) was in as little as a decade ago. If the restoration wave continues on without your help or your support I can only think that's your problem and your lose.

« **Reply #45 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:00:43 PM »

Michael:

The use of other architects almost all the way back to the beginning of architecture in America, even fairly shortly after a course opened, was just not an unusual thing in those days. It was actually pretty much SOP in the architectural profession and amongst clubs back then. And I have yet to see a single instance of those architects back then, many of them considered by us to be the great ones, do anything other than redesign the courses of original architects. Engineers probably had no problem at all with Strong.

« **Reply #46 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:26:07 PM »

TE
You avoided the answer beautifully....there is no reasonable explanation for your contradictory position.

And the reason you can't answer the question regarding whether Tripp Davis used historical information (or not) is because you wouldn't know what is historically accurate at Engineers (or not) becasue you have no knowledge of the course or of Herbert Strong.

Because of that it is probably not a good idea for you to promote a project that appears to have ignored historical information when you are trying to establish a data base for clubs and architects to gain access and use historical information.

I think if you did a little digging (old magazines and books) you would find that Engineers was considered among the best courses in the country, and one of the most unique designs as well....there have been very few courses who have hosted two majors in the first four years of existance.

Grantland Rice: "No young course in the history of golf, let it go back four hundred years, has come in for so much discussion and comment or has at such an early period been awarded two big championships as the golfing rendezvous of the Engineers upon Long Island's north shore....Opinions regarding the Engineers golfing domain have been widely varied. There are those who think it the finest course in the country. There are others who look upon it as a bag of tricks and who finish a round muttering strange things. In any event it is something different in golf and since variety remains the spice of life with no able substitute, the fact that the course has attracted so much interest is not be overlooked."

Regarding Strong, he was one of the best, creativity and boldness being two attibutes that separated him from many of his contemporaries. He was known to push the envelope.

« **Reply #47 on:** July 04, 2006, 09:45:33 PM »

"Regarding Strong, he was one of the best, creativity and boldness being two attibutes that separated him from many of his contemporaries. He was known to push the envelope."

Tom:

I really don't know that much about Herbert Strong, or the details of his architecture, other than the fact that it most certainly was bold, as you say, and undeniably a style that "pushed the envelop". Instincitively, I like that kind of thing even if I sometimes have perhaps problems with it aesthetically (in a naturalistic sense, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't).

"And the reason you can't answer the question regarding whether Tripp Davis used historical information (or not) is because you wouldn't know what is historically accurate at Engineers (or not) becasue you have no knowledge of the course or of Herbert Strong."

Again, I don't know that much about Herbert Strong or the Engineers course even if I grew up and spent about the first twenty years of my life within about five miles of it. As to whether Tripp Davis used historical information in his project at Engineers, I really can't say, although I thought his answers to these kinds of questions on here were pretty good and very reasonable and realistic as it related to historic information on Strong and Engineers.

"TE
You avoided the answer beautifully....there is no reasonable explanation for your contradictory position."

I have no idea what you mean by that. Contradictory, how so? Do you mean I avoided my own answer somehow

or I avoided your question which you have asked about 20 times despite the fact that I've answered it as many times?

"Because of that it is probably not a good idea for you to promote a project that appears to have ignored historical information when you are trying to establish a data base for clubs and architects to gain access and use historical information."

I can't see that I've promoted the project at Engineers and the reason I haven't is I don't know much about it.

"I think if you did a little digging (old magazines and books) you would find that Engineers was considered among the best courses in the country, and one of the most unique designs as well....there have been very few courses who have hosted two majors in the first four years of existance."

The quality of Engineers and how exactly it ever stacked up in the best of American architecture is obviously one of personal opinion. I am not contesting anyone's opinon on Engineers and haven't on here.

Grantland Rice: "No young course in the history of golf, let it go back four hundred years, has come in for so much discussion and comment or has at such an early period been awarded two big championships as the golfing rendezvous of the Engineers upon Long Island's north shore....Opinions regarding the Engineers golfing domain have been widely varied. There are those who think it the finest course in the country. There are others who look upon it as a bag of tricks and who finish a round muttering strange things. In any event it is something different in golf and since variety remains the spice of life with no able substitute, the fact that the course has attracted so much interest is not be overlooked."

I think Rice's remarks speak for themselves. The course was obviously controversial---some had tremendous respect for it others didn't. Frankly, I admire that type of controversy in golf architecture---it was a concept and a philosophy that was well presented and well phrased by Alister MacKenzie.

As for your constant statements and implications of what I should read, what I should study and the fact that my philosophy about architectural restoration is nothing but a redesign philosophy, as well as fact that my interest in architectural archiving is baseless or useless, all I can tell you is that those things are in no way true as most everyone knows and your constant harping on those things is clearly eroding your credibility and usefulness on here and with classic architecture and architecture generally.

To the extent you stand in the way of and needlessly criticize good restoration is the only extent I will continue to argue with you and oppose you.

« **Reply #48 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:09:12 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on July 04, 2006, 09:45:33 PM

As for your constant statements and implications of what I should read, what I should study and the fact that my philosophy about architectural restoration is nothing but a redesign philosophy, as well as fact that my interest in architectural archiving is baseless or useless, all I can tell you is that those things are in no way true as most everyone knows and your constant harping on those things is clearly eroding your credibility and usefulness on here and with classic architecture and architecture generally.

To the extent you stand in the way of and needlessly criticize good restoration is the only extent I will continue to argue with you and oppose you.

TE
You need to review what I've said. I have been critical of your defense of redesigns in the name of restoration...like Engineers. I have been critical of your promotion of whole sale restorations because too many restorations are in truth redesigns...see the unrestrained Rossification of Donald Ross courses. I have never said your interest in architectural archiving is useless, just the opposite...I have said that defending projects that completely ignore or reject the data that you are attempting to make available is not helpful to your cause.

I wonder if some of your contradictory positions are a result of an irrational desire to oppose anything I say or write.

« **Reply #49 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:19:39 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on July 04, 2006, 02:29:57 PM

TE
“Has an Engineers, for instance, been made a better golf course for those who use it and play it than it ever was?” No, not in my opinion. It was considered by many to be one of the finest - if not the finest - course in the country in the late teens and early 20s. It was never a long course and no doubt modern equipment has prevented it from being a legitimate modern championship test, but if restored properly it could easily have held its head up with other well respected sporty courses like Somerset Hills, Fishers Island and Crystal Downs – one of the top 50 or so courses in the world.

Tom MW:

When was the last time you played the course and how many times had you played it before that and on or about what dates?

Also, what is your handicap index?

I cannot believe you could've played the course before and after the work Tripp did and not think it has become a better course, both for the low and high handicappers.

I first played Engineers 13 years ago and loved it immediately, although it was very cramped in places. #8 remains the only hole anywhere that I've putted off a green and into a bunker.

I played it about 3 other times including one time about 3 years ago. Then I went back this year and it was like a new experience. The course was there but better, literally, like someone just pulled the robe off of a naked runway model. "Man I knew she was hot but I had no idea . . ."

Seriously, I drove a cart around the course for over two hours and walked the greens, stood behind tees, looked at just about everything.

I've been playing it a few times a week this Summer and it gets better each time I play it.

It's a better course today than it was 4 years ago and whether it's as good as it was in 1917 is irrelevant, we ain't going backward we're going forward and the course ahead look like lots and lots of fun!!

News:

Geoffrey Childs

T_MacWood

Geoffrey Childs

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

Geoffrey Childs

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

Jason Blasberg

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

Robert Mercer Deruntz

TEPaul

Michael Whitaker

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Jason Blasberg