Geoffrey
You want me to dig through the umpteen old threads, the old Met magazine article and search Tripp's website to prove what no one is disputing...that Tripp Davis rebuilt half the greens at Engineers. Sorry Charlie.

The reason its OK to alter the bunkering at Engineers and Yale is because that is what the membership and powers that be have chosen to do.  I complained bitterly at Yale because
1- I was a member with a stake in the outcome
2- I honestly believed that the Yale course as built was FAR superior to the one that was butchered by Roger Rulewich.

What does being a member (or not being a member) have to do with accepting the alteration of the bunkers at Engineers (and not at Yale)? Are you saying you don't have the right to have an opinion about Engineers because you aren't a member? You've never had a problem expressing your opinion on this thread and other threads. And if I recall correctly one of the more powerful influences for change at Yale was a critical article by Anthony Pioppi...I don't believe he was a member.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you implying Yale was superior to Engineers? Engineers was considered every bit the golf course as Yale...it was actually more famous having hosted two major championships. According to Grantland Rice there were some who felt it was the best course in the country.

Since you appear to have become a fan of landmark courses (not named Yale) being redesigned would you favor Tripp redesigning the bunkers at Chicago or Pine Valley or NGLA...who is to say he wouldn't improve those courses too?

I agree with you the original Yale was far superior to the renovated course; I also honestly believe the Herbert Strong's Engineers was far superior to the one butchered by Frank Duane. I also believe the same course of action should have been taken at both those landmark courses, preserve as much of the original work as possible and accutately restore what you can.

Were the greens at Yeaman's Hall well preserved Raynor greens? It doesn't sound like it. Engineers greens - with a couple of exceptions - were very well preserved. With all due respect to YH I don't believe it was ever held in the same esteem as Engineers. There aren't too many courses (anywhere) that have a set of greens comparable to Engineers.

Of late you seem to be following a reaccuring patern when it comes to debating preservation vs renovation: it appears you will rationalize the reconstruction of any green on any golf course by stating well since Doak rebuilt a green at X its OK here. Unfortunate.  

Back to your question about opinions of the greens in the good old days. There were people who loved Engineers and people who hated it, not unlike what golfers said about the Old Course. At the PGA I didn't find anyone complaining about the greens. At the US Amateur there were general complaints but nothing specific about the greens (the 2 or 20 was a favorite target for complaints)...although it was acknowedged prior to the event that they could be bewildering and frustrating.

The British had the most to complain about, they sent over an impressive contingent and most of them didn't even qualify. Not practicing at Engineers before the event was the reason given for the poor showing. Chick Evans defeated Ouimet in the final...they both said the course was challenging but fair.

Wide rolling fairways, very few hazards (unlike today), bold hazards and severe greens were the formula. It was also a comparatively short course (6300 yards). Placement off the tee was key and a lack familarity could be fatal. I did read that the championship committee deliberately toned down the green speeds.

Its about time I stop trying to convince you that this was one of the truly great courses of its era and that accurately restoring it (as Doak, Hanse and Morrissett suggested) would have been the best way to go. Its water over the bridge anyway.

Tom MacWood & Geoff Childs,

Engineers represents an ongoing dilema, the same one that existed at Hollywood.

I think Yale is a different situation.

In principle I agree with Tom MacWood.

In practice, things happen as Geoff indicates.

I guess the question or situation is as follows:

The membership doesn't like the current course, partially because it was altered by other than the original designer years ago, and they're not keen on some of those alterations.

So, they embark upon a project to realter the golf course.

Now, two of the questions for the membership are:

# 1   Do we restore to the original ?
# 2   Do we undo the changes, restore some of the
        course, and realter other parts of the golf course ?

In most cases, # 2 wins out.

Don't ask me why, but, that's what I've seen, over and over again when those are the final choices.

Tom MacWood,

Given choice # 2, or other choices, such as a complete renovation/modernization, which would you vote for ?
Which would you lobby for ?

I would think that you'd take the lesser of two evils, # 2.

Philosophically, and/or Ideologically, I know your preference,
a true restoration.  But, when the writing on the wall gains clarity and becomes a reality, the choice of # 2 is preferable to choice # 1.

It's not a perfect solution for you, but, it's a compromise solution that brings you closer to your ultimate goal rather than further away from it.

If you and I were members, I'm pretty sure we'd lobby for the purist* view, but, once it became apparent that that view was in the great minority, you have to adapt and look for the NEXT BEST SOLUTION.  A compromise.  And, that's what most projects end up being.

* My purist view incorporates the concept of elasticity or  
   lengthening of a golf course if the angles of attack are
   preserved and the design features in the DZ are returned to
   play

P.S.  Jason Blasberg,

        Get rid of the stairs between the bunker and # 16 green

Jason Blasberg,

Get rid of the railroad tie stairs between the bunker and the 16th green !

That's embarrassing

A scar on a portrait.

here's a good look at 9 green looking back toward the tee:

One of the original themes that Tripp utilized was one or more bowl sections within greens:



From further back:



The falses back that is menacing to a back right pin:



From the front:

Tripp's green that entirely replaced Duane's 6th from the 60s that was entirely one dimensional:

See how it flows naturally with the land:



One of Tripp's original greenside bunkers on 6, very Strong like from what I can tell from the old aerials:



It's no longer one dimensional:

Here's a great example of the front to back slope of 17 green:

 

"I'm sorry if I insulted you. I grew up in modest middle class household in Columbus, Ohio (as a small black child) and pedaled my way to Ohio State GC and Scioto GC (mostly OSU) 2 - 4 miles (my tires were poorly inflated as well)...and was only able to play at those courses on Mondays."

Tom MacWood:

Thank GOD ALMIGHTY you actually have a sense of humor and judging from the foregoing a damn good one. What you should do is endeavor to show it more often.  

LOL  

TomMW:

Keep finding fault with what we've done at Engineers and I'll keep suffering through greens like this:

Off the top of my head: Chicago, NGLA, Fenway, Fishers Island, Lawsonia, Camargo.

and how many of those have you played before and after?

Jason
I've studied and researched all of them and I've played or walked (I walked Fishers with Donnie Beck) all but Lawsonia.

You should probably keep your thoughts to yourself on Fenway since you aren't dues paying member.

We know what you think about Tripp Davis, what is your opinion of Herbert Strong?

We know what you think about Tripp Davis, what is your opinion of Herbert Strong?

I won't comment about Strong as anything I could say would be inferior to your vast knowledge of all things long dead so I'll let you tell me what to think about Strong.  

Pat it's less steep for you with that long stride, for us average height guys it's steep.  Seriously, the walk up to 16 green if you're below it and the walk from 16 green to 17 tee is steep and gets me winded everytime and I'm in good shape!

I don't think we have security but you didn't hear that from me

Tom MacWood:

Your constant pontificating about what you've studied and researched is getting positively sickening.

Your specifically critical opinions on Aronomink's restoration is the most egregious example to date---a course you have been nowhere near.

Unfortunately, pal, it just doesn't work that way in this business, and you are definitely not an exception to what it take to becoming really familiar with a golf course, its history and potential restoration.

You should learn to expend your energies regarding golf courses that are significant that really are redesiging rather than those that are doing and have done acceptable restorations.