Like I just said -- Darth Vader (MacWood) has spoken. The Jedi Council needs to unite against this ill-wind that blows in from the deep left field seats.

TF does have a number of first rate courses -- it's just that the dark side wishes others to believe otherwise. Galloway National -- Ken Cotner's comments on the River Course are also well taken and I believe Glenwild is likely the best of the most recent openings that TF has done IMHO -- I also have to add that a quite few people have mentioned the qualities of Dallas National and from the pictures (shall I be so bold and decude things from just pictures???) it does look quite impressive.

Tom MacWood,

It is such a weak-minded generalization....I grow weary of the constant stereotyping.

Same with Rees....95% of my criticism has been his renovation work...and I think I've been too easy on him. He is a menace to classic architecture.

Aren't you guilty of the same thing you object to

Would you say that Rees's work at Baltusrol, a classic course, has been very well received by those who have seen it

Or, is blind denial of good work necessary to continue your tired tirade ?

Tom MacWood,

How many times do you lie to yourself before you believe the lie ?

You know as well as I do that the memberships/owner of those clubs never directed Rees to undertake a restoration at any of those golf courses.

Why do you keep repeating that he failed to restore them when he was never given that assignment by the memberships ?

Is it to re-inforce the lie you're all to happy to perpetuate ?

If you want to be disengenuous or dishonest with yourself, that's okay, but don't be disengenuous or dishonest with the those viewing Golfclubatlas.com.

Tom MacWood,

Since I'm quite friendly with the project chairman, green chairman, some of the officers, board members and members at Hollywood, I"m not speculating, I know what the directives were.

And, as much as you and I might have liked to have had the golf course restored, it was never going to happen.
The diverse membership was never interested in returning the golf course to its punitive, former form.

Perhaps the easiest way to convey a "sense" of the membership revolves around the third hole, a good par 4.
There is a tree that was planted to the left and short of the green, it interferes with play to the green from the left side, and rough has been allowed to grow out underneath it into the fairway preventing a ground approach through this rough.

Rees wanted to eliminate the tree and intrusive rough, returning the hole to its original play, but his suggestion was rejected.  There was a movement to save the tree, for reasons which totally escape me, that prevailed.

Other members, including members who originally came to the club as tennis members, created other barriers.

You seem to labor under the false notion that all clubs want to restore their golf course.

You have to ask yourself, how did all the changes that took place over the many years since the golf course opened, happen in the first place ?  Rees certainly wasn't involved.
The membership/leadership just changed them, sometimes with and sometimes without an architect.

A club, like Hollywood, may feel that the course needs to be modernized in order to remain a fair test for its members and for competitions.  I know that Hollywood felt that their 18th hole was a weak finishing hole, and wanted to improve it, which they did.

Architects are rarely invited into existing clubs and given carte blanche, usually they are invited in because the membership or leadership wants to make changes, and the architect is the professional hired to transition those changes from ideas into reality.  Architects cannot take it upon themselves to restore the golf course, irrespective of the memberships intentions.

It's interesting that you have always been on Rees's case about his failing to complete restorations, irrespective of the memberships directives,  but willing to overlook Tom Doak's failure to restore GCGC and C&C's failure to restore Riviera.

Inconsistency   Bias

I wouldn't mind if your objections were directed equally to all architects who were involved with courses that didn't embark on restorations, but you've been silent with respect to C&C and Tom Doak for as long as I've tuned in to GCA.com.
So, I have to wonder, what your motives and goals are ?

When you bash Tom Doak and C&C for their failures to restore, irrespective of the memberships wishes, just like you've bashed Rees, then at least you will have been open and fair minded.

Lastly Tom, surely you must realize, that those of us who want restorations are clearly in the minority.

Just look at how hard it is to remove trees planted in the last
20-30-40-50 years, a form of restoration, and then extend that resistance to restoration to the balance of the golf course.

It's not always the architect's doing, in the ultimate, it's the will of the membership/leadership that is at the heart of the issue.

But, if you want to continue to bash, just make sure that you're an equal opportunity basher.  

Tom MacWood,

You cite Baltusrol again, without one scintilla of personal experience in what the course looked like pre and post Rees.
You are so far off base on this that it makes me question your conclusions with respect to other courses I haven't seen.

Apparently lost on your thick head is the mission each club wanted to embark upon.

Those that wanted restoration pursued restoration.
Those that wanted to go in another direction went in another direction, and that has nothing to do with the architect, it's the choice each club made before they even retained an architect.

How many of each of the courses that you cite, have you actually seen and played, pre and post work ?

Without prior information, you couldn't walk/play Baltusrol and tell me what was changed, what's out of character, and that's the real test, isn't it.

Pat
It is ironic that every project Rees has been involved has had a mission other than restoration...a coincedence? I think not...no one hires Rees to restore...he amkes no bones that his specialty is redesign.

You telling me I couldn't recognize changes to Baltusrol or any other course is humorous...recognizing an architect's work or unique style has never strcuk me as one your strenghts....or interests....no?

Tom- just because you say something doesn't make it true by a long shot.  And you are wrong big time once again. I am a fan of NO architect regardless of how many times you might say it over and over. You are arrogent and full of crap with regard to this              

Have you seen pictures of the old greens at SFGC?  Particularly #8 but others as well.  Have you been to SFGC? Those greens currently look nothing like those old pictures.  They were not restored they were altered.  That's a redesign in my book.

Answer the questions I posed to you about documenting changes. You are supposed to be an advocate of maintaining the full integrity of classic courses.  That is your supposed calling card here but it seems you are hypocritical in how you apply your interest in preservation. It is you who are the fan and it alters your judgement.

Tom MacWood

I thought SFGC was fantastic and Tom Doak did everything asked of him with his usual care.  Where did you get the idea that I didn't like the work.

Tom I was simply DOCUMENTING CHANGES made to classic courses.  

Given your history of demanding faithful restoration and preservation and your use of photographic documentation to compare changes to courses by using old aerials and aerials and or photos post-restoration I simply posted a comment on SFGC and YH and asked for comments (by anyone not just directed to you).  Based on what are apparently your criteria for some work on classic courses those two courses are not restored. I want consistency regardless of what course it is or who did the work.

At SFGC three greens are forever changed for Tillinghast's vision of what they were to be. That's not restoration.  Oakmont didn't do this because they apparently want to preserve the soul of their course. Be consistent with regard to changes.  

At Yeamon's Hall many greens were rebuilt.  Are you sure they were rebuilt the way Raynor had them originally?  They are "in style" to be sure and Tom Doak should be credited for that much but there could have been some "creative interpretation".  Finally, the strategies of playing the course (especially the front 9) aare highly altered due to absence of numerous bunkers. That's not restored either. When those bunkers are put back (if they ever are) the course will be much the better. Everyone talks like YH is restored (finished) successfully.  Not the case. Be consistent Tom.

Finally, I'm glad you admit to being biased.

Gentlemen:

Last I checked this thread was started on how well done a particular Tom Fazio layout (Glenwild) turned out. Hijacking this thread to the same BS over and over again (much of it courtesy of Mr. MacWood is useless and frankly idiotic).

Tom Fazio is often ridiculed by quite a few people here on GCA because his "look" of courses is predictable in their opinion. However, many of these same people have played only a tiny sampling but somehow are able to extrapolate that Fazio is only capable of designing such repetitive layouts. Quite the contrary.

Clearly, there is a preference (the PC word instead of bias) and I quite agree with Geoff -- I rate golf courses not architects but some people see it the other way around. No matter.

Tom Fazio and his group is quite capable in breaking out of the mold of just "eye candy" layouts with their pre-packaged assembly of "been there -- done that" holes. Glenwild in Utah is a superb layout and one of the finest I have played from his portoflio and as I said before if others can secure an invite it's well worth their time to play.

David
I took Blue Mound off...but it doesn't change my basic premiss, Doak is known for his sensative restoration work and Rees is known for his redesign work.

The few Raynor plans I have seen....it appears he planned the front section as fairway, not green. Are you certain Raynor planned the front section as green at BM?

Tom,

I am not certain (Obviously I never met Raynor) but from their Centenial book, the pictures I saw appeared to be all green.  It was in the early 40's that they changed it.  Remove the word sensitive and I agree with your premise of the last post.  Doak is known for restoration and Rees for renovation.  The GCA crowd is so bias towards restoration that even a sensitive renovation designed strictly to keep the course relevant gets bashed.

One last note (And I am sure that you know this), your post below could be read as Rees who ripped the soul out of Michigan.  Rees never set foot on Michigan.  Art Hills destroyed it.

Tom,

You mentioned Rees Jones and his work at MPCC. I am not sure when you last played there, but I can assure you the original was not Raynor's best work. For Jones to have 'restored' the Dunes course would have been a waste of time and money. Some twenty years ago, with a persimmon driver and 43 inch steel shaft, my partner in the Invitational, drove the green on the old 5th,11th and 16th holes. When hired, Rees agreed to do what the Committee wanted and he did, on time, under budget and gave us a vastly improved golf course.

Tom MacWood,

I am biased, I do believe Doak has been one of the few that strives for sensative/accurate restoration and I do believe that Rees has shown a general disregard for classic courses....

Would you tell me how Tom Doak strived for a sensitive restoration at Atlantic City ??

How convenient for you to forget this project.