Fowler's Del Paso

« **Reply #50 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:06:52 AM »

"Tom MacWood, myself and others outlined our beliefs with respect to the duty or obligation of clubs that own "classic" or "Golden Age" golf courses, that they, like curators should seek to protect and preserve their courses, and that they should exercise extensive due diligence in researching their golf course rather than discarding it in a cavelier fashion in favor of the latest trend or fad."

Right.

And if they excercise extensive due diligence in researching their golf course, including the exact way it was originally or any time during it's evolution and then decide to make various alterations to make it play better, more interesting, more challenging, more enjoyable for as many within its membership as possible----what then?

Should that then be considered to be some cavalier discarding of the golf course in a favor of the latest trend or fad?

« **Reply #51 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:15:20 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 18, 2006, 07:06:52 AM

"Tom MacWood, myself and others outlined our beliefs with respect to the duty or obligation of clubs that own "classic" or "Golden Age" golf courses, that they, like curators should seek to protect and preserve their courses, and that they should exercise extensive due diligence in researching their golf course rather than discarding it in a cavelier fashion in favor of the latest trend or fad."

I think you were one of the "others"[/color]

Right.

And if they excercise extensive due diligence in researching their golf course, including the exact way it was originally or any time during it's evolution and then decide to make various alterations to make it play better, more interesting, more challenging, more enjoyable for as many within its membership as possible----what then?

Do you mean like Gulph Mills did, or were you referencing some other golf course ?

Those not familiar with Gulph Mills should know that it had two pedigrees, Ross and Maxwell, along with some random alterations.[/color]

Should that then be considered to be some cavalier discarding of the golf course in a favor of the latest trend or fad?

If the club exercised extensive due diligence, that would be, by definition, be contrary to the term, "cavalier"

Don't you have a dictionary at home ?[/color]

Rich Goodale,

I believe you missed reply # 9.

« **Reply #52 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:16:07 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on January 18, 2006, 06:14:46 AM

Rich
you tell me what were the most important designs of 1910.

Don't try to slither out of this one, Tom. I asked you first.

« **Reply #53 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:21:13 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 18, 2006, 06:54:49 AM

Regarding the pre-Colt Muirfield I seem to recall a chapter by Harold Hilton on the pre-Colt Muirfield "rota" "championship" course. My recollection is Hilton said it was a pretty bad golf course for a championship "rota" course and was only held on the Open "rota" because Muirfield, the club, as a significant old "rota" championship club, just didn't want to be off that championship "rota". I guess that's completely understandable even if most everyone thought the dog they had in the fight was a broken down old mutt. Apparently somehow the idea was prevailed upon them to get this English Colt fellow to give them a new and improved dog so they could stay in the "rota championship" fight for the rest of time.

Muirfield is a wonderful golf course but my suggestion would be that they at least restore Colt's old bunker in the middle of the first fairway!

Tom

Harold Hilton hated Muirfield because he got thrashed in the 1909 Amateur there by John Sutherland of Dornoch (as did Harry Colt in an earlier round).

BTW--I think that the 1st at Muirfield today would be my #1 if I were to do a WAofG/Rowlinson top 18. Only a otherworldly straight player such as you would long for the overkill of a mid-line bunker.......

Rich

« **Reply #54 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:24:59 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 18, 2006, 07:15:20 AM

Rich Goodale,

I believe you missed reply # 9.

Pat

I read that post. It is full of generalities and virtually no specifics. You could have written it whether or not you had any off-line conversations with Mindy or anybody else, or whether or not it was about Del Paso or Royal Timbuktu.

« **Reply #55 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:27:02 AM »

"Do you mean like Gulph Mills did, or were you referencing some other golf course ?

Pat:

No, I mean generally speaking. And I don't mean clubs and courses that have already done architectural work, restorations, whatever, I mean clubs and courses that might be planning it in the future.

I'm trying to figure out what some of you think any golf club's options could be or should be. If some of you are going to say or are even imply that in your opinions there is no scenario at all where some classic golf course should do anything other than exactly restore or preserve it then I think I might have a problem with a position that doctrinaire.

« **Reply #56 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:09:40 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on January 17, 2006, 11:29:45 AM

Vis a vis the significant UK courses, most major revisions were done 50+ years ago. I can't think of one of those cases where the course was not vastly improved (based on what I have read). They were all "classic" courses for their time before they were remodeled.

Rich
It was your statement, not mine. Please tell us what "classic" courses you would were referring to.

Muirfield.....

« **Reply #57 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:13:03 AM »

TEPaul,

I think I"ve made my position quite clear.

I can't speak for others.

« **Reply #58 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:49:24 AM »

“TEPaul,
I think I"ve made my position quite clear.”

Pat:

Maybe you have but sometimes succinct and decisive opinions are hard to find on here so why don’t you try giving me a succinct and decisive opinion or answer to the following;

I'm trying to figure out what some of you think any golf club's options could be or should be. I’m trying to figure out If some of you are basically saying or are even implying that in your opinions there is no scenario at all where some classic golf course should do anything other than exactly restore or preserve it. Is that what you’re saying? If that’s what you’re saying or implying then I think I might have a problem with a position that doctrinaire.

« **Reply #59 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:50:35 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on January 18, 2006, 08:09:40 AM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on January 17, 2006, 11:29:45 AM

Vis a vis the significant UK courses, most major revisions were done 50+ years ago. I can't think of one of those cases where the course was not vastly improved (based on what I have read). They were all "classic" courses for their time before they were remodeled.

Rich
It was your statement, not mine. Please tell us what "classic" courses you would were referring to.

Muirfield.....

Tom

In a later post to the one you referenced I asked you that exact same question, since you questioned whether or not Muirfield would be included in that set.

Please stop slithering and answer my question.

If you are a good boy and do that, I will respond. If not, life is just too short for continuous niggling.

« **Reply #60 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:00:39 AM »

I've got an idea---,shall I go eenie, meenie. miinie, mo, or else why don't the both of you try responding to the question at the same time?

Jeeeeesus! The way some of these threads read it seems like some have a morbid phobia about relenting on anything even if it's who answers a goddamned question first.

« **Reply #61 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:22:04 AM »

Tom P

Don't forget Bobby Kennedy's classic advice during the Cuban missile crisis--ignore Kruschev's 2nd (more belligerent) message and respond to the 1st (more conciliatory) one. We could all learn a thing or two from this example--particularly since most of us are only smoking our own exhaust anyway.......

« **Reply #62 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:29:28 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 18, 2006, 08:49:24 AM

“TEPaul,
I think I"ve made my position quite clear.”

Pat:

Maybe you have but sometimes succinct and decisive opinions are hard to find on here so why don’t you try giving me a succinct and decisive opinion or answer to the following;

I'm trying to figure out what some of you think any golf club's options could be or should be. I’m trying to figure out If some of you are basically saying or are even implying that in your opinions there is no scenario at all where some classic golf course should do anything other than exactly restore or preserve it. Is that what you’re saying? If that’s what you’re saying or implying then I think I might have a problem with a position that doctrinaire.

I don't want to speak for others, but, I think the best advice, in a general sense, is to err on the conservative side.

I'm curious, with your position, on how you'd feel if Fazio suggested some wholesale alterations at Merion and Pine Valley.

Would you greet them with the same open arms you seem to be suggesting above ?

Are you saying that we should embrace all alterations to golf courses because that's what the members want ?[/color]

« **Reply #63 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:42:26 AM »

It was your post....please give us the 'classic' courses you were referring to.

Muirfield....

In 1910 some of the important designs? I'll give you a handfull: St. Andrews, Princes, Huntercombe, Walton Heath and Woking.

« **Reply #64 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:56:10 AM »

Not good enough Tom....

Sorry, but I'm getting tired of your pointless rhetoric. Let's get back to the question at hand--should Del Paso have been restored, and if so why? Has anybody on this board actually seen the place, much less played the course? Even old pictures or contemporaneous accounts will do!

I think there actually is a pony under this dung heap of a thread, i.e.--what "classic" courses should be preserved and why? Is it course specific or is there an "untouchable" list of archies all of whose work must be preserved at any cost?

Curiously

Rich

« **Reply #65 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:17:58 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on January 18, 2006, 08:50:35 AM

Vis a vis the significant UK courses, most major revisions were done 50+ years ago. I can't think of one of those cases where the course was not vastly improved (based on what I have read). They were all "classic" courses for their time before they were remodeled.

Excellent evasion. Please explain how Huntercombe, Walton Heath and Princes were improved. And please share with us the classic courses you are referring to. Your arguement regarding Del Paso is based upon your understanding that these 'classic' courses were improved...based upon your inability to give us the names of these courses (beyond Muirfield), it appears your understanding may be off the mark.

« **Reply #66 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:38:18 AM »

I don't consider Huntecombe, Walton Heath or Princes to be particularly significant today (except in an historical sense). Maybe that is because when they were "improved" they weren't!

No Mas!

« **Reply #67 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:06:34 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on January 18, 2006, 09:56:10 AM

what "classic" courses should be preserved and why?

forgeddaboutit 'ain't never gonna happen... never seen it happen yet and it's not happenin' today or tommorrow.

"Why" preserve good question .

Arbory Brae if not an accepted classic tackled some of these issues. If you're going to preserve a classic course then surely you need to make people used 'preserved' balls and clubs and you need to 'preserve' the classic maintenace methods?

« **Reply #68 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:12:17 AM »

Tony
There are a number of courses that are well preserved: NGLA, Cypress Point, Pinehurst #2, Fishers Island, Somerset Hills, off the top of my head.

« **Reply #69 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Tony Muldoon on January 18, 2006, 11:06:34 AM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on January 18, 2006, 09:56:10 AM
what "classic" courses should be preserved and why?

forgeddaboutit 'ain't never gonna happen... never seen it happen yet and it's not happenin' today or tommorrow.

"Why" preserve good question .

Arbory Brae if not an accepted classic tackled some of these issues. If you're going to preserve a classic course then surely you need to make people used 'preserved' balls and clubs and you need to 'preserve' the classic maintenace methods?

Spot on Tony! I have never seen this concept better articulated.

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #70 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:29:24 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on January 18, 2006, 11:12:17 AM

Tony
There are a number of courses that are well preserved: NGLA, Cypress Point, Pinehurst #2, Fishers Island, Somerset Hills, off the top of my head.

Over here for buildings the government takes advice from organisations like the National Trust and English Heritage and when 'the great and the good' agree that a building is on national or historical importance the government can give it listed status. The aim is to 'preserve' the nation’s architectural heritage. This includes a few modern buildings (like the one some poor little rich guy demolished at Wentworth). I'm not sure exactly how many grades their are but if you own a Grade 1 or 11 listed building you are extremely limited in how much you can change. e.g. you can't paint your window frames 'white' on a Georgian building because the Georgians didn't have 'white'.

Just the heights of the grass on the greens on the above courses would fail them from being a Grade one 'preserved' course. If you're not going to preserve it properly why do it at all?

« **Reply #71 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:46:54 AM »

Tony
That is a pretty sad (and extreme) statement on your part. What does your National Trust example have to do with preserving and protecting the NGLA or Morfontaine or another important design.

Why can't you identify important golf courses that should be preserved and protected? And why can't you set reasonable standards of preserving and protecting those important designs? You don't need to rip out the automatic irrigation systems and have the greens stimp at 5 or 6 to preserve/protect a historic golf course.

« **Reply #72 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:54:43 AM »

Tom you just try and define what 'reasonable standards' are. It's impossible. What do you keep and what is ok to change? Can't be done.

It all comes back to Why do you want to preserve them? And if you decide it's because they are important than you can change absolutely nothing.

I think someone should start this as a separate thread

« **Reply #73 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:10:08 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on January 18, 2006, 11:46:54 AM

Why can't you identify important golf courses that should be preserved and protected? And why can't you set reasonable standards of preserving and protecting those important designs? You don't need to rip out the automatic irrigation systems and have the greens stimp at 5 or 6 to preserve/protect a historic golf course.

Tommy Mac

The members would need to sell to a "higher" authority of some repute (ie English Heritage or National Trust) for your suggestion to be taken seriously. If a club was willing to sell and be resident members without power to effect change, then it would be a cool experiment. Of course, as part of protecting a design, the club would have to open their doors to the public or there isn't much point in a "National Trust".

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #74 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:38:14 PM »

Tony
I have no idea where you are coming from...you've got some pretty extreme thoughts on this whole subject....bordering on asinine.

You preserve these important designs as best you can...reasonable standards: The original greens (size and contours), the width of the fairways (a good tree program) and the hazards (a reasonable facsimile of the original bunkers or the evolved bunkers). I don't think moving tees is a big deal.

Is GCGC not a well preserved course because the 12th has been altered...I don't think so. It is one of the best examples of a well preserved course that I know of (that would nearly perfect if the 12th was restored). This is not an excercise in absolutes....you do the bes tyou can based on the circumstances.

Golf courses are living creations, there is always going evolve a certain amount...in doesn't need to be a carbon copy, a reasonable representation of the course at its high point (greens, fairways, hazards)...and above all you keep RTJ, Rees, TFAzio, A.Hills and the other well meaning redesigners away from these landmark designs.

NGLA, Cypress Point, Morfontaine, Hirono, GCGC, Pine Valley, Swinley Forest and other important designs (a relatively small number I might add) should be preserved because: They are first and foremost wonderful golf courses--fun, interesting, beautiful and challenging. They are the best designs of the best architects...they should be treasured like the best works of other great artists. Not only to enjoy on a ongoing basis, but for future architects to study and learn from.

A few examples of courses that were unfortunately not preserved and protected: Inverness, Bel Air, ANGC, SFGC, Yale, Timber Point, Lido, Boca Raton, Cape Breton, Riviera, Sea Island, Hollywood, Brook Hollow, Ponte Vedra, St. Andre, Chiberta, Princes, Birkdale. There have been a lot of idiotic moves in the past...hopefully we can learn from our mistakes.

News:

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

ForkaB

ForkaB

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

ForkaB

TEPaul

ForkaB

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

ForkaB

T_MacWood

ForkaB

Tony_Muldoon

T_MacWood

Sean_A

Tony_Muldoon

T_MacWood

Tony_Muldoon

Sean_A

T_MacWood