Jason
I'm happy that you enjoyed the new and improved Engineers, I have no doubt that the course has been improved by many of the changes, removing trees, re-establishing widening fairways etc.

Based upon your 13-year love affair with the course I'm certain you have researched its history and designer. What can you tell us about the course as designed and how it differs today and what can you tell us about the man who designed it - Herbert Strong? How does the current course compair to your understanding the original design?

Michael
Was that below Emmet's talents? Who else should they have hired? If you have any information regarding the evolution of Engineers I'd be glad to here it.

I don't know much about True Blue, however I do have great respect for Strantz and his talents. Did True Blue host a couple of majors within its first four years? Has True Blue's bunkers been replaced? Has True Blue's routing been altered? With all due respect to True Blue you are talking apples and oranges.

You were embarassed by my question: "...would you suggest Tripp rebuild the greens at Royal Melbourne?" That's it? It doesn't sound that question was even directed to Tripp. Frankly I was embarassed and more than a little concerned that Mr. Davis did not answer have the questions I had about the course's architectural history?

TE: What question did I fail to answer?

Based on what Michael laid out, no I would not recommend the greens at True Blue be restored.

I question that amount of research based upon his lack of specific answers regarding the course's architectural history and the work he did which bears no resemblance to the historic golf course and to Herbert Strong. It appears he either didn't find much or he ignored most of what he found.

Jason
I'm happy that you enjoyed the new and improved Engineers, I have no doubt that the course has been improved by many of the changes, removing trees, re-establishing widening fairways etc.

Based upon your 13-year love affair with the course I'm certain you have researched its history and designer. What can you tell us about the course as designed and how it differs today and what can you tell us about the man who designed it - Herbert Strong? How does the current course compair to your understanding the original design?

Tom, I've never claimed to be a historian and I have no real intention of wanting to be one.  I don't have nearly the historical knowledge of Engineers than I have for Seawane, for example, because I was at SW for 5 years durign the entire life of that project and I'v been at Engineers for about 5 weeks after the project is mostly over.  

That being said, my understanding is that there were fewer trees, only one par 5 (the 10th) and more penal bunkering and likely fewer actual bunkers.  I've yet to review the old photos that Tripp had access to but plan to in the near future.  I plan on doing this for my own edification not to pick what he's done apart.

My major observation of how the course plays differently now is the conversion of Strong's par 4 number 3 into a par 5 and the addition of the current 3 par #3.  

There is still the original teeing area for the old #3 behind the 2nd green site and I would like to see that tee restored and the original routing used more often.  The problem that I see with the use of the current 3rd hole is that we lose either the par 3 11th or "2 or 20" in the routing which is a shame since they are both amazing holes IMO.

One significant change in the way the par 3 11th plays today is the angle of play off the tee.  My understanding is that the original tee was next to the 10th green creating an offset angle for the tee shot playing more like a redan with the green sloping from front right to back left.  I would estimate that angle is about 45 degrees (or pointing to about 2 oclock).  The current tees play straight at the hole (or at 12 oclock).  The result is that the tee shot is focused more on accuracy than distance control, as you play up the narrow of part of the green as opposed to playing across the ridge that forms the left side of the green complex.  

There is a teeing area next to 10 green that I'm told is still used occassionaly.

The large sloping bunker between 9 and 12 greens is obviously gone and that's mostly just because it would constantly be sliding toward the 12 green with the slope.  

The fronting bunker on 12 is gone and there was talk of restoring it and that may still be done (personally I think it plays better without it since you can play a running second shot to that humby bumby green and can be forced to negotiate more of the side slopes of that green then would be required by an aerial approach if the bunker were there.  

I understand the 18th green may have lost some bunkers over the years and there is talk of restoring those.  I'm not sure if there were bunkers there and if they were in the front of the green I would be of mixed opinion about restoring them because the front false front and slope are severe and force a well played flop or bump and run or putt (options galore)

TE
There you go again...shooting your architectural archive project in the foot again. You promote whatever makes the club feel good even in cases when they ignore or are ignorant of historic documentation and choose to redesign a landmark golf course. Nice job.

Tom MW you're definition of "re-design" is so broad since you consider recontouring one green a "re-design" that you've got no credibiliy in my book.  Morever, you seem to forget that members all over the world have the right to do what they want with their property and if work turns out good or bad it's theirs to live with but your pontificating from a self assumed Ivory Tower on this subject is nausiating and I'm finished discussing these issues with you since it is apparent to me that you have an axe to grind with private clubs in general and you are using this "restoration" issue to express your ostensible hostility.

Go write some historical books on the great architects of the past or books similar to Daniel Wexler's Missing Links (a fine and very educational read!) but stay out of course restoration unless you have an active affiliation with a course because your arm chair quarterbacking on issues that you have no responsibility for or long term interest in is obnoxious.  

You're not the judge of what makes a good and bad restoration and frankly their is only one ultimate judge on these issues and it is the membership that lives with the results of these projects or the playing public that lives with the projects at public/muni courses.  But if you've got no skin in the game your opinions are just that "opinions."

Jason
There is no need to eliminate the 11th or the old 14th, what they should have done is eliminate the mongrel new 3rd and go back to the original routing...including the old par-4 3rd and the ‘2 or 20’.

That was the course that hosted the major championships and that was the course that was mentioned in the same breath with Pine Valley, NGLA and Lido. Lido is sadly no more, but no one in his or her right mind would  ever suggest redesign at Pine Valley or NGLA. Not only would Engineers be reviving an historic landmark design they could lessen their maintenance budget by eliminating the need to maintain one and half golf holes (the new par-3 3rd and the 250 yards of the converted par-5 4th).

Speaking of unnecessary costs, the original greens at Engineers were among the most spectacular greens in excistance -- in the same league as NGLA, Crystal Downs, Canton Brookside, Pinehurst #2 and Winged Foot -- digging them up was sacrilege and a huge waste of money (I count 10 greens as being rebuilt). Instead of rebuilding the brilliant existing original greens they would have been better served trying restore some of the greens that were altered – like the old 7th and 9th. Isn't it a lot cheaper to adjust the lawn mower?

At Engineers Strong chose to emphasize the rugged terrain in combination with his boldly contoured (well-bunkered) greens. The fairways were quite generous with few bunkers, but the tee shot had to be placed properly or the approach was extremely difficult due to his orientation of the greens. Why Tripp claims he is recapturing Strong’s original intent by adding bunkers (like at the 1st and 18th fairway) where none existed I’ll never know.  

If you are going build bunkers why not those that were a part of the origignal brilliant design like that huge bunker between the old 8th and 11th or the waste bunker at the corner of the old par-5 9th (that also guarded the left side of the 10th green) or the bunkers guarding 18th green. In fact re-establish as many of Strong’s native grass infested bunkers as possible and bring the course back as close to the one considered with the NGLA and Pine Valley among the nationas best? By the way you are right the tee of the old 10th was closer to the 9th green (the greenside bunkering was also different) but I’m not sure if that makes that big of difference on how the hole played.

Removing the encroaching trees, revealing more of the rugged terrain and expanding the fairways were all good moves Tripp made and are all in sympathy with the original design.

Back to the greens, on one of the old threads Tripp correctly said the greens at Engineers were designed to be on the brink. He went on to say: “On the brink of introducing an element of luck over skill and on the brink of leaving the player with what may seem to be ridiculous options the player does not like to be confronted with.” In other words he thought the greens were unfair and set out to change that by rebuilding them.  

But what he doesn't seem to understand is the fairness of those greens (and greenside hazards) was always questioned. After the US Am: “It is doubtful any championship layout ever came in for as much discussion pro and con as the circuit near Roslyn, LI. Whether or not it presented a fiar test or not must ever remain a matter of opinion. Of certainty, the nations two acknowledged leaders Charles Evan and Francis Ouimet reached the finals.”

A young Bobby Jones (the 3rd rated amateur in the country) and FJ Wright were the qualifying medalists (154, both shot 75 at North Shore and 79 at Engineers – the qualifying sites) and they were defeated in the semis. Evans - the ultimate champion - was asked if the greens were unfair and he said only if you hit in the wrong spot.

The field for this amateur championship was said to be the strongest ever assembled. A very strong British contingent came over: Cyril Tolley, Roger Wethered, Tommy Armour and Lord Charles Hope. Armour was the only one to qualify at 162. Tolley came in at 168, Wethered 174 and Hope 176.  Engineers was often blamed for their collapse and the fact they chose not familiarize themselves with course prior to the tournament. That added to the course's controversial image.

If you read the descriptions of the match play you see birdies, pars and a good number of disasters – three and four putts for the unfortunate. And the ’2 or 20’ was hole was also a highlight, Jones almost aced it in one match (12 inches) and Armour took 10+ before walking to the next tee (they might have had to rename the hole '1 or 10'). It was and could be the perfect match play golf course…the brink was Engineer's middle name.  

Bill
You lost me. Is someone advocating the restoration of the grass greens at Pinehurst?

Bill
Digging up Engineer's greens was sacrilege and a waste money because they are brilliant like those at the NGLA, Crystal Downs, Canton Brookside, #2 and Winged Foot.

Futily trying to keep a golf course in a time warp and preventing whole sale redesign seem to me to be two different things.

You don't like #2's greens?

Tom, are you being disingenuous?  

I was merely pointing out that your thesis that no classic course's greens be "redesigned" doesn't apply to Pinehurst #2, as the greens have been changed from sand to Bermuda to bent over the years.  The only consistency there has been change.

You are as slippery in debate as the legendary JakaB!    Enough already.

Geoffrey
Do you think by defintion a well designed green should be able to stimp at 11? Is that the magic number? Variety is the spice of life. Oyster Harbors is another with wild greens.

The greens at Engineers don't need 10 or 11 to come alive....I have a feeling they were alive at 6, 7, 8, 8.4, 9.2 & 9.75. Good to hear they are recontouring Winged Foot's greens. The stimpmeter may be the single worst invention in golf history.

Geoffrey
Do you think by defintion a well designed green should be able to stimp at 11? Is that the magic number? Variety is the spice of life. Oyster Harbors is another with wild greens.

The greens at Engineers don't need 10 or 11 to come alive....I have a feeling they were alive at 6, 7, 8, 8.4, 9.2 & 9.75. Good to hear they are recontouring Winged Foot's greens. The stimpmeter may be the single worst invention in golf history.

Tom - Of course I don't necessarily think a well designed green needs to stimp at 11.  I pointed those facts out because perhaps its no coincidence that the untouched sets happen to also be those that are capable of playing well at higher speeds. The memberships don't have to make that hard choice. You gave the examples I used and lumped them together and I showed you that they each were different and unique cases. I too thought Yale's greens were superb at the slower speeds I was accostomed to playing.  They are FAR FAR better running at 10 then they were in past years. I would feel cheated if I had to go back to playing them the way they were previously.

How do you know that Engineers greens don't play better then ever before?

You think its good to hear Winged Foot's greens are being altered?  Really- Is WInged Foot a "wholesale redesign" now as you say for Engineers?