[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

We've discussed this issue a zillion times.

But, I'll give you the short version.

1.  The US Amateur was held there in 1936

2.  There's an ABUNDANCE of aerial and ground photos circa
     1936 that show the golf course exactly as it was.  
     The golf course as it existed circa 1936 is well
     documented.  That can't be said of other sentinel years.
     
3.   By your theory, do you restore it to Emmett's work,
     Travis's work, some club changes or a combination of
     all of the above  ?

4    Do you restore it to 1897, 1898, 1899, 1905, 1906, 1913,
      1915, 1920 or other dates when changes were made to
      the golf course.

Garden City's design history/ evolution is complex.

With the overwhelming abundance of evidence available circa 1936 and the hosting of the USGA Amateur in the same year, 1936 is a prudent choice.

[Bill_McBride]

Your answer accurately reflects my question.

I have to agree with your answer, but it certainly does beg the question which is asked here over and over with regard to historical restoration.   Do you restore to the original, or to a favored period, or what?  I suggest you restore to what the members want, but too many times there aren't enough members who understand what they really do want.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your answer accurately reflects my question.

Tom MacWood recommends restoration to the "architectural high water mark".  

But, how do you determine that ?
Most clubs don't have the historical data.
And, who decides when that was, or will be.

I have to agree with your answer, but it certainly does beg the question which is asked here over and over with regard to historical restoration.  

That's true.

Allegedly, Merion chose a historical year, and I don't think you can fault that, absent an abundance of data with respect to all of the other years.

Do you restore to the original, or to a favored period, or what?  

You can only restore to what you're clearly aware of.

You can't restore to 1920 or 1930 if noone knows what the golf course was like in those years, and interpretive restorations tend to do more damage than good.

I suggest you restore to what the members want,

I'd be strongly opposed to that theory at any club.
It's the seeds for disaster.

but too many times there aren't enough members who understand what they really do want.

And, when you don't know what you want, you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

The aerial and ground level photographic evidence exists in abundance.  1936 was also a historic year in a club steeped in tradition.  1936 is a prudent choice.

[TEPaul]

Come on Patrick, you just can't keep writing crap like that last post. It just doesn't get anywhere or do anything for anyone. Ultimately if one can't bring a membership to accept a restoration then what is the point of it all? You, of all people ought to know that.

Give up your didacticness and get with the program.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Come on Patrick, you just can't keep writing crap like that last post.

That's not crap, it's reality.

It just doesn't get anywhere or do anything for anyone.

Sure it does.
It depicts the reality of the situation.

Ultimately if one can't bring a membership to accept a restoration then what is the point of it all?

How would you apply that ideology to the current 12th hole and its acceptance or non-acceptance by the membership ?

And, why do you speak of "membership's" as if they're one monolithic entity, one united voice ?

You know better than that.
You know, that for varying reasons, you'll always get opposition to EVERY project at a country/golf club.

You can't seriously believe that a pure restoration would be universally accepted by 100 % of the membership.

And, let me ask you this.

If the 12th hole was restored to its exact configuration circa
1936, and 32 % or 46 % of the membership didn't like it.

Does that mean that the architecture fails today's standards ?
Or, that the membership fails ?
That the membership fails to understand architecture, tradition and playability ?

If 98 % of the membership didn't like it, I'd venture to say that within 5 years, only 2 % of the membership WOULDN"T like it.

Give up your didacticness and get with the program.  

I lilke didacticness,  that's how people learn.

[Willie_Dow]

After a couple of Mart's - I'd suggest going back to what was there.  Mel Lucas has the historical details.  He knows the elevations of the origional mounds and contours.

He is also aware of my concern for the 100th memory of the Lesley Cup, played at G/C, and it's contribution to the history of golf.

Let's restore the 12th to history !

Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie,

You've got my vote.

But, TEPaul is an obstructionist.

[Willie_Dow]

Patrick - I'll get to T/P !!!!!!!!!!

He was only a pick for an area marshal in 1981, but I must admit he did a great job at Merion !

'hope he'll be there in 2013.

Willie

[TEPaul]

"I hope he'll be there in 2013."

I hope I will too, Willie, and I hope you are too. What is that---32 years and more of knowing that course. And for you how long? And we have people on this website who criticize that course every which way to Sunday who know the course for less than one day if they've seen it at all. That is just unbelievable to me. It's an enormous failing of this website.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

I was just flipping through 'America's Linksland' by William Quirin I came to chapter 8, page 72, "The 1913 U.S. Amateur."

There is a picture of the 12th green as it looked in 1913. The picture is said to be from the American Golfer.

All I can say is wow. I get it. What a disaster to have the green removed.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul, you wrote, "I hope I will too, Willie, and I hope you are too. What is that---32 years and more of knowing that course. And for you how long? And we have people on this website who criticize that course every which way to Sunday who know the course for less than one day if they've seen it at all. That is just unbelievable to me. It's an enormous failing of this website."

I must strongly disagree with your statement. When someone does that it is not a failing of GCA but of that person and shows the STRENGTH of this website when a number of people with a long history and experience can teach someone who writes that the error of his or her ways.

If you teach, they will learn...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()