News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2006, 08:36:10 PM »
Mike:

Please, no apologies, seriously my only gripe is with TMW for previously stated reasons.

It's time, however, for folks to start paying attention to Engineers for what it is today, and that includes this Board.  That is why I started this thread and I hope for people to discuss the design merits and short comings candidly.  If folks want to discuss restoration and preservation I'd prefer it be done on other threads started by other people for at least two reasons: 1) the point of this thread is to discuss Engineers as it is today; and 2) I find living in the past so boring . . . and TMW already does it so well there's really no more room in that field . . .  ;)

Cheers,

Jason

Mike_Cirba

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2006, 08:55:23 PM »
Jason,

One of my personal interests is researching the design histories and evolutions of golf courses, for better or worse.   I've tried to do it for all of the courses I've played and I certainly wanted to learn more about a premier, unique course like Engineers.

During my visit, I was surprised by a number of things, such as how the present 4th hole works much better as a par five than it did as the original par four 3rd from the top of the hill.  I also was surprised to see that the original 6th green (not the 8th that I reported earlier) location is no longer on club property.   I was also pleased to see that Duane's par three third is a good hole with a green that Strong would have likely approved of.   I was also amazed while playing to think that the greens had been "softened" in any way, given their severity.

What I had hoped to learn from Tom MacWood was specific instances where he felt that formerly great design attributes had been lost, not just in the recent work, but over the decades.   He obviously comes from a protectionist perspective, has studied the design history extensively, and I felt I could make my own determinations of the validity of his concerns based on what I saw on the ground there, and perhaps then have a discussion on the nature of those specifics.

Again, this is obviously not the thread to engage that discussion, but I did want you to understand where I was coming from.

Cheers,
Mike

Geoffrey Childs

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2006, 10:07:50 PM »
Fellows,

I'm hoping that we can keep the tone about the work and about the course.

I know where Tom MacWood is coming from and I fully respect that he's willing to stand up for "purity" in restoration.   I know in the case of Merion for me, and Yale for Geoffrey, and Riviera for both of us, or Garden City for Patrick, or Bel_Air for Tommy Nac and many, many examples I can think of none of us would have wanted to see anything altered in a way we thought was inconsistent with the greatness of designs of those historically significant courses.

Even on courses where I feel no great sentimental affinity, such as Quaker Ridge, I recall being very dubious and flustered when I heard that Tom Fazio was being brought in to soften the tremendous first green.   At the time, about five years ago, I felt very much that Fazio must be in some camp of self-promoting architects who don't give a crap about classic design and were only interested in being paid prostitutes for advancing their own careers.  

Then, over time, I would see other architects who I believed had their heart in the right place also take on work where "adjustments" were going to be made to classic course greens to accommodate modern green speeds and in the interest of more hole locations.  

I frankly can't think of a one of them among the MFA's of this board who haven't done this, and the list includes Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills, Pasatiempo, SFGC, Apawamis, Tavistock, and probably many more I am not fully aware of.

This tells me something, although I'm not sure I like the answer and the truth.   But, if we're going to get anywhere I think we have to face some realities.

Yesterday I played a brand-new modern course that had greens running about 12 on the stimpmeter and they were literally agronomic perfection.   They were among the truest greens I ever saw, and the unfortunate thing is that they had so little slope and contour that even putts of 40 feet or more had no more break than a foot or so.   Yet, if I hit a putt correctly, it was going in the hole, no question about it.  They were so true as to be almost synthetic.

The bottom line is that this type of green is the expectation among the majority of golfers, even among some pretty educated ones.   They want the nicest new cultivars, cut short as possible, and with speeds that allow them to sink putts.   They do not like to three putt, conversely, so anything with significant contour will be accused of "goofy golf".

Of course, I don't agree, but that's what we're facing.

That's what every well-intentioned member of any club is facing in trying to win this argument, and it's what every architect who signs on to do "restoration" work at a classic course is faced with.  

In the case of Engineers, and some of the membership pressures they were facing I think they are fortunate that they were able to get through this with a course that still has greens that cause shock and awe.  I think that they've taken a stance that while it might not give us purists everything we want, still gives us 85% of what might be perfect in an ideal world.  

And, I still think there are architects who fall into the camp of wanting to leave their mark willy-nilly to advance their own careers, and those who are very reticent to alter decades of history for their own purposes, but I've also seen the former do some good work under proper restraints and oversight, and I've seen the latter make compromises under the rationale that someone else would be less sensitive.

Based on what I've seen, I certainly wouldn't lump Tripp Davis in the former camp.



Mike

Good post.

No living architect could live up to Tom MacWOod's expectations.  Would we prefer the likes of Gil Hanse and Tom Doak over Fazio, Rees or Rulewich?  Of course we would but Fazio, Rulewich or Rees did not do work at Engineers.  Trip Davis did and he did a very good job and the back handed slap was not justified in my opinion.  I also don't think its justified to invoke the words of Gil or Tom when trying to make a lilly white record of restoration purity.  The examples of those architects altering courses thenselves as you cited point that out clearly (at least to me they do).
« Last Edit: September 10, 2006, 10:26:32 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2006, 02:19:47 AM »
now back to some Engineers photos:

the impressive ascent up to the 4th greensite as seen from the 3rd tee (Engineers is the kind of layout where your head is on a swivel)



Here's where a well struck tee ball should wind up for the average player:



For the long hitter this is the go for zone, just short of the left fairway bunker this is about 230 to the front of the green, uphill so it plays like 250, but it's all carry unless you've hit something low and running.  




A well placed layup will leave this wedge shot up the hill, not exactly a cupcake third.  I believe this was designed as a horizon green, before the tree growth far left behind the green was prominent, those trees back left are boundary trees down the right side of 13, Strong's 12th, so there's little that can be done with them now, but the trees closer to the back of the green to the right could use some  trimming  ;)  ;)

(I believe that the other horizon green in Strong's day was #7, his 6th, and it may be possible to regain that horizon view with some tree removal):
 


the false front is in full view here, a heroic 2nd or tentative 3rd shot coming up short of the green will end up at the bottom of the photo:




The 4th green, wickedly, also has a false left side while the hole slopes right to left so anything hitting the left 1/4 of the green is out of position and will end up in the rough or bunkers left of the greensite:



In the left side of this photo, taken from behind the green, the devil in Herbert Strong's details comes out as you can see the fallaways down the side of the green . . . often at Engineers a marginal approach seems to come to rest safely aboard the green, only to keep rolling . . . and rolling . . . and rolling . . ..  These are the details that take Engineers greens to the World Class category in my opinion:
 


Although hardly perceptable from the 4th fairway, from Strong's 12th fairway the right to left tilt of the 4th green is apparent:



Again, the routing at Engineers is sublime in that it is heroicly masculine while challenging ridges and cresting hilltops yet intimately interwoven with previews and returns . . . like here on the 12th fairway where you can revisit the 4th green.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 02:30:18 AM by Jason Blasberg »

T_MacWood

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2006, 06:52:49 AM »
Geoffrey
When looking at golf course like Engineers, Yale, Bethpage, etc. I think there are a few questions you should ask yourself.

Was the golf course a special design and worthy of preservation or restoration?

If the answer is yes was there an attempt to accurately restore the golf course?

And in the cases where redesign was absolutley necessary did they capture the look and feel of the original design?

When it comes to restoration you appear to have one rule for Yale and anything goes else where....perhaps that is because Yale is a course you've really made a close study of the original design.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 07:06:42 AM by Tom MacWood »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2006, 09:39:27 AM »
Tom

- or perhaps you shold study Engineers today as it sits on the ground and then you might not slap at Trip Davis and cast him aside into the Rees, Fazio and Rulewich school of redesign.  Perhaps he should be given consideration for jobs that Doak and Hanse do not have time to undertake!

Why don't you acknowledge that those two guys and including Coore and Crenhhaw have also made alterations to classic courses that are themselves worthy of preservation. No one fits your definition of a preservationist.

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (now with a couple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2006, 11:56:28 AM »
Today, in the mail, I received a good quality 1938 aerial of the property.  We know that Emmet had already been there by then but based on the '38 property, Tripp's work is darn near close.  Overall, the bunkering location and style is very close.  

On first look, the most predominant feature that had been lost and that was restored is the bunker complex on the inside of dogleg on the par 5, 10th (Strong's 9th).  

Some notable observations that I think will surprise many here, and least they certainly surprised me, and this is why when you get into the Tom MacWood game of "restoration" the date you pick matters greatly.  

Keep in mind this is 1938, while Strong was still alive, I presume and available to consult.  It’s only 18 years after the US Amateur, still the same membership with likely many founding members very much active with the greens committee, etc:

By 1938:

1) The string of pearls down the right of 16 is gone;

2) There's an added cross bunker short of Strong's par 4, 11th green (today's 12th), which was taken out in the past few years I understand as it's not there today and once again permits a run up second shot, evidently as Strong intended; and

3) The middle bunker just short of the short par 4, 7th was already added.  Strong's bunkering left a gap where the middle bunker is presumably to entice a driver off the tee to run something up.

The bunkering styles are clearly varied in the 1938 aerial, some discs, some grass island bunkering between 1 and 18, (still there) that looks like Emmet, some kidney beans (still there) some small pots and skinny trenches on 2 or 20 (still there).

Some other observations:

The half a tree gate on 13 guarding the entire right side approach was clearly there, answering a question I'd had.

There were cross bunkers off of the 6th tee, looks like cut into the ridge line that were quite menacing looking but only 100 or so yards off the tee.  

The greenside bunkers to the right of 18 green (no grassed over) were imposing in 1938.  

The large sandy waste bunker between 9 and 11 was there and it's now a series of bunkers.

While there are some additional bunkers today overall the locations and style of the bunkering on the ground today is very similar to the 1938 aerial and some excellent bunker restoration was performed.  The only bunkering today that looks out of style is that on the 7th hole, but location wise, by 1938 there was already a third fronting bunker and two fairway bunkers down the right side.

According to Tom MacWood’s standards, by 1938 it is clear that the course had already been re-designed, so whose re-design should have been restored Tom . . . ?

The obvious answer is that it’s a balance, after all over its first 20 years under the guard of the first generation of members the course evolved significantly, most noticeably by the addition of a strategic bunker short of 11 green, adding the fronting bunker of 7, (their 6) and removing the string of pearls on 16.   In addition, the varied bunkering styles also leads me to conclude that Emmet laid his hand in a number of spots.

After seeing how much the course changed in just its first 20 years, what Tripp did and what’s on the ground right now is a remarkably good effort all things considered.  While the genius of Engineers once again shines, there are certainly a couple more things that could be done, mostly bunker restoration and removal (i.e. the bunkers greenside on 18 and the cross bunkers on 6 restored, and the bunkering restyled on 7 and the center bunker removed).

Seeing this 1938 aerial has been a good lesson for me and once again reinforces my position that courses are living dynamic things.  All courses, including the great ones evolve and our job is to protect them but also guide them in the right directions . . . Engineers has been guided back onto the path it had when it was a GCA marvel and I hope more people will appreciate this in the future.


Mike_Cirba

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2006, 01:21:14 PM »
Jason,

Thanks for sharing your findings from the aerial.   Any chance of getting it scanned and posted here?  Call me a geek, but I love this historical stuff.  

I also take back my apology for bringing up the restoration work, because it seems it's possibly led to the kind of detailed historical backdrop and understanding of the evolution of Engineers that is now being put forth for our collective understanding.  ;D

One question I am wondering about is whether the 6th green had "moved" by 1938?

Also, for those wondering what the course looked like prior to the recent work, you can find an aerial at the following link;

http://tinyurl.com/qlab3

In looking at it, there are some obvious things that were restored in the recent work that don't exist in the aerial, such as the field of wild bunkers between 1 & 18, any of the string of pearls, the bunkering on Duane's third looks really pedestrian, the bunkering on the 7th was largely in place, there was no real flow joining the bunkering on 9 & 11 greens, there was no bunkering (only trees) on the inside corner of 10, the inside corner of 14 was also just all trees, where today some rugged bunkers live, and you can zoom in on most of them and literally "see" the green shrinkage, particularly on 16.  

I'd love to see the 38 aerial, against this one, against one taken today and compare and contrast.  

I'm also very curious if Emmett didn't do quite a bit more to the course than generally credited with, although that's probably something we can only speculate about.  

T_MacWood

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2006, 01:22:26 PM »
Geoffrey
What did C&C do?

Jason
Could you post the image?

Geoffrey Childs

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2006, 01:44:43 PM »
Geoffrey
What did C&C do?

Jason
Could you post the image?

They moved tees and altered a coupole of GREENS at Prairie Dunes. Doesn'ty Maxwell and son deserve better?

T_MacWood

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2006, 01:49:50 PM »
How did they alter the greens and which ones?

Geoffrey Childs

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2006, 02:08:59 PM »
Do your research Tom. The angles of the tee shots were altered as well as messing with a couple of greens. Perhaps Jason can comment as he knows what was done there too.

Didn't C & C mess with the greens at Riviera too?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 02:10:15 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2006, 02:34:47 PM »
Jason
Could you post the image?

No, I purchased the aerial for personal use.

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2006, 03:14:07 PM »
Jason,
One question I am wondering about is whether the 6th green had "moved" by 1938?

Also, for those wondering what the course looked like prior to the recent work, you can find an aerial at the following link;

http://tinyurl.com/qlab3


Mike:

The google link is helpful to compare 6th greensite.

In the '38 aerial the green was not yet moved and a straight line directly south from the Western most edge of the 5th green leaves a space about the width the entire 6th green between the eastern edge of the original green and the line.  

In the google link a straight line from the same Western most edge of the 5th green places the line directly on the eastern most point of the 6th green.  Therefore, Duane's 6th green was moved toward the east approximately the width of the entire original green.

Jason

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2006, 04:10:20 PM »
There's an Engineers thing going on at the Mid-Am, Jonathan Jame, one of our resident club champions, and Tripp Davis both made match play on the number posting 148s.  

Good luck gents!!
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 04:12:01 PM by Jason Blasberg »

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with analysis of 1938 aerial)
« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2006, 11:06:40 PM »
There's an Engineers thing going on at the Mid-Am, Jonathan Jame, one of our resident club champions, and Tripp Davis both made match play on the number posting 148s.  

Good luck gents!!

Unfortunately both Jon Jame and Tripp Davis did not advance to the second round.  But kudos to both for a very good show.

Extra kudos goes out to Jon Jame for being the only New Yorker to make match play!
 

Jason Blasberg

Re:The Old Gal Stood Strong! (with a couuple 2 or 20 Photos)
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2006, 04:59:02 AM »

Not what we'd call a large putting surface, I've wondered if the front left portion of fringe should be cut as green and I'm not sure it would play any different as most everything releases of that area forward and toward the center and it's not pinable anyway:



In the 1938 aerial, there is also a good deal of fringe area between the front bunkers and the putting surface.  Question is was this a result of mowing patterns over the first 20 years?  There's a slightly older aerial at the Village Hall that I'm going to eyeball and will report back if there are notable differences.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back