Tom,

Not to flog a dead horse but from the very tips, the Dunes course was less than 6500 yards long. No amount of restoration could have salvaged a very mediocre back nine. The eleventh hole was a bog in the winter and the ditch of stagnant 'watery filth' bisecting that hole with the twelth was a constant irritation.

Say what you will, Rees Jones did an outstanding job here.

Bob
It has been a long time, and the course had seen better days. I would characterize the original MPCC as a Raynor design with Robert Hunter bunkering (quite a combination)--something IMO worthy of restoration.

Tom,

As someone who has occasionally been known to get so deep into an argument that I lose sight of some of my points, I am curious if you do not want to retract the one above?

As I understand it, you played MPCC once, a long time ago and have never seen it post Rees.  Bob is a member there and plays it 50+ times a year and is also a highly regarded classical architecture buff with a tremendous reputation.  Bob tells you that the course is better post Rees and your response is that they should have hired someone else and restored?

David
I respect Bob's opinion, but I would have preferred the Raynor/Hunter design been preserved and restored. I understand the issues of length and drainage needed to be addressed....but I don't understand why it has to be an either or proposition...why not fix those problems and bring back Raynor/Hunter? In its prime the course was a respected design both as a good fun test and a beautiful golf course. If I'm not mistaken it was in the Crosby rotation.

There are plenty of RJ designs, there is a finite number of Raynor/Hunter designs....one.

Pat
I excluded both ACCC and Lake Merced for similar reasons....from what I understand neither was a canidate for restoration.

Geoffrey
Changing the greens is equally offensive....thats what I said a couple posts ago. The desire for speed will ruin tons of great old greens.

Macdonald was not an advocate of ad hoc alterations to golf courses to restore original intent (because of equipment advances). In fact he and Darwin both advocated studying each hole individually. He said due to the random bunkering sceme and the vagueries of the ground many holes were improved by a new unintended strategy.

And most of the time these architects who claim they are re-establishing original intent with new bunkers are in actuality establighing new intent they dreamed up.

I would rather do without for a decade, than set a precident and allow some newly designed bunkers be brought in. Once you start not only is it unlikely you will ever go back, but it is very likely you will carry out some new redsign work in the future....which is true with 90% of the courses I listed on my last post. (ANGC, Bel Air, Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, etc.)

David
I respect Bob's opinion, but I would have preferred the Raynor/Hunter design been preserved and restored. I understand the issues of length and drainage needed to be addressed....but I don't understand why it has to be an either or proposition...why not fix those problems and bring back Raynor/Hunter? In its prime the course was a respected design both as a good fun test and a beautiful golf course. If I'm not mistaken it was in the Crosby rotation.

Tom,

At least now I understand your point and why we disagree.  To paraphrase, you consider the architect to be the salient point, where I consider it to be the quality of work.  To illustrate, Dye and Nicklaus worked together on two courses, Harbor Town and Wabeek.  Harbor Town worked and is really good.  Wabeek is an unplayable abortion.  By your logic, Wabeek should forever be left alone because of its historical significance.  I could not disagree more.  All architects are capable of substandard work.  Each has their Waterloo.  If Raynor and Hunter did an average job at MPCC and Rees improved it, than IMO it is good for everyone.  Where I get offended is a Michigan where Mackenzie/Maxwell did a very good job and than Art Hills wrecks it.  My problem is not with the architect but with the work.

Tom MacWood,

Pat

I excluded both ACCC and Lake Merced for similar reasons....from what I understand neither was a canidate for restoration.

Tom, how do you draw the conclusion that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but Hollywood was ?

That's part of your problem.

You have no inside knowledge of what went on at Atlantic City other than what I and others posted, and you have no inside knowledge of what went on at Hollywood other then what has been posted, and yet, YOU CONCLUDE, that Atlantic City WASN'T a candidate for restoration, but Hollywood WAS.

HOW DO YOU COME TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS ?

THEY ARE FALSE AND CONFLICTING.

Bob Huntley tells you that MPCC wasn't a very good golf course, irrespective of who designed it, and that Rees created a better golf course that the members like more, YET, you claim that you, who has played it once, know better then the membership at MPCC and Bob Huntley, who plays the golf course 150 + times a year.

Tom, I understand your desire to restore rather than alter golf courses.  But, if that's your desire, your platform, you can't draw the convenient conclusion that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but that Hollywood was, when that simply ISN'T TRUE.

You can't bash Rees at Hollywood and praise Doak at Atlantic City when they did essentially the same thing for each club's respective owners.  In fact, in reviewing both projects,
Rees preserved far, far more than Doak, yet you give Doak a pass and constantly harangue Rees.

I can throw Baltusrol into the mix as well.

With respect to architects, be fair, be consistent, and apply your standards universally, not selectively, as you have done in the past, AND,
recognize that not all clubs embark on restorations, despite your feelings, and that the outcome of a project should be viewed in the context of the architects ability to meet its mission statement.

It is mostly the memberships that determine the fate of their courses, they are the custodians of their golf course.

Tom MacWood,

No you don't understand my point...I consider the architecture the salient point not the architect. For example Crooked Stick has had the same architect throughout its architectural history....the course should've been left alone like The Golf Club instead it became an experimental laboratoy. Same with Muirfield Village. Pinehurst #2, Oakmont and NGLA are opposite examples.

After reading TE's history of GM's it is clear to me that Maxwell made substanial improvements to Ross's design. Rye designed by Colt was altered by Captain Tippet...I wouldn't advocate removing his good work. The household name of Stutt changed Dornoch from holiday course to perhaps the best course in Scotland. Colt improved Park's Sunningdale. Fowler improved Westward Ho! RTJ improved Firestone, but IMO not Oakland Hills or CC of Detroit. Dick Wilson improve Moraine, but not Scioto.

The point is there are no hard fast rules...each course should be judged individually.

Therefore, if Rees improved Hollywood, Baltusrol and MPCC you should recognize and praise his work at those courses, instead of constantly bashing it.

Why have you failed to do so ?

Don't you feel that Dye improved the 14th hole at Crooked Stick ?

David --

It's simple -- Tom has a major hard-on against anything that Rees does. End of story. It would be much easier if he would just say such a thing but the MacWood style is to play Clintonian word games and tap dance with more inane questions back to whoever sends them.

Tom is into the "look" no matter how the course plays. He would much rather preserve for the sake of preservation even if someone like Bob points out that the existing layout is indeed a better golf course.

David -- I agree with you -- the finish product is what matters most to me as well -- not some blind ideological loyalty to a design style that may not fit what today's game is all about. Yes, sensitive restorations can happen and should be encouraged but let's not forget that what was done years ago may just need to be upgraded and done with that in mind. If done properly I say that's fine but I've long ago since given up convincing people that how a course "plays" is the first among equals versus that of how it "looks" IMHO.

Does anyone know of a golf course named Glenwild GC, and who designed it? I heard it's very good......

Pat
I was under the impression the 14th was one of the holes that was little changed.

I frankly don't know much about ACCC, perhaps you can share with us your knowledge of the course's architectural evolution.

Rich
If I'm not mistaken I was the person who informed you of the particulars surrounding the pivital change after WWII. As I recall Stutt was news to you. You can call it what you like, but the rags of the day referred to it as a holiday course...not necessarily a bad thing, unless you suffer from some type of Napolionic complex.

David
Did I say Rees didn't improve a hurt MPCC? I'm sure he improved it, just as I'm sure he improved a broken down Bethpage. But thats like saying the Art Hills improved a delapitated Michigan course case closed....yes, but does the course measure up to what was originally there. In my opinion the original MPCC, Bethpage and Michigan were all worth restoring accurately.

Pat
So many questions...I thought you were going to share with us your knowledge of ACCC's architectural evolution....my bad...I think you just did.  

Tom MacWood,

I excluded both ACCC and Lake Merced for similar reasons....from what I understand neither was a canidate for restoration.

Stop trying to duck the question and divert the focus.

How did you come to the conclusion that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but that Hollywood was

Share with us, your in depth knowledge with respect to the decisions by the owners of both Atlantic City and Hollywood.

Or, you can just tell us how you whimsically decided that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but Hollywood was.