"I don't think you have to tear out the irrigation system.  There is a simpler and far less costly answer -- just don't use the sucker unless there's a drought going on!!"

Now isn't that a great idea.

"I guess what I'm asking you is, whether the pond is origional or nor, is the hole better now with the pond?"

I wondered if anyone was going to raise this question.

"I'm looking for a presumption against activism."

Well, I'll just mark you down as one of the Apostles.

Shivas:

If something makes for a better hole in the opinions of a membership of a golf club then that's what will be and what will happen.

One of the most interesting, actually ridiculous and laughable presumptions on this website is the contention that something is better for a golf club and golf course and should be done even though the membership may not feel that way.

It's fun to speculate and discuss on this website what may be best for a golf course and what may not but all it is is idle discussion. If any of us or anybody else actually wants to do something about it then they have to find a way to convince that membership or at least those there that can effect decisions.

I believe a guy like Tom MacWood can be an excellent researcher but he's said over and over that he has no interest in a club's membership or in its internal politics. If that is so the very best Tom MacWood could ever hope to do is to get information he has to someone who has the ability to go to that membership or those that control the club and convince them of the reasons to do what he may believe is right.

Without that  nothing will ever happen and all this just remains idle discussion.

rgkeller -

It was Ross (I think) who said that irrigation should not be used to keep grass green. It should be used only to keep grass alive.

That was Shivas's point. One I agree with, btw.

Bob

No argument from me. But I do believethat the only way to stop overwatering at certain courses is to disable the system.

TEPaul,

If something makes for a better hole in the opinions of a membership of a golf club then that's what will be and what will happen.

One of the most interesting, actually ridiculous and laughable presumptions on this website is the contention that something is better for a golf club and golf course and should be done even though the membership may not feel that way.

In light of your above statement, do you think that MERION did everything right with respect to their bunker project

From a Design, Construction and Maintainance aspect ?

rgkeller said;

"What amuses me is the Apostles' refusal to admit that irrigation, maintenance standards and equipment and breakthroughs in agronomy have done more to change the playing characteristics of the "Classic" course than the addition or subtraction of a bunker or two.

rg:

Where or when did any of these so-called 'Apostles' say that?

"More classic courses have been ruined by course maintenance and agronomy than by conscious changes by green committees."

Has someone on here claimed otherwise? If so I must have missed it. How do you feel about the maintenance and agronomy of GCGC? Is it too soft for your liking? Would you like to see the course speeded up "through the green" by making the course firmer? Would you like to see the greens a little firmer? I understand your subsurface conditions are well drainng and conducive to that so it wouldn't be at all difficult to do.

TomP -
Where were you when Forrest and I (with support from Rich) were making the same assertion on the Del Paso thread last week?

There is a strict school of restoration, which finds in this chat room, a number of adherents, that discounts every possible consideration except the original architect's work, despite any consensus wishes of the membership. Often times, as the Del Paso thread regrettably illustrated, these ideas are advanced in a total vacuum of knowledge or familiarity with either the club or the course. What's more, its often done in an insulting way as if they are committing some crime by not adhering to criteria set out by the strict school. Almost as if they need approval from this band of freaks.

The strict school of restoration, to paraphrase what somebody once said about those who supported supply side economics, is a view popularized by cranks and charlatans.

Sean, Sean, Sean... I realize this is in vain, since your agreement with Rich and Forrest shows we've already lost you to the dark side, but I will try anyway to bring you back.

First of all, I don't think there is anyone on this side who is for restoration as strict as you, Forrest or Rich (henceforth referred to as the Evil Axis, or EA ) imply. I don't think even Tommy or Tom M, probably the two strongest proponents of restoration, have stated that there must be a slavish devotion to each and every blade of grass returning to its rightful place, as it were.

Second, I think that most of us on the pro-restoration side recognize the inherent difficulties in practicing "true" restoration, if there is such a thing. What most have called for is that the "restoring" architect do as much research as possible and attempt to remove his ego from the process as much as possible. I like to look to similar practices in analogous industries for examples. There are people that specialize in restoring historically valuable art, for instance. I don't think most would view their work as a success if they were modernizing features on the artwork.

Now I know the EA is going to jump in at this point and (rightfully) state that a golf course is a natural evolving entity and that it is unrealistic to ignore the changing demands and nature of the game. These are certainly valid and strong points, but they are also ones which are not ignored by the good guys. I think most of us (the good guys, that is) feel that not enough thought is being put into changes made, and that too often the changes made in fact achieve the exact opposite of their intent. Furthermore, if they are not corrected relatively quickly, they can themselves become part of the whole "what and when do you restore to" equation. I think us good guys tend to think most of these changes are simply made for reasons of difficulty, and frankly are usually worthless.

Third, I think the EA loves to try to paint the good guys as a bunch of ivory tower idealists who refuse to accept the real world. I haven't met the other good guys in person yet, but I would say that likely nothing could be further from the truth. We simply care about the historical nature of the art involved and feel that, on balance, far more harm than good has been done under the guise of "improving" golf courses.

We like to ask simple questions that are ridiculed by others (questions which to my mind remain unanswered) like:

- Why can't "restoration architects" (the whipping boys, anyway) seem to make bunkers or holes that fit in with the rest of the course? Is their intent mailicious, or simply mistaken?

- Why do people seem obsessed with score or difficulty being the determining factor of a courses greatness? Why can't members appreciate what they have? How many members are really tearing up their home courses? Does it really matter what Tiger shoots? Do they have a healthy enough ego to see that it doesn't? Some of the old guys (Jones & Mackenzie spring to mind) seemed to feel a golf course should yield low scores if played well. Food for thought for today's leaders.

Fourth, I don't think any of us feel all golf courses are above any sort of remodeling. Where we seem to differ is in our regard for special older courses. Even someone like Tom MacWood, who has done the research to back up his claims, has said a course like Medinah might benefit from someone like Rees injecting a certainly personality it might be lacking. Again, we differ from the EA in that we don't think personality should always be injected into a course.

Fifth, most of us (good guys) don't take statements like "building in the spirit of" well - I'd say history is on our side for this one, but there certainly are exceptions.

Sixth, we view this board as an opportunity to exchange ideas. I don't think any of us feel that we have a right to inject or enforce our own beliefs into a private club, but maybe we just hope that pointing out that sometimes the emperor indeed wears no clothes may help folks out. Admittedly, on this point some of us can come across too strong, but others make completely reasonable, rational comments, only to have them shouted down by others. I guess it's all in your view of the particulars.

I need to pause now because my thoughts are becoming more and more disjointed.

I will conclude by saying that most of the good guys feel that each situation is different and must be examined as such. It is the EA that has attempted to portray us as overly zealous in an attempt to discredit our opinions (kind of like I'm doing to the EA in this post, in an attempt to inject a little levity into the situation).

I suspect all of us could sit down over a beer or three and we'd probably find that we aren't that far apart. At least, I hope so. If nothing else, I hope we'd respect each others opinions and their right to them.

Tom

You should go read that Del Paso thread if only to see the EXACT MOMENT when Pat Mucci started agreeing with Tom MacWood.   It is not a pretty sight, but we at the Evil Axis (tm) wish Pat all the best in his new life, and would like to let him know that his Cabana at the EA Temple of Doom is waiting for him if and when he comes to his senses.

PS--the answer to the central question of this thread can be easily resolved.  Did or did not the Emperor hit his ball into the pond?  If so, it stays.  If he stayed dry, hasta la vista agua!

George,
Like many of your brethren, you've failed by taking such a binary approach. I think you will find that the eminent triumvirate was incorporated for the sole purpose of the Del Paso thread. EA (or Elegant Analysis) merely pointed out that the cult of restoration had run its mission statement to the absurd conclusion, resulting in ad hominem attacks on 1) somebody who was looking for resources, and 2) somebody who was unfamiliar with the acceptable nomenclature of the Strict School (hereinafter, appropriately, "SS").

I'm of the mind that GCA, with its depth of knowledge, can be a very worthwhile resource for a club that is earnestly looking to restore its course to its original grandeur, relatively speaking. Yet here we have the perfect example in the Del Paso thread of the strong arm tactics of the SS. Mindy is looking for resources about Fowler, but, in the collective mind of the SS, maybe she'll accept a surgical cross-examination, forcing her to defend her very existence on the green committee?

As I mentioned to you privately, Mindy's subsequent disappearance fairly validates my point about the SS approach. A chance to help someone out and exhibit the wonderful resources GCA can bring to bear went by the board.

I can't write on this anymore, although I suspect I probably will.  

Sean
You are really on a roll.

"Neither did a majority of the people participating in the thread. But rest assured, that didn't keep each of them from expounding at great length about what the club should do with its course."

Did anyone expound more than you on that thread?  

"There is a strict school of restoration, which finds in this chat room, a number of adherents, that discounts every possible consideration except the original architect's work, despite any consensus wishes of the membership."

This is site is devoted to architecture...no? If you want to talk about the wishes of membership, go ahead...it doesn't bother me. If it is as interesting as I think it might be perhaps we could start new site GolfClubMembership.com and really explore it.

"Often times, as the Del Paso thread regrettably illustrated, these ideas are advanced in a total vacuum of knowledge or familiarity with either the club or the course."

What ideas? There was a member or two members expressing their point of views. Weren't there were more questions asked than ideas advanced? I don't recall any ideas being explored in great deal...if there were who cares, you or anyone who disagrees with these ideas are free to respond.

"What's more, its often done in an insulting way as if they are committing some crime by not adhering to criteria set out by the strict school. Almost as if they need approval from this band of freaks."

I didn't pick on the insults, but then again I didn't read half the posts.

"The strict school of restoration, to paraphrase what somebody once said about those who supported supply side economics, is a view popularized by cranks and charlatans."

Please explain what the "strict school of restoration" is and who are the band of freaks?