[Jason Blasberg]

Bump . . . is it possible that I have finally silenced the verbose Mr. Mucci?  

[Jason Blasberg]

Sean, I'm not sure I understand your question.  You certainly can enter and exit the bunker from the bottom, however, you still have no other way to ascend the bank and get onto the green.  

Walkers walk down the slope, into the valley and up through the steps onto the green.  Riders drive up and to the left of the green on the cart path and descend onto the green from the top left side.

 

[TEPaul]

You people are actually arguing about whether or not the steps are in the right place?

Unbelievable!

[Jason Blasberg]

You people are actually arguing about whether or not the steps are in the right place?

Unbelievable!

Tom:

I thought you would realize my argument is far more fundamental.  I'm trying to illustrate that much of what passes for normative restoration theory on this Board is nothing more than aesthetic preference.  Mr. Mucci opened this can of worms by stating incorrectly that no stairs were there for 90 years as the basis for his current aesthic preference that they be removed.  There were stairs just in a different location.

If Pat admits that his position is merely aesthetic preference without a normative restoration theory behind it I'll stop the presses on this one.  

Until than I'm turning the tables on Mr. Mucci, with whom I've likened debating GCA to slap boxing with a chainsaw, it hurts and its bloody!

[TEPaul]

"Tom:
I thought you would realize my argument is far more fundamental."

And you are right Jason---100% right. I do realize your argument is far more fundamental. But that doesn't matter with Pat. Hell, you could turn around and adopt his entire position up to this point and he'd still call you wrong.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I understand the distinction between steep areas requiring stairs and less steep areas not requiring stairs, perhaps.  
I also understand why Strong's stairs were there, there was no other exit route as, alas, there was not earth ramp.

I'm glad you agree with me.
There was certainly no earthen ramp to the right where his stairs were.  There was an earthen ramp where the current walkway exists, on the left[/color]

You also state:

"It's clear that the steps are a recent addition, and, out of place, architecturally.

They are obviously "modern" in appearance and function.

Previously an earthen ramp like feature allowed the golfer to enter and exit at that location.  The stairs look like a typical modern intrusion."

The earth ramp is a modern feature, as you will see clearly from Ran's (Tom MW's) old photo it was not there and thus the stairs were the only way up.  

Earthen ramps are/were not a modern feature.
Lady's Aides, or earthen ramps were employed by almost all of the early designers to provide egress from many features, including bunkers and greens.

The current "Walkway" complete with railroad ties is a concession to "modern" accomodation and is out of place.[/color]

Pat, either you don't get this one or you're intentionally playing coy.  

The earth ramp is a modern feature (in that it was clearly not an original feature)

That doesn't make it modern[/color]

and Tripp's stairs are a modern feature.  

That's for sure, but your definition of what's modern
is the most bogus rationalization I've heard in many years[/color]

WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY EXPRESSING A PREFERENCE AMONG MODERN FEATURES?  

Because the earthen ramp isn't a modern feature and the walkway is[/color]

The problem here is that you arrogantly (whether or not that was your intention) condemned the stairs as a Modern, unnecessary, scar on the canvass.  

It's not just the stairs, it's the entire walkway.
There are only five (5) railroad ties that are incorporated into the walkway, so, it's not just the steps, it's the entire feature.[/color]

Your stated justification is that there weren't stairs for 90 years so there shouldn't be stairs today.

That's correct.
There were no stairs in that location.
That location doesn't need them because it's not steep.[/color]

When your initial assumption was proven false, rather than admit the more accurate basis for your conclusion (that you are stating an aesthetic preference among two non-original features) you are revising history asserting that the earth ramp is the proper feature and that Tripp's stairs, "look like a typical modern intrusion."

They do.
Don't try to equate the features by classifying them in the convenient catch all phrase of, "non-original"

By the way, what happened to the old photos and where is the photo of the old green that appeared in Golfweek ?[/color]

I know you are too smart to think that such fallacious reasoning will get you out of this one.  

My reasoning remains prudent.
The current feature is out of place and .... hokie[/color]

If you are seriously going to call Tripp's stairs a "typical modern intrusion" and not recognize the earth ramp as the same, than you are throwing historical restorationists like Mr. MacWood under the bus for your own specious attempt to cloak taste as a norm.

That you can't distiquish between a modern walkway, complete with imbeded railroad ties, and an earthen ramp is mind boggling.  That you equate the two is even more mind boggling.  One isn't intrusive to play, the other is.[/color]

Last:

You asked, "are the railroad ties considered an integral part of the golf course, or is relief permitted ?"

What were Strong's original stairs, or any stairs?  
They look movable.
But, if they weren't, I'd have to look at the scorecard or the club's published local rules to determine protocol.

As to any stairs, you'd have to consult the club's published local rules and/or the scorecard to ascertain how they should be played.[/color]

I've always understood them to be an integral part and there is no local rule stating otherwise.  

In that case you've been playing them incorrectly, under a misinterpretation of the rules concerning obstructions.

Those railroad ties are not in the hazard and absent a local rule defining them as an integral part of the golf course, the golfer would get relief from them as an immovable obstruction, unless the railroad ties were movable, and in that case, relief would be afforded under the movable obstruction provisions.

Which is another reason I object to them.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Mucci opened this can of worms by stating incorrectly that no stairs were there for 90 years as the basis for his current aesthic preference that they be removed.  

And, I was right, there were no stairs where the current walkway exists.[/color]

There were stairs just in a different location.

And, that makes all the difference in the world.
The current location needs no steps.

The current walkway inclusive of railroad ties is in an area absent steep inclines.

The old wooden steps, which might have been movable were to further to the right, where the incline is steep and the bunker ends.[/color]

If Pat admits that his position is merely aesthetic preference without a normative restoration theory behind it I'll stop the presses on this one.  

It's not aesthetic preference, which you continuously, erroneously refer to.

It's that the walkway isn't necesssary in that area, looks typically "modern" and out of context, and creates ruling problems, all good reasons for their removal.

Think, Is it possible that an error was made, or is the project perfect in every regard ?[/color]

Until than I'm turning the tables on Mr. Mucci, with whom I've likened debating GCA to slap boxing with a chainsaw, it hurts and its bloody!

Only a member could defend the form and location of that walkway in a project deemed to be restorative in nature.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

We know what you think about Tripp Davis, what is your opinion of Herbert Strong?

I won't comment about Strong as anything I could say would be inferior to your vast knowledge of all things long dead so I'll let you tell me what to think about Strong.  

How about anyone else? There are many others on this thread with very strong opinions about restoration who are also apparetnly interested in golf architecture and its history.

Why is Herbert Strong important in your opinion? What is it about his work that appeals to you and why do you think it is important to restore his work? And if you don't agree that he is important and worthy of restoration...why not?

[TEPaul]

"How about anyone else? There are many others on this thread with very strong opinions about restoration who are also apparetnly interested in golf architecture and its history."


Tom MacWood:

I don't know whether my opinions on restoration could be considered more strong opinions or more herbert opinions.

 

[T_MacWood]

TE
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Strong. Anyone else?

[TEPaul]

Seriously, my opinion on Herbert Strong architecture, particularly Engineers, is that it certainly was significant or some of it was.

To me his style seemed to have many elements of the so-called "National School of Architecture", particularly his green-sites and formations whether basically natural landform or made, which would seem logical as Strong cut his teeth in architecture over here around the NY Metropolitan area (Apawamis) which was the homeground of a lot of the National School and its style.

That basic style is generally very bold, particularly on interesting topography with a noticeable engineered look like some of the National School. Strong's style as well as the best of the National School style clearly created some very bold play and play requirements.

I don't know much about Strong's courses but I do vaguely remember Ponte Vedra, and I've played Saucon Old, I vaguely remember Century CC, and I've played Laval Sur le Lac, CC of Harrisburg, and Nassau, the latter few where he did some work.

To me Strong's architecture is most interesting and significant, as it is very identifiably of a particular era and style and type that is most interesting in the evolution of golf architecture in America. A lot was going on in Strong's era and he was obviously one of the prime stylistic movers even if sort of in a bit of a niche of his own.

I think a good one word description of Strong's architecture would be "bold".

Another item that may be very important and very interesting to know about Stong is apparently he spent a great deal of time on-site on his projects and in the end that just may be the most important thing of all to know about him. And he also worked for a brief time with John Low which of course is an interesting connection to consider.

I also grew up within about three miles of Engineers and my oldest and best friend lived immediately juxtaposed to it but ironically I have never actually seen the course or club.

Back in that day, in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s Engineers was considered around those parts to be an unusual course, pretty quirky and different from most of the sentiment in golf back then. It definitely had a reputation to it but a pretty unusual one---not that unlike the reputation NGLA had back then which most ironically was not a lot like its reputation today.

Perceptions at various times are most interesting, to say the least.  

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, when it comes to a course like Engineers and a guy like Tom MacWood and restoring it more exactly, I feel that is a complex question which takes a whole lot of understanding on both sides of the issue.

In my opinion, I can't see how there is any way at all that Tom MacWood could be able to understand the nitty gritty architectural and restoration decisions that inherently come up with how it all relates to actual play. In a phrase he just isn't familiar enough with the golf course to fully understand those things. That just takes a lot of familiarity with the course and the project. He may continue to say it shouldn't matter but in the end that only shows his naivety regarding a whole slew of actual restoration issues.

But if such things like bunker placement make sense in play I can't see why they couldn't or shouldn't be restored, but they must make sense in play and Tom MacWood, I very much doubt, is in a postion to know that. The look of the bunkering, wherever it's placed, however, I can't see couldn't be done in a way that looked almost exactly like Strong's, but I'm not in a postion to comment on that with much authority because I haven't been there before or after.

Jason, I wll be driving right past it on Sunday morning. Are you going to be in the neighborhood?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Thanks. Which of his courses would you like to see preserved or restored and why...if any?

Anyone else? Geoffrey Childs you've expressed strong opinions on this thread...what are your thoughts on Strong?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jason, I wll be driving right past it on Sunday morning. Are you going to be in the neighborhood?

Tom,

Jason and a few of us will be out at Tallgrass this Sunday.

I'd STRONGly encourage you to drop by and look at Engineers and perhaps Jason can have that arranged for you.   You'll enjoy yourself, I'm sure.

Or, you're certainly welcome to join us at Tallgrass, as well.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Thanks. Which of his courses would you like to see preserved or restored and why...if any?"

Probably as many as possible. The reason? Why not?

But to restore them, once again, is not as simple as just proposing it as you have apparently done with Engineers. One of these days you're just going to have to face up to that fact if you want to get real on this subject. There is no question at all that you sure don't have some magic formula for exact restoration which no one has thought of to date---including Tripp Davis.

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Thank you but I'm going to The Creek where I will be locked in a closet office with a computer on Sunday and not let out until late Monday with a maximum of three and a minimum of two chinese meals slid through the door, and if I haven't produced a complete design evolution report at that point I think I'll be in deep do-do.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC;

Thank you but I'm going to The Creek where I will be locked in a closet office with a computer on Sunday and not let out until late Monday with a maximum of three and a minimum of two chinese meals slid through the door, and if I haven't produced a complete design evolution report at that point I think I'll be in deep do-do.

Tom,

In either case, you should ask your guards for a couple of hours of fresh air and get over and have a look-see at Engineers if Jason can arrange it.  

Not sure if they serve Chinese, though, but you can perhaps just tell the guards that you're saving them a trip and running for take-out yourself.  

[T_MacWood]

Seriously, my opinion on Herbert Strong architecture, particularly Engineers, is that it certainly was significant or some of it was.

To me his style seemed to have many elements of the so-called "National School of Architecture", particularly his green-sites and formations whether basically natural landform or made, which would seem logical as Strong cut his teeth in architecture over here around the NY Metropolitan area (Apawamis) which was the homeground of a lot of the National School and its style.

That basic style is generally very bold, particularly on interesting topography with a noticeable engineered look like some of the National School. Strong's style as well as the best of the National School style clearly created some very bold play and play requirements.

TE
What about Strong's work gives you the impression of Macdonald, Raynor or Banks?

[T_MacWood]

I don't know much about Strong's courses but I do vaguely remember Ponte Vedra, and I've played Saucon Old, I vaguely remember Century CC, and I've played Laval Sur le Lac, CC of Harrisburg, and Nassau, the latter few where he did some work.

TE
Trent Jones completely redesigned Ponte Vedra in the 40s. The Gordon's overhauled Saucon Valley Old in 1950. Century is CH Alison design. Laval sur le Lac is a Willie Park design. CC of Harrisburg is Flynn.

[T_MacWood]

Another item that may be very important and very interesting to know about Stong is apparently he spent a great deal of time on-site on his projects and in the end that just may be the most important thing of all to know about him. And he also worked for a brief time with John Low which of course is an interesting connection to consider.

TE
He collaborated with George Low - the pro at Baltusrol - not John Low.

[T_MacWood]

I also grew up within about three miles of Engineers and my oldest and best friend lived immediately juxtaposed to it but ironically I have never actually seen the course or club.

Back in that day, in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s Engineers was considered around those parts to be an unusual course, pretty quirky and different from most of the sentiment in golf back then. It definitely had a reputation to it but a pretty unusual one---not that unlike the reputation NGLA had back then which most ironically was not a lot like its reputation today.

Perceptions at various times are most interesting, to say the least.  

TE
That is ironic you grew up a few miles from the course and never played it. My impression is its reputation took a nose dive after WWII. Have you played Inwood or Canterbury?

[Jason Blasberg]

My impression is its reputation took a nose dive after WWII.

It's steadily making a comeback and soon will once again  be recognized as a unique asset to American golf course architecture.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

The first golf course for the Country Club of Harrisburg was opened on June 1, 1898.  More land was acquired and the nine holes were stretched to 2462 yards in 1900.  Flynn didn't remodel the nine hole course and add nine holes until 1915.  The completed Flynn course opened for play in 1916.

I don't know who designed the first courses at CCH, maybe it was Strong.

[TEPaul]

"TE
That is ironic you grew up a few miles from the course and never played it. My impression is its reputation took a nose dive after WWII. Have you played Inwood or Canterbury?"

Tom MacWood:

Nope, never played Inwood or Canterbury and I know little about them. I probably never played Engineers despite its proximity because back then I played so little golf. I didn't really take up the game until I was around 35 and by then I was well out of Long Island.

But I did have some sense of the feeling about various clubs and courses on Long Island back then because my Dad was so into it---eg golf was basically his life. He didn't talk to me about it much back then because he was one of those guys who didn't talk to people about golf unless he knew they really liked it.

I'm not certain but I think he may've won some stuff around there like the Long Island or even the Metropolitan Amateur. I do know he won the US Championship of club champions back in the day when that tournament was a big deal and I remember that he held the record at Piping Rock for the longest time. Maybe he still does.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Strong didn't come over to the US until 1905. Perhaps he was involved in some redesign work after 1916. From what I understand he did add some bunkers to Park's Laval sur le Lac. Alison designed Century in 1923/24 and as far as I know Strong never touched that golf course.

TE
What do you know of Strong's involvement at Century and what about Strong's work gives you such an impression of the National School?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()