[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

As I'm quite sure you appreciate, all this talk about "blame" does not serve any purpose. As lay people, the only thing we can do with something like the Merion bunkers is give our honest opinion on the finished product. Period. Getting into a public discussion about whether MacDonald, Fazio or the Merion leadership is to blame is counterproductive, in my opinion.

All the project management blow-by-blow stuff is best left to private discussion whether the final product is judged successful or not. If we start pointing fingers of blame, it will only make it more difficult for industry personnel to ever participate here. Let's stay away from that and concentrate on discussing the "final product".

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In my opinion, your entire post #135 is crap. It's total bullshit! It's not realistic--it's not the way things generally happen in real life and you must know that.

You seem to be pass what you say off as great problem solving but the fact is it's in retrospect not in foresight. We did speak about these things the other day on the telephone and I told you there is only so much that any memberhip or their representatives serving on committees can know about the details of golf architecture. That's precisely why a club such as Merion needed to and needs to have the very best in restoration architectural advice and contracting work.

Did they have that with Fazio and MacDonald & Co? Many of us think they did not and for reasons other than just the "look" of the restored bunkers. There were other problems with the contracted work. Again, did the club contract for problems in the bunker work? Of course not. Why didn't they realize it earlier as you asked? Because that apparently is not something they could foresee earlier. Is that something you have a hard time understanding? Your general implication throughout this entire discussion of bunkers and architecture and a membership's responsibility vs that of an architect or contractor seems to be if you were running things yourself for any golf club none of this would have ever happened? Do you really think that Pat? Are you as knowlegeable about all these things as a professional architect and a professional contractor, particularly a really good architect with an accomplished record in restorations? Maybe you think you are. I know I don't think I am--and that's precisely why I'd depend on somebody who I really did know and knew the track record of! I'm not half so naive or even arrogant as to assume that ANYBODY could do the same thing just so long as I told him what I wanted! That's the impression you seem to be trying to ply on here and I'm not buying it. A great education in architecture is doubtlessly very important for such as us but that doesn't make you as accomplished in the production of the architecture as a C&C and their "Boys" and some of the others who seem to be respected on here!

When the entire membership comes back and plays the golf course with the new work after a time there will be feedback. Is that something you think is unimportant or of no consequence? It's frankly of the ultimate consequence. Try reading Geoff Shackelford's Behr reprints of what so-called "Permanent architecture" is all about! Does one wonder why Pine Valley has basically never changed its architecture, or Cypress Point or even TOC. Generally they didn't because its acceptable to most all golfers.

I told you that probably the majority of Merion members don't really have a problem with the look of the restored bunkering. The majority of members and probably the majority of all golfers just don't make those kinds of distinctions because basically they don't notice them. That's because they simply aren't aware of some of the nuances in architecture, period! But there're a number of members who do notice it and aren't happy about it. That's just the look---but again, as has been said numerous times there're a number of additional problems that need to be fixed.

Is that something the club contracted Fazio and MacDonald for? Answer the question. And stop this foolish dreaming and trying to claim the club should have picked up on those potential problems much earlier if the bunkers were built sequentially. All that sounds to me as if you're claiming in retrospect that the club should have picked up on it because someone like you would have picked up on it. Frankly, I'm not in the slightest bit convinced that you would have picked up on it before the bunkering went into general play again. You certainly don't seem to be one who makes the greatest distinctions in what bunkering actually looks like that's for sure.

And it's pretty obvious that if even some of the members don't like the "look" of the new bunkering compared to the look of the old bunkering something must have gone wrong. Afterall the old famous "white faces" of Merion were world famous and apparently respected by everyone I've ever heard from! So why aren't they now? Oh yes, of course, those that say they don't like the new look are merely biased towards a particular architect or contractor! It's just that simple to you, is it Pat?

Your points and your arguments are hanging somewhere out on a real limb on this entire thread and all those like it. The reason you are, in my opinion, is you really aren't discussing the subject at hand here. All you're trying to do is fit just another example you yourself came up with into this ridiculous campaign of yours about "bias" and "double standards" on this website. Your campaign isn't working--it will never work and my advice to you would be to shitcan this constant "bias" campaign of yours!

As for Aronimink's newly restored bunkering--they seem to be extremely popular and respected amongst the membership and those that've seen and played them, including a senior tour contingent in a major championship. And they seem to be problem free? Why is that? Because those running the project did their homework well, the architect was a good one who really did his homework (I know because he's been talking to me about it for a couple of years now and I spent a number of sessions out there watching it progress with him and the clubs representative and the shapers and super) and he communicated exactly what he wanted done to the contractors, the superintendent and the representatives of the membership.

You asked:

"Have you ever been intimately involved in the design, construction and modification of bunkers in the field ?
If not, perhaps that experience would enlighten you and alter your position as evidenced by your postings."

I thought you had some idea where I've been for the last five years and what I've been doing but perhaps not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're response drifts so far from the topic and introduces so many new issues that it's hard to respond, but let me try.

Your view is the one that is unrealistic, a view that would have the evaluation of the construction of a bunker deferred until after all the members have played it.  And, then what ?
It's too late to change anything, and it's too late to raise additional money to fund desired alterations.  The time to evaluate each bunker is during construction stages, and certainly, immediately after their completion, not after the entire project is complete and the course is opened for play.

I wasn't referencing our conversation of the other day, but, specifically our conversations on site, and shortly thereafter.
I thought that I made that clear.

Your scenario would portray committee members as uneducated about architecture and unfamiliar with their home course, something that I find hard to believe.

You say that they could not foresee the problems earlier and I submit that Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could have foreseen some of those problems in the early stages.

C & C and the "boys" have nothing to do with this, please don't drag them into this, I understand that they didn't want this job, so why bring them up ?

Tom, instead of directing me to read about field work, try getting involved in it first.

Pine Valley may not have changed due to the iron willed dictator who ran the club.  I doubt many would make architectural suggestions to modify Pine Valley to JAB without the fear of  having their membership discontinued.  
Had the club been a member owned club like many others, I guarantee you changes would have been made over the years
TOC has seen changes over the years, so I don't know why you hold it out as "permanent" from its inception, to current date.

First you tell us that the majority of the membership, through examination and playing determines the merits of the new bunkers, and now you tell us that a select few with discerning tastes performs that function.  Which is it ?  You've taken two, diametrically opposed positions, which one do you mean ?

I don't want to personalize this issue as you have, but I'm confident in my abilities to distinguish the look, playability and construction of bunkers, are you ?

On any change to a golf course you'll get a portion of the membership that likes the change, a portion that doesn't like the change, and a portion that doesn't care.  Your argument that gives weight to one faction you may support versus other factions has no merit based solely on it being a differing view.

As the originator of this thread, I know what it's about, despite the fact that you can't grasp it.
It's about the fact that MacDonald & Co produced great bunkers at Aronimink.  It turns out that they produced very good bunkers at Atlantic City.  They produced very good bunkers at Bethpage.  With that resume under their belt, is it possible that they produced what they were required to produce under the terms of their contract at Merion ?
And if so, then all the criticism directed toward them by many on this site should be retracted, and the appropriate apologies made.  You wouldn't want anyone to make false allegations about you, would you ?

With respect to your involvements for the past 5 years, have they been in an official capacity for any club, and have you been actively involved with field work with the sole authority, delegated to you by the club, to approve, alter or reject the contractor's and/or architect's field work ?
  
Or, have you been a highly interested spectator with respect to the field work ?

Action speaks louder then words.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tiim Weiman;

I completely agree.  

I was only asking the obvious question because it seemed to be the unspoken point of this thread.  

I certainly won't press Patrick for an answer, because I'm sure he's uncomfortable with doing so, and rightly so.  

I respect that.  

Thanks for your honest and direct feedback.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I am sure if Macdonald & co were not capable of doing the specified, contracted for work Tom Doak (MFA) would not have let them do the work at ACCC.

The members that i know at Merion are quite happy with the look and playability of the bunkers.  Should we overide the members thoughts?

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said;

“They produced very good bunkers at Bethpage.  With that resume under their belt, is it possible that they produced what they were required to produce under the terms of their contract at Merion ?
And if so, then all the criticism directed toward them by many on this site should be retracted, and the appropriate apologies made.  You wouldn't want anyone to make false allegations about you, would you?"

And Pat Mucci also said;

“When we were on site, how long did it take us, when we were reviewing our first bunker on the golf course, to see some if not all of the problems? Three nano-seconds.
Do you think that we're the only rank amateurs with decent eyesight capable of those observations?

Patrick:

Is it possible for you to see the crystal clear contradiction in those two statements? So are you saying that we really are the only ones who saw some problems? Are you saying that not a single one of Merion’s 750 members saw some problems? Are you also saying that the Merion committee responsible for the project actually instructed MacDonald & Co to construct and create those problems? That’s completely ludicrous and you have to know that.

You’re simply incapable of accepting the fact that MacDonald & Co may not be very good at restoring Merion’s famous bunkering and that they may not have done a particularly good job of it!

My take, once again, is they probably can do a decent restoration on a particular type and style of bunkering but apparently not other styles such as Flynn and Thomas. Obviously you don’t see that or can’t see that and you’re simply looking to lay blame elsewhere because that fits neatly into this ridiculous campaign of yours to prove “bias” and a double standard against Fazio and MacDonald & Co on this website. No one buys that argument of yours or this ongoing campaign against what you perceive to be bias and a double standard.

Are you still questioning what my involvement or interest in this subject of bunkering or architecture is? If so don’t take my word for anything—call Gil Hanse or Bill Coore or Ron Prichard—or call Gulph Mills’s Green Chairman or the club’s President by all means and ask them yourself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Why do I need to call those people, just tell me if you had the sole AUTHORITY to approve, alter or reject the contractor/architect's work in the field, and if you were ACTIVELY involved in field/CONSTRUCTION work in an OFFICIAL capacity for a club.

If, as you claim, that MacDonald & Co didn't do a particularly good job on Merion's bunkers, then why weren't they instructed to redo them, or, why wasn't another contractor brought in after it became apparent, early in the process, that, as you allege, they weren't doing a particularly good job?  Or, if they didn't build the bunkers as required, why weren't they required to make a financial settlement for improper construction ?

HamiltonBHearst brings up a good point.
If MacDonald & Co were so limited, why would Tom Doak employ them on a VERY important job for Arthur Goldberg, a very difficult task master.

And, why would Ron Prichard employ them, especially after he's had such great results with Pavlek & Co, (sp?) as his bunker construction firm in New Jersey ?

Tom Doak made a slight qualifying statement, and now you want to expand it, and hang your entire argument on it.

With regard to the Merion bunker project, I thought that, officially, they served as a contractor on the job, and that they were not contracted to be the architect.  Am I correct ?
Why are you placing the responsibility for restoring the bunkers to the white faces on MacDonald & Co's shoulders.

And, are you sure that restoring the white faces was the object of the project ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What you probably need to do is call up Merion and ask them your 20 questions yourself because you sure aren't willing to listen to any of us on this site. I can guarantee you they won't remotely consider answering your questions but I guess there's no harm in asking. A lot of time and effort has been and probably will continue to be spent on those bunkers but if you want to advise them on how to handle that as well as their arrangement with MacDonald & Co and probably the Fazio organization then by all means be the guest of all of us, including Merion.

What I did for GMGC in the restoration of the course with Gil Hanse is serve on the committee that created the Master plan to do the restoration with Hanse & Co. That took about a year and one half. And I also serve on the green committee. There's no one at GMGC who has SOLE AUTHORITY on anthing to do with architecture, contracts or anything else. GMGC is a golf club that's run by committees and that's the way it's been from Day One in 1916. The club has always had a very low-key way of doing things but you can bet we did our architectural research with this project.

But something tells me you'll have a better way to do things---you always seem to think and say you do anyway!

[TEPaul]

"And, are you sure that restoring the white faces was the object of the project ?"

Oh for Christ sake--is there no end to the innane things you'll ask??

No, the truth is the club had grown tired of their bunkers being known as the "White Faces of Merion" for close to 100 years so they thought they'd ask the architect and contractor to restore to basically the 1930s look for the next 100 years but this time to see if their bunkers could become famous as the "Upholstered Furniture Faces of Merion".

Amazing the questions you ask! Did you hear that TOC is thinking about hiring Fazio/MacDonald to do over all their bunkering but first they thought they'd change the name of the course to St. Andrew's National?

[Mike_Cirba]

No, the truth is the club had grown tired of their bunkers being known as the "White Faces of Merion" for close to 100 years so they thought they'd ask the architect and contractor to restore to basically the 1930s look for the next 100 years but this time to see if their bunkers could become famous as the "Upholstered Furniture Faces of Merion".

Sort of has a nice ring to it.  Plus, it's politically correct and functionally descriptive.  

[ChipOat]

I believe the deeper bunkers have restored the original shot values (in terms of "degree of difficulty") that Hugh Wilson intended when the course was designed and constructed in the pre-sand wedge era.

Aesthtetics are certainly important in evaluating the merits of a golf hole/course.  But to me, routing, strategy and shot values are more critical than appearance.

I believe that Hugh Wilson would be pleased with the "shot value" demands of Merion's new bunkers.  That's got to be worth a lot in evaluating the initial success of the project.

[T_MacWood]

chipoat
Is it an either or proposition? Did the traditional aesthetic need to be sacrificed in order to restore the shot value--was it possible to accomplish both? When approximately was the shot value lost?

[BCrosby]

Chipoat -

Where do you get off making a perfectly reasonable post on an otherwise ridiculous thread?

Sheesh. Get with the program.

Bob

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Tom MacWood that shot value and aestethics need not be mutually exclusive.  As others pointed out previously, the Merion bunker surrounds could have been left untouched (as done at Philly Country) and the internal defects addressed alone.  This would have required more hand work and taken longer, perhaps these constraints subordinated other considerations, none of us know for certain.  However, that was for the club to decide.  Unfortunately with the equipment that MacDonald & Company use(d) I don't believe that leaving the bunker surrounds alone could have been done.  

I think the architect(s) should have recognized the unique look of the bunkers and strived to maintain that as much as possible.  Even if the club did not specify this--which I doubt (again, none of us knows), it was important to make sure this cause was pressed.  I am disappointed in the results.  Maybe in time we will see some erosion that will make the bunkers appear more natural.  I am not so sure but do not know and remain hopefull.  The puffy look and rounded top profiles of the capes do not appear to be at all correct and may never soften unless intervention is done.  

I find it hard to fathom why Tom Doak took into account the abilities of his contractor in determining his design work at Atlantic City CC.  Maybe that is the real world and I am naive.  Is it because other crews that could construct irrespective of design were not available?  Tom Doak wrote  "....they are quite competent at what they do."  and "They are clearly more comfortable at some styles than at others...we modified our style to fit not only what we thought the client wanted there, but what the contractor could produce."  Clearly this implies that MacDonald & Co. have their limitations.  A course like ACCC and certainly Merion demands better than this firm's method of construction and range of abilities.

Overriding the look of the bunkers but integral to the playability is the unmistakable fact that they were constructed improperly.  There are a host of problems from the bunker woll tearing, spikes coming up, sand faces eroding, grass dying on the southern and SW faces, etc.  These are ongoing issues that is costing too much money and other resources.  I don't know how to apportion responsibility, but clearly a competent construction crew with the oversight of the architect should have known there were going to be significant problems.  The membership is relying on the experts to build something that works.  A group of people, including the membership and interested outsiders have various opinions regarding look and playability.  What is clear is the bunkers are not performing as they should and they are costing a lot of money to get them where they need to be.  

I don't want to get into a back and forth with Pat or others.  I am not writing this to defend or blame anyone.  Too much emotional and intellectual (well, maybe not) energy has been spent in an entirely unproductive effort.  Lessons can be learned and the unfortunate results need to be recognized and avoided going forward.  I wish this thread and others dealing with this issue would address what is and was done wrong on the project, and most importantly what needs to be done to make it right.  I guess there has to be some discussion of who did what and what part that plays in the results, but why spend so much time pointing fingers and putting people down? So much effort is being spent defending certain parties and placing blame on others in this forum and is counter-productive.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne;

You've summed up the entire situation to a tee.  Nicely stated.  

It should also be mentioned that the MacDonald & Sons had already been selected as the replacement contractor to Hanse & Kittleman, et.al., prior to Tom Fazio offering his "pro bono" advisement to the club.  

However, I'm not sure if they actually began any bunker work prior to Fazio coming on board.  I find that hard to imagine, because I'm not sure whose specs they'd be working to during that period.  Does anyone know?

[Patrick_Mucci]

wsmorrison,

You may recall, almost a year ago, that I indicated that I didn't think that the bunker tops could survive without TLC.
The difficulties associated with the southern exposure could expand to all exposures, and that is how an evolutionary process begins, that is how the bunkers begin to take on a new, continually evolving look.

The equipment that contractors use can be obtained by firms that lease this equipment on a needs basis.  Few firms are willing to commit capital to have every piece of construction equipment they may need, as part of their inventory, so I don't buy that MacDonald & Co were limited in their construction methods by the equipment in their inventory.

I fear that you may be spending too much time with TEPaul, as your comment about Tom Doak hiring MacDonald & Co is misquided.  If we are to believe, as many have postured, that Tom Doak is one of the most creative and competent architects today, I am certain that he would not retain a firm incapable of doing his work properly.  He would not hire a firm that was incompetent, a firm that would make him look bad.
If the firm is good enough for Tom Doak, they should be good enough for any architect, wouldn't you agree, or  
are you calling Tom Doak's judgement abilities into question ?
I feel the same way about Ron Prichard, and his retention of MacDonald & Co..  Ron certainly wouldn't retain a firm incapable of performing superior work.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern of successful projects at Aronimink and Atlantic City under the guidance of Ron Prichard and Tom Doak ?  Or, is everybody in denial.

I'm also not so sure that many rebuilt bunkers don't experience their own unique set of problems, which require fine tuning over time.

Lastly, the thrust of this thread was to exonerate MacDonald & Co from all of the blame that others were hurling their way.
I thought that pointing out examples of some of MacDonald & Co's work that had received excellent reviews would shed positive light on the subject, and cause those directing the blame to rethink their position, to question their fact absent conclusions.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It should also be mentioned that the MacDonald & Sons had already been selected as the replacement contractor to Hanse & Kittleman, et.al., prior to Tom Fazio offering his "pro bono" advisement to the club.  

If this is true, it has been largely overlooked, perhaps conveniently, and is the most revealing information to date.

It would seem to indicate that the bunker renovation project had an internal "concept" genesis.

That the genesis of the concept was independent of, and prior to, the retention of any architect.

Think about that !

[ChipOat]

Tom MacWood:

Not a mandatory "either/or" situation but if there's going to be a need for further effort, it seems to me that getting the "shot value" part right at the beginning means the most important result (at least to me) has been accomplished.

Hugh Wilson's original shot values began to become less relevant when the Sand Wedge became the club of choice (as opposed to a niblick).  As the bunkers became more shallow through the years, the degree of difficulty to extract one's self was further reduced.  Finally, the improvements to the design features of the Lob Wedge by Vokey et al made the problems encountered in Merion's bunkers by 1995-99 a mere shadow of their former selves as designed by Messrs. Wilson/Flynn/Valentine.

Bob Crosby:

Lost my head - sorry.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Please do not presume to know my ability for independent thought.  Although I highly regard Tom Paul's intellect and understanding of golf architecture (and other subjects), I have yet to see him walk on water.  I am not his disciple, not have his thoughts corrupted my own.  We are co-writers of the Flynn book, but we are also working, together and independently, to better understand and appreciate golf and golf course architecture.  He is farther along than I am (one of many reasons he makes and ideal partner) but he would not want me to merely follow him, let alone blindly.  

Strange as it may seem to you, my comments about Doak are my own...if they correspond to Tom Paul's I am not concerned nor am I alarmed as you seem to be.  You say if MacD and Co. are good enough for TDoak they should be good enough for any architect and by logical extension, me.  You are mistaken in your comment about Tom Doak hiring MacDonald & Co when you state:  

"If we are to believe, as many have postured, that Tom Doak is one of the most creative and competent architects today, I am certain that he would not retain a firm incapable of doing his work properly.  He would not hire a firm that was incompetent, a firm that would make him look bad.  If the firm is good enough for Tom Doak, they should be good enough for any architect, wouldn't you agree, or are you calling Tom Doak's judgement abilities into question ?"

I don't know why Tom Doak hired McD and neither do you.  Only he does.  I have not questioned Tom Doak's judgement.  I would not do so since I don't know all the factors that weighed into his judgement.  I did not say that MacD & Co. made him look bad, were incompetent, or any of the other concepts you conveniently spin.  I did wonder why he took their abilities into account in his design plan.  My feelings are that the process would be different, that he would design first and then find somebody that could put it into practice.  The limitations of McD were stated by Doak and not by me.  I try to look at the results and make my own observations.  When Tom Doak gives some insight (albeit not complete) into his process, I questioned an aspect of it.

My point about the machinery that McD uses is not to point out that they don't have the capital resources to have a complete compliment of equipment nor does it disregard the possibility of leasing some of it.  I don't know the equipment in their inventory, I just have an idea of what equipment they tend to use.  They have demonstrated a systematic use of certain equipment and techniques, probably because they are comfortable with them and their clients' feedback has reinforced it.  But by no means is their work universally praised.  Wouldn't you be most surprised if it were?  They can do things quicker than most, but in a style that is limited by the equipment that enables it.  Others are more knowledgeable than I am on this subject...don't grill me on it.  Persons far more knowledgeable than myself, Tom, and you have spoken to me about this and I have found no reason to date not to believe them.

Your arguement that McD should be exonnerated from all blame at Merion because they did good work elsewhere is ludicrous.  Pat, you are a smart guy.  Its just there is little evidence of it on this thread.  It doesn't make you a bad guy, it doesn't make you part of a conspiracy to glorify McD.  Why do you see yourself as a lone voice of reason who sees a pattern of successful work and can't understand other negative opinions?  McD was part of a great team and great job at Aronimink.  From what Tom Doak says, he was very satisfied with the results at ACCC.  Again, they were part of a great team.  At Rolling Green, the team was not nearly so strong and the results show it.  My belief is that there was no outside architect in charge and the task fell to an unprepared group loosely following a great master plan.  Are they entirely to blame?  Of course not.  But take each case independently rather than your approach and I think it makes a lot more sense.  Just because they were part of good work elsewhere means absolutely nothing when it comes to an objective analysis of the Merion job or other individual jobs for that matter.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

If this is true, it has been largely overlooked, perhaps conveniently, and is the most revealing information to date.

It would seem to indicate that the bunker renovation project had an internal "concept" genesis.

That the genesis of the concept was independent of, and prior to, the retention of any architect.

Think about that !

Patrick;

Why would the fact that the "genesis of the concept" was initiated within the club prior to the retention of an architect be in the least surprising?  

Perhaps the real question should be which came first;  the bunker work, or the explanation that it was intended to be a 1930's restoration?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

wsmorrison,

You took my remarks with respect to talking to TEPaul too seriously.  I should have added a  

But, you and I do know why Tom Doak hired MacDonald & Co at Atlantic City.  He hired them because he felt that they could produce the results he desired.  It's that simple.
Now, I can't tell you if they were his first choice or his fifth choice, only Tom Doak can answer that question.

Your last paragraph is getting you closer to the mark on one hand and further from the mark on the other.
My conclusion is not flawed, and it is prudent to think that If a surgeon has performed 100 operations, very successfully, it's not that something can't go wrong with patient # 101, it's just very unlikely, and their may be mitigating circumstances or outside influences which impacted the result.
In other words, a bad outcome may not be surgeon related.

Mike Cirba,

The genesis of the concept, and the identification of the concept are critical elements.

You are now informing me that both issues were determined prior to the retention of any architect.  This is the material factor in your evaluation.

The other question you ask is connected to the above issue.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You'd do well to read Wayne Morrison's post #157 again very carefully. You're assumption that MacDonald & Co must have done a good job with the Merion bunkers simply because they may have done a successful job on bunkering elsewhere is a ridiculous assumption to make and certainly a ridiculous conclusion to make. You're concluding that just because they've done well received bunker projects elsewhere (on different styles) that it's virtually impossible for them to make mistakes. That's preposterous and the reasoning of a man I sure wouldn't want making decisions on a course I had anything to do with.

And furthermore, you're constantly contradicting your own reasoning. You fail to answer the obvious questions. If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

Your reasoning in blind defense of MacDonald & Co on every single project they do is just flat ludicrous! It's total bullshit! Frankly, it makes you look idiotic and lacking in just good old commonsense! I know you have to know better than this and I'm convinced you do. I'm convinced the only reason you continue with this discussion is because you continue to try to ply this ridiculous campaign of yours on "bias" and some double standard. It's not working Pat---and practically everyone on here knows it's not working. You should just shitcan this mention of "bias" and double standard on here once and for all and allow this site to get on with the critical discussion of architecture, warts and all!

And you should also start to heed the very discretely worded implication from such as Tim Weiman (on his "gossip" thread) to stop asking various questions on here that are not going to produce answers on here. It's not that a club such as Merion doesn't have the answers--they just don't feel like airing everything on the Internet. Some of us have those answers too and we're not going to air everything on the Internet either. Do I really have to explain to you why that is and probably has to be?

So give up on this campaign of yours in blind defense of certain architects and contractors and all the things they do. They don't need you anyway, the clubs don't either. If you really must---simply to figure out what this all basically boils down to at least try to READ between the LINES!!

And how do you know that Doak hired MacDonald & Co at ACCC? Maybe the client hired MacDonald & Co and gave them to Doak. Ever hear the story of Kye Goalby working at ACCC for Doak and probably lent to MacDonald & Co? I guess you probably haven't. I hate to bring up something probably so personal but will in one last attempt you'll begin to figure out the reality of some of these things! Eventually he just couldn't take working with that contracting crew out there and some of their completely clueless operators. They just continuously f...ed up about every interesting detail he did out there so he called it quits.

Tom Doak is a very forthright guy on here and as honest about details as he probably figures he possibly can be. I think everyone on here admires him for that, but honestly there have to be a number of things that he's not willing to air on here either--and who among us can't understand that and the reasons why? So far apparently just you because you keep asking all these questions which are never going to have total answers on here even when a number of people might know those answers! But did it sound to you what he said on here about the ACCC project with MacDonald was a ringing endorsement of MacDonald & Co's bunker work at ACCC? It didn't sound like that to me. Go read it again Pat because you just missed the obvious or at least the obvious implication.

Those restored ACCC Flynn bunkers weren't a big success in my book, that's for sure. The point here has always been that to date it doesn't really seem like MacDonald & Co are very good at doing a particular style of bunkering although they seem to be good at doing some other styles, like Ross or perhaps even Oakmont. The reasons why that is is what should be discussed on here. But you keep missing that point even from an architect who worked with them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MACDONALD & CO DIDN'T BUILD THOSE BUNKERS TO THE SPECS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN  

AND, ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THAT THE MANDATE TO CREATE THE 1930'S BUNKERS WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PROJECT BEGAN  ?

And how do you know that Doak hired MacDonald & Co at ACCC? Maybe the client hired MacDonald & Co and gave them to Doak.

I KNOW BECAUSE THE CLIENT, ARTHUR GOLDBERG, WAS A CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE, AS IS BILLY ZIOBRO.

NICE TRY AT ATTEMPTING TO DISTORT AND TAINT THE FACTS.

HOW CAN YOU TRY TO DIVERT THIS ISSUE BY SUGGESTING A TOTAL FABRICATION, WITHOUT A SINGLE FACT TO SUPPORT YOUR FALSE CONTENTION ??

THAT'S DISENGENUOUS, A POOR ATTEMPT TO PASS THE BUCK AND CREATE CREDIBILITY FOR YOUR POSITION, WHEN NONE EXISTS.

Ever hear the story of Kye Goalby working at ACCC for Doak and probably lent to MacDonald & Co? I guess you probably haven't. I hate to bring up something probably so personal but will in one last attempt you'll begin to figure out the reality of some of these things! Eventually he just couldn't take working with that contracting crew out there and some of their completely clueless operators. They just continuously f...ed up about every interesting detail he did out there so he called it quits.

Yes, I've heard the story, Kye's version of the story.
I haven't heard the other participants version of the story.
That means that all the facts aren't in, just one parties version of a story, based on his perspective.  
When all the facts are in, I'll be in a better position to make a prudent judgement.  Don't you think you should adopt a policy of obtaining all of the facts before making a pronouncement ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul & Pat Mucci:

Honestly guys, the business of Kye Goalby, Tom Doak, MacDonald & Co and the ACCC project really doesn't belong here. There has to be some privacy and this case is a good example of why, in my view.

You both know that Tom gives generously of himself at this site. But, it is not fair to raise personnel issues or to ask Tom (or any other architect) to comment publicly on his relationship with a contractor or even just the dirt on a single project.

The further we get from commenting on "final product", the more problematic the entire discussion becomes. We simply can't expect developers, architects or contractors to publicly comment on every aspect of a project.

Pat, if you think the "final product" at Merion, Aronomink or ACCC is good, then simply go ahead and share with us why you think so. But, you really need to step back from trying to dig into "gossip". It isn't fair to our industry friends and will only make it more difficult to encourage them to participate here more frequently.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I think that I'm begining to see how GCA works.

For two years I've heard nothing but negative comments and gossip about MacDonald & Co and their work.

I start a thread defending their work, citing the good work they did at Aronomink, Atlantic City and Bethpage and all of a sudden I'm branded by you as "digging into gossip"

I think just the opposite is true.

I've provided concrete examples, with exhibit's A, B and C being the final product at Aronimink, Atlantic City and Bethpage, as evidence of their capable work.
My contention, on the other hand, has been countered, mostly with gossip, and certainly absent substantive information to the contrary.

If it's the gossip mongers you seek, just review all of those threads that hurled accusations at MacDonald & Co without so much as one iota of supporting documentation or facts.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Is it possible that you too are in need of Cooreshaw's assistance ?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()