Is the Doctor always right ? Second Opinions.

[peter]

by way of hedging myself, and thus subjecting my good friend to the ire of all who post on this board, i commented that his decisions are not absolute and are subject to the discretion of Tom Marzoff (i believe), every 2 months or so. I do know that he disagrees with some of the decisions that were made, but for the most part i think the decisions he made on the bunkering were agreed with, with minor exception.

It is hard for me to fathom that the bunkering bordering the creek on 5 would have been his idea, but I intend to find this out. The 5th has always been his favorite hole, and i would think that he would fight tooth and nail against proposed modifications, of any magnitude. In whatever regard you hold Merion, I promise you that he surpasses by several orders of magnitude. He goes about his work on Merion, as meticulously and carefully as if he were performing open heart surgery on his brother.

I will find out some of the mindset/philosophy behind this decision when I speak with him. Any questions you wish for me to pass on?

[Matt_Ward]

Pat you missed my point.

Most clubs appoint someone to be project chairman by virtue of the fact that this person is good at getting along with others. Many times the actual knowledge of design and history of the club is beyond them. Placing value on consensus skills is not the KEY job description item. Understanding the course's history and having a good deal of expertise on what constitutes quality golf course architecture is really the key.

As I said before many clubs have presidents who are most interested in the size of the shrimp for the member /guest and the length of the shorts you have on while playing.

Let me also mention that I am not saying you blindly follow what the architect is advocating. Clearly, artistic sensibilities have to be balanced by the capacity of the club to afford what is being proposed, among other considerations. It is crucial for any club to have a point person who truly does understand their course and the game of golf.

Sad to say there are times when an architect will simply tell the club what it wants to hear. What happens then is a further disintegration on what the course was originally about. You mentioned the proposed plan for PHCC. My first question would be what were the reasons the architect was chosen to start with??? Was it because he was cheaper than the competition? Was he on good terms with the membership / selection committee???

If you want to know what happened to many of the great courses and holes in America look no further than the well intentioned but poorly constituted membership at many private clubs in America. I will say it again with no less vigor -- it's vitally important to have a point person with the wisdom of Yoda who can give the final say so. Sadly, many clubs do not provide that type of power to one individual and are therefore doomed to some sort of consensus model in arriving at decisions. The net result: a hodge-podge of outcomes that can easily be so mangled to defy reason.

What made the great clubs great was more than just their original design. They had people in charge at the top of the pyramid who ran the show. They called the shots and they made sure they were not going to have some sort of committee screw up the process. In today's society the belief that everyone must have a say is necessary for government, but in golf design it can be an absolute nightmare.

I wish Merion the very best, but having a person as project chairman requires someone who isn't afraid to tell certain members they don't have a CLUE in what they are talking about. Few clubs are willing to give that type of power and more importantly, those that do give that power may not have the person with the knowledge to work hand-in-hand with the architect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

My questions would be:

Was it the intent to return to the 1930 design ?

If the answer is yes, then could you explain each departure from the 1930 design.

If the answer is no, what was the mission statement of the project ?

Lastly, you are aware that most surgeons cannot, or will not operate on close relatives for obvious reasons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

Money was never a consideration in making the selection.

I would say he was on good terms with the committee, and that everyone had an open mind, but perhaps a different agenda.

When you deal with a committee, the majority votes make the call.  There was one other fellow on the committee whose knowledge I respect, but five votes beats two votes every time.  And.... the chairman will rarely disagree with any authority figure, architect, GC or otherwise.

I'll show you the plan, but only after a few drinks, and after you've been seated.

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

Thanks for coming on here and offering to find out the reasons behind the changes we are questioning.  It's most appreciated, and I mean to cast no aspersions on your friend.  I'm sure he has a difficult job, and probably a thankless one as well.

I guess when I think about this whole issue, the question that nags at me is "why"?  

Of any of the classic courses, Merion was perhaps the best-preserved of anyplace I can think of.  1930 was mentioned as a "restoration" year, yet when I look at the course pictures from then, I see that almost nothing had changed.

* The routing, with the exception of a couple of new tees built in an attempt to host another US Open, is exactly the same.

* The green shapes, nearly identical.

* Some fairway widths and mowing lines needed to be considered, but nothing radical.

* The bunkering, despite the evolved look that many felt as character-filled as the lines on a wise old lady's weathered face, totally intact, with a small handful added over the years (see 14).  What's more, they most closely approximated the type of hazards that one finds at nearby Pine Valley moreso than virtually any other course on the continent.  They had evolved into something that many courses spend mucho dinero and many man hours to try to build and almost never attain.

* Some tree growth, but almost no course of that era had managed their excessive foliage better than Merion over the years.

Some say that the issue was driven by the bunkering and that it needed repair.  Then why not just repair them?  Why was the decision made to build completely new bunkers, in a style foreign to Merion,  (although bluegrass had been found by Valentine just off the course and named after Merion, there was never any bluegrass used on the course) in any pictures I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.

Some of the other changes I think are excellent, and I have brought those to the attention of this board.  They include the tree-clearing between 11 & 12, behind 14, the reestablishment of the alternate route on 16, and I even applaud the removal of the left-side bunker on 14 because I think it brings OB more into play.  

I have always wished Merion nothing but the best, and I love the course, as well.  My only wish is to see her greatness preserved.

Finally, and after seeing the changes to the 5th, I just have to ask...anything else on the drawing board of a substantive nature to fundamentally change the course or any of the holes?    
 

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Informative and yet such sad information to read about Merion. Pat, your concept and comments are well intentioned, but let me pass along a story that might explain why soliciting a historical perspective or other opinions is just not in the cards for many of these clubs/architects, particularly one like Merion where they don't care for the people who have the historical perspective.

When Tom Marzolf was bouncing around Riviera taking in driving stats for "Mr. Fazio" to analyze (yeah, right...how about showing up on the property just once Mr. Fazio? Wait, that'll only make it worse!), Marzolf managed to corner me near #1 tee after they built the two lawn tennis courts for tees on #12 and the gem on #9 that the Tour won't use. Combined square footage of the two tees on 12 is almost the same as the green and they stretch to 489 yards. Silly stuff and over the top, not to mention the character of the tees is out of place at Riviera. Large, propped up, etc..  Marzolf asked me what I thought, and I said they were way too big and out of character (I didn't even get into the strategy/character of the hole issue). He replied that they have to build these tees to "USGA specifications" and have room for media, caddies, water coolers etc... (yes, water coolers, I wrote the comment down as soon as I got to the press tent, I had to see it to believe it).  

Now, why would I bother to pass along historical anecdotes to the Fazio group when you get that kind of answer and you read Mr. Fazio's book and he expresses disdain for the old architects?  Either he thinks I'm really dumb to think there are USGA tee specifications, or he just doesn't understand what I was trying to say.

As for Peter's comments regarding the young man who is son of a member, architect of the beloved Pinehurst #4, etc... I'm sure he's very talented at building new courses and sending out faxes "For Tom Fazio." I met him at Riviera when he bought a copy of The Captain and seemed very kind and personable and will surely make a fine architect, but I sensed he didn't have the slightest concept of what was out there in the ground at Riviera, and really had no genuine interest in looking at the holes and understanding what Thomas tried to accomplish (like say a Doak, a Forse, a Prichard or a Hanse). That said, it was passed along to me that the Green Chairman at Merion, Mr. Greenwood, was criticizing yours truly because I wouldn't offer my input to the Fazio group (for free I presume, like them) to help "restore" Riviera (translation: help with US Open bid). Yet, here the Green Chairman at Merion is ignoring two very keen historical perspectives in favor a contractor and an architect that is evidently there because of nepotism or because they have many courses "well received in the marketplace." In fact, Merion seems determined to eliminate the things that Bill Kittleman and Rich Valentine preserved instead of taking their time and assessing what has evolved well, and what hasn't.

You'd think Merion deserves better, or for that matter, any great old course. In the end, you can tell some of these clubs about every intersting aspect of their course and explain why things are they way they are, but they don't really care. They care about the free press and glamour of being an Open Doctor or what the USGA wants. They will only do what they know how to do, not restore, but of course, they will call it a restoration, which is what upsets many of us. They can do whatever they want with their course, just don't drop the names of Hugh Wilson or George Thomas when you couldn't carry their bags, let alone carry on a conversation with them about architecture. This is why I find it sad they are so determined to use these golf courses to enhanse their name, and even more disturbing that the people who should know better, the USGA, are the ones encouraging this bizarre process of course renovation work.

If this is the way the USGA thinks is best, how can you expect average club members to know what is good, bad or ugly?

[Mike_Young]

Geoff,
I was just talking with a friend that was (PGA member that was on the selection committee for choosing site for 2001 PGA.  Merion as well as the Atlanta Athletic Club were in the running.  When all was said and done the logistics of hosting the event at the Athletic Club far outweighed a Merion.  Valhalla had over 80 Hospitality tents, that is a lot of money.  ..parking...hotels...it is to the point where the course is not even the first thing considered when choosing for a major event.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

It's frustrating, but I think Tom MacWood has a point when he states that most recognize the defacing of paintings in musuems as vandalism, yet the defacing of golf courses is accepted when done by a NAME artiste !

I also think the makeup of golf clubs is vastly different today, than 20-50 years ago.
Today, it is not uncommon for 1/3 to 1/2 of the membership to be comprised of people new to golf, who have joined their club in the last 10 years.  They have no historical connection to their course, nor do most care.  Members whose families have been there for generations are in the minority, and often lose the vote to the latest fad or today's  popular architects.

I sense an attitude that borders on a disrespect of the past, of traditions and values, including classic architecture.

The new breed of member is caught up in ridding themselves of their perceived obsolete course in favor of a modern course, designed by prominent modern architects.

I used to view certain clubs with a degree of awe and reverance, but their members and membership aren't much different from any other clubs.  And they seem to make the same mistakes, magnified by the value of their golf course.

I admire clubs that have managed to retain their dictatorships and autocratic rule.

I still feel that without constructive criticism, progress is impossible, so, along with others on this site, keep up the fight.
They seem to have retained their historical connection to their classic designs.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

The funny thing is, people pay a lot of money and go through a lot of trouble to be part of these historic places, so you'd think they would respect the tradition and history that they paid handsomely for. For some reason, that connection just isn't made, or it is, but the chance to be an armchair architect or the opportunity to exert power gets the best of them.

And you are right, the technology/our course must keep up with the times mentality is also a killer. This is why Bobby Jones and the old architects wanted to see the ball issue settled and controlled in their day. Imagine what they'd think of today's governing bodies.

Mike,
The quality of the course seems to be about fifth on the list these days, forget second! I always laugh when listening to the media guys complain about the setup at Riviera and how it's outdated for golf and it's time to move it to Valencia. Tradition, history, character, that means nothing. Then they complain when the golf is boring when they have to watch it on yet another TPC or logistic-friendly course.
Geoff

[aclayman]

And,
the sadest part is that anybody who is of influential age, and is paying attention, sees this lack of respect and will more than likely, carry on in that vien.

I can't help but point out that the sentiments that Geoff has eloquently expounded on about, not valuing the traditions and histories, is not limited to the nuevue riche, who have to pay out their arse for entry. It's happening at little muni's too, even those whose costs are long sunk. Not necc. by changing the architecture but by disrespecting the past. It usually manifests itself by a clammouring for more revenue.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Geoff,
Wasn't it part of the Fazio/Marzloff Master Plan to add 30 new bunkers and many new fairway contours to the Riviera "Restoration?"

One of my favorte Fazio additions is the "Great Pyramid of Cheops" tee that the Grand Master of Golf Architecture has added on #5. While there was a tee there at one time, I can almost be assured that George Thomas would have never stood for it.

[Daniel_Wexler]

My apologies for not posting this earlier but yes, #5 at Merion did indeed once have two small, very oval-like bunkers positioned along the creek.  These hazards appear in aerials from 1930 and again in a 1934 shot, though by '34 their shape had gotten somewhat more irregular.  Interestingly, they did NOT appear in the extraordinarily detailed hole drawings produced for the 1930 Amateur program, nor on the relatively famous 1934 map that ran in Golf Illustrated and elsewhere.  But...

I will be TERRIBLY curious to see exactly where Team Fazio has "restored" them because in their original location, they simply aren't in play (I'm not sure they were really in play in 1930).  And if they've been moved substantially forward, well then Tom Doak (and everyone else's) cry of vandalism seems dead on.

Also, IF 1930 has indeed been selected as the model for restoration, shall we assume that in their quest for accuracy the powers-that-be will move the second green back to its original (much shorter) location?

As far as "Peter's" suggestion that the young man in question cares deeply about Merion, that's wonderful, a great place to start.  But "caring" should not necessarily be confused with "knowing."  I care deeply about the quality of the dinner I ate tonight, but I haven't the faintest clue how to cook it.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tommy,
Yes, the initial restoration plan for Riviera had 30 new bunkers on it, but that was for conversation only. Thankfully, I never saw that, I'm afraid to think how they were going to "reframe" every hole. It's amazing how an architect could sit in an office and come up with that kind of nonsense and have the courage to show it to people, then use the word restoration at the same time! The tee on five is not where it was originally, but that hasn't prevented them from saying it is a perfect restoration of the old one that was abandoned twice from two different locations for two different reasons!

Daniel,
Great point, #2 at Merion should be getting moved back to the 1930 locale any day now, assuming they are going to stay pure to the "going back to 1930" concept that is unprecedented in golf architecture. And if they don't move #2 then I'm sure they'll come up with a reason (Bobby Jones didn't like the original when he played poorly there as a teenager, or Hugh Wilson always never liked that change even though he wasn't alive to see it, etc...they'll spin it and the members will buy it because after all, the architect has many courses "well received in the marketplace"). Imagine if every classic course in America started picking a year to go to for restoration because that was the glory tournament year. Of course Merion isn't even picking a year, they are picking one week! August, 1930! Weird stuff.
Geoff
PS - I read Joe Valentines comments prior to the '30 amateur along with beautiful, detailed hole by hole drawings. No bunkers on five. Those little pot bunkers must have lasted about two weeks, probably USGA specials. Glad they are restoring them, the course just hasn't been the same without 'em!

[aclayman]

Too bad Pete Galea is one vacation, he could probably shed some light on the possibility/probability that those two white spots on the photo could just be an over exposure on the print or negative.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

[Johnny Blutarski]

I was looking at an old cut-out from a 1981 Golf Digest where they showed pictures of Merion and just how horrible it looked compared to 1930.

The place was in such sad shape for the 81' Open. The bunkers had this rough and knarly unkept edge to them that made the course look like a $2.00 hooker with her legs spread wide open.

Absolutely nasty stuff I tell you.

If I was a competitor that week in 1981, I would have avoided those bunkers like a bad case of the clap.

How is a person expected to play out of that Scotch Broom crap?

I also prefer the much more flavorful bluegrass over that grass they used to use around the bunkers. It reminds me of this broad I used to date in the harbor.

Peter if you actually do ask your architect friend about number 5, ask him if they can squeeze another 150 out of her.

Gotta run, time to go pinch a loaf.

[TEPaul]

Good thread! I'm on some contrary little
computer in Maine and can't work it well
so this will be short.

I compeletely agree with Rich Goodale on the
collaborative effort at Pine Valley. Crump
may have consulted with an unusual number
of architects and that was obviously a wonderful
thing conceptually for his architectural
effort but Crump was the one calling the shots
and that's important! Ultimately PV was Crump's
vision and his baby and he was the editor of
what was decided upon without question.

If Crump had lived a longer life and seen PV through
completion, would he have continued to change
things? The answer to that probably comes from
Crump himself when asked when he would be finished.
"Never", was his reply!

Merion? Should that course be undergoing the
changes it is now? That to me is a subjective
question. I'm all for really good restoration
but one does have to ask, "Restored to what
and when?" Was 1930 the best Merion ever was
architecturally? Another subjective qustion!
Is the year of Jones's Grand Slam the easiest
to manage the restoration process through a
large and diverse membership? Unquestionably
it is! Some of us have to understand the
difficulty of managing a restoration effort
through a membership (like Merion's) to  
understand why that is. If 1930 was the year,
could there be a fudge factor to do the right
thing? That to me is the ultimate question.

The bunker restoration project? Some say doing
what Merion did with MacDonald and Fazio was
a mistake, but again it's a subjective
judgment. The meat of the judgement was that
some looked at those evolutionary bunkers
in 1999 and said they were falling apart and
others looked at them and felt they took about
70 years to get that good. A difference of
opinion and a difference in subjective
judgment! But one way or the other somebody
was going to pull the trigger eventually.

I say you just have to understand what you
really have and keep doing all the research
you can do. Do little bunkers really belong
along the right side of the creek on #5 even
if they did show up on an aerial? For that answer
I think you have to make a simple architectural
decision. Do bunkers really belong next to a
natural creek that is that beautifully situated
with its perfect orientation? What would the
strategic purpose be? As safety bunkers for a
high risk strategic play?? For the answer I would
just stand about 190yds from the green and look
again at the green's amazing right to left slope!
What #5 is naturally is unquestiionably a case
of less is more!!

[Peter]

With respect to the renovation of Merion, there seems to be a troubling presumption of failure.

It is my understanding from speaking to my friend, that there was a great deal of due diligence before any earth was moved. A searching study of the history of the course revealed that, since 1930 a number of changes had been made to the course, some good some bad. A revelation was made that during WWII, the club was stretched fairly thin, and to cut down on maintenance costs some of the bunkers were grassed over, so that there was less to attend to. The now-most famous victim of this policy is the two fairway bunkers that abutted the creek on 5. Further modifications were completed in advance of the 1950 US Open.

Now as one previous poster has noted, the bunkers at Merion had fallen into disrepair relative to historic norms, evidenced by their ugly appearance at the 81 Open. This, as I understand it was the original motivation in cleaning the white faces up. The question then became how had these bunkers fallen into such disrepair? Not an easy question when you consider the esteem in which the course is held, even with failing bunkers. This presaged the study of the historical development of the course and the decision to renaissance the 1930 aerial photograph - a decision that was endorsed and encouraged by the club committee.

Onto the issue of #5 (and again I have not seen the design, a reality I presume a number on the discussion share. So I can only offer my impressions). There are a couple of considerations that were made in deciding to restore the fairway bunkers. First, the simple reality that these bunkers were included in the 1930 pic. Second, one has to consider the hole itself as it plays today, both competitively, and in its day-to-day use by members. As you all know the canting of the fairway is pretty severe, such that drives struck down the left side of the fairway could, and often did, find there way into the hazard. With the speed that modern fairways run at, this becomes an even greater consideration, and one that often ired some of the members. As now constructed, poorly placed tee shots may  find there way into the bunkers, and overly aggressive draws will find the creek. My sense of the 1930 #5, is that the pitch of the fairway, because of the slow relative speed of the fairways, didn't necessarily send the balls into the bunker, but rather you would find your way into them if your ball was headed in their direction. Third, another consideration was that with tournament roughs, poorly place tee shots would not reach the creek but would get caught up in the rough. Far from nullifying the hazard, the bunkers add another punitive aspect to a poorly place tee shot.

I think what some here are losing sight of, is that the ultimate arbiter of an architect's work is the membership, and in this respect, I believe Fazio has emerged victorious. I have held conversations with a number of members about their impression of the modifications and all seemed thrilled with the finished product. Indeed, restoring the alternative route to the 16th green (as well as adding 5 bunkers (not sure if this is a restoration), seems to be a roaring success.

OK - you can all villify my response now.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom Paul,
I'm curious, you think Coore and Crenshaw could help a club like Merion, yet everything Merion has done is the exact opposite of how Ben and Bill would treat such a course. I know how C and C work, I saw how they handled Riviera's evolved look. So I'm confused why you think they would be able to help Merion when they endorsed Gil and Bill Kittleman's work, and that they love the same evolved look? Also, do you think the club will be abandoning the new tees they built a few years ago to get back to the 1930 setup? And #2 green? I guess it is subjective like you said if those features are kept? But if the process itself is subjective, then is it really a restoration? By the way, I mentioned to Crenshaw the new/old bunkers on 5. He was not exactly enthused.

Peter,
I think most of the passion with regard to Merion and how the process was handled lies in the behavior of the club toward some of its best assets, Bill Kittleman, Rich Valentine and Gil Hanse, who were not treated with much respect or in a manner that indicate a whole lot of integrity on behalf of the committees involved. If you look into this side of things, I think you'd be saddened (or maybe not, I don't know you) to know such a reputable club would treat some of its longtime staff and a consulting architect the way Merion handled this process. Then again, you weren't concerned that nepotism played a role, so maybe it wouldn't bother you. Again, to each his own, but to say things were done in due diligence is a bit tough to swallow for most here, especially when you know those referred to were acting in good faith and doing their best for Merion. The same passion would be evident if Tom Doak, Bruce Hepner, Ron Forse, Ron Pritchard or any other architect trying to do restoration work was let go because they wouldn't work swiftly enough (what is the rush again, oh, the 2005 Amateur I guess?).

Peter, Merion consulted Ben Crenshaw and asked him to visit. He was quite upset to hear they wanted to change the course and expressed great frustration (ask Buddy Marucci). So failing to get the answer they wanted to hear from him, they went elsewhere. And no great course I have heard of listened to the views of a contractor prior to changing architects. Except Merion.

As for the look and playing character of the course, I think it looked great in those 81 Open films I've seen pop up on the Golf Channel. So again, to each his own. Merion wanted a clean, "pretty," antiseptic Fazio look which they believe is how the course looked in 1930, and that's what they've got, all free of charge! I'm just glad I saw the place before all of this and took plenty of photographs.

I remember having a conversation in 1997 with a Pine Valley member about Fazio's courses. I said I wasn't too enthused, that I found them repetitious, overmanufactured and artificially "pretty" in an effeminate way. He said, yes, he understood but that  Tommy was aware that he needed to do something to enhance his work. Little did we know that instead trying to put more effort into his own designs and actually inject some strategy, that he would send out his associates to America's best courses with the intention of leaving his mark and getting his name associated with famous places, all for what? So he can charge more for his original designs? So he can take jobs away from other architects?

[Peter]

Don't shoot the messenger.

I regret that what i wrote implied that nepotism was a factor in choosing Fazion, because it simply wasn't. I have no reason to defend Fazio, I share some your disenchantment with his work. I can only really think of a couple of his courses that I really like (John's Island West, Hartefeld).

Please don't presume to know what I like or dislike, and enough of the insults on my friend (e.g. fetching faxes for Mr. Fazio). Clearly sour grapes are still at play here.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoff's book has two overhead aerials of Merion, dated 1924 & June, 1930.

Neither show the two left-side bunkers on 5.

Might they have been put in for the Amateur, and then discarded?

Anyone know?

BTW, they DO come into play from the back tees certainly, and for weaker members from the front tees.  I must say that I still think they are totally unncessary, but would love to hear their historical basis if anyone knows.

[T_MacWood]

Peter
You lost me when you agreed that gnarly appearance of the bunkers of 1981 was ugly. Do you think the clean two-demensional look of a modern bunker is appealing.

I don't think anyone has lost sight of the fact the membership is the final say as to what does or doesn't occur. But I think you have lost sight of the fact that they will not be the final arbiter, the final arbiter will be those who have studied the art golf design and its history. They will ultimately determine if the changes were positive and  if Golf has won or lost.

[ForkaB]

Tom

It is said that Picasso could draw as well or better than Raphael when he was in his teens.  He chose to move forward, and I, for one, think that the world of art, and the world in general, is better for it.  Try to imagine Raphael, or Da Vinci, or Matisse or whomever doing "Guernica."  Different times require different artistic expressions of those times.

I, for one, am not at all yet ready to think that what we call the "Golden Age" of golf architecture is anything other than a memorable part of our ongoing history which is very amenable to study and deserves that and our reverence.

But, not deification......

And, changing Augusta, or Merion, or TOC or Dornoch, or whatever or wherever, is not equivalent to putting new brushstrokes on the Mona Lisa or new chisel marks in the Laacoon, but using those templates as visions for a new work of art which is more relevant for the modern (and maybe even the future)age.

If we really wanted to preserve history, we would take Pinehurst #2 back to sand greens and TOC back to a 22 hole clockwise track, etc. etc.

Life--and art--goes on.  IMHO.

Rich

[Daniel_Wexler]

Mike Cirba:

My thinking, exactly.  The bunkers clearly weren't there prior to the Amateur, yet there's no question of their presence in the photos I mentioned.  Upon a second look, however, I do notice that the second picture (which appears in Desmond Tolhurst's Golf At Merion) IMPLIES that it's from 1934 but does not actually say so.

So yes, they were probably added specifically for the Amateur-- though it does seem a rather extraneous place to add two hazards.  Odd.

Incidentally, Jones' tee shot in the first round of 1930 medal play only just got past them (but was straight down the middle) whereas during the second round he was in the left rough, on their general line of flight but at least 50 yards beyond.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that because I'm interested in preserving great courses of the past, that I am limiting stylistic expression of current and future designers? Or are you saying that because styles evolve in art that isn't important to preserve the works of the past?

Architecture is not always black and white, there is a certain level of subjectivity, that is why one attempts to study the finer points, including its history, how and why it has evolved and how that knowledge might apply to contemporary art. Armed with that knowledge one can explain why Wright's Oak Park Home and Studio was superior architecturaly in 1902 as opposed to 1890 or why Taliesen was superior in 1911 and not 1925, it has nothing to do with age or bringing a work back to square one, it has to do with research, study and reasoned conclusions.

There is difference between appreciation and deification, after all its just a golf course, a painting, sculpture, a building, a garden, etc. But on the other hand the arts  have been considered important for thousands of years -- and hopefully that will not change. (A common accusations of our modern society is our lack of appreciation for the arts.)  A person who is interested in protecting an important architecural work, or any work of art for that matter, should not in my opinion be considered a worshiper of false gods, or a person stuck in the past unable to appreciate contemporary art. The reason one studies the great works of the past is so they might learn from them and with that knowledge and understanding improve our modern expressions. If you destroy the past, you destroy the potential for the future.

You may believe that golf architecure should not be considered an art form or you may believe that those courses designed in the first few decades of the 20th century were nothing more than memorable, that's fine. There are many who do not appreciate Jazz or Winemaking or Dance or any number differing creative arts or just don't agree on what is good with in those fields. Golf architecture is not for everyone and even for those who appreciate it, there are great differences of opinion.

If I hadn't spent so much time studying the subject and seeking out old and new designs, I would probably have an attitude similar to yours. Sure I might have my opinions of what is good, but my understanding would be superficial. Just like my understanding of the gardens of Jekyll or the literature of Hemmingway or the photography of Adams is superficial at best. But on the other hand I can appreciate those who have taken the time to get into those subjects and would never degrade them or their art just because of my limited understanding. I suppose it is human nature for someone like yourself who is a self-admitted expert in so many areas to have difficulty accepting the possiblity  of an art form for which he has very little understanding. I empathize -- it is one of the more difficult subjects to explore -- that is one of the reasons I enjoy this site so much.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I'm not an "expert," self-admitted or otherwise, in anything.  I am a student, and will always be so, hopefully.

As I learn, I also try to explain and explore what I have learned and am learning. Part of that process is to challenge and question people like yourself who have spent much more time learning certain subjects than have I.

Vis a vis golf course architecture, my primary interest is as a player.  I am continuously fascinated at the emotions (esthetic, physical and otherwise) that can be engendered by a great golf course--or even by not so great ones, if other conditions are present--when you play it.  I do not beleive that you or I or anybody can experience how a golf course plays unless you do so--watching it, reading about it, even walking inside the ropes gives you only a small % of what a golf course is about.

I have a real problem with older courses being viewed as "works of art." I have seen  nowhere as many pictures as you have of how our great courses used to "look" but of what I have seen, they have all been "works in progress," and I am very glad that I can play Dornoch and Pebble Beach and Olympic Club the way they are today than the way they were in 1930.

To me, this is the difference between static art (such as paintings and buildings) and dynamic "art," such as golf courses.  The latter change over time, and mostly, for the better.

Finally, I do not at all mean to "degrade" anybody or anybody's art.  However, since golf courses are (to some degree at least) in the public domain, I feel within my rights to comment on them, to the degree to which I know them.  I fully recognise that others, such as yourself, take the subject more seriously than do I and have studied more than have I.  I respect you and the others for that.  That does not mean, however, that I can't express my opinions on these matters.  Or does it?