Interview with Mark Mungeam on Olympia Fields

[Michael Dugger]

I copied and pasted this from THE WIRE, for those of you who don't subscribe.  Some interesting stuff here....



Editor's Note: One of the more interested observers at this year's U.S. Open at Olympia Fields Country Club will be 41-year-old Mark Mungeam, who prepared the North Course for this year's national championship. Mungeam, a partner in the firm Cornish, Silva and Mungeam and a member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects Board of Governors, recently offered his views on the design, setup and preparation of Olympia Fields for this year's Open.

Q.: You've been working at Olympia Fields for more than a decade; in fact, you prepared the club's North Course for the 1997 Senior Open. How did your recent round of renovations, for the U.S. Open, differ from the earlier effort?

MARK MUNGEAM: For starters, our prior renovation work was the result of a Long-Range Plan we finalized in 1991. Soon after work began, the USGA awarded Olympia Fields the '97 Senior Open. Yet aside from accelerating the schedule, getting the Senior Open did nothing to change the manner or extent of the work we had planned. The goal at that time was a general improvement in course playability and aesthetics, while maintaining the classic, straightforward feel of the layout.

Q.: What were the pre-Senior Open changes, specifically?

MARK MUNGEAM: Restoration of greens to their original sizes, rebuilding of bunkers, several new tees, one new green, tree thinning, and fairway realignment -- it was a major renovation. We all felt the work done prior to the Senior Open met the goals of our Long-Range Plan and the club was very pleased. Let's face it: No one was talking about Olympia Fields as an Open site prior to the changes we made. The opportunity for hosting the U.S. Open arose only after the Senior Open went so well in '97.

But our second renovation had a completely different impetus. Based on an analysis of Senior Open playing characteristics and player comments, the USGA felt that among other things, the course needed to be longer and more difficult to meet its standards for an Open venue. Graham Marsh's winning score for the Senior Open had been even par -- without severe rough, at 6,900 yards. It was felt the course could not adequately test the world's best golfers under similar conditions, so the USGA determined the course needed strengthening.

Q.: So the USGA's goals were the prime motivation behind the second round of changes.

MARK MUNGEAM: Yes, but our challenge was to marry the USGA's requirements and the club membership's desire to retain the course's traditional character, subtle difficulty, and playability. A bunch of Senior Open players indicated they liked playing an "old style" course, one that hadn't been doctored, if you will. We were proud of that, and we sought to make subsequent revisions in a similar manner.

Q.: Was the club involved in this decision-making?

MARK MUNGEAM: Yes and no. People may not realize it, but a club can't host a U.S. Open until an approved master plan of changes can be developed and approved by the club and USGA. In fact, that master plan is part of the contract between the club and USGA. Our master plan at Olympia Fields was developed with little influence from the club -- other than its officers, professional, and superintendents. But the club agreed to make the changes by a vote of the membership.

In developing our plan, we first studied the course to increase the length. It was obvious to us that a 6,900-yard course wasn't going to cut it. As with most older facilities, additional length can be difficult to find on the compact sites these older courses were built on. So each hole was analyzed for the ability and appropriateness of added length. Once the revised tee positions were determined, only then did we analyze the bunker positions and difficulty. The club was happy with that work. I give them credit because the U.S. Open renovation called for far more penal bunkering -- something we coined "deep and steep." This stylistic approach gave the course a dramatic new look, yet one which I, and the members, feel is appropriate to the original Park style.


Q.: Willie Park Jr. designed the North Course in 1923. How would you describe his style?

MARK MUNGEAM: I have a hard time doing that, generalizing like that, because his work was so varied. You look at a course like Maidstone, or the Old Course at Sunningdale or Olympia Fields and you don't see a whole lot of similarities. I should say, then, that the work we did here was appropriate to the Park style "at Olympia Fields." The greens here, for example, are for the most part raised up on plateaus and drop off sharply at the edges -- similar to many [A.W.] Tillinghast greens. That's the way Park designed them, and that's the way they play today.

Q.: You say the members like the new, deeper-steeper bunkers. Were there things they weren't so crazy about?

MARK MUNGEAM: The most controversial aspect of the plan turned out to be a primarily aesthetic change prompted by comments from the USGA. It involved the seventh, a par-3 playing from a bluff above Butterfield Creek to a small green wedged into a turn in the creek. The USGA desired a hole length of about 215 yards, and there was adequate space to achieve this distance. Yet the further the tee was shifted back, the more difficult it was to see the green -- and visibility of the creek was hopeless without a dramatic change. The hole played from a chute, with mature oaks defining the line of play. To create the desired hole, trees were removed on both sides of the hole and a deep cut made through the bluff. The result is a beautiful hole, with a great view -- from all tees -- of the creek and green. But it's a quite different hole from the one we found in 1991.

Q.: You added quite a bit of length to the North Course. How much, and where was it added? Mostly on the two par-5s?

MARK MUNGEAM: Yes and no. We added approximately 290 yards to the course [see chart below] but the biggest changes did not occur on the par-5s and, in fact, the sixth hole was actually shortened so that the rear part of that tee could be utilized to lengthen the par-4 16th.

Most of the changes were made through the addition of new tees. The largest increases came at holes eight, nine and 16. The change for hole No. 8 was debated the most due to the proposed shift across the club's entrance drive and its proximity to a U.S. Open tent area. This change added 45 yards and completely changed the context of the hole. Instead of a breather, eight is now a demanding hole with a difficult-to-gauge uphill approach to a blind putting surface. At No. 9, the hole was increased 49 yards -- a tribute to the length of today's player. This hole has historically played as a par-5 of 495 yards for members and a par-4 of 445 for championships.

Q.: Senior Open competitors talked a lot about how difficult the greens played at Olympia Fields. What makes them so tough, and what changes in the greens can we expect to see this summer?

MARK MUNGEAM: For one, these greens are deceptively steep with lots of subtle undulations. Whereas most modern greens are built with surface slopes of 1.5 to 3 percent, older greens such as those at Olympia Fields often have slopes of 3 to 5 percent in the cupping areas. With Open-caliber green speed, such grades become extremely difficult to gauge. Also, when they're built, modern greens are often fine graded with mechanical equipment which tends to smooth and level the surface -- as opposed to older greens which were "hand-finished", leaving minor undulations that are difficult to see. This is a big part of what makes older greens unpredictable, if you will. And most of the putting surfaces at Olympia Fields certainly fit that bill.

In preparing for the Senior and U.S. Opens, we've only rebuilt three greens, which means 15 remain this hand-finished, quirky variety. These greens also slope in various, haphazard directions -- not the typical back to front. This requires golfers to continually adjust their approach. For example, the eight hole approach is uphill to a green sloping away from the shot. The second hole has a green which slopes dramatically from the front right to the back left.

Q.: But you did end up rebuilding several greens prior to this year's Open.

MARK MUNGEAM: Yes. During the Senior Open, it had been difficult finding fair cupping areas on nine due to excessive slope. The ninth carried a slope of 4 to 8 percent throughout its surface, whereas the 12th had suitable cupping areas in the back half of the green, but none in the front behind the bunkers. The redesign of these greens was a fascinating process -- for me, at least -- because we attempted to satisfy the USGA's needs while creating finished greens that look the same as the originals to members.

We first had the club create a detailed topographic plan. With this document, we analyzed the existing slopes and created a proposed grading scheme which reduced the slope -- but only in areas to be utilized for cups by the USGA during the Open. You've got to realize the USGA will rarely pin the middle of a green at the Open. Pins are tucked near edges and behind hazards to require precise approaches and appropriate decisions. So the new greens were designed with all the same interior rolls and undulations as the originals, and with the same steep pitch through the middle (approximately 3 to 5 percent), yet with distinct "U.S. Open" cupping positions along the edges with only 2.5- to 3-percent slope. It was a challenge to marry all these goals, but the members are happy with the results. After this June, we hope the USGA will be as well.

[Note: In the early 1990s, prior to Mungeam's work, Golf Digest ranked the North Course Olympia Fields 84th on its list of America's Top 100 Courses. In GD's most recent voting, Olympia Fields placed 30th.]

[Michael Dugger]

continued....


Q.: We read a lot about the recovery of putting surfaces at Pinehurst. Were you able to do the same thing at Olympia Fields?

MARK MUNGEAM: Yes, because we also regrassed all the greens that hadn't been rebuilt. This process was spear headed by co-superintendents Dave Ward and Kevin West. Prior to removal of the old green surfaces, we assessed where greens had shrunk -- and where restoration of these areas would expand the USGA's cupping options. In some areas, like hole no. 4, the restoration process created dramatic new cupping areas. On that hole, the green was expanded to the back right, creating an area that not too many people believe the USGA will dare put the pin. I think they will -- but I think our expansion to the left creates an even more interesting cupping area, as just left of the green is a steep ravine.

Q.: You deepened fairway bunkers, making them more penal. Were they also moved down the fairways to account for today's longer hitters?

MARK MUNGEAM: With a few exceptions, fairway bunkers were not moved further out to account for the length of today's player because this would have gone against our philosophy for renovating classic courses. We cherish classic courses because they set so comfortably on the landscape. Nothing about these vintage designs (the good ones, anyway) is forced -- greens and tees are placed on natural rises in elevations, fairways in the valleys. Bunker placement was considered just as thoughtfully: Natural up-slopes for bunkers, whether at landing zones or in between. This created a more random bunkering pattern than what we're used to today.

So, it is generally our preference to extend a tee back (if possible), rather than to shift a bunker to a position where it doesn't fit or would require additional grading to make it look natural. An example of this philosophy is the 16th. In reviewing fairway bunker locations, the left side trap on 16 is not as far out as we or the USGA would have preferred. And being on the inside of the hole, this is a key bunker. Yet moving the bunker forward would have placed it in the natural drainage pattern of the hole. The drainage could have been rerouted with grading, or even piped, yet this would have required additional work and the new bunker would have appeared rather forced.

There were a few holes where we were able to move or add new bunkers further out to affect the long hitters. On hole No. 10, the left inside bunker was extended and a new bunker was added further out on the right. On No. 2, the bunker series on the left was extended forward approximately 20 yards. At No. 6, the first par-5, we added a second bunker further out on the left as well as pinching down the fairway. The only other case of moving a bunker out occurred at No. 18, where a bunker was added beyond the two which existed in the landing zone.

It will be interesting to see how the fairway bunkering at Olympia Fields affects play during the Open. Under normal playing conditions with wider fairways and shorter rough, the contestants would likely hit driver past many of these hazards. Under U.S. Open conditions, however, with contestants utilizing fairway woods and long irons, they are likely to be very much in play.

Q.: If you had to choose a hole which will play the most over par during the Open, what would it be? Why?

MARK MUNGEAM: I'm not much of a prognosticator. My son Braden on the other hand, who's six, nearly called the Super Bowl this year. He guessed 48-27... But I can try. My guess would be No. 9, followed closely by five, 12, and 18.

The ninth plays as a par-5 for members and a par-4 for championships. At more than 490 yards, it rates as one of the longest par-4s in U.S. Open history (how high will this number go?!!). This was the most difficult hole at the Senior Open. Since then, the green was rebuilt to make it more fair, yet it is still steep and tricky to putt. Off the tee, players must find the right half of the fairway to allow an unobstructed view of the green on this dogleg left. From there, most will have more than 200 yards left to a well protected green with little room to run the ball up. Players get no break on this hole.

The fifth is regarded as Olympia Fields most loved and well known hole. The difficulty here is the green, which slopes sharply from back right to front left. Care must be taken to not spin the ball back off the front of this green -- and down 25 feet of slope.

The 12th is really tough from tee to green. The narrow fairway is blind off the tee, then one must play uphill to a small green fronted by deep bunkers. At 465 yards, this is the second longest par-4.

The 18th will fool players. The drive and approach shots will probably not be so difficult, but the green is sleepy fast. It doesn't appear so, but this is one of the most difficult greens on the course to putt.

Q.: You also moved several fairways. Where? How does one move a fairway, and why?

MARK MUNGEAM: On the fifth hole, the fairway was actually moved about 25 feet to the right. This was done to bring Butterfield Creek more into play and to provide more room for galleries on the left. But in most cases, the amount of fairway was reduced, as opposed to being moved. During our previous renovation work, we had reconfigured the fairways quite a bit so that they weaved around the newly rebuilt bunkers and maintained a fairly standard width of 28-35 yards. We feel strongly that bunkers should be a part of the fairway.

For the U. S. Open, the USGA prefers that fairways be narrowed down to 24-28 yards in width. Therefore, in the fall of 2001, we got involved with the USGA's Tom Meeks [director, rules and competitions] and Tim Moraghan [director, championship agronomy] to reduce the width of many of the fairways. For the most part, the USGA decided where and how much the fairways would be narrowed, but they did get my input on occasion. I was most concerned that the fairways not become straight lines, and that the bunkers still be an integral part of the fairway. I feel this input was beneficial in affecting how the course looks. The fairways have retained their movement and look much more natural this way.

Q.: This is your first Open preparation. So much attention is paid to the USGA's setup at Open courses. What's the most surprising thing you learned about how the USGA views this process?

MARK MUNGEAM: I was most surprised at how little they were involved in the renovation of the course while the work was being done. I had worked with Judy Bell a little out at the Broadmoor [prior to the '95 Women's Open], but this was the big event. During our meetings with the USGA and the club prior to construction, I had gotten the impression Tim Moraghan would be making frequent site visits to review the work. This is what I expected. Instead, I was surprised to be left to oversee the work myself, with Tim visiting the site only three or four times over the course of the project. I can only assume Tim had confidence in what I was doing, and left me to it.

The other surprising aspect of being involved in an Open preparation is how much other planning is required to run the Open. It is such a huge undertaking that it makes the work on the course seem almost inconsequential. It was definitely a fascinating experience, one I feel very fortunate to have been a part of.
 


 

[T_MacWood]

I find it a little odd that Mungeam would not have a better feel for Park's style. There are quite few Park course in his neck of the woods. Maybe there aren't well preserved. But in fairness some were not constructed very well so quality can vary - Park many times only summited plans.

My impression is that Park's style was fairly simple, maybe that is why a style did not stand out. The sites might vary - Maidstone, Olympia Fields, Sylvania - but his style remained constant. His strength it seems to me was allowing the natural advantages of the site to dominate. A number of very good, natural  par-3's and par-4's.

His bunkering was never flamboyant - Mungeam did a good job of putting in bunkering that is not too stylized. And rarely were his courses severely bunkered - moderately well bunkered. I believe much of his style can be seen in his greens. From what I have seen, he varied their situation, sometimes raised artificially, sometimes raised on natural plateaus, sometimes level with the fairway. He also supposedly created at least one (often more than one) 'Table' green on every course - modeled on the Table at Musselburough. Which has a pronounced raised shelf across the back. I haven't been able to find it on TV - maybe the 9th. His green designs were greatly influenced by Musselburough from what I understand.

[ian]

Tom,

As a generalization I would agree, but at Islesmer in Montreal the course is extremely well bunkered and there is very flamboyant bunkering. We have good record that it is his bunkers and aerials definately reinforce that it is indeed Willie's work. Laval has some character, but I'm still convinced that was Herbert Strong. The key to Willie is the sharp, sharp banks around the bunkers and greens, beyond that (as you stated) he stayed with the land.

Weston is simple and Stanley Thompson redid Beaconsfield and many of Mount Bruno. There is movement in the Mount Bruno bunkers, but I have not seen there historical records to draw any useful conclusion.

I have not seen Maidstone or Olympia Fields, so it would not be fair for me to comment on either.

Thought you would be interested.

Ian

[T_MacWood]

Ian
I'm not familar with Islemere. I don't want to give the impression his bunkering was boaring or uninteresting, but some of it was fairly simple and some of it a little more stylish like Royal Montreal or Shorehaven (possibly due to the constructors abilities), but not flamboyant in the Strong, Thompson or MacKenzie vain. Perhaps Islemere broke that mold - what year was it built and do you know who constructed the course?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Since you like to document changes to classic old golf courses I was wondering if you have documented the changes to Olympia Fields?  

If so, do you consider these changes more or less sympathetic then the changes made to Bethpage?

If the changes to the positioning of the bunkering and the earthmoving to create visibility to one hole at at Olympia Fields does constitute unsympathetic changes then why give Mark Mungeen a free pass from criticism?

In your opinion is the original Park design worthy of preservation?  

[ian]

Tom,

I'll get back to you with the date. You really got me thinking about contractor especially since Royal Montreal, Elm Ridge, Islesmer and Laval redo by Strong have some real similarities that can not be coincidence. Give me some time, but I will look into Islesmere some more.

Ian

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

The list of changes made to this classic course seem almost radical when compared to the changes made to courses like Bethpage, Baltusrol, Shinnecock and others.

Moving bunkers, rebuilding new holes, rebuilding new greens, adding bunkers, making bunkers deeper and steeper and other changes would seem to substantially alter the prior design.

Perhaps Mr Mungeam enjoys "most favored nation" status amongst the cognescente on this site.

I'm sure that Tom MacWood will address your questions with the same fervor that he has in the past, when other classic courses are altered, especially a classic course altered to this degree.

Evidently, this was the quid pro quo that the membership was willing to accept in order to host the USOPEN.

[T_MacWood]

To be honest I haven't dug into Olympia Field's evolution as thoroughly as Bethpage-Black. As an admirer of Willie Park's I have collected some information on the course. Although OF hosted a number of important tournaments it never recieved the publicity of Bethpage--NYC being the media capital and Bethpage being a more dramatic design may have something to do with that.

In 1928 the two holes at OF that were considered world class were the 3rd and 14th (the current 12th and 5th). They have been changed very little. Both are natural holes that rely on the stream and the movement of the ground. Neither hole had a fairway bunker and thankfully none has been added. The 3rd green - elevated above the stream - featured two front greenside bunkers, left and right. A second bunker has been added to the right for some reason--by whom I don't know. The 14th had a single greenside bunker to the left, which has been retained, but here is also one now on the right. IMO these two holes - despite these changes - are nearly identical to 1928. And are still probably the two best holes on the golf course (from what I've seen). Mungeam evidently rebuilt the 3rd green to accomidate US Open speeds--a mistake IMO because the US Open won't be returning any time soon.

The other holes I have info on are #13, #5 and #16 (the current 4th, 14th and 7th). The 13th and 16th are both par-3's and other than yardage are suprisingly similar to the original. The bunkers on the 13th are identical (rare even for the best preserved courses) and the bunkers on the 16th are nearly identical with only a slight stylized touch of small protrusions (their postion is the same). The 5th - another natural hole in the vain of 3rd and 14th - looks very much the same with the bunkers slightly more stylized, but still realtively simple. In fact what stands out to me is the bunkering although slightly more stylized, Mungeam seem to deliberatley make them understated (I'm not familar with his own style, perhaps that is reflection of his own aesthetics - I don't know)

From what I understand the greens - the strength of many Park courses - have remained unaltered with exception of the current 9th and 12th. They claim the postion of fairway bunkering is similar to what Park left - it looks a little too much like RTJ for my eye - but I don't know. All the bunkers have been deepened which takes away from the course's aesthetic/natural appearance. Park's bunkers were relatively shallow and blended beatifully with greens and the rest of the golf course. Again since the couse is shakey as a host of another Open the loss is unfortunate.

However any loss is made up by the elimination of those damned white rocks that lined every stream. They are/were the greatest eye sore in golf history. My home course to this day still features these alien rocks that will ruin a round. Another feature I'm not fond of at OF is the pond on the 9th, what is its purpose - it looks completely out of place. Thankfully it isn't lined by the white rocks -- R Bruce Harris would even spin in his grave. Which brings up an interesting question how did Chicago GC, Olympia Fields and Shoreacres avoid the clutches of the Chicago gang who altered so many?

[T_MacWood]

Another observation on OF - the course was lined by mature trees when it was first constructed. Park did a good job of creating wide alleys amongst those trees, but he did use the trees as hazards on several holes. With so many courses of the same era being overrun by trees, OF was unusual having trees from the start. And from what I gather they rarely encroached later on.

[Mike_Cirba]

According to Cornish and Whitten, before Mark Mungeam the course was altered by Jack Daray in 1946, Edward Lawrence Packard in 1982, and Roger Packard (revised three holes) in 1984.

I don't know the extent of the changes by any of those architects.

I also think it's obvious that Willie Park Jr. didn't have the cache of Tillinghast, except to the most studious architectural afficianados, and Olympia Fields has really not been as highly regarded as Bethpage.  

Also, Bethpage was largely untouched since Tillie/Burbeck designed it, so perhaps there was a greater sensitivity to any work done on an "original".  

I know Tom MacWood isn't too fond of the "deepening" bunker work done by Mungeam, and I find it fairly unobtrusive and relatively decent aesthetically.  The Park bunkers were hardly works of art in the first place.  They certainly weren't as artful or interesting in context and shaping as the original Tillie bunkers at Bethpage.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike Cirba- Shouldn’t Mark Mungean have done his best to eliminate the work of those other architects and “preserved” the work of Willie Park?

Tom MacWood- you have not really answered my questions.  Bethpage is a public facility that was run down and in DIRE need of an upgrade to serve the players.  They made a deal with the USGA to get that done. Olympia Fields is a fine example of Park’s work and it is a private course whose members control what is done to it. It was I presume NOT rundown and in horrible condition.  Presumably it served the members well before the new set of changes were made. That is an important distinction between the two projects.  Yet, you choose to severely criticize only the Bethpage project.

I have not done any research on Olympia Fields, however, there is a large amount of information within the interview in Mark Mungean’s own words regarding the projects!

“our challenge was to marry the USGA's requirements and the club membership's desire to retain the course's traditional character, subtle difficulty, and playability.”

“the club agreed to make the changes by a vote of the membership.”

Question” You say the members like the new, deeper-steeper bunkers” . So the bunkers and their playability was CHANGED at OF. This was not the case at Bethpage.

7th hole change “To create the desired hole, trees were removed on both sides of the hole and a deep cut made through the bluff” – So, earthmoving was apparently OK at OF.  At Bethpage there was no earthmoving.

What about changes to greens “Whereas most modern greens are built with surface slopes of 1.5 to 3 percent, older greens such as those at Olympia Fields often have slopes of 3 to 5 percent in the cupping areas. With Open-caliber green speed, such grades become extremely difficult to gauge.” In preparing for the Senior and U.S. Opens, we've only rebuilt three greens” At Bethpage, only the 18th green was changed.

However, “Q.: But you did end up rebuilding several greens prior to this year's Open”

Answer- “During the Senior Open, it had been difficult finding fair cupping areas on nine due to excessive slope. The ninth carried a slope of 4 to 8 percent throughout its surface, whereas the 12th had suitable cupping areas in the back half of the green, but none in the front behind the bunkers. The REDESIGN of these greens was a fascinating process -- for me, at least –“

“With a few exceptions, fairway bunkers were not moved further out to account for the length of today's player because this would have gone against our philosophy for renovating classic courses.” Well, how many is a few?  “There were a few holes where we were able to move or add new bunkers further out to affect the long hitters. On hole No. 10, the left inside bunker was extended and a new bunker was added further out on the right. On No. 2, the bunker series on the left was extended forward approximately 20 yards. At No. 6, the first par-5, we added a second bunker further out on the left as well as pinching down the fairway. The only other case of moving a bunker out occurred at No. 18, where a bunker was added beyond the two which existed in the landing zone.”  At Bethpage we could say that only a few were altered as well.  Was it more then Bethpage or fewer? Is that OK?

What about fairways?  At Bethpage the fairways were not altered.  After all, that would change the playability of the hole!   ” The fifth is regarded as Olympia Fields most loved and well known hole”  … “On the fifth hole, the fairway was actually moved about 25 feet to the right. This was done to bring Butterfield Creek more into play and to provide more room for galleries” Seems that the playability of OF’s most loved hole was altered.  Is that OK?

Question- “So much attention is paid to the USGA's setup at Open courses. What's the most surprising thing you learned about how the USGA views this process?”
Answer- “I was most surprised at how little they were involved in the renovation of the course while the work was being done”.  So, it was largely the membership and the architect making these changes.

Tom, I fully understand and mostly agree with your stance that the fine works of architects of the past need to be preserved for the future generations of golfers.  I wish, however, that you would show some consistency in your advocacy of this policy.  Why criticize severely the changes at Bethpage, Hollywood and Baltusrol when its OK to make greater changes to Olympia Fields?

Your lack of criticism of the project at Olympia Fields leads me to conclude that either

A-      Olympia Fields is not in the same class as the other courses and not worthy of PRESERVATION of Park’s work.

Or

B-      Its OK for some architects to make changes to classic courses but not others.

I’d appreciate it if you could answer the questions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey;

I agree, and I almost always find it to be unnecessary and misguided when any classic course makes changes simply to curry favor with the USGA to host the US Open.

I just didn't know enough about the original course at OF, the subsequent changes over the years, etc., to comment intelligently on it.  

You know I'd have spoken up if I had.  

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
A year later and you are still pissed at my documenting the changes at Bethpage.

First of all I don't differentiate between public (Bethpage, Pasateimpo, Pebble Beach, Banff) and private (Olympia Fields, Hollywood, East Lake, Scioto) when looking at outstanding architecture. Bethpage was designed and built as a public facility--the fact that it was still public and was also run down does not IMO excuse ignoring the greatness of its original architecture.

Olympia Field like nearly all courses that host US Opens is worse off from historical perspective. What makes this case even sadder is that this is likely their last. As I wrote above the fairway bunkering looked too much like RTJ for my eye--doubting Mungeam's claim that he left it pretty much as is. But that was a guess based on what I know of Park--I don't have the original plan or an old aerial. Likewise altering the greens to accommodate US Open speeds--for a single event--is a sad loss. IMO the strength of Willie Park's courses are first their routing--taking excellent advantage of a sites natural strengths and second the greens--Willie Park was a very good putter (no doubt because of the difficulty of the greens at Musselburough) and he designed interesting greens.

From what I understand Mungeam chose to leave the center of the greens alone and lessened the slope on the perimeter where the USGA was likely to put their cups. Mungeam acknowledged the membership did not want to change their greens--again a sad result IMO. Perhaps that was what he meant by a fascinating process--the dilemma of satisfying the USGA requirements and being true to the original design and the members. I personally don't care about the USGA's requirements when it comes to a grand old design. Thankfully only three greens were rebuilt. I don't believe Bethpage was ever known for her greens...in fact if someone is going to argue that Bethpage was never finished...as Rees did...one would point to the greens. Ironically he left them alone choosing to alter other aspects of the course (features that appeared to me to be finished quite well).

Regarding the 5th (the 14th) I was aware the fairway was moved 8 yards to the right and based on a number of old photos it looks to me the fairway originally stretched that far to the right. It may not have been deliberate but an unintended consequence was to restore the fairway. As far as Bethpage's fairways not being altered....I'll take your word for it....the 4th, 6th, 10th and 18th fairways look to be altered to me.

On the 7th (the 16th) from what I understand trees were removed around the old tee to build a new back tee. It is a steeply down hill par-3 over a stream. Unfortunately the green was not visible when the tee was moved--they cut the ground on the teeside of the ravine. Remove a blind hillside hardly seems to be a transgression against the original architecture--nor earth moving as we traditionally know it on GCA.

I'm not aware of any wholesale redesigning of any holes at OF--like #18 at Bethpage. I'm not aware of Mungeam taking his crew to Sunningdale or Maidstone to give them ideas on how to 'finish' the greenside bunkering.

What I objected to at Bethpage was altering what made the course so special -- its bunkering. For example the original brilliant bunkering scheme for #1, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, and #18 was significantly changed. What were once a diverse group of green complexes, were converted into numerous modern versions of Winged Foot. Of course you will argue that the playability did not change (and that I didn't mention #17 which was deepened siginficantly). I'm not sure how that is so when bunkers are in places they weren't to begin with (and vice versa), but playability is only part of the equation in my view--one must consider the historical importance of the course, the historical importance of the designer, the uniqueness of the design, how the features meld with the site, the effect on variety, the effect on balance, etc. Why are there so many concerns and complaints regarding the bunkers at Merion? I personally don't believe it is a right wing conspiracy or bias. In fact that characterization is insulting to intelligent admirers of golf architecture and I believe shows an ignorance of the subject.

Since you are questioning my judgment (and integrity) perhaps I should explain my actions. There were a few reasons I was drawn into researching Bethpage. First because the golf course was such a unique design -- unique for Tillinghast and unique in the world of architecture. Another reason was the mystery surrounding its creator. The third reason was because the work was being characterized as a restoration--by Rees, by the USGA, by most golf publications and by many on GCA. Unfortunately I can not research every golf course, from every important designer--as I said above I haven't thoroughly researched OF. It seems to me it is an excellent golf course designed by a historical figure who I greatly admire and IMO it should be preserved and protected.

But I don't believe anyone would describe it as unique and I don't believe Mungeam or anyone else has characterized his work as a restoration. In fact their has been very little talk about the course at all. For those reasons I didn't thoroughly research the golf course--I opologize. Perhaps you believe I have dropped the ball at OF and that it is my responsibility to document every course that holds the Open or is considering holding an Open or has been changed. Was I too easy on Mungeam when documented the changes I was aware of (and some of things he left alone)? I actually believe all things considered he did much better job than Rees in respecting and being sensitive to the original design--do you disagree? (Of course no one is preventing you from do your own research) Does my lack of research of OF mean I've given Mungeam or the USGA a free pass? I don't think so. IMO I've been very consistant, but you are free to disagree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You've been highly critical of Rees and Fazio for making changes to golf courses, especially classic courses that have held USOPENS.

If you'll review your critical remarks regarding Baltusrol, where Rees did very little, you may recall being outraged that he extended a green 8 feet in one area and 12 feet in another,
I said that you could not detect the changes on site, yet you remained highly critical of the minor changes to that golf course, a course that you have never seen.

Yet, Mungeam embarks upon a wholesale alteration to Olympia Fields, for the express purpose of hosting a USOPEN, and you suddenly loose your critical eye and your sharp tongue.

One doesn't need much research in this regard as Mr. Mungeam has done that for you and presented the first hand supporting information, or facts, as some might call them.

I think you have to examine the intent and scope of the work.
At Baltusrol it was minimal, and the architecture of the golf course remains intact.  At Olympia Fields, the changes are major and the course has been altered/disfigured.

Geoff's distinction between private and public is material.
The membership at a private club, the golfers who play the golf course, have to approve changes to their golf course, and in this case it appears that the MEMBERSHIP was willing to alter/disfigure their golf course for the express purpose of hosting a USOPEN.

At a public golf course, one authority makes those decisions, not the golfers who play the golf course.

I don't understand the membership's motivation, and the work done seems to be a clear departure from any restorative thought.

Perhaps the members felt that the course wasn't worthy of restoration and needed a modernization.  The problem that I have with modernization is that it is a process that never ends, and it's prone to every future fad and whim of the membership.

Had you been critical of the changes at OF I would have admired your consistency, and your credibility would have been enhanced.  Instead, your silence could lead one to believe that your previous criticisms are architect related rather than based in architecture.

I'm also rather surprised at how silent the west coast has been, but perhaps with the time zone changes, they haven't awakened yet.

Can you imagine if Rees or Fazio had made these same changes to this classic course  ??

[T_MacWood]

Pat
How familar are you with Olympia Fields - the original Park design and the Mungeam wholesale changes? Could you share with us your research?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Don't try to duck the "difficult" questions, and divert the focus

Like an open book test, Mr. Mungeam has supplied all of the information you need in order to answer the questions.  

[T_MacWood]

You read my views of Mungeam's work (comments based on what I know of OL and Willie Park). What specifically do you object to? What should I have said that I didn't say in your opinion?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You could start by comparing the scope and intent of the alterations at Olympia Fields to those at Baltusrol.

You could continue by employing the same standards to both architects and golf courses when applying your critical eye

And you might compare exending a green 8 feet into the fringe to totally rebuilding a green/hole.

You know, use the same evaluative criteria when making your comparison and critical remarks.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
"You could start by comparing the scope and intent of the alterations at Olympia Fields to those at Baltusrol."

I have no interest in scope and intent - could care less - thats your bailiwick. Why don't you share your vast knowledge on the subject and compare the two courses.

I take it you didn't read my criticisms of OF and the sad changes to the greens--oh well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It's simple.

Olympia Fields made massive, substantive changes to their golf course.  Baltusrol made minor, non-substantive changes to their golf course.

Olympia Fields changed their course under Mr.Mungeam and Baltusrol preserved their course under Rees Jones.

Your comments were benign when addressing Mr Mungeam and Olympia Fields compared to your harsh, critical comments regarding Rees Jones and Baltusrol, yet the amount, intent and scope of the work at Olympia Fields was significantly greater, by multiples, than the work at Baltusrol.

It seems that you're inconsistent, or driven primarily by the architect or contractor doing the work.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom-

I'm not pissed in the least that you tried to document the changes at Bethpage.  I only want some consistency in your position about classic courses. You still didn't answer the question of whether you think OF is worthy of being preserved.  If you think it was then you should follow the same standard about the alterations.  Unless you do that it sure does look like you have some kind of agenda.

As far as your claiming or still thinking that Bethpage was changed more then OF I don't see how you can make that statement based on Mungean's own words in the interview and the fact that you have never been to either place!  I can tell you that those so called drastic changes you think were made to Bethpage are in fact much more subtle then Mungean makes it seem were made to OF.  Furthermore, the bunker on 17 is SHALLOWER now NOT deeper and that I objected to more then the changes you think are so out of keeping with the original design! But I've only played there 60 times.  Maybe Matt whose been there hundreds of times thinks I'm wrong.

Tom- you can make are the statements you want and that's OK and I will respect your opinion but its hard to do so unless you have a consistent position regardless of whether its Bethpage or Olympia Feilds.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
I wrote: "It seems to me it is an excellent golf course designed by a historical figure who I greatly admire and IMO it should be preserved and protected."

What exactly is inconsistant about my opinion of the changes at Bethapge and OF? Where was I critical of Bethpage and not critical of OF? Is it my responsiblity to have done a thorough investigation of OF's architectural history?

I'm not fond of the constant acusations of agenda and bias against those for whom one might have a difference of opinion--people do disagree and its not necessary to attribute it to some dark motive. In fact IMO it is intellectually lazy to disregard or write off a differing opinion with such labels.

I knew a comment about not playing OF would be coming--I'm not sure what that has to do with this discusion? And I believe you asked me to comment on the changes to OF.

Pat
If you characterize the changes at OF as massive (you obviously know more about the course than I do), would you similarly characterize the changes at Bethpage as massive? Why or why not?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick and Tom,

Drop this, and write about your fathers!

[T_MacWood]

OK I'll go first. I'm sure Pat's father was a very fine man...I really only have one quarrel with him.