Interview with Mark Mungeam on Olympia Fields

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

I'm glad you now state that you believe that OF should have been preserved.  Read your first posts in this discussion after the Mungean interview and it is evident that you did not criticize these obvious changes that are to me clearly more severe then those at Bethpage. It was this obvious difference from your position of wanting to totally preserve the work of golden age architects that led me to ask if you have documented the changes to OF.  You had not even looked at Mungeans own words carefully.

Tim Weiman kept harping over and over and over how it was impossible for him to believe that a course that was top 10 from 60 yards and in could not be a top 100. Well, I feel the same way about your agenda when you have such obvious inconsistencies depending on the golf course and who does the changes.  Do not be calling my observation of your position intellectually lazy when it is you who now have apparently changed your position. I do not see anywhere in your posts commenting on the Mungean interview where you said "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.". However, you did say "But in fairness some were not constructed very well so quality can vary - Park many times only summited plans." and "His bunkering was never flamboyant - Mungeam did a good job of putting in bunkering that is not too stylized".

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
For a moment I thought you might have a complaint of substance. My first post was hardly a positive for Mungeam--I was not impressed with his understanding of Park. And frankly I quit reading his interview after that comment and posted.

"But in fairness some were not constructed very well so quality can vary - Park many times only summited plans." and "His bunkering was never flamboyant - Mungeam did a good job of putting in bunkering that is not too stylized".

Both honest and frank appraisals - but they should be read seperately so as not to take them out of context.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom- so now you didn't read the entire interview before posting?   The substance is that you have a very clear history of demanding pure restoration and preservation of golf courses designed by the golden age architects. You also have a very clear history of sharp criticism of certain projects.

In that interview, you were served up a 50 mph hanging curveball (by Mark Mungean himself) that you grounded back to the pitcher for a triple play and fell on your face going to first base with your reply. I tried to give you a mullegan but your reply again failed to criticize any way near the way you criticized other projects that altered classic courses far less. The only difference was the architect in charge. Sorry but I will repeat that its hard to believe your inconsistencies without concluding you have some agenda.

I still don't see anywhere in your first posts above where you said "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." I'm glad you finally feel that way and state it in print but I doubt you will be as vocal about this renovation/remodel as you were with past projects concerning that other architect.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Geoffrey,

Sorry to interrupt your interrogation, which is going very well, but all of this reminds of a story I was told about GCGC.  I am not certain if I should use names  based on the Ward standard which seems Clintonesque so I will use initials.  The superintendent BR in the early 80's at Garden City was interviewing architects, most of whom went on and on about changes they would make.  One guy we will call TD said nothing the entire way around the course.  At the end of the tour he advised BR to do nothing.  That there was already a great course there.  I beleive he worked with him to make imporvements, maybe restoration, I do not know the history, but the attitude at that interview set the tone.  That was the responsible attitude these old courses deserve.  That was the responsible attitude an architect should bring to these courses.  How many architects would walk away from this situation, by saying to the members you have a great course, it needs some attention, but all you need to enjoy the brilliance of the previous architect is here, and I will help you restore its grandeur , but if you want change based upon another standard then you have the wrong guy.

[GeoffreyC]

Kelly

That's a good story and one that I personally wish would happen more often.

Kudos to TD   and I certainly hope the members at GCGC allow him to restore that quirky par 3 12th.  My first hand look at the current hole showed me how different it is from the rest of the course.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Since we are on the sports metaphor theme, lets look at the scorecard:
I have questioned the work at Bethpage, Hollywood, East Lake, Baltusrol and Equinox (Rees). I have questioned the work at Pasatiempo and GCGC (Doak), I have questioned the work at Aronimink (Prichard), Seminole and Mountain Lake (Silva), Granville (Hurdzan), Dornick Hills (Brauer), Riviera, Merion, Inverness, Oak Hill, ANGC (Fazio), Yale (Rulewich), Oyster Harbors (Kay), Cape Breton and Manoir Richelieu (Cooke), Lookout Point (Andrews), Ponte Vedra (Weed), Columbia (Ault) and I'm sure there are others that I don't recall right now.

After looking over that list maybe I do have an agenda after all. Four of those architects I consider friends--maybe my agenda is not to have any friends who are golf architects. Why would Mungeam be immune from my criticism? What is my mysterious agenda?

Courses I have not commented upon because I'm either not familiar with original design and/or don't know enough about any changes: Chevy Chase, Atlantic City, Fox Chapel, Gulph Mills, Onwentsia, Broadmoor (In.), Meadow, Century, Plum Hollow, Toledo, Engineers, Shuttle Meadow, New Haven, Oakmont, St. Georges, Westchester, Rolling Green, Los Angeles, Hirono, Lu Lu, Old Town, Lookout Mountain and Olympia Fields. Actually I did say something about OF - at your request - but evidently it wasn't strong enough. I grounded back to the pitcher--at least I didn't fan.

Shoot me - I didn't read the entire interview. I got to the part about Park and I stopped reading it. I have stop reading while on GCA often. Are you under the impression I'm intimately familiar with every classic era golf course ever constructed and all changes that have occurred? You must really have very high opinion of my knowledge--I take that as a complement. But honestly that is an unrealistic standard, but not a bad one to shoot for. If I have information I share it, if I don't know something I don't comment or ask questions. I know more about Park than I do about Olympia Fields. I have often shared information on Park, including the post that grounded out. I know very little about OF and have said next to nothing about the golf course.

".....unfortunately the Park look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling."

Are you happy now? Now its your job to document where Mungeam has ignored and disfigured the course so I don't look bad.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Don't put quotes around your statement ".....unfortunately the Park look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling." to make it sound like it was in one of your posts above (same with - "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.") to make it seem like it was from your original statements about the work. I see those quotes no where until they were extracted from you with my questioning.

I don't need to document the changes to OF.  Mark Mungean did a very adequate job of that in his interview and he would know much better then I would.  After all he has seen the golf course before and after with his own eyes  

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Unfortunately the Park look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling. Is that better. The other was a quote from my previous statement--I guess you just missed the first time.

Nice dig about not playing the course--some of your best material.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

"Nice dig about not playing the course--some of your best material."

Thank you but I didn't say anything about NOT playing the course.  I said that Mungean could better evaluate than I could because HE HAS seen the course before and after the work.  Do you think that's not the case?  
 
 
 
 
 
  

[Paul OConnor]

Tom Doak's 50,000 topic post prompted me to look at the last page of the DG, where I found several topics related to Olympia Fields 2003 US Open, and this interview with architect Mark Mungeam, which elicited some great comments from some of the DG's Hall of Fame members.  I found the interview and the DG banter terrific reading, especially the description of the back and forth between the USGA and the Club, and the always entertaining Pat Mucci's usual trolling of Tom MacWood.  Good stuff.

Some of the other posts on that last page include the usual rantings about how easy Olympia Fields was, btw I think 4 players finished under par in 2003, vs 31 this year at Erin Hills.  Anybody here who has played it think EH is easy?

These 2003 OF posts were right after the ProV1 came out, and the early outrage by the DG posters regarding the USGA's lack of oversight on these new balls and where the game was headed seem spot on 14 years later. 

This week Olympia Fields is hosting the LPGA Championship, tune in to see one of the great Chicago area courses.

[JReese]

This week Olympia Fields is hosting the LPGA Championship, tune in to see one of the great Chicago area courses.

Really excited to see how the ladies are able to navigate OFCC.  Many of the penal fairway bunkers will be in play unlike for the men who can just bomb over them.
Took the little ones out for a couple hours yesterday and the little I was able to watch there were quite a few metal woods hit off of the par 3 17th and it looks like 18 will play as a sub 500 yard par 5.  Quite the contrast from EH.