[George Pazin]

Thanks Jamie. Now that you mention the different grass types, I seem to recall Pat Mucci saying that was the case at Shinnecock as well. I guess it's probably true with most Northeastern courses.

Adam -

My last time walking PB the fairways didn't seem to be overly narrow, so I guess they utilize the different mowing approach - or I'm just not very observant.

[T_MacWood]

"Tom, this is probably where you and I might differ on some of these issues. I believe, if you truly come as close to understanding how they thought and worked why you'd want to do something different than they did or the way they thought? Clearly this begins to get into your philosophy that one should preserve some of this architecture simply because you feel its reached such a point of respect!"

TE
I don't follow what you are saying in this paragraph.

Regarding the rest of your remarks, whatever you want to call the recognition of outstanding work -- reaching a point of respect, passing the test of time, being recognized by a consensus of architectural scholars -- there are a few important works that should be preserved IMO. Examples might be St.Andrews, GCGC, Merion, Yale, Riviera, Cypress Point, Seminole, Royal Melbourne, etc.

Educating the membership is important, but unfortunatelly I do not believe the current education process has brought about the desired effect--preservation. Aren't Merion, Yale, Seminole and Riviera examples of failure even with an 'educated' membership, or at least an attempt to educate the membership? And ironically the damage done to these courses was done in the name of restoration.

I also do not believe it helps the cause of education (and ultimately the goal of preserving great architecture), to excuse or defend bad work.

No doubt restoration can result in positive results, but often, especially when dealing with landmark courses, the result is destruction and loss of authenticity. IMO there should be more emphasis on preservation, more scrutiny of restoration and a new more effective way of eduating the public. I beginning to believe the time is right for a Society to Protect Golf Architecture.

[TEPaul]

George:

There really is no good reason---or no reason at all to start thinking a golf course should have its fairways narrowed and then cycled back out again--not unless the club is thinking of having the US Open or one of the other of the USGA's major tournaments come to the course.

But if the course is going to have an Open, like Shinnecock just did, and those fairways are going to be narrowed down and then taken back out there's two basic ways to do it---one that's fairly gradually that's sometimes referred to as "seeding in and then mowing back out (gradually)" or the other alternative which is referred to as "sodding in and sodding back out" which is a much faster result but probably about 4-5 times more expensive!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

If those bunkers you call "redundant" on the 4th & 5th holes that "guard the creek" were located on the 4th and 5th holes at Lookaway Golf Club, they'd probably be the 263rd and 348th stupidest bunkers in golf, respectively.

Because their unsightly, superfluous presences are presently occupying terra firma on the 4th and 5th holes of the Holiest of Holies (Merion), they rise to the top with a bullet!  

Can you name just ONE stupider one?  

By the way, I hear Huge Wilson is frontin' for the world's greatest living architect at some other local course.  You just never know where he'll pop up.  

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't follow what you are saying in this paragraph."

Tom:

I agree, I really don't think you do. Obviously, we have different ways of looking at this subject of restoration and I guess that's the way it's going to remain. I have no problem at all with your idea of a "Society" for the preservation of certain architecture. I just don't think it will ever be anywhere near as effective as actually working to educate the memberships of those clubs someone nominates as those that need to be preserved.

Because in the end the only thing that's going to negatively or positively effect those courses anyway is what the memberships of those courses thinks right for their own course. The best way to do that is to get in there with a process to educate the entire membership to what they've got and what needs to be done to restore it and then preserve it properly.

Is this society you speak of going to spend a number of years at each of these clubs that it takes to get this process up and running in these clubs that it takes to both restore and preserve them? What if that club is not interested in dealing with what that Society thinks or says or recommends? Is that society going to continue to poll and work with those memberships anyway which is pretty much what it takes within these clubs?

You may think so but I don't!

[George Pazin]

...there are a few important works that should be preserved IMO. Examples might be St.Andrews, GCGC, Merion, Yale, Riviera, Cypress Point, Seminole, Royal Melbourne, etc.

It's interesting to me that you chose to include Yale among these other courses. Should it be preserved in its present state? Let's say you started this Preservation Society 4 or 5 years ago - should it have been preserved in that state?

Similarly, should GCGC's 12th be preserved as is?

Conceptually, I'm not a fan of restoring to a particular year, but practically it seems to be the most effective way to go. You don't have to wade through committee meetings trying to determine which features should be preserved and which should be restored.

Tough questions all around.

In some bizarre sense, I think it may almost be preferrable to have not played a course before analyzing historical accuracy of features - then you don't have any personal preferences to get in the way.

Too bad Pat's not around to rip me for that comment!


TEP -

My own preference would be to maintain fairway widths as much as possible, but unfortunately this doesn't seem possible for courses that are attempting to hold a major.

[T_MacWood]

George
Should Yale be preserved in its present state...I wouldn't be in favor of preserving poor or inaccruate restoration work. Four or five years ago....it now appears the prudent course would have been to recommend preservation over allowing Rulewich to restore the golf course. The same could be said with other important golf courses...like Riviera and Seminole.

To be honest I'm not certain what features have been lost over the years at Yale....based on that it is hard say if the golf course would have been a candidate for preservation by a Society to Protect GA five years ago. That's why you gather experts. I suspect it would have been, and if it was already well-preserved why restore it?

If Yale wasn't well-preserved and the accurate restoration of certain aspects would elevate the golf course to its lost architectural heights, and there was extremely thorough documentation along with talented, experienced and competent craftsmen to carry out the work using similar construction methods...perhaps restoration would be recommended.

Regarding the 12th at GCG the same is true. I believe one of the reasons the hole has not been restored todate is because there is a lack of confidence the work could be done accurately...that the old hole could be replicated authentically. If that is the case I say wait.

Unfortunately today we don't have a body to make sure all the circumstances above are in order to insure landmark designs are not compromised in some way.

TE
Regarding that paragraph, I was hoping you would express it a little differently, so I might better understand what you were trying to say. I don't know if I'm a little slow or what, but I didn't understand it.

Regarding the effectiveness of a preservation society, all one needs to do is look at the effectiveness of such organizations in the related arts of architecture and landscape architecture.

Believe me, I have great respect for the fellow who devotes himself to researching his home course; attempting to educate his membership. And IMO these people and their efforts are still very important, but there is a need for a recognized and respected national or international body to lend universal support and weight to those efforts.

[Paul_Turner]

The bunkers on the 4th aren't just architecturally redundant.  They detract aesthetically from the hole; the visual composition of the green complex is thrown off.  Fill them in!

(Not having been there, I can't tell how they effect shot options)

[Paul_Turner]

Mike C

Actually there is a similar pot bunker at one of the great par 3s at Hirono that's probably even worse: it's between the stream/valley and the green.  I've seen pics of the before and after , and Tom Doak highlights how bad it is in The Confidential Guide.

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul;

Glad you could think of one dumberer bunker on the planet.  

However, I think having them on back to back holes has to be a kind of record that creates a multiplier effect, don't you?  

[TEPaul]

"Tom, this is probably where you and I might differ on some of these issues. I believe, if you truly come as close to understanding how they thought and worked why would you  want to do something different today than they did in their day or the way they thought about their architecture and the architecture of others? Clearly this begins to get into your philosophy that one should preserve some of this architecture simply because you feel its reached such a point of respect!"

I changed that paragraph a little--so maybe it's clearer now. What I was trying to say is those architects that you and we seem to respect so much made changes in their own courses and those of others all the time---presumably they were trying to improve them. Why do you think something they were in the habit of doing should end now?

[ChipOat]

Scott Burroughs:

The "tee shot across the road" on the original #11 and the apprach shots across the road on the original #'s 10 & 12 were no longer operative in Tom M.'s September, 1930 aerial.  The changes that resulted in the present configuration of those 3 holes were made in 1923 (right, Wayne?) in preparation for the '24 U.S. Am.

Wayne:

Your typing hands became disengaged from your scholarly research brain at the end of post #99.  The USGA championship held at Merion in 1930 was the Amateur and not the Open.

All:

The bunkers on #4 will probably have some small effect on the Eagle opportunities during next year's Amateur as the odds suggest that some % of shots that barely clear the brook (either on the fly or the bounce) will go into one of them instead of ending up on the green.

For normal member play, getting home is 2 is rarely an issue although, from the regular tees, it's not completely unheard of, anymore.  Until somewhat recently, it was a pretty big deal when anyone even gave it a "go", let alone actually found the putting surface.

Similarly, driving the 10th green during normal member play (or missing in a bad place if you try) is now a definite option for a good 10+% of the male players whereas as recently as 10 years ago, only the longest of the long even thought of the possibility.  It's still a topic for short conversation when it happens, but not any more than that.  Further, many of those now able to realistically think in terms of a possible putt for Eagle are NOT young 30-something flat(ish)bellies that are new to the club but are well-preserved beneficiaries of club/shaft/ball technology that has added considerable new-found length off the tee to their normal weekend game.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

I say if some young stud wants to try to drive Merion's #10, or more unlikely yet to reach #4 in two by all means let him try---I actually hope the time has come where that play is even more tempting!    Those bunkers on #4 aren't really going to amount to a hill of beans in the general scheme of that strategy. But few on this website other than those like you who really know some of the nuances of that course really understand that!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Most golf courses could use some improving.

There are a number of designs that are recognized as classics—many which developed their brilliance through experimentation and improvement, like Taliesen, Pinehurst #2 and the NGLA. Some are the result of collaboration or more than one architect over a period of years. Some are the work of a single man, prehaps one who is recognized as a brilliant artist today. Their best work should be preserved, enjoyed and studied.

Most of these outstanding golf courses have been admired and respected for decades, long after their creators passed away.  That admiration and respect has translated into golf courses which have remained relatively intact. Like Taliesen, the caretakers have recognized their brilliance and conserved them for current and future generations to enjoy.

Some reasons why courses like Merion and NGLA should not be improved:

•   They are a limited resource—the intention in conserving these superior designs is to safeguard them no less as works of great golf architecture (which remain exhilarating tests for most golfers) as historical evidence.

•   Scores of improvements gone awry.

•   Improvements are too often planned by lesser architects or committees.

•   Improvements are too often carrier out by lesser construction crews and methods.

•   Authenticity: new work which replaces old effects authenticity, once the original work is destroyed (or replaced) it is gone forever.

•   Modern reconstruction and improvements often destroy the handcrafted work—eloquent craftsmanship should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and study.

•   These well preserved courses are living witnesses of old age traditions.

•   Imperfections and quirkiness are often the target of improvers…preserving the genuine and imperfect preserves the charm of these golf courses.

•   Heritage: It is our common responsibility as admirers of great architecture and history to safeguard these golf courses for future generations. It is our duty to hand them down in the full richness of their authenticity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In some bizarre sense, I think it may almost be preferrable to have not played a course before analyzing historical accuracy of features - then you don't have any personal preferences to get in the way.

Too bad Pat's not around to rip me for that comment  

George, no need to, your above statement speaks for itself  
[/color]

Tom MacWood,

The difficulty with educating a membership today seems to be the transient nature of today's memberships.  Years ago, there seemed to be more stability, more continuity, whereas today, with the high rates of turnover, the culture of club's are being changed due to the influx of large numbers of new members.  Some clubs that I'm familiar with have seen a 50 %  turnover in the last five years or so, and as such, it's a difficult process to have to continually educate the membership, especially when TV has such an impact on their understanding of golf and golf architecture, rather then the specific history of the golf club.

As a club's membership gets more distant from the club's roots and history, the task gets infinitely more difficult.

With respect to the 12th hole at GCGC I'd have to disagree with you.  Your interpretation should be based more in agronomy then architecture.  There's not a doubt in my mind that this hole could easily be restored to its 1936 form, with some allowances/liberties in design taken due to today's green speeds and the internal green mounds that formerly existed.  They'd have to be softened or moved outside of the putting surface.  But, the deep horseshoe bunkers that fronted and backed up the green would be easy to replicate.

The 12th hole remains a highly noticeable blemish, an eye sore thrust upon a wonderful design, and the club's leadership doesn't have the vision and/or courage to restore the hole to its glorious design, as represented by numerous photos circa 1936.

The opportunity to restore the 12th was lost a few years ago, and I don't see it returning in the near future.

[Willie_Dow]

Patrick: Re the 12th - which I played in 1950.
 
Have you ever discussed this with Mel Lucas?  Or do you know him?

[TEPaul]

"Patrick: Re the 12th - which I played in 1950.
Have you ever discussed this with Mel Lucas?  Or do you know him?"

Willie:

That's an excellent question. There're a number of us on here--a number of purists who'd love to see the 12th at GCGC restored---it was such a highly unusual hole, to say the least. Unfortunately, it's just not so easy as to just say one wants it restored. To even think about restoring that green a good deal of research would need to be done, in my opinion. Pat Mucci is undoubtedly right that if it was restored it would have to be done in such a way that takes into account today's green speed and mowing practices. Those inline ridges would have to be taken off the actual green surface (probably seriously compromising the original design) or minimized enough on the green to have the same basic effect as they once did on that green when it was probably half the speed it is today.

But the point about Mel Lucas is terrific. My recollection is Mel Lucas was the SIMULTANEOUS greenskeeper of Piping Rock and GCGC! Who'd know better about that 12th green than him? He'd certainly know far better about the ramifications of that hole than even some GCGC member who never saw it and certainly some guy from Ohio who never saw it either and has probably never even seen the golf course!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie Dow,

I don't know Mel Lucas.

The 12th hole was altered in the mid-sixties, I believe.

Most golfers notice how out of context the 12th hole is with the rest of the golf course, but, you'd be surprised at the internal resistance to restoring the hole.

It's my belief that in order to restore the hole, the leaders of the club would have to be pro-active.  If the Board wanted to embark upon that project, I believe that they could educate the membership to the benefits of a restoration, and that the membership would support a restoration effort.

As each year goes by, the number of members who actually played the 12th hole diminishes, and with their demise, it would seem that a little bit of the tradition, the historical connection to the 12th hole dies with them.  Fortunately, the clubhouse is replete with photos of the 12th hole, circa 1936.

The other problem is that as each year goes by, it's less and less likely that the new leaders ever played the old 12th hole, and as such, the magnificence of the 12th hole is solely represented by pictures on a wall, and not in the minds and hearts of the leadership.

There was a wonderful opportunity a few years ago, but, I don't see anything happening in the near future.

Now that Tom Doak is getting some very positive eastern press and respect vis a vis Pacific Dunes and Sebonack, perhaps he could spearhead the movement to restore the golf course as the consulting architect.  It would seem that he would be available since he will be in Long Island until Sebonack is complete.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom and Pat

Mel just left for a grow in job in Poland, and won't be back until early September.

We should all get together soon thereafter.  If it is anything like the trip around Newport CC with Mel, it will be a very rewarding experience.  Especially, since Tom's mention of Piping Rock and Garden City were accurate comments concerning Mel's backgorund.

Willie

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #144, that might be the entire potential of consulting Mel Lucas about that green and the way it was. Don't bother to talk about getting info on the green from the diminishing amount of golfers at the club now who might remember it---even if restoration of it is possible it seems to me Mel Lucas may have been there to maintain the old green before it was changed in the 1960s. Don't you suppose someone like that could tell those at the club now more about how that green played and how it needed to be maintained than anyone? If that kind of thing doesn't interest those in the club who want to see it restored I just can't imagine what's wrong with their ability to research properly. You may not find a better source of information on it and perhaps even why it was changed than Mel Lucas.

[TEPaul]

I wonder if Dye/Doak ever consulted with Mel Lucas when they went in to restore or improve Piping Rock a number of years ago.

Willie:

Next time you see Mel Lucas I'd love to know what years he was at Piping Rock and GCGC.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

According to my notes Mel's dad was at Piping Rock in 1960, at the age of 58.  Mel took over there when his dad died.  But I think he had been working at Garden City on the crew, and was appointed Superintendent in 1968 and stayed on through 1970.  My notes also show that he was at Piping Rock in 1978 when they they had 3 outings each week, and the bunkers were caving in due to overgrooming vs allowing mother earth to correct itself with a little loving care.  They went the blue grass sod route which developed wilt on all the faces exposed to the east and southeast.  Somewhat later Mel came home to New England, built and designed a course here at Round Hill in South Dartmouth, MA.

Back to Garden City, Mel said while he was there things were very slow, maybe four or five foursomes each day.  Those were different years everywhere!

How does this stack up with your notes, Pat?

Willie

[TEPaul]

Willie:

Then that should mean Mel Lucas must have a very clear recollection of the way the old 12th hole at GCGC was.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

40 years can dulll anyone's ability to accurately recollect the configuration, play and maintainance of a hole.

But, forturnately, the clubhouse is replete with excellent photos, aerial and ground level, of the old 12th hole.

Anyone who has played the current hole, and viewed the photos of the old hole, knows exactly what should be done.
 
It's not a difficult decision, but, Newton's third law of gravity seems to be the major impediment to a sympathetic restoration.

For a club so steeped in tradition, it's hard to believe that apathy and lack of leadership is preventing an obvious restoration.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
40 years can dulll anyone's ability to accurately recollect the configuration, play and maintainance of a hole."

Pat:

That's obviously true but anyone at GCGC should realize that a guy like Mel Lucas is going to definitely know a lot more about how that old green played and was and how it needed to be maintained than any member who never saw or played the old green!

Some can pick a lot off an old photograph but that's not close to as good a resource as someone who saw the green in play and obviously maintained it too!

I read a report Mel Lucas supplied on Merion during their project---believe me, the man is well worth consulting and if the club doesn't consult him because they think they know all there is to know about the old 12th, they will have missed a very valuable resource.

So why wouldn't they consult him? Probably because they feel they already know all there is to know about that old green! Again, a very short-sighted assumption that can potentially lead to mistakes or future problems.

If it looks like the club is going to consider restoring that old green, use your heads and your common-sense and consult Mel Lucas first!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()