Define a successful restoration

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't recall saying your course was not worthy of restoration...you might consider pulling an Emily Latella."

I guess that means then that's not what you mean to say about my course. Saying you don't recall saying that makes you sound like some Enron executive testifying in court. As far as the pulling an Emily Latella, I don't know what that means and probably don't care to know.

All this is too bad really, we probably could have helped each other but I don't see that happening anymore.

[George Pazin]

I can't say that I disagree with that at all, Tom.

It seems to me that there are two vital elements to the caretaking, if you will, of any golf course - what's best for the course and what is best for the owners/members/users.

Obviously, many of here have different ideas as to which is most important, but regardless of which you believe, it is virtually impossible to accomplish anything without some acknowledgement or consideration of the other's point of view.

To take The Engineer's Club as a for instance, it would be wonderful if Tripp Davis could convince the club that minimal work, or maybe even no work, needs to be done. However, the fact that they parted ways with Gil implies to me that they are pretty committed to doing something, even if it is something which almost none of us would think is the right thing to do, regardless of whether your focus is on the golf course or the membership. To that end, I would think that the most pragmatic approach would be to educate everyone as much as possible, but understand that they may take action anyway.

I do think it is not a bad thing to have someone out there, standing firm and taking the heat, if necessary. It may well be that if Tom M were to "get involved" with a restoration, it might not only change his perspective, it might also give ammunition to those who oppose his pointed criticism. Would it not be difficult to objectively evaluate changes in some noted classic course, if one were to have taken part in a "restoration" of the OSU Scarlet course and it did not go as well as hoped?

I don't know the answers to these questions, as none of these questions have easy answers. Heck, that's part of why the subject is so fascinating.

But it does strike me that we often waste more time criticising each other than focussing on the subject at hand. And I'm as guilty of this as anyone, as I've had my share of battles with posters for whom I have a great amount of respect.

P.S. I have no idea who Emily Latella is, but I'm lucky if I get half the obscure references this group makes.

[Craig Van Egmond]

George,

     That's because Emily Latella was way before your time. She was a Gilda Radner character on the original Saturday Night Live, who would go off on a rant about something and then at the end when she found out she was way off topic, she would say, never mind.  

    Gilda was one funny lady,

[TEPaul]

"I do think it is not a bad thing to have someone out there, standing firm and taking the heat, if necessary."

GeorgeP:

If I understand YOU correctly, this may be the thing that upsets me most, certainly about Tom MacWood. Are you implying that anyone thinks he's out there standing firm and taking heat?? Taking heat from whom? You must mean only taking heat from me for not using the very thing he's good at by getting much more involved in the entire process than he has or does.

"It may well be that if Tom M were to "get involved" with a restoration, it might not only change his perspective, it might also give ammunition to those who oppose his pointed criticism. Would it not be difficult to objectively evaluate changes in some noted classic course, if one were to have taken part in a "restoration" of the OSU Scarlet course and it did not go as well as hoped?"

George, I can scarcely believe you're saying that! Change his perspective, give ammunition to those who oppose his pointed criticism??? And would that make it difficult to evaluate changes in some noted classic course??--and lastly if one were to have taken part in a restoration of a course and it didn't go as well as hoped??

My God, if anyone wants to really get something done, they have to get involved in all phases and sometimes that involves taking a ton of heat for long periods of time and also taking the risk that things might not turn out as well as you hoped for!

That's just life! Sometimes you have to take some knocks to get something good accomplished. When I look back at all the things that happened to me in the last five years of our restoration and that of some others I wonder if it was all really worth it--but I believe it was.

Restoration, good and great restorations to me is an approximately 3-4 step process of approximately co-equal importance;

1. Really good research that contributes mightily to a good restoration plan.

2. Seeing that a good restoration plan gets done accurately reflecting that research---usually within committees where there's a ton of heat and strain anyway a good restoration architect and those who are on board with him take a lot of heat.

3. Presenting that good restoration plan to your entire membership is where the real heat comes. This starts out always as an adverserial confrontation and you have to spend a ton of time and energy winning them over with logic, facts, experience etc. This ain't easy and in some clubs friends are lost and relationships hurt in here.

4. Once it's approved taking the time and effort to make sure that good plan gets done correctly. There're a ton of details, timing, analysis in this part.

If you're lucky most of what you wanted and hoped for gets on the ground but it's never everything you wanted and hoped for. Are you really saying not getting everything you hoped for compromises one's ability to be critical of architecture and restorations in the future? That, my friend, is precisely the reason we can all learn from the mistakes of those that went before us because they can collaborate with us and tell us what they did right, what they did wrong and what they would've done differently.

That's the most valuable of all and no one could do that if they didn't get involved in all of it and take some heat and just kept trying to do the best they could.

Tom MacWood seems to me to be stuck in that first step both actually and intellectually. It's a step he's very good at, but he'd be even better at it, in my opinion, if he'd get involved in the other steps and he'd be a whole lot more effective too with the very thing he must be ultimately trying to do, preserve and restore great old architecture. That's what I'm trying to do.

If this website and the best contributors to it really do think the best thing they could ever do is to just sit on their computers wherever they are and crow critically about others who are trying to get the right things done, the things they themselves believe in, then I've completely misjudged the use and potential of this website.

If some on this site think they should just sit on here and criticize because if they actually got out there and into those 3-4 steps and got their lilly white gloves dirty and compromised their credibilty because of that then I really have miscalculated this place and see no real constructive purpose to be here and fight for the things I care about which are really good restorations of the great architecture still out there or that which can be brought back again.

[TEPaul]

Craig Edmund:

If that's what MacWood meant by Emile Latella, then I see no real reason to continue discussing this subject of restoration with him. I've tried to share some of my own experiences on this subject with him, but he's doesn't want to hear my experiences or thoughts from them, he says he's grown weary of hearing them and it makes no difference to him anyway. I've tried to share why I think things can go right or wrong in a thing like a restoration but he thinks there's some personal attack involved since he thinks I'm suggesting he should do something more or something different than what he does.

Most of the responses to me are Emile Latella-like smart-ass nothingness anyway. It's just a waste of time. I admire the people on here like Paul Richards, David Gookins, Pat Muccis, Jeff Mingays, Dunlop Whites, Bob Crosbys, Geoff Childs and a good number of others not necessarily in the business who have gotten out there and really gotten involved. I don't think I do admire those who just sit on this site and pontificate, criticize and try to act purer than everyone else. And I sure don't admire anyone who could get involved but doesn't because they actually think that might hurt their ability to continue to be critical of architecture and such things as the good restorations others are trying to do. The latter, if anyone on here really thinks that just might be the most disappointing thing I've ever heard on Golfclubatlas.com

[GeoffreyC]

George

You couldn't be more wrong with "It may well be that if Tom M were to "get involved" with a restoration, it might not only change his perspective, it might also give ammunition to those who oppose his pointed criticism. Would it not be difficult to objectively evaluate changes in some noted classic course, if one were to have taken part in a "restoration" of the OSU Scarlet course and it did not go as well as hoped?"

The NOT-restoration at Yale is the poster child of how NOT to go about trying to improve a course through restoration.  I am the poster child of taking heat for opening my mouth and criticisizing.  In the end, however, places like this website and articles by experts like Tony Pioppi and Brad Klein in Golfweek exposed the chirade the Yale "restorers" were trying to pull over the members eyes. In fact, the poor work in the ground at Yale and the lies of the architect in a letter of response to Golfweek worked out to be ammunition for my side and not the other way around.  You would be happy to know how many people up there are coming around to the idea that the job was botched and their course could be so much greater.

I for one would love to see Tom M get involved in the Ohio State restoration and get out and express his ideas where they might do some real good. It takes a whole lot more then having a few photos to get something done and to convince those in charge and the membership on the best path to proceed. Nothing like a little lesson in practical facts of life dealing with others.

[TEPaul]

You're a very good man Geoffrey Childs! Hmmm, what is that I see on the back of your neck? Would that be a bit of a singe  from taking a bit too much heat for the things you believe in and got involved in at Yale with real people at a real golf course?  

"I for one would love to see Tom M get involved in the Ohio State restoration and get out and express his ideas where they might do some real good. It takes a whole lot more then having a few photos to get something done and to convince those in charge and the membership on the best path to proceed. Nothing like a little lesson in practical facts of life dealing with others."

I mentioned that to him too a few days ago and I don't think  he even responded, perhaps he even took it as a personal attack. I think that's a very appropriate challenge to Tom MacWood certainly if the Nicklaus Co actually asks him for his research and perhaps his help.

Go give it a try Tom, it'll be great for you and you have something valuable to offer them. You'll learn more than you could imagine and I don't mean that in any way as some personal attack! And I promise, even if things don't go the way you hoped and wanted them to it won't compromise your "purist and proud of it" reputation and image of yourself and you can still contructively criticize architecture with plenty of credibility.
 
 
 

[George Pazin]

Let me see if I can explain myself more clearly - then feel free to tell me I'm wrong again.

Earlier this year I got into my own battle royale when I asked the question "Are Torrey Pines greens the 36 most boring greens in golf?" A certain Rees defender took me to task for my blunt question, refusing to believe me when I said I didn't even realize Rees redid the greens. So it's semi-established that I'm a critic of bland greens, and at least inferentially (not sure if that's a word or not) established that I'm a Rees critic.

Now, suppose someone with a big name was hired to revamp my home muni, with the hopes of landing the US Open in 2025. With yours truly having played this gem, which Doak would probably rate a 2, a few hundred times, and having a reputation for disliking boring greens, the "restoration" firm asks me to consult on the "restoration" of the greens to the dramatic contours of 50 years ago. I agree to offer my own (learned?informed?) opinion.

Well, said firm pretty much ignores my advice, and goes ahead and flatten the greens, so that the greens can stimp at 13+ and still be playable, if only by the world's elite.

Now it's 2018, and some sharp fellow who posts on GCA happens to play the "restored" North Park municipal golf course, and proceeds to lambast poor old yours truly on good old golfclubatlas.com, and as I go to post and say, hey, they ignored my advice, what do you suppose that certain Rees defender is gonna say then?

This is all a silly, somewhat light hearted attempt to say, to each his own. I don't think it's necessary for an afficianado of golf course design, self proclaimed or otherwise, to get involved with a restoration to "prove" himself. If someone wishes to remain an independent historian, so be it. After all, golf is a big game, isn't it?

One thing I don't like on this site is reckless speculation as to someone's motives, or why they might or might not choose to do something.

P.S. The lone man taking the heat comment was not directed at you, Tom P. It was referring to the fact that Tom M takes crap from darn near everyone for taking a stand. It seems to me this stance is based on principle, but certainly many believe otherwise. This crap is usually very personal, and rarely addresses the specific criticism he is making. Whether or not I agree with him on any particular issue, I respect his stance. By way of comparison, I don't know the specifics of the situation with GCGC #12, but it seems that Tom D and Patrick are at least somewhat at odds as to what should take place. I respect both for standing up for what they believe in, and trust that both are acting in a manner each believes is correct. That's what makes this stuff difficult.

P.P.S. Geoff - I think I understand your point, and I give you a rousing standing ovation for everything you've done with respect to Yale. But you were not involved with the decisions Rulewich made. Imagine how others might perceive you if you offered your help, he claimed to take you up on your offer, and then ignored everything you said. Would it help your credibility on this site? I don't know how it would affect things. I sure as hell would believe what you said, having met you, golfed with you, and read your many excellent posts on this site, but there's plenty of others who might just think you were trying to cover your ass on a botched job.

-----

The point that I'm making is that I believe there is a place out there for an indepent historian, if that's what one chooses to be. I will say that, if one is asked for help and declines, it makes it harder for me to take later criticism as seriously as I might otherwise. But I don't think it's up to me to tell people how they should or shouldn't choose to lead their life. Some people don't like dealing with political types like a green committee or a restoration committee. I personally left a job in NYC because I didn't feel like dealing with the office politics of investment banking. I'd probably be a lot better off financially if I hadn't, but I'm a lot saner and happier now.

Hope that made some sense.

[T_MacWood]

George
As you said "I'm always hesitant to get involved in disagreements between 2 posters"....your mistake was not listening to your own advice. Sorry you got involved in this idiotic dispute.

TE
Have you been monitoring my activites? Perhaps you could tell everyone exactly what I have done in the last few years regarding sharing my research with clubs, members of clubs, superintendants and architects.

Every time I share information should I make a post on GCA? Every time I send a letter to a restoration architect should I post it on GCA? Maybe you are right, I should be criticized for not barnstorming from club to club sharing my expertise and interjecting myself into all restoration projects from coast to coast. Could you please help me get this service off the ground?

I'm accutely aware of club politics. I understand that club politics are a primary ingredient in any restoration project. Who doen't know that?

Whatever my experience with club politics (or lack of experience depending upon your point of view), it has absolutely no bearing on inaccurate or shoddy restoration work...it is what it is. And I will continue to question it.

There are plenty of folks looking out for the best interest of memberships and the reputation of the restoration architects...I see myself as an advocate for the dead (and those future admirers of great architecture).

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

Again, I appreciate your attempt at mediating a dispute. But it's just a dispute, they happen all the time on here.

Perhaps, Tom MacWood is a golf architectural historian, self proclaimed or otherwise. I prefer to think of him as a really good provider of some raw research material. After that I think he should both collaborate with and solicit opinions from others on both how to use it and interpret it, because I think there are a good number of others better than him at doing it well. That's no personal attack on him either, I've been reading his opinions and the things he says and clearly very strongly feels about architecture for a number of years now, and I just don't happen to agree with some of it and I feel very strongly about the things I say on here too.

I'm sure Tom MacWood has very strong principle. This subject and thread is not about his principles, or anybody's principles, it's about how one defines a successful restoration and I, for one, don't agree at all with many of the things he says about restorations. I think the primary reason we don't agree is not because he has principle, it's just because I don't think from so much of what he's said and indicated he feels about the subject over an extended period of time, that he understands golf architectural restoration very well.

That's no personal attack, just my persoal opinion.

[T_MacWood]

"After that I think he should both collaborate with and solicit opinions from others on both how to use it and interpret it, because I think there are a good number of others better than him at doing it well."

TE
Should we assume you are one of those others better at interpretation? Could you point to a few of my faulty interpretations?

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Feel free to use my name, rather than refering to and categorizing me as a Rees Jones defender.

If my memory serves me correctly, you were never on site to evaluate the Torrey Pines greens before or after Rees's work,
hence, I believed that you were unqualified to render any opinions, judgements and conclusions.

Since you've never set foot on Torrey Pines there was no substantive context in which you could provide a prudent evaluation.

And as such, I felt that the title of your thread was disengenuous and ill conceived, and, I haven't changed my mind.

Geoff Childs,

If I understand TEPaul correctly, and I rarely do  , his point is that purist views are quickly abandoned in the face of disagreements within a committee, with compromise being the usual end result, and that getting intimately involved in a project would provide a good learning experience for Tom MacWood, and perhaps make his "purist" or inflexible ideals, malleable, in the face of the reality of conflicting opinions.

Most married guys understand that principle

[TEPaul]

"Maybe you are right, I should be criticized for not barnstorming from club to club sharing my expertise and interjecting myself into all restoration projects from coast to coast. Could you please help me get this service off the ground?"

That's funny---I thought I'd been doing that for a month or so!  

"Whatever my experience with club politics (or lack of experience depending upon your point of view) has absolutely no bearing on inaccurate or shoddy restoration work...it is what it is. And I will continue to question it."

Who doesn't on here continue to question shoddy restoration work? Sure it is what it is but if you just sit out there and do nothing but question what's the point and what's the benefit to better restorations getting done? Who's listening to you where it really matters? You need to get out there and do something about it. Get involved in a restoration---start by getting involved in the OSU Scarlett restoration.

I just have one question for you. If you have the opportunity to get involved in the OSU Scarlett restoration which has to be right near you will you do it? And if not, why not?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'd be curious what you know of my activities at Ohio State...if I don't post it on GCA is it assumed...?  

And what would you suggest they restore at Ohio State...the work of an agronomy professor and a local pro?

The meltdown on this thread (and a number of other recent threads) are the result of your blind defense of inaccurate or unneccesary restoration work. Your motto: if the club likes it, it must be a good restoration.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I'd be curious what you know of my activities at Ohio State...if I don't post it on GCA is it assumed...?"  

I don't know a thing about your activities at Ohio State, and frankly, I don't care. Do you care what I do when I'm not on here? Apparently not and that's your prerogative. But there was mention on here recently about the restoration of OSU Scarlett course---purportedly a course designed to some extent by Alister MacKenzie but not constructed in his life. It was also mentioned on here that the Nicklaus co was hired to restore the course. I can't remember if you posted on here about that but someone did about how you might help them as most assume that course is nominally your home course? Perhaps the potential propect of restoring some of MacKenzie's plans or ideas might have some interest to you, Nicklaus Co and OSU. You might not find out until you try.


"The meltdown on this thread (and a number of other recent threads) are the result of your blind defense of inaccurate or unneccesary restoration work. Your motto: if the club likes it, it must be a good restoration."

There's no meltdown on this thread in my opinion. I've been trying to describe what I think defines a successful restoration which is the title and question of this thread. The restoration process I've been describing (3-4 co-equal steps!!--did you miss that too!!) to execute a good restoration plan and take it through a membership successfully and get it successfully onto the ground. Check my posts on this thread if you happened to miss that.

You think the meltdown on this thread is the result of my blind defense of inaccuate and unnecessary restoration work? Where the hell do you get that? What inaccurate and unnecessary restoration work?

My motto is; "If the club likes it it must be a good restoration".

I never said anything like that and you must know I've never said or implied anything like that but these days the sheer lack of obvious, logical and commonsensical things you don't seem to know never ceases to amaze me! Maybe you're speaking of the restoration of Aronimink and the bunkers to Ross drawings. That restoration has been successful with everyone I've spoke to and I've spoken to a whole lot of people about it. You seem to be the only one I'm aware of who doesn't like it.

I've seen some poor restorations the membership can't stand. I've seen some poor restorations the membership seems to like. I've seen a good number of questionable restorations the membership seems to like, and some questionable restorations the memberships don't seem to like but my point on here has always been I've never seen a good restoration that the membership didn't really enjoy and really like despite the fact they may not have thought they wouldn't going into the process. That to me is basically the magic of really good restorations and I'd define that as a truly successful restoration--eg they seem to be inevitable accepted and liked by entire memberships (and all others) if they really are good. Again, that to me is the inevitable magic of a really good restoration.

I want to see really good restorations that preserve or restore architecture as accurately as possible that really does work well for a membership and passes that important test of time. I've seen a good number of them in recent years and that's very exciting to me. That sort of thing virtually didn't exist about 15 years ago. I want to see the trend continue and continue to build up momentum. I'm not like you who can't seem to support the good and successful restoration phase that's upon us if you think bad ones happen too. I think we should all work towards making as many good ones as possible happen.

I call your kind of opinion and logic "cutting off your nose to spite your face" and I think that's the kind of logic and opinion you have on this subject, and I just don't agree with it at all.

But again, you said; my motto is; "if the club likes it, it must be a good restoration."

That sort of statement is precisely why I really do think you live in a dream-world on a subject like this, Tom MacWood.

[GeoffreyC]

George- thanks - I mentioned my experience here only because of your statement regarding a person taking heat at some future time if the "restoration" doesn''t go as I or Tom MacWood or Tom PAul or anyone else wanted.

Its true that I was not involved in any decisions Rulewich made but its also true that following the debacle of the work to the front nine I tried to get involved in those decisions and in fact was directly involved in getting John Beinecke (the ultimate decision maker on the back nine project) involved. The fact that he failed to listen at all to the ultimate authority on MacDonald and Raynor, George Bahto and choose to do it his way only speaks to his mistakes.  I don't think that I "took heat" because of the results of the work done by Rulewich but because I opposed its direction.  History will see who was right and I encourage Tom MacWood and anyone else to get involved and do so keeping a good conscience about what you feel is the correct path. If you influence people that's great and if not then you have learned a lesson regarding how to do it better next time. At worst you gave it your best shot. That's all the tough part.  It's WAY too easy to sit behind a desk and criticize without any consequences either way it turns out.

[TEPaul]

" It's WAY too easy to sit behind a desk and criticize without any consequences either way it turns out."

I think in this subset to this subject of architectural restoration Geoffrey pretty much says it all there. I don't see that refusing to get involved if you can really is fighting for your prinicples. That's why I think Tom MacWood should try to get more involved in some if he can, like perhaps the OSU Scarlett project--get involved in the entire process, if he can. There're probably a ton of contributors to this site who haven't been involved in one but I'd like to think if they could be they defiinitely would be and they'd fight for the best one they could get.

It's sort of like someone like Muhammed Ali said---"If you refuse to get in the ring you'll never have the chance to win the fight!"

[George Pazin]

 

Hi Patrick -

Of course I assumed everyone knew to whom I was referring. My preposterous story was concocted to both illustrate a point and lighten the mood a little. No one seriously believes you are a Rees defender, any more than they believe an architectural firm would ask me to consult on the reconcstruction of greens. I knew that we are both big enough people to look back at our disagreement and laugh at it.

As the the thread in question, if asking a question while stating repeatedly and explicitly that I didn't know the answer and was looking for someone else's evaluation is disingenuous, then color me disingenuous. You are certainly right that it was a poor choice of title - instead of being a provocative way of getting my question answered, I distracted almost everyone from the topic, save a few brave souls who answered said question.

Geoff -

I agree with your last post pretty much entirely. I was simply trying to make the point that we each have our own ways of going about things.



Have a good night, everyone.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

The wording of the title of your thread predisposed GCA.com'ers unfavorably, much like the "when did you stop beating your wife ? " question, and I thought that was unfair.

If I recall correctly, even you indicated that perhaps the title should have been worded better.

I'm aware of Geoff Child's efforts at Yale.
As the saying goes, "no good deed shall go unpunished."

Geoff found out the hard way how difficult it can be to penetrate the veil of control and to make a meaningful contribution no matter how well intended and how well educated you are regarding the project.  If you're outside of the loop, or persona non grata, it doesn't matter how much you know, how much you can contribute or how well intended you are, you won't get a voice in the project.

Yale is unique, as are all clubs, but, to think that you can ride in on a white horse with the original plans in your hand and convince the committee or those in power to do it the "purist" way is unrealistic.

I've even seen situations where the original architect was told that he was wrong with respect to his stated original design principles, intent and course construction .  He was told what he REALLY intended to design by a member who joined the club 20 years after the original architect designed and built the golf course.

Truth is stranger than fiction, here the architect is telling the committee why he did something and a committee member, who joined the club 20 years after the original course was designed and built, is telling the architect and the committee that the architect is wrong, and that the architect designed and built the feature for another reason.

Try working on that committee.
Imagine if he was the Chairman

Until you get involved, as TEPaul recommends, it's almost impossible to understand how committees, boards and the "process" works, or doesn't work.

[TEPaul]

"If I understand TEPaul correctly, and I rarely do, his point is that purist views are quickly abandoned in the face of disagreements within a committee, with compromise being the usual end result, and that getting intimately involved in a project would provide a good learning experience for Tom MacWood, and perhaps make his "purist" or inflexible ideals, malleable, in the face of the reality of conflicting opinions.

Pat:

I guess I should just start writing in tiny little digestable sound bites--that seems to be the only way most anyone can understand things anymore!  

No, I never said anything like "purist" views are very quickly abandoned in the face of disagreements within a committee. In a committee like I was on to produce our restoration plan the opinions that were generally abandoned in the face of disagreements within the commitee were the "off the wall" opinions which were at the opposite end of the spectrum from the "purist" view.

Maybe I never mentioned this on here before and it's too bad if I didn't because it's pretty impressive but we spent about a year and a half on the committee that approved that plan---that involved maybe 30 meetings.

We hired Gil Hanse after about the third meeting and after we produced a basic mission statement and gave Gil a basic idea of what we wanted, our mission statement, a couple of copies of that design evolution booklet I produced and a few more instructions. Gil produced a master plan and for the next year or more we had about 20+ meetings almost all of which Gil came to. You won't find an architect much "purer" than Gil and that sure helped with getting our committee on the right track, in my opinion.

But the committee went through his plan pretty comprehensively anyway and removed and added a few things onto the plan which Gil updated and redrew a few times to stay current. We had a couple of real adverseries within the membership after we started distributing Gil's plan (one of which kept standing up in public and saying "Why do we care about what Donald Ross did or thought, that was 80 years ago").

But Gil's plan went through in large part, even Gil's recommendation that we do partially grassed faced down bunkers when previously we had sand flashed up bunkers with a narrow ribbon of grass at the tops.

Now maybe a guy like Tom MacWood who's never seen GMGC and never will may come on this site and criticize us and Gil Hanse as he did Aronimink (another site he's never seen and probably never will) and Ron Prichard as doing a restoration that is inaccurate and unnecessary---but you know what---we like it, we think it's a pure enough restoration and neither me, the club nor Gil Hanse will probably ever give a second thought to what Tom MacWood thinks about it. Everybody in the club and a ton around town seem to like it, so what possible difference does it make what the hell Tom MacWood thinks of it?

So, if Tom MacWood got involved in a restoration in his area he'd probably find he really may not have to sacrifice his "purist" principles that much if he got involved and he wouldn't have to freak out over compromising his credibility and in the end he'd also probably find that if some guy in Philadelphia who'd never seen his course and probably never would felt like criticizing his restoration project anyway it probably wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone involved what the guy from Philadelphia thought.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine said;

"Geoffrey,
All this stuff is very subjective.  I was fortunate to have a one on one discussion with Pete Dye about Bethpage Black and when I asked him if Tillinghast was the original architect he said, "It doesn't matter if he was.  It is now a Rees Jones golf course."  But what does Pete know."  
Mark

This post was over on the "Ron Prichard Restoration" thread but I think it more appropriately belongs in this one. If we're actually defining what a restoration is and isn't this statement by Pete Dye is definitely ultra provocative! It's probably fairly certain to say that if Rees Jones himself had made a statement like Pete's about Bethpage Black (which he definitely did not) there would be a feeding frenzy on Rees Jones on this site so bad I doubt I could've found a single morsel of him left when it was over!  

But Pete Dye made the statement, apparently to Mark Fine, so my bet would be GOLFCLUBATLASers will probably read it, scratch their heads for a while and go on to some other thread and question.

They shouldn't do that because that statement by Pete really is ultra provocative regarding the general subject of terms like restoration, rennovation, redesign, improvement, rebuild, refurbishment, reconditioning or whatever term anyone wants to come up with regarding the situation at Bethpage Black in the last 3-4 years.

There is one interesting thing to note with what Bethpage Black went through in the last 3-4 years with Rees Jones. It amazingly finds itself now squarely on the USGA's US Open "tight rota" (with 5-6 other courses) after lying there on Long Island for decades as the super-brute golf course and super tough architecture it was designed and intended to be but just in inevitably poor condition for decades because of it's use as strictly a public facility.

[TEPaul]

There just may be one other little interesting sideline regarding Bethpage Black. The US Open there was definitely deemed to be a raging succcess by the USGA for a number of reasons but I don't think anyone would deny for a number of other reasons the Open there on that course was deemed by the players to be one brutal US Open. Tiger Woods won it and if I'm not mistaken Tiger has not won a major again after being on an otherworldly "major victory" streak from the beginning of his professional career to the US Open at Bethpage Black.

Will Bethpage Black turn out to be in Tiger Wood's career his "Pyrrhic Victory" (where he won the battle but lost the war)?

[Alfie]

Highly interesting subject matter but it beats me what what any of you are attempting to restore in any given golf course ? Whether in simple theory or by physical / mechanical works ! Are these so called restorations not just a case of putting the cart before the horse ? Why not restore the ball (at least) before embarking on these course adventures which must, innevitably, predictably, naturally, eventually........ evolve once more when the time comes that newer equipment has, once again, rendered the original architects intent to that state of obscurity and uselessness ! What's the point in adding yards to an old design when todays architecture struggles to keep apace with the times
Chris Clouser hit the nail on the head (IMO) when he said ;

"Furniture can be restored.  Golf courses cannot.  "

Sad to say, but it is true.  Even the best restoration efforts will not recreate the golf course as it originally was designed.  Grasses are different, green contours get lost, waterways change slightly, etc.  Sorry for the quick and biting reply, but it has been a bad day.  

...............

Restore the ball first, then restore the courses if that's what is required. But I'm afraid you don't have enough Scottish Socialists out there to get "the ball rolling ?"  
You know - people with balls !

(Chris ; I have a bad day - every day !)

Alfie

[TEPaul]

Alfie:

Perhaps it's time to think of this from another perspective!

Some talk about rolling the ball and/or equipment back to some former level. If that happens great! But that may not happen and if it doesn't it may not mean distance and such will continue to increase at least not as it has in the recent past on the one hand but on the other hand perhaps these "restorations" can continue to accomodate golf enjoyably and with challenge anyway.

Now that we've had the chance to experiment with our recent restoration for a year or two it seems a few interesting truths are developing. Sure, some of these guys hit the ball much farther and much higher as well but a few tweaks on the maintenance side really has made many of these old courses play really interesting.

It may not be the same shot demands and shot values as the old days---these may be new shot demands and shot values but it appears to me they are valid and interesting ones nonetheless and they are very much keeping the interest of today's players if the course is maintained in such a way as to highlight them.

I didn't really expect this and I'm encouraged. I guess I'm beginning to find out that many of these old courses are much more adaptable than I every imagined.  Sure, more of it may be at and around the green and green-end but so what? Frankly, the green and green-end is the most democratic part of a golf course!

[Alfie]

TEP,

I suppose most of the debate in this thread comes down to "definition" of the word restoration. That's where I have the problem with understanding the point to it all in regard golf courses and their architecture etc...
I admire anyone who "tries" to restore something regarded as being worthy of restoration but still fail to see any practical sense in doing it with a living embryo such as any golf course in the world UNLESS you have some form of STANDARDIZATION in equipment wrapped into the package ?
Only then can golf reap the enormous benefits which would ensue, as I have argued strong and hard in support of the roll back. A restoration attempt then becomes totally feasible and practical with the added value of giving all the mediochre layouts on the planet a wee chance to catch up with the best and therefore improve the UNIVERSAL challenge and quality of golf for everybody, and not just the select few !

You say ; "Some talk about rolling the ball and/or equipment back to some former level. If that happens great! But that may not happen and if it doesn't it may not mean distance and such will continue to increase at least not as it has in the recent past....."
The distance issue has been argued more professionally here, than anywhere I have encountered, and being a realist I totally believe that science has no limits known to man. And as they're already attaining 400 yards plus with equipment deemed illegal at present - how long before new values of conformation are permitted....for the good of the game ?

I'm delighted you're obviously learning a great deal from your work and agree that the "hands on" approach teaches far more than any text book, photo etc... as I discovered with Arbory. Now that WAS a restoration job - but even it was still far from being "perfect" ! Perfection being that unattainable goal.

I'm certainly not knocking your, or anybody else's restoration work in golf. But perhaps a better definition could be found for the present day scenario until such times as equipment control ALLOWS the restorer to restore properly and to the benefit of all thereafter !

My perspective is clear. If you have a problem - try to solve that problem with a solution. Golf HAS a problem and there is a solution which is being deliberately and manipulatively "shelved" ! I just don't see present golf course restorations under the the present political umbrella, solving any of golf's problems. Admirable work ? YES ! But so is the R & A's global growth programme for expanding the game to third world and under privileged countries etc... ?

But you have my sincere best wishes anyway.

Alfie.