[T_MacWood]

I've answered these same questions at one time or another....here we go again.

How do  you know what the original architecture was? The original architecture of what?

How do you know that one year after a club opened, the superintendent didn't change a number of features ? Research.

And continued doing so every year for 10 years prior to any aerial or ground level photos? Research.

What do you know of the ORIGINAL Hollywood? Issac Mackie designed the original Hollywood in 1913, it was criticized from the start. In 1914 the club began altering Mackie's course...in 1916 they hired Seth Raynor to revise the course, eventually the club hired Travis in 1917 to a carry out a redesign. Travis's design was hailed, not only nationally, but internationally.

Should Travis be deemed a disfigurer? No. Would you deem him a disfigurer? Did he disfigure GCGC? My idea of a disfiguring would be RTJ at GCGC and his a son at Hollywood....altering/redesgning/leaving their mark on historically important designs.

Should the golf course be restored to its original configuration? Travis's original configuration.

And, how do YOU define the architectural high water mark? I would define it has the high point of a golf course's architectural history.

That's subjective, and your views may radically differ from those of others. Yes it is subjective...the evaluation of any art form is subjective

If you made a determination that 1932 was the architectural high water mark of a classic golf course designed and built in the late teen or early 20's, to which date would you seek to restore the golf course ? 1932.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You certainly are into research and I'm glad of that, very glad---it's an essential thing, in my opinion, and the more one can find the better the understanding of any golf course and its evolution, architecturally and otherwise.

I haven't researched courses like Sewane and Hollywood but I have PVGC. You keep questioning some of my assumptions and conclusions on the place, Crump's intentions etc. Can I ask you what you think you may have research-wise on the course that I may not have? And may I ask you where you got any direct or actual research material from the course itself other than indirectly through me?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, conclusions and assumptions....often we agree, other times we disagree.

The recent thread on PV and isolation is not a case of differing opinions, unless I've misunderstood you, you have presented it as a historic fact. I'm just trying to find the documentation that supports this fact. Is it a historic fact or an assumption?

[TEPaul]

"Is it a historic fact or an assumption?"

Tom MacWood:

Obviously that's what we're discussing, wouldn't you say? Let me ask you something. If one can't find something written about some event by whomever the event involved does that mean to you it therefore should not be considered an historic fact?  Does a bear shit in the woods? I guess he doesn't as far as you're concerned because as far as most know a bear has yet to write about it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

While I applaud you efforts at research, you are so naive in this area that it's incredible.  You think that every change at every golf course is just sitting in a file, complete with committee and board minutes, financial records, aerial and ground level photos, and the architect's diary.  That's not the way it is.

I know of so many changes, substantive changes, to certain golf courses that are completely undocumented.  And, these changes happened in the last two, five, ten twenty and forty years.  How do you pretend to be able to magically uncover undocumented changes ?  You can research until the cows come home and you won't find an iota of evidence regarding these changes.  And absent that information, how can you make the iron clad statement of what the original architects work was and wasn't ?  Or, what the club's high water mark was ?

Just look at your debate relative to Aronimink.

Your positions conflict with one another.

On one hand you don't want original works touched, and you want any changes to those courses plowed under with purist restoration your goal.

And then, you say it's okay to alter a design.  You say that clubs should strive for their high water mark.

But there are some difficult questions that you CAN"T ANSWER.

1  Who makes that call at each club ?

2  Why do you feel that a course's high water mark is solely
    in the past, why can't it be in the courses future ?

3  And, if it's in their future, then YOU open the door to
    alterations and disfigurations, don't you ?

It can't be okay for Travis to modify Emmett's work, but not okay for Rees to modify Travis's work.  

However, if you're saying that the alteration of a golf course is okay if the golf course is improved, then it counters your earlier desire to have no course touched, and every modified course returned to its original form.

And, if it's okay to alter a golf course in the name of improvement, then you open the flood gates for modifications or disfigurements, BECAUSE EVERY CLUB MAKING MODIFICATIONS THINKS IT'S IMPROVING THE GOLF COURSE.

That's valid today, it was valid 40 years ago, and it will be valid in the future.

If you're going to take a purist position, stick to it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
When you make a claim that historical figure like Crump promoted the idea of isolation and there is no written documentation from Crump or any of his contemporaries, then what you have is speculation or a theory...quite different from a documented fact.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

While I applaud you efforts at research, you are so naive in this area that it's incredible.  You think that every change at every golf course is just sitting in a file, complete with committee and board minutes, financial records, aerial and ground level photos, and the architect's diary.  That's not the way it is. ~~You are preaching to the choir. How many golf courses have you researched?

I know of so many changes, substantive changes, to certain golf courses that are completely undocumented.  And, these changes happened in the last two, five, ten twenty and forty years.  How do you pretend to be able to magically uncover undocumented changes ?  You can research until the cows come home and you won't find an iota of evidence regarding these changes.  And absent that information, how can you make the iron clad statement of what the original architects work was and wasn't ?  Or, what the club's high water mark was ?~~ It is not necessary to document every single change and who is responsible for every single change to find the architectural high point. GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this? Have you documented all the changes from 1900 to the present?

Just look at your debate relative to Aronimink.~~The architectural history of Aronomink is not the same as Hollywood which is not the same as GCGC. Each course has a different history. And what Rees did to Hollwood is not the same as what Prichard did at Aronimink. They are seperate cases and seperate issues.

Your positions conflict with one another.

On one hand you don't want original works touched, and you want any changes to those courses plowed under with purist restoration your goal.~~Your over simplistic view of these things is getting annoying. Is GCGC of 1935 the original untouched work? Is Pebble Beach of 1928 the original untouched work. Is Hollywood of 1918 the original untouched work? Is Merion of 1950 the original untouched work?

And then, you say it's okay to alter a design.  You say that clubs should strive for their high water mark.~~Yes. There are a limited number of historic designs that should preserved and protected. Each course got to their historic high point in different ways...some were born that way others were altered into it. Because Hollywood and GCGC were altered into it over fifty years ago, does that mean we should allow Rees Jones or Tom Doak redesign them today?

But there are some difficult questions that you CAN"T ANSWER.

1  Who makes that call at each club ?~~ Obviously we are only talking about a relatively few historically important designs. IMO it should be determined by historians.

2  Why do you feel that a course's high water mark is solely
    in the past, why can't it be in the courses future ?~~It could be, but historically important designs should be preserved and protected .

3  And, if it's in their future, then YOU open the door to
    alterations and disfigurations, don't you ?~~You lost me.

It can't be okay for Travis to modify Emmett's work, but not okay for Rees to modify Travis's work.~~Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day….four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.  

However, if you're saying that the alteration of a golf course is okay if the golf course is improved, then it counters your earlier desire to have no course touched, and every modified course returned to its original form.~~Its not that difficult Pat, but you still need to let your brain work a little….I know you like everything ultra simple, but unfortunately it takes a little brain work, not much mind you.

And, if it's okay to alter a golf course in the name of improvement, then you open the flood gates for modifications or disfigurements, BECAUSE EVERY CLUB MAKING MODIFICATIONS THINKS IT'S IMPROVING THE GOLF COURSE.~~Right on!

[TEPaul]

This Tom MacWood guy is getting a bit more than a little strange. What's he doing now but arguing with himself!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How many golf courses have you researched?

Just a few.[/color]

It is not necessary to document every single change and who is responsible for every single change to find the architectural high point.

That's awfully convenient.
So if a great feature was added, and later removed, it wouldn't be important to document that, especially if it might be key to determining the architectural high point ?[/color]

GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this?

No, but for a different reason.
I think that there is an abundance of data and photographic evidence circa 1936 that supports restoration to that date.[/color]

Have you documented all the changes from 1900 to the present?

NO, and neither have you.
A perfect example is, that no documentation exists relative to the change made to the right greenside bunker at # 17.
As recently as this past saturday this subject came up, and NOONE can find one iota of documented evidence of this change.  If this change is permitted to remain, 50 years from now, noone will know why, how and when it was done.[/color]

Is GCGC of 1935 the original untouched work? Is Pebble Beach of 1928 the original untouched work. Is Hollywood of 1918 the original untouched work? Is Merion of 1950 the original untouched work?

No, but you can't have it both ways.
you can't be selective in saying which courses should be restored to their original form, and which courses are okay to alter.[/color]

Each course got to their historic high point in different ways...some were born that way others were altered into it. Because Hollywood and GCGC were altered into it over fifty years ago, does that mean we should allow Rees Jones or Tom Doak redesign them today?

According to you, YES, because that alteration might bring them to their architectural high water mark.[/color]


1  Who makes that call at each club ?~~ Obviously we are only talking about a relatively few historically important designs. IMO it should be determined by historians.
So, the members should have no say in the destiny of their golf course, interesting theory.[/color]
 
historically important designs should be preserved and protected .

Why can't they be improved, to reach their high water mark ?
[/color]

Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day.

This is possibly your most intellectually dishonest statement to date.  You know that the day Rees stepped onto Hollywood that it wasn't considered a masterpiece.
That the members and others had altered it innumerable times, or haven't you done your research on Hollywood ?  
[/color]
Four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.

And, in what year did they claim that Tom ?
This is another dishonest representation on your part.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat
"How many golf courses have you researched?
Just a few."

~~What courses?

"GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this? No, but for a different reason.
I think that there is an abundance of data and photographic evidence circa 1936 that supports restoration to that date."

~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?

"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day.
This is possibly your most intellectually dishonest statement to date.  You know that the day Rees stepped onto Hollywood that it wasn't considered a masterpiece.
That the members and others had altered it innumerable times, or haven't you done your research on Hollywood ?"

~~Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation? The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend). I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.


"Four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.
And, in what year did they claim that Tom ?
This is another dishonest representation on your part."

~~In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?

[Patrick_Mucci]

~~What courses?

Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]

~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?

That's my point, you'll never come to absolute resolution on who did what, when and why.  But, since you're the expert on GCGC, what did the superintendent's do to the 8th hole post 1936 ?  Just the superintendent's Tom.[/color]

"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).

That's baloney and you know it.  GCGC was recognized as a good golf course before Travis came along.  The USGA held the 1900 US Amateur there, the MGA held the 1899 Amateur and the US Open was held there in 1902.
Some of the original holes remain conceptually intact today.  You've become intellectually dishohest in your quest to disparage others. [/color]

Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation?  

NO, and that has nothing to do with the issue.[/color]

The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to .  

Correct, and for good reason.
The old golf course would be unplayable for a large segment of today's membership, and those members weren't going to endorse a plan that would make their golf course extremely difficult[/color]

and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend).

I don't blindly defend Rees.  I defended him from false allegations, such as yours.  Allegations absent the facts, and conclusions that are so stupid that they defy belief, like the allegation that Rees inserted the mounds at # 4 and # 7 at Hollywood.[/color]

I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.

You're like a spoiled infant and a woman scorned.
Inserting Notre Dame and USC into the discussion reflects the act of a desperate man who's losing the debate and seeks to deflect the topic of conversation.
Emmett's golf course was a very good golf course and you're not being honest if you state otherwise.  Research should have made that clear, or do you just research and disclose what suits your purpose ?[/color]

In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?

I'll tell you what's dishonest about it.
You conveniently omitted that Rees worked on the golf course about 70 years after the statements had been made.
Long after the intervening membership had made tremendous alterations to the golf course.

You deliberately tried to mislead others.
That's dishonest and you know it.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

~~What courses?

Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]~~With all due respect...Boca Rio and Pine Tree? Those golf courses were built in the 1960's.

~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?

That's my point, you'll never come to absolute resolution on who did what, when and why.  But, since you're the expert on GCGC, what did the superintendent's do to the 8th hole post 1936 ?  Just the superintendent's Tom.[/color]~~You claim we must discover what every architect and super did between inception and the present, but then state GCGC's high point was 1936 even though you aren't aware of all the changes. What gives?

"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).

That's baloney and you know it.  GCGC was recognized as a good golf course before Travis came along.  The USGA held the 1900 US Amateur there, the MGA held the 1899 Amateur and the US Open was held there in 1902.
Some of the original holes remain conceptually intact today.  You've become intellectually dishohest in your quest to disparage others. [/color]~~Yes average, average in a pool of below average golf courses. US Am sites Morris County, Onwentsia and Atlantic City were equally average. May I recommend Travis's article in the early 1900's in which he critiques GCGC.


Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation?  

NO, and that has nothing to do with the issue.[/color]

The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to .  

Correct, and for good reason.
The old golf course would be unplayable for a large segment of today's membership, and those members weren't going to endorse a plan that would make their golf course extremely difficult[/color]~~That is your opinion...I don't believe the course was unplayable then, nor would be unplayable today.

and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend).

I don't blindly defend Rees.  I defended him from false allegations, such as yours.  Allegations absent the facts, and conclusions that are so stupid that they defy belief, like the allegation that Rees inserted the mounds at # 4 and # 7 at Hollywood.[/color] Are you serious...not blindly defending Rees? Not #4, but Rees did alter the bunkering and mounding at #7, and I wish that was the extent of it.

I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.

You're like a spoiled infant and a woman scorned.
Inserting Notre Dame and USC into the discussion reflects the act of a desperate man who's losing the debate and seeks to deflect the topic of conversation.
Emmett's golf course was a very good golf course and you're not being honest if you state otherwise.  Research should have made that clear, or do you just research and disclose what suits your purpose ?[/color]~~Which is it spoiled infant or woman scorned? I was just pulling your chain. It wasn't a very good golf course....certainly not a golf course in the same class as Hollywood, Engineers, Lido, Yale or the improved GCGC.

In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?

I'll tell you what's dishonest about it.
You conveniently omitted that Rees worked on the golf course about 70 years after the statements had been made.
Long after the intervening membership had made tremendous alterations to the golf course.  [/color] ~~You left out the part..."a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day." I think everyone knows what 'in its day' means, especially after three thousand posts on Hollywood and its architectural history. Pat give everyone on here credit...they aren't as easily confused as you apparently are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What courses?

Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]~~With all due respect...Boca Rio and Pine Tree? Those golf courses were built in the 1960's.  

So what.  You asked me what courses I had researched and I answered you.[/color]

You claim we must discover what every architect and super did between inception and the present, but then state GCGC's high point was 1936 even though you aren't aware of all the changes. What gives?  

It's simple. Since we can't discover what every architect did,  what every change was on every feature since inception, I'm content to take the course as it existed in 1936 since there is an abundance of aerial and ground photos to document what existed at that particular time.  It's called PRACTICALITY.[/color]

"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).

May I recommend Travis's article in the early 1900's in which he critiques GCGC.

Did it ever occur to you that he was being self serving ?[/color]

That is your opinion...I don't believe the course was unplayable then, nor would be unplayable today.

Correct, it's my opinion AND the opinion of 200 members of Hollywood.  Which members of Hollywood support your opinion ?[/color]

but Rees did alter the bunkering and mounding at #7, and I wish that was the extent of it.

Tell me exactly how Rees altered the mounding on # 7 ?
Especially the mounding in the right rough, 100-200 yards from the green.[/color]

It wasn't a very good golf course....certainly not a golf course in the same class as Hollywood, Engineers, Lido, Yale or the improved GCGC.

Tom, how can you compare GCGC circa 1900 to golf courses that weren't even in existance at that time ?
Yale         1926
NGLA        1911
Lido          1917
Hollywood  1916

This is disengenuous of you.  A trait you're exhibiting all too often.

At it's time, circa 1900 GCGC was well thought of in American golf.[/color]

You left out the part..."a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day." I think everyone knows what 'in its day' means, especially after three thousand posts on Hollywood and its architectural history.

The juxtaposition of your two statments, one dealing with a contemporaneous alteration and the other dealing with an alteration 70 years removed, were an attempt by you to mislead the readers of this thread.[/color]

Pat give everyone on here credit...they aren't as easily confused as you apparently are.

That's because I've unbundled your allegations, the ones you tried to blend together to mislead readers.
Try being intellectually honest, then noone will be confused.[/color]

[HamiltonBHearst]

Tom macwood

would you please give us your ranking of american golf courses in 1900?  I have seen the list you provided for 1939, it is quite interesting.  

[T_MacWood]

Hambone
CB Macdonald wrote in 1904 about the best courses in America, "it is generally conceded Garden City, Myopia and the Chicago GC, knows that in America as yet we no first-class golf courses comparable with the classic courses of Great Britain and Ireland." HJ Whigham wrote a similar critique, in fact he thought American golf architecture was actually regressing in the early 1900's.

Macdonald went on to build the NGLA, and the three courses mentioned underwent significant changes.

Pat
Here is photographic comparison of the 7th at Hollywood.









The color pictures are post-Rees. The first B&W picture is shortly after Travis redesigned the course. The next photo is later, but prior to Rees. The original Travis design was nearly treeless save the 12th and 13th holes.

Note the mounding Rees favors around the perimeter of his bunkers...including the far side of his bunkers furthest from the green. Also note the curved lollypop-like shape Rees favors. It is dispointing he would impose his stylistic preferences.

What was specifically was self serving about Travis's critique of GCGC...I thought it was fair and thought provoking...especially from an architectural standpoint.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood;

Why those are even more amazing photos than mine of Teddy and Dev in the throes of budding frontier passion!  

What a great green and it's clear that the bunkering by Travis was much different in style than what is presented at Hollywood presently.  Then again, I always knew that Travis didn't really emulate Rees Jones' stylistic bunkers, which can be seen at Quaker Ridge, East Lake, Congressional, and a host of other "restored" courses.  

You don't happen to have any original pictures of the 4th green in your bag of tricks, do you?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I thought you stated, in another thread, that GCGC wasn't a good golf course around 1900, and yet, Charles Blair MacDonald claims in 1904 and possibly earlier that GCGC is amongst the best in America.

With respect to the pictures of Hollywood, they are taken from different angles, some 180 degrees removed from the others.

Why haven't you published the picture of the 7th green immediately before Rees began his project.
Or, would that undermine your entire argument.

The surroundings at the 7th green at Hollywood as reflected in the early pictures you posted is nowhere near what the surroundings looked like immediately prior to Rees's undertaking the project.

Also, look at the dramatic differences in the bunkering and the mounding between the two B&W photos.  Clear evidence that the golf course had been altered.  How convenient of you not to point that out.  Pay particular attention to the right side bunker that appears in the second B&W and compare that bunker to the vast sprawling bunker that appears in the first B&W.  Looks like someone, probably before Rees was born, removed it and replaced it with a single bunker, doesn't it.  How did your keen eye miss that and other pertinent details.

On the B&W picture you posted that you say is prior to Rees, tell us, by how many years is it prior to Ree's involvement.  

Your statement would deliberately mislead viewers into thinking this is how the green looked just before Rees started his work, and you know that's a clear misrepresentation on your part.

Your intellectual dishonesty is rapidly deteriorating.
I guess, Desperate men do desperate things.
And that you'll go to any lengths, even being disengenuous and dishonest, in an attempt to make your case.

Again, what's the date of the last B&W photo ?

Mike Cirba,

Rather then jump on the bandwagon, study the two B&W photos which are taken from approximately the same angle.
The last color photo is taken from 180 degrees from those angles and the first photo is taken from a different angle at a vastly different distance. Notice the incredible number of changes have taken place to the areas surrounding the green.

Then ask Tom MacWood how he accounts for those changes.

Also, ask Tom Macwood what the date on the last B&W photo is, and how many years it's removed from Rees's project.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
From Travis, Macdonald and Whigham's comments I think it is fair to say the state of golf architecture wasn't very good in America circa 1900. Comparatively speeking GCGC was only an average golf course...unless you are into geometric cross hazards and geomteric greens.

The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction. You can see the old 17th green in the background of the twwo B&W pictures. Do you see that large long mound in the background with what looks to be a door...you walked throught that opening from the 17th green to the 18th tee. The last color photo is taken from behind the green.

Do you like Rees's big lazy curves and mounding? Do you prefer it to Travis's work?

I'll see if I can find a picture of the 7th just prior to Rees. I'm not certain of the date of the 2nd B&W picture...the caption says shortly after Travis's redesign, but that is clearly not correct based upon the trees.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Do you still have that old aerial of Hollywood in its prime?  It would be interesting to compare a modern aerial, if only from a two-dimensional shaping perspective.

No bandwagon hopper am I; I just know from much experience that Rees habitually puts his trademark style on course features, including Hollywood...I'm not even sure it's intentional.  

Even though I agree with MacWood that the Rees designed changes on 14 are brilliant, I have a tough time believing that Walter Travis designed bunkers that look like this.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

From Travis, Macdonald and Whigham's comments I think it is fair to say the state of golf architecture wasn't very good in America circa 1900. Comparatively speeking GCGC was only an average golf course...unless you are into geometric cross hazards and geomteric greens.

First you say GCGC wasn't good, then MacDonald says it was amongst the best in America, and not you're saying nothing was good in America.  I happen to like geometric cross hazards, some of which still exist at GCGC and geometric greens, which I believe MacDonald designed at Chicago GC.[/color]

The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction.

The same general direction.  You're kidding, right.
The B&W's are from very similar angles, just slightly different, front to back.  And, you never answered the question about the dramatic differences in those two photos.  Who made those changes, and when ?[/color]

You can see the old 17th green in the background of the twwo B&W pictures. Do you see that large long mound in the background with what looks to be a door...you walked throught that opening from the 17th green to the 18th tee.

I believe that mound is still there, covered with trees planted years and years ago.  I'm not so sure you're correct about the door.  A hedge was planted and the hedge had an arch you walked through to get directly to the 18th tee.
The angle of your picture would indicate the tee is far to the right of its recorded location, but, again, that could be the angle.  The next time I go there, I'll look at it.[/color]

The last color photo is taken from behind the green.
I know that, and it presents a far different perspective and view then photos from the front of the green.[/color]

Mike Cirba,

I'm not saying I love everything about the work done at Hollwyood,  But I do know what the directive from the membership was, and some of the restrictions Rees was under that prevented him from doing more restorative work.

It's unfair to show a picture from 1916-1920 and say that this is what the golf course looked like prior to Rees's work, and Tom MacWood knows that.[/color]

Do you like Rees's big lazy curves and mounding? Do you prefer it to Travis's work?

Another disengenuous question.
Show us pictures, taken from the same angles and distances, that were taken immeidiately before Rees began his work, not pictures taken 70 years earlier.

And, even in your B&W pictures, the course was already being altered by the membership, some 60-70 years ago.[/color]

I'll see if I can find a picture of the 7th just prior to Rees. I'm not certain of the date of the 2nd B&W picture...the caption says shortly after Travis's redesign, but that is clearly not correct based upon the trees.

Great, then compare that picture, before Rees began his work, to the B&W's you posted.[/color]

[HamiltonBHearst]

Tom Macwood with his claim that the pictures are the same general direction is as disengenious as Dugger showing pictures of the land surrounding the Rees course in Oregon.

Mike Cirba-Maybe we should stick with Rees putting his trademark features on classic courses.  Surely, you agree he can put his look on any modern course he likes.  What classic courses have you seen that Rees put his trademark look on.

[Mike_Cirba]

Hamilton;

Without wanting to get into a "yes he did/no he didn't" on various metropolitan courses he's worked at, let me just say that our group was able to pick out every bunker that Rees didn't renovate at Quaker Ridge.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

Enough said about QR.  I have never seen the course.  How would you characterize his work at Bethpage and at Baltusrol?  Can you comment on any other Metro courses?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Hamilton;

I have to run, so I'll give you my quick thought on his work at those two courses.

Philosophically and from a design intent standpoint of what's on the ground, I believe that the work is consistent with his belief that classic features need to be somewhat modernized to play challengingly for the professionals.  Thus, bunkers were moved closer to greens, fairway bunkers were moved further out, etc.

At Baltusrol, in particular, I believe much more is going to be done in that regard.  There are already brand new bunkers on the 18th hole.  

Stylistically, I'm starting to believe he can't help himself, even when he tries to be 100% true to the original designer.  His wavy, gravy lines and soft curves and mounding just betray him.  
 

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Lets face it, for whatever reason you've got a blind spot when it comes to Rees' style...I recall you arguing with someone about the Rees-ification at Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood....you just couldn't see it.

I said Emmet's original GCGC was average...the original Wheaton course was average too and I'm being generous in both cases.

Those mounds in the 7th fairway are original.

Hambone
The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction....I think what may  be throwing you off is Rees' bunkering. You can see the mound with door (near the 17th green, which was directly behind the 7th green) in both B&W pictures and obviously the fairway in front of the green of the first color picture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()