[Phil_the_Author]

Most of those on-site would say that they do not favor changes to courses for the sake of changing, and especially believe that classic courses should remain classic.

But aren't there courses, classic or modern, that should be renovated? What course(s) might you say could use a good overhaul and benefit greatly from it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phillip Young,

Didn't Donald Ross continually renovate Pinehurst # 2 over a 26 year period ?

What did Maxwell do to ANGC, GMCC and PV ?
Wilson at Seminole ?
Travis and Emmett at GCGC ?

Or do those who enjoy "most favored nation" status get a pass ?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

My question is not about courses that have been continually "tweaked." I'm asking id anyone can cite a course that could use a good "make-over" and be much better for it.

I ask this because it seems that every time a course is either "restored" or "expanded" or "modernized," it invariably gets criticized because "the architects original design was changed" or some other argument. This despite the fact that it was in desperately in need of one.

So again, any examples? Or are all golf courses fine as they are?

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

How bout the folks at Bethpage State Park fix the inane 18th hole on the Black ?

The hole you see today is nothing more than a "compromised" version of what it was previously. You know I love the place so my comments here are not meant to lower the quality of the Black but to enhance it.

Having the 18th play as a challenging ending short par-4 would be a much better addition then what you see today.

I also think doing something to the 2nd and 3rd holes is also in order. They are nothing more than lightweight elements of the total picture that makes the Black unique. For those waiting to bark at me that I am advocating additional distance or difficulty that's not the case. The cookie-cutter size green at the 2nd is really one of the worst greens at the facility and although the 3rd has been lengthened I just believe there has to be some other solution to the hole.

One other point -- the 14th also needs to be renovated. Again, I'm not advocating additional distance, but the nature of the hole is just far below the sustained greatness that makes up the bulk of the back nine.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

18 is a very weak finishing hole, especially with the very non-Tillinghast bottleneck fairway and the very Rees Jones bunkering. #2 and #3 are fine--try hitting a shot into #3 anytime after 10AM when the usual breeze is coming out of the right.  #2 green is rather large for being pretty much circular, but the tee ball is fairly exacting and when the pins are set near the edges, the greed factor usually takes a toll on players trying to hot a close approach.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

With the Patriots-Bills game a onesided bore--how about CC of New Seabury--great topography and everything bad 60's architecture can do to ruin a wonderful golf opportunity.        Long Island National--RTJ Jr. showed up Rees on how bad he can really be--great piece of land and an utter waste of time to play--Friars Head is only about 1000 yards away! Is there a greater contrast between great and terrible anywhere?      In San Diego, anything Cary Bickler got his hands on is beyond terrible.  Encinitis Ranch has world class views on par with Torrey Pines--I can't think of a worse course in Southern Calif.  On a piece of land that did not need much dirt moved around, there was tremendous earthmoving and now the course is pine tree engulfed with poor drainage and boring generic looking greens and bunkers.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

You are fixated on the 18th on the Black. It will NEVER be shortened to a drivable par four. By the way, when last I left Bethpage a few weeks back, Craig was about to make some sensational changes to #14. I will be back up there in Dec. & plan to see how they turned out.

Finally Matt, you missed my question, what COURSE (not hole or holes) is in need of a renovation. Robert cites a good example in Long Island National. What that course could have been... and maybe what it could be if renovated...

[TEPaul]

"Long Island National--RTJ Jr. showed up Rees on how bad he can really be--great piece of land and an utter waste of time to play--Friars Head is only about 1000 yards away!"

Robert:

Friar's Head is actually about 2-3 miles west. The differences in topography between some sections of Friar's and Long Island National really is remarkable. That swath of highly topographical land about 500 yards wide that runs clear along that north shore probably all the way to Sebonack, NGLA and Shinnecock is the interesting thing about that general area. Just inside that it drops down into some really flat land that's most of the rest of that end of the island until you get into some milder topography all along the south shore. That flat land inside was what was initially some of those massive Long Island potato farms some of which have been in the same families for over 300 years!!

But the most interesting thing to compare between Friar's and Long Island National is the different ways the architects treated the flat land.

[T_MacWood]

Phillip Young,

Didn't Donald Ross continually renovate Pinehurst # 2 over a 26 year period ?

What did Maxwell do to ANGC, GMCC and PV ?
Wilson at Seminole ?
Travis and Emmett at GCGC ?

Or do those who enjoy "most favored nation" status get a pass ?  

Pat
Isn't it the all too common occurance of your overly simplistic point of view that has led to unfortunate changes like the present 12th at GCGC, not to mention the redesign of Inverness, Scioto, Yale, Equinox, Riviera, Timber Point, Quaker Ridge, St.Georges, Cherry Hills, Chiberta, Hirono, Univ. of Michigan, Dornick Hills and Engineers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

No, it merely points out the flaw in your position that no golf course should be altered.

Golf holes can be improved and better architecture can be created within the existing land.  
The holes/courses/architects that I cited in a previous post are obvious examples of succesful alterations.

You take an inflexible position that NO course, NO feature should be altered and I don't agree with that, nor do some "golden age" or classic architects, like Ross and others who altered their own golf courses and others, for the better.

I do agree that alterations should be done with great care, after a great deal of soul searching.

Several years ago I suggested that courses seeking to make alterations should consider engaging the services of several architects, who could only consult, for a "Second Opinion".
However, I don't think the world of golf course architecture is ready to embrace a widely accepted practice in medicine.

But, even in that realm.  A membership bent on making changes is going to make those changes, no matter who objects to them, and that's what you've got to come to grips with.  I'm not saying it's right, but, it's the reality.

I understand that many great golf courses have been disfigured over the years, but that doesn't negate improvements that have been made through architectural alterations, such as the ones I cited, and others.

Phillip Young,

If the original architect were alive, and the membership found dissatisfaction with certain holes or features, certainly a review would seem to be prudent.

I can think of many courses were alterations/renovations might benefit the golf course, but, those are only my opinions, and they would have to be tempered by the opinions of the owners/members.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
"No, it merely points out the flaw in your position that no golf course should be altered...You take an inflexible position that NO course, NO feature should be altered and I don't agree with that, nor do some "golden age" or classic architects, like Ross and others who altered their own golf courses and others, for the better."

Is that really my position? I hope I've presented a little more reasonable position than that. I will admit I am very critical of changes to important designs like GCGC, Hollywood and Bethpage... the latter two causing a difference in our two opinions for obvious reasons.

[SPDB]

Friar's Head is actually about 2-3 miles west. The differences in topography between some sections of Friar's and Long Island National really is remarkable. That swath of highly topographical land about 500 yards wide that runs clear along that north shore probably all the way to Sebonack, NGLA and Shinnecock is the interesting thing about that general area.

Tom - You make it sound as if there is a continuous stretch of land running from FH to Sebonack. The former is on the north fork (or the north shore), while the latter is on the north shore of the South Fork. Was curious what you meant by this swath of land.

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

I meant there's a lot of topography in a narrow band along a lot of the north coast of the eastern end of Long Island. Just south of that narrow band of topography it gets right into flat land.

[TEPaul]

"Pat
Isn't it the all too common occurance of your overly simplistic point of view that has led to unfortunate changes like the present 12th at GCGC, not to mention the redesign of Inverness, Scioto, Yale, Equinox, Riviera, Timber Point, Quaker Ridge, St.Georges, Cherry Hills, Chiberta, Hirono, Univ. of Michigan, Dornick Hills and Engineers?"

Tom MacW:

While I surely don't agree with some things Pat Mucci says on here I think a reasonable mind probably wouldn't attribute the unfortunate changes to all those courses you mentioned to some point of view of Pat's overly simplistic or not, particularly since plenty of changes took place before Pat was born!  

The reasons courses get changed is a little bit more complicated than that! I hope you don't really believe that courses get changed only because of egotistical green chairmen!

[Will E]

Is there a more obvious candidate than Bay Harbor?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

No, that's been your position, as articulated many times, especially in debates with TEPaul.

I don't think your assessment of the alterations made at Hollywood are credible.  You never saw the golf course pre Rees or pre many of the member driven changes.  You used two aerials taken many years apart, as the sole basis of your comparison with a post Rees aerial.
This hardlly qualifies as a bona fide in depth analysis.

At first you claimed his work there was horrendous, now, after allegedly viewing it in person, you say some of the work is brilliant.

It's amazing how you changed your mind with the added benefit of first hand inspection.  I wonder what your views would be if you had seen the golf course immediately prior to the work, and after more diligent scrutiny of the golf course, each hole and every feature.

What's your evaluation of the work that took place in front of # 10 and # 16 green ?

What's your evaluation on the work that took place on # 11 ?

Brilliant ?  Or, Horrendous ?

Would I, personally, like to see Hollywood returned to it's glory as evidenced by the early aerial I had posted ?  YES,
But, it's NOT going to happen.
It's counter to the memberships will and culture.


As to Bethpage,  your criticism was again based solely on the review of two aerials taken many years apart, without benefit of aerials and ground photos taken over the intervening years, and more importantly, without the benefit of ever actually being on the site to evaluate the golf course, pre and post Rees.

If you were to say that you would have done it differently, that's your perogative, but, the critical question is, are your views in harmony with what the membership wanted ?

I've tried to point that out to you for years.
The "will of the membership" determines what gets done, irrespective of whether you and I would agree with them.
And, as such, it's important to understand the "will of the membership' in the context of the direction and goals of the project and the finished product.

Even TEPaul fully understands this issue.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I agree, there are a number of reasons why golf courses get changed...everyone of those courses I listed has a different story. But if you have a membership or committee that combines Pat's attitude with ignorance, whatever is driving the alterations is bound to find support.

Pat
Get a hold of yourself. We simply disagree on Hollywood. You happen to be a huge Rees supporter; I am incline to prefer Travis's work. To each his own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I haven't been a huge Rees supporter, I've been a huge Rees defender when I thought he and his work were unfairly attacked.  And, there is a distinction between the two.

I agree, to each his own.

But, what original Travis work have you personally seen and carefully examined that leads you to prefer his work ?

[T_MacWood]

Columbia, Garden City, Hollywood, and Youngstown. I'd also mention Lochmoor, but I'm convinced he had little to do with this golf course. I've also collected as much written and visual documentation as I can, articles written by Travis on architecture, written about Travis and his architecture, articles on his designs including photographic documentation.

I've had the pleasure to play Pinehurst #7, Tallamore, CC of HH, Nantucket, Currituck and his early course on HH whose name escapes, as well as his remodeling work at Quaker Ridge, Bethpage and Hollywood, and his early remodeling work at Maidstone...I am very thankful I got there prior to an extensive clean up.

I respect your preference for Rees over Travis, I just don't agree with it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Now you're telling me that you're one time walk, a few weeks ago, of GCGC and Hollywood qualifies as CAREFUL, IN DEPTH examination of Travis's work ?   Surely you jest !

And, you have no clue as to what work was modified by the members at Hollywood, long before Rees came along.

And, I would offer the same commments regarding GCGC and membership changes post Travis.

Tom, you're unqualified to make those evaluations based on your limited exposure to Hollywood, especially since you NEVER saw the golf course prior to Rees's work, some of which you claim was brilliant.

Don't pretend to be something you're not.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You might have a point about a study of Hollywood qualifying as in depth examination of Travis's work.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The estimated distance between Long Island Nat'l and Friars Head was off by about 1500 yards.  In addition, Friars Head has the proximity to the Sound.  Also, Friars Head is predominately built upon sand, while Long Island Nat'l is on prime agricultural soil.  However, Long Island Nat'l has a great piece of land that could have been a great course.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Lets get one thing straight--Rees sucks and Notre Dame is going to kick some Trojan butt a week from this Saturday!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()