[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I would have like to see Stone Harbor preserved too in it's orignial bizzarity but that was not to be. But I very well may be the only one who actually feels that the original Stone Harbor should be RESTORED! That's saying something!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey Childs, TEPaul & Tom MacWood,

T Fazio, R Jones and R Rulewich shouldn't be singled out as altering existing bunkers or infusing restorations with bunkers that look nothing like the originals.

At a classic period course that I'm familiar with, that is considering restoration work, an architect other than those mentioned above, indicated that he would show the committee a series of bunker designs and that they could then pick the one they liked the best.

What would you call that process for selecting bunker design ?

Is the architect shirking his architectural responsibility, and merely taking the money and letting the club decide what bunker design the committee wants to select ?

Do you think that architect would want their name bandied about for that type of work on this site ?

Why do you just list the names of Fazio, Jones and Rulewich ?

Who is more disengenuous, the above three fellows, or the architect who holds himself out as a restoration specialist, but, employs the above technique in selecting bunkers for a golf course from the "golden age" ?

Ask youselves, who has altered more classic or "golden age" golf courses, the above three fellows, or other architects that you have chosen not to name ?

What does the Donald Ross Society have to say about what architects have done the most damage to Donald Ross courses

Is it any of the three fellows you named ?
  
Or, have others done far more damage ?

And, if others have done more damage, toss their names out into the public arena, just like you have with Fazio, Jones and Rulewich.

That's fair, isn't it ?

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

I used those three names as examples of individuals who have specifically been criticisized on this site for their work on classic courses. Can you deny that these three have received the bulk of the criticism for their "NON-original" work?  In fact, I didn't offer any judgement of their "restoration" work in this thread. I was not not generalizing about who did more damage to classic courses.  I was asking Forrest if his personal philosophy allowed for non-sensitive changes to classic courses. I used these three gentleman as examples only of individuals singled out for criticism due to what is perceived as as similar philosophy.

In another thread on our next winter get together I mentioned work at Westchester CC done by Ken Dye.  Westchester CC did not want to reintroduce literally hundreds of Travis pot bunkers that old aerials show were part of their original design.  Since they were not going the way of true restoration, apparently Dye did exactly what you mentioned above.  He asked the membership what style of bunkers they wished and they replied "Tillinghast".  He gave them his version of Tillinghast bunkers that are much more visable then the previous bunkers and he also somewhat tastefully removed part of a hill to give a sightline to greenside bunkers of a previously totally blind shot.  He also added a sighting bunker on #4 on top of a rock ledge.  His changes are generally well regarded by the membership.  He also completely redid their quaint old 6000 yard South Course and turned it into a much more difficult 6500 yard test.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- Destruction is change of a different color. Some well-intentioned changes to golf courses have been destructive -- I see them quite often. But I also know the intent was never to destroy.

Mr. Wright would be the first to say that he is pleased to see his work preserved and he would encourage those who will have it preserved to continue their fine work. After all, he would agree that his work was the best ever. But to the young architect with the promising brain, he would have called him aside and told him to focus on his own vision of creativity.

Again, I suport preservation. But I also support change.

Change should be a constant in golf -- where appropriate, I agree.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
I thought change was good. Yale and Timber Point were not destroyed, only changed - was that good? No. What good does good intent do any of us if the result is bad?  I'm sure your intentions are good, but I'm not sure I'd want you near any designs of historical significance. You don't seem to be hung up on detail (sans finger-nail clippers) and you might just bust out your hammer in the name of 'good architecture'.

Wright has been dead for 44 years. Students of architecture have a finite number of important FLW designs to enjoy and study. What he would say or do is all conjecture, just as it is conjecture what any dead golf architect would want or say. And it really doesn't matter anyway. Great works should be preserved and restored for future generations.
 
I'm for change too. I for reversing the ill advised changes made by well intentioned mediocre architects to the very good designs of talented architects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

I was only addressing you and the other esteemed gentlemen in a general fashion, in choosing to tangentially add another element and question to the thread.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- You commented: "...I'm not sure I'd want you near any designs of historical significance..."

Is this because I am an advocate of change, in general, or because you disagree with me, or both? (Keep in mind that I do applaud preservation, I just happen to also like change. So, please give me some 'points' for this as you answer.)

As it relates to bunkers and Mark's original post, Tom, I have a question: What percentage of truly restored bunker work by people you would allow near designs of historical significance do you guess is accurate to the architect's original design...err, conjecture of what you think or have concluded by photos or have come to believe their design was exactly, or was almost exactly?

[Mark_Fine]

Glad to see this post has generated some interest.  Joel, by now I'm sure you figured out what the third dimension is  

Maybe time spent in the field is the biggest difference between the old and the new?  Maybe it's because bunkers played such a huge role on the original seaside courses that classic designers paid more attention to them then some architects do now?

I've always believed bunkers should be hazards and hazards should "look like hazards".  Depth and appearance play an important role in that regard.  Size and placement are important but the greatest bunkers go beyond that.  

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

How do you reconcile your view with Ross's extensive absentee work ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Ross as you know, made it pretty clear what he expected his courses (and his bunkers) to look like.  He did this even with courses he never visited.  At the same time, I think most of us would agree, the courses he spent the most time on were the ones that displayed his best work.    
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
I advocate in-house restoration....architects have a tendency of leaving their mark or installing their idea of 'good architecture.'

"I feel the entire issue of bunker styles is way over-rated....I liken the effort to replicate and mimick styles of bunker edges, slopes and shapes as I do much of the pueblo architecture I so detest."

"But I remain cautious when I see such time and energy being spent on the look of bunkering."

"Things do not stay the same while we are here. They change. They should change. To spend so much energy focusing on a particular treatment, style or look is secondary to the bigger picture and a much larger concept. I appreciate restorations, but I appreciate change even more. It's sometimes hard to swallow, but it is what keeps things so vibrant."

"Change is good. It makes some people unhappy. But it is good. I am not for wholesale change to masterpiece courses. But change is good. Hammers are good, too."

If a club was looking outside for assistance - help in accurately restoring their golf course - this kind of attitude would be a concern. I am convinced this type of laissez-faire attitude is responsible for far too many significant works being butchered....albeit with good intentions.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

One only has to look at Yale and other courses to see the extensive damage done by in-house interests.

Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet, or sure fire method.

[paul cowley]

a ' good ' bunker is really a stretegic mannikin that can be dressed many ways,evolve many 'styles ', unless it loses its position and balance.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yeah, Tom, you are probably right.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark -- In terms of "modern" bunker styles, what are the examples that you feel rival those historic and also good? And what differences are there between these in the third dimension?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Two different subjects - we're talking about a serious restoration effort in-house, not the ill advised 'improvements' made through the years by over-zelous greens committees or a well-meaing superitendant. From what I understand Yale was 'improved' by their super some years ago. I think it is fair to say in most cases the superitendants of today are better trained, more sophisticated, and architecturally savy/respectful than the majority in the past...although there are exceptions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()