Engineers CC - Yet another Northeast Gem!

[Peter Galea]

I have a feeling they were alive at 6, 7, ....

I have a hard time imagining any green "alive" when rolling at 6 or 7.
Maybe years ago, when putters had loft and and players used a pop stroke. Myself, I could not enjoy Engineers with slow greens. I really detest having my ball stop on a downhill slope. In my mind there is nothing like spot putting, gravity and roll out.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Tom,  I have to ask what scores you shot at Engineers?   Your opinions seem to be based upon an inability to putt.  The game of golf has evolved and it is no coincidence that the greatest courses have evolved with the game.  Could you name one top 20 rated course worldwide that has not had some sort of addition, subtraction, ect. over the years?  Because golf courses are living organisms, they are always subject to some change.  And of course we as golfers have undergone changes over the past 80 years.  Is there a possibility that Engineers was a fairly long course when it was built?  Sure the scorecard yardage was not as long as Winged Foot's, but Engineers played up and down hills.  There is a good chance that it effectively played much longer than the scorcard yardage.  Also, maybe a design weakness to the powers that be back in 1920 was the lack of fairway bunkers.  At this point in time it really does not matter.  For everyone whom I've come accross,  other than yourself, they have aboslutely lauded the fairway bunkering.  As for the Royal Melbourne comment, when I played there a few years ago, there was a new bunker recently built.  They are not afraid of tinkering with the course and would probably recontour a couple of greens if they became unplayable at the fast speeds usually found there.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

As the photo that Tommy posted, the 16th green has been returned to its glory.  I do not know how Tom McWood can complain about this green without having seen it in person.  The picture shows a green that has had 2/3 of its size restored.  Sure the slopes were softened, but all the great pin positions lost many years ago have been restored.  As for the trees around the green, several are in neighboring backyards.  In addition, the town of Roslyn Harbor requires permitting to cut down "mature" trees--I know for sure that the club has had an interesting time cleaning up the tree infestation--though lightning knocked one down Sunday night.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Frankly I'm not sure how one determines if I green is at 10 or 11. Do you carry a stimpmenter with you?

I  don't know if the greens today are rolling better or not. All I know is that the original greens were among the most interesting and most terrifying ever built (and they are now lost forever) and the new green are a lot more tame. Perhap you prefer the tame greens at higher speeds. I prefer the more contoured greens at lower speeds, preserving the historic design and save a boat load money.

I was being sarcastic about WF....another great set of greens falls to the stimpmeter.

Robert
I didn't keep score...if I had to guess somewhere in the low eighties. What does my score have to do with my regard for Engineers and Herbert Strong? I'm a very good putter...if I don't say so myself.

I'm certain that every course in the top 20 has been changed to some degree...does that mean we should accept a change to Engineers, Yale, Riviera, today?  That kind of thinking has led to some pretty sad developments over the years...see Winged Foot above.

Golf courses are living organisms and they should evolve naturally, and they should be changed if there is something fundamentally wrong with them. Engineer's problem was that the historic design -- the one that was considered in the same class as NGLA and Pine Valley -- had been left to deteriate...mostly through neglect and poor redesign. Instead of brushing her off they chose to redesing once again and in the process destroyed a great deal of the original material and you will never get that back.

Engineers was not a fairly long course when it was built. It was notet at the time that short hitters had every opportunity there as the long guys. It was one of the shorter tests...which made its reputation even more extraordinary. It difficult lie with its greens which demanded great thought and execution from tee to green.

I'm glad everone enjoys the fairway bunkers...my favorite part of the fairways were the extrarordinary contours. Would you recommend Tripp Davis add fairway bunkers to more classic courses in the Metro region.

Do you equate adding a single bunker at Royal Melbourne with what occured at Engineers?

The bunker at the 16th green looks like it was designed by George Fazio.

I'm certain Engineers is still a very good golf course...another Northeast Gem...it shoud've and could've been a hell of a lot more than that.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
Frankly I'm not sure how one determines if I green is at 10 or 11. Do you carry a stimpmenter with you?

I  don't know if the greens today are rolling better or not. All I know is that the original greens were among the most interesting and most terrifying ever built (and they are now lost forever) and the new green are a lot more tame. Perhap you prefer the tame greens at higher speeds. I prefer the more contoured greens at lower speeds, preserving the historic design and save a boat load money.

I was being sarcastic about WF....another great set of greens falls to the stimpmeter.

I'm certain Engineers is still a very good golf course...another Northeast Gem...it shoud've and could've been a hell of a lot more than that.

Tom

Everyone knows that I don't leave home for the golf course without my stimpmenter.  In fact, when I measure the practice greens before a round I don't even bother to go out on the course if they are not 10 or higher.

You said that the new greens are a lot more tame then the originals.  What is your basis for that statement?

You implied the greens were tame when you said "Perhap you prefer the tame greens at higher speeds. I prefer the more contoured greens at lower speeds"  What is your basis for calling these greens tame?

With regard to WInged Foot and the few greens on the East course that were modified you said "another great set of greens falls to the stimpmeter."  What is your basis for saying that the set of greens "falls"?  Have you seen the newly expanded surfaces at WF?  Would you prefer the shrunken greens without the reclaimed kickbacks and pin locations?

I fully agree with Pete Galea based on my experience with greens running at different speeds. Bethpage is miles better these days as well with the greens being quick rather then flypaper speed.

The new agronomy methods are a gift to all golfers.  I could not for a second see Strong, MacDonald, Tillinghast, Ross or any other architect reject the new turf maintenance technologies.  I think they would modify their designs sensitively and accordingly. Their greens would not be tame but they would also not be diesigned to run at 6 on the stimpmeter. See new courses by Coore and Crenshaw, Doak, Kelly Blake Moran, Gil Hanse and Mike Devries to name only a few that hardly build tame greens but they are also in tune with modern agronomy practices.

[T_MacWood]

Everyone knows that I don't leave home for the golf course without my stimpmenter.  In fact, when I measure the practice greens before a round I don't even bother to go out on the course if they are not 10 or higher.

 

I was wondering why you walked with a stiff leg.

Here is an excerpt from the MGA magazine:

“Some of the greens had false fronts and wild contours that had to be flattened out. ‘We went from 8% slopes down to 2.5%. today, with speeds of 10 or 11, the greens were too steep,’ says Troy David, Chairman of the Green Committee…Architect Davis has worked to restore the look of the original Engineers, crafting ‘ragged’ bunkers fringed with fine fescue grassed, and the new greens will have the original outlines even if the topsy-turvy contours have been softened. ‘Some purists might object to what we’ve done on the greens,’ he says, ‘but this is 2005, not 1925. I think the restoration should be as much about intent as it is about style, and the intent is to create an interesting game.”

"The new agronomy methods are a gift to all golfers."

How is that? No doubt they have been a huge gift to architects who make their living rebuilding and redsigning classic golf courses.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Everyone knows that I don't leave home for the golf course without my stimpmenter.  In fact, when I measure the practice greens before a round I don't even bother to go out on the course if they are not 10 or higher.

 

I was wondering why you walked with a stiff leg.

Here is an excerpt from the MGA magazine:

“Some of the greens had false fronts and wild contours that had to be flattened out. ‘We went from 8% slopes down to 2.5%. today, with speeds of 10 or 11, the greens were too steep,’ says Troy David, Chairman of the Green Committee…Architect Davis has worked to restore the look of the original Engineers, crafting ‘ragged’ bunkers fringed with fine fescue grassed, and the new greens will have the original outlines even if the topsy-turvy contours have been softened. ‘Some purists might object to what we’ve done on the greens,’ he says, ‘but this is 2005, not 1925. I think the restoration should be as much about intent as it is about style, and the intent is to create an interesting game.”

"The new agronomy methods are a gift to all golfers."

How is that? No doubt they have been a huge gift to architects who make their living rebuilding and redsigning classic golf courses.

Those are quotes from the Greens Committee chair I assume and not Trip Davis.  I did not see what looked like 2.5% slopes on 6 and 16 or anywhere else.  I saw terrifying possibilities if you were in the wrong spots with falloffs, large tiers and waves.  You are making all of these comments based on your reading material. You can not possibly know what is in the ground.

You really think all the modern agronomy advances and the improved turf conditions that superintendents today can provide the golfer is not a gift?  I would venture to guess that you are a minority of 1 or maybe two of the 1500 on this board and maybe 1 in a million in the general golfing community.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
No, the first quote is from the chairman and the second quote is Tripp Davis.

One of the consequences of the new agronomy/super fast greens has been making mediocre greens more interesting and bold well-designed greens obsolete.

[Michael Whitaker]

Geoffery - I second your comments about the slopes at Engineers. They are severe by anyone's standard! If the greens have been "flattened" then I can't even imagine what they were like before. I thought our caddy said the changes were mainly made to the outside edges of the greens, not the interior contours. That would make a lot more sense based on what we observed.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffery - I second your comments about the slopes at Engineers. They are severe by anyone's standard! If the greens have been "flattened" then I can't even imagine what they were like before. I thought our caddy said the changes were mainly made to the outside edges of the greens, not the interior contours. That would make a lot more sense based on what we observed.

Michael

I would agree with your comment. Without any preconceived ideas about altered greens, bunkering or the "new" par 3 3rd I had to conclude that

1- Those were among the finest greens I had ever come across.  They are varied, wild, challenging, thought provoking and down right FUN to putt (in a friendly game - nail biting in a tournament environment).

2- The routing OVER hills is quite unusual.  It works well though with the requisite blind shots (I like these too).

3- THe par 3 3rd is an EXCELLENT golf hole as modified by Trip with tree removal (right) and enlarged and reshaped bunker (left).  Frankly, the course needed a long par 3 though the 2 or 20 somehow needs to be incorporated into the routing more often.

4- The caddie did infact point out almost exclusively enlarged areas and perepheral areas of greens that were modified.  All the huge swales, dropoffs and shelves looked to me like they could not possibly have been MORE severe.

That's what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.  

[T_MacWood]

I think they did a little more than soften the edges at the 16th....what did the caddie say?

Originally the 9th (old 8th) was 213 yards. You can have the par-3 3rd and the morphed par-5 4th...I'll take the old 3rd and '2 or 20'. When I played there a couple of years ago the tee for old 3rd was still there.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think they did a little more than soften the edges at the 16th....what did the caddie say?

Originally the 9th (old 8th) was 213 yards. You can have the par-3 3rd and the morphed par-5 4th...I'll take the old 3rd and '2 or 20'. When I played there a couple of years ago the tee for old 3rd was still there.

We played the back tees - the 9th (old 8th) was a 6 iron to the back of the green (3 putts later for my bogey - first putt rolled off the front of the green   ) The new 3rd at 225 yards was every bit of my 17* hybrid pin high just off the green right (two putts).  That's a huge difference in club selection.  I like both holes.

The old 3rd tee is still there if they want to change the routing on different days.  The current par five is a good slightly uphill driving hole with a bunker complex on the right that could collect a drive hoping to cut off a bit of length to go for the green in two.  The layup is at a diagonal and uphill to a narrowing area of fairway and not an easy shot.  Pitches see only the top of the flagstick and the false front is a big factor for front pins.  Its a good par 5.  I'm sure it was also a good dogleg left long par 4.

You'll have to do your own research on the current 16th.

[T_MacWood]

You'll have to do your own research on the current 16th.

Geoffrey
Do you have the caddies phone number? What club would you have hit if the 9th had been playing to its original length of 213 yards?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

If the current 9th were 213 yards, where would the tee have been positioned?  Though the 8th was recontoured at least a couple of times before Tripp rebuilt the green, it was always short back--front and very wide across.  With the current 13th and 10th running parallel to the 9th, where could a back tee have been placed?    As for the old 14th being incorporated into the course problem, Engineers has two scorecards--Tribute and current.  In addition, there is a short pin on the green for those who wish to play all 19 holes.  The 19 hole format happens to be very popular among those bringing guests.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Do I have the caddies phone #?  

Truthfull he wasn't my type and he was a retired NYC cop so he probably was "carrying" more then the bags  

Given the topography of the hole (#9) I would probably be hitting my 21* hybrid on average at 213.  It's hard to say since I don't play there on a regular basis under different conditions.

I just like the idea of every golf course having at least one LONG par 3.  Engineers has its share of long 4's (#5 - 475; #14- 455; #15 - 465).

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

As for the 16th green complex--I was unaware that George Fazio employed grass faced wrap around bunkering.  I've only played a few of his courses, but they all had the same dimensioned flash faced oval shaped greenside bunkers.  The right greenside bunker has the same type of grass face as the back 15th bunker and the wrap around back 7th bunker.  In adddition, I have seen this type of bunker at Canterbury and on 17 at Inwood--though it is not wrapping around very much.  Nevertheless, Tripp did a fantastic job with this bunker and it will get a lot of visits now that there a pins on the right side of the green.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul said 7:57am July 5:

“What is the ultimate goal of restoration architects today---to deliver a project that derives the greatest satisfaction from the club, its membership and those who use it and play it or to satisfy some architectural researcher in another state who's barely even been there and of whom Engineers is probably not even aware?”  

Tom MacWood responds 8:55pm July 5:

TE
There you go again...shooting your architectural archive project in the foot again. You promote whatever makes the club feel good even in cases when they ignore or are ignorant of historic documentation and choose to redesign a landmark golf course. Nice job.

When needs an architectural archive and documentation if you advocate/excuse ignoring that information? To rephrase what you before:

"What is the ultimate goal of restoration architects today---to deliver a project that derives the greatest satisfaction from the club, its membership and those who use it and play it or to follow the information found in some architectural archive in another state that has no connection with Engineers and the club is probably not even aware? "

A lot of re-designs are the result of lack of information, and that is where historians and architectural archives can be helpful.

Tom MacW:

Is your “REPHRASING” (distorting) of what I said the same thing you do with historic research material or in critiquing restoration projects to serve some purpose of your own?

I’ve never once said on here, or anywhere else, that historic architectural information on a golf course is not extremely important. If a golf course becomes involved in planning a restoration project I believe that really comprehensive historical architectural research is the place to start, even before considering an architect. There is no substitute at all for it.

There is a big difference, however, between a golf club in New York doing good historic architectural research and using it to try to make decisions in their project that works well for the membership of the golf club and making decisions in their project that satisfies Tom MacWood from Ohio who’s been there perhaps once, and may never be there again.  

[T_MacWood]

Bob
The 9th tee was effected by the rebuilding of the 8th green.

The lolly pop capes and bay are classic GF. I agree, I'm sure it will continue to get a lot of visits...unfortunately if his goal was to restore the look of Strong's bunker he missed the mark.

Geoffrey
Have you altered your position on the restoration of bunkers since those days when you were upset by Rulewich at Yale?

TE
What do you have against Ohio. Where does Tripp Davis reside?

[TEPaul]

"TE
What do you have against Ohio. Where does Tripp Davis reside?"

Tom:

I have nothing at all against Ohio--it's a wonderful state. Why does it not surprise me that you misread, misunderstood and misinterpreted, again, something I just said? I didn't say the club in New York may not be interested in satisfying Ohio---I said it may not be interested in satisfying Tom MacWood, who, as I understand it, comes from the state of Ohio. It would be no different if Tom MacWood came from any other state in the Union, including Engineers own state of New York.  

[T_MacWood]

I’ve never once said on here, or anywhere else, that historic architectural information on a golf course is not extremely important. If a golf course becomes involved in planning a restoration project I believe that really comprehensive historical architectural research is the place to start, even before considering an architect. There is no substitute at all for it.

TE
What is your opinion of the current restoration at Engineers?  How comprehensive is your knowledge of Engineers, its architectural history and Herbert Strong?

[TEPaul]

"TE
What is your opinion of the current restoration at Engineers?  How comprehensive is your knowledge of Engineers, its architectural history and Herbert Strong?"

Tom:

You know, the fact that you are asking me that again is getting pretty representative of the way you may approach golf course architectural research and its evaluation and application in restoration projects and certainly seems representative of the way you approach any discussion on this website.

For some reason you seem to ask the same questions over and over again, despite the fact that they've been answered and explained before---sometimes a number of times.

Why is that? Don't you read responses to your questions? Or do you read them and fail to understand them for some reason? Or is it simply because you just don't want to acknowledge something? Perhaps this is also why the way you make assumptions and conclusions from your research has led one savy contributor to this website to label at least one of your essays as what in academia is referred to as "positivism" and to you as a "positivist". In case you don't know it a "positivist" in this vein is someone who just selectively applies research to some subject to make or support some preconceived point or some preconceived agenda.

There's a complete response to your last question in post #47. That was three days ago.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Sorry. You were confusing me, I thought you said you had no knowledge of Engineers and little or no knowledge of Herbert Strong, but yet you appear to be interjecting yourself into a debate on both & the decision to redesign vs restore Strong's Engineers. Even more confusing is your defense of ignoring/rejecting the architectural archival data.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
Have you altered your position on the restoration of bunkers since those days when you were upset by Rulewich at Yale?

NO! Not at all.  The two cases are totally different in my opinion and I think each course must get individual consideration.

As I have posted here a short time ago, Yale requires no fairway bunkering due to its topography.  Raynor realized this brilliantly.  Only the fairway bunkers on the face of 10 and 18 are missing and that's OK with me. Therefore no moving of them was needed.  The greenside bunkering is another stroy. In the Yale example every single bunker was not only out of character for Raynor/MacDonald but they were made easier to play out of and modified by breaking them up for maintenance friendly reasons.  Yale as a golf course was made EASIER then it was in 1926 or 1934 (the date of the best aerial).  In this day of better equipment it is a unique case (that I am aware of) of renovation to make a course easier.  In addition, Raynor's style is probably the easiest to copy, the photo documentation and member memories were all in place. All that was needed was the will and the ability to listen to George Bahto's suggestions. I still think that every single bunker needs to be rebuilt at Yale and I am confident that somehow they finally realize this and it will slowly come to fruition.  I have also learned since those days that bunkers are but a part of restoration.  Greens expansion, mowing patterns, tree removal and maintenance issues are equally or more important.  Yale is getting these in spades and if you reed my post that started this discussion you will see that in my opinion Engineers has these under control as well.

[TEPaul]

"but yet you appear to be interjecting yourself into a debate on both & the decision to redesign vs restore Strong's Engineers. Even more confusing is your defense of ignoring/rejecting the architectural archival data."

Look, Tom, it has always been damn near impossible for most anyone on here to have an intelligent and certainly an efficient discussion with you but it defiinitely seems to be getting worse and a lot worse recently. This thread alone and many of the posts on here are getting to be collective evidence of and testimony to that.

I have never advocated ignoring architectural archive material and I have never defended a club interested in a restoration for ignoring architecture archive data.

What I am saying to you and have for years now is that, in my opinion, the very first order of business for any club interested in a restoration is to do all the research on the golf course and it's evolution that could possibly be done----and that includes real research into their original architect and any others who worked on their course too.

To me that is completely fundamental and essential and in all cases must be the place to start. Do you understand that or am I going to have to say it to you again tomorrow and the next day and the day after that ad infinitum before you stop saying that I believe something else like automatic redesign?

Having done that, having collected all the architectural research material that appears to be available, I then feel it is encumbant upon a club trying to do a good restoration to hire an architect who is good and who truly understands classic architecture and restoration architecture and to then go through what is often a long and difficult analysis of how and how well the process and production of restoring all the various ramifications of the original architecture will work both in play for those using the golf course and also to those maintaining the golf course.

In those processes I have learned how necessary it is to attempt to educate a membership into the philosophies of much of the older classic courses both in play and in strategy as well as in maintenance.

Some say the latter should never be even attempted because all that can be expected is that they will meddle and eventually dismantle a good restoration plan.

I do not believe that to be necessarily so, and I have amplle evidence of both how and why that is not necessarily so.

But what I particularly believe to be the case, and is the purview and responsibility of generally the committee assigned to develop the restoration Master Plan with their architect is to make the decisions regarding what will work well and what will work best with today's realitiies of golf and what won't.

There is no question at all, Tom, that you tend to totally glorify some of these old architects and some of their work to the extent that you must feel there is nothing they could've ever done that didn't work well for some reason, either back there or today.

That dream-world belief is just not the way it is, not in every case or ever facet of original architecture---that's just not the reality in all cases and you seem to think it is or should be.

I believe in total restoration only if total restoration architecture works well to serve the purpose of what golf architecture is there to do in the first place---has always been there to do in the first place---and has been confirmed generally in writing by most all the great architect who considered the subject. And that is to do the best that can be done to create maximum enjoyment for the people who play and use the course and pay for it.

How in the world you can possibly think there is any other reason or way or higher calling for golf course architecture whether it be classic, modern or restoration than that is just beyond me.

 

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Based Engineers rugged topography why then do you applaud the new bunkers where none existed? And why are you not demanding that Engineer's original more penal bunkers restored?