News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Geoffrey Childs

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2006, 10:54:16 AM »
The greens at Engineers TODAY are among the best set that I have ever played.  They make the game fun to play and they challenge you from 1 to 18.  I have not seen them prior to the work by Tripp.

Engineers was "redesigned" in part long before Trip got there do do his work.  One nice thing about the project as it moves forward is that the old tee boxes on #4 and 11 are evident and I believe very easy to put back into play. I believe it is part of their future plans to do so.  This gives a great flexibility to allow the 2 or 20 routing back into the rotation and have BOTH to play as the club or tourtnamnet committess might deem fit.

A feature of the Engineers bunker project that differes for instance from Yale is that they are as built not making the course any easier. The bunkers might not be large sandy waste-like areas as they were in a few cases long ago but as far as I can tell from the old photos (thanks Tom Mac for sending me copies) their depth and difficulty to recover from is not watered down.

Hollywood also exceeded my expectations.  It needs to remove a couple of thousand trees and reclaim some mowing patterns but other then that its greens are about in the same league as Engineers or just about any other course.  Fully restored it would be AMAZING and #2 in NJ.  As is its pretty damn special too.

Mike S - What about the work at Engineers specifically would you wish for at Yale?  Yale has already lost the 3rd green, had the 2nd green flattened, the horseshoe removed from the 5th, a ridge removed from the 6th, and the 16th green replaced with a new one. Harry Musuel did a number on that course that is the genesis of the problems that are only very recently being addressed in a satisfactory manner.

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2006, 11:19:34 AM »
Geoffrey:

You have been to Enginneers after the Davis project there and seem to rave about the course as others on here have.

That the course plays great is not of any consequence to Tom MacWood you understand, all he cares about is that the project should have been far more pure to Strong's original course.

That is his point, and apparently his only point or concern. As far as whether that results in the course playing well or not he seems to care not, or frankly even understand.

A pretty odd modus operandi, don't you think, for someone who seems so concerned about the art form known as "GOLF COURSE" architecture?  ;)

Have you ever heard of a great golf course architect who was concerned only about what a golf course looks like and not what it plays like?

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2006, 08:36:32 PM »
Jason
I know history and the history of golf architecture is not your bag, nor is it TE's, but for those interested in golf architecture and transcendant designs here are few quotes on Engineers & Herb Strong.

Gil Hanse:
"Our thoughts on Engineers run very strong and very deep. Unfortunately they have been singed with frustration over the years. We have had a very long relationship with the club, and we have tried to be very patient in our efforts to restore this gem. Unfortunately the membership does not appreciate what they have, and the sentiment amongst a lot of the members is that it is a mickey mouse course with wild greens that are 'UNFAIR'. That has to be one of my most hated words in golf, that and 'backdrop' set off something in me. Anyway, I digress, the original layout at Engineers was so grand in scale and ambition that I think it could be one of the landmark courses of this era. It is the only course I know of to host two major championships in its first 3 years of existence (1917 PGA and 1920 US Amateur), excepting Augusta. So it was highly regarded in its prime as one of the top courses in the country. Unfortunately over the years many of the massive sand areas have been grassed in and trees have dominated the course.

Our efforts have been to restore the course to its original grandeur, and we have been steadfast in our reluctance to do anything other than that. The combination of our resolve, and the clubs reluctance to take on the whole project have meant that we have been at a standstill for quite awhile. I am hopeful that the club will eventually relent and that we can go forward with restoring a great course.

As for the course itself, I think it has all of the ingredients for a great golf course. It has character, variety, interest, and you could not find a course that is more fun to putt and chip on. The imagination that must go into the short game on this course is truly unbelievable. This is all centers around the most eccentric green complexes ever imagined. They have some of the wildest slopes and shelves, with plenty of creativity in their construction. The 2nd green has over 8 feet of fall in it from side to side, the 12th green is nearly 50 yards long, and the 1st and 9th greens defy explanation. As mentioned, the original design had vast expanses of sandy waste areas, as well as two strings of 'pearl necklace' bunkers that number into the teens as far as bunkers in a row. The course also has an element of blindness that captures the look and feel of a truly old world course.

I really love this course, and they don't even play one of the best holes on the course, the short 14th, on a regular basis. The old 14th, the 'two or twenty' hole, is used very infrequently having been replaced by a typical 1970's Frank Duane hole that is the current 3rd Hole. The old 14th is under 100 yards long, played to a tiny green that sits on a peninsula perched out over a 20 foot drop surrounding it on 3 sides. It looks like a Vicks cough drop with sand and gronkle all around it. It really is an amazing little hole that was considered too short, and abandoned in the early 1970's. The main part of our restoration plan is to restore this hole to play on an everyday basis.

As for Herbert Strong, I have only had the good fortune of visiting two of his courses, Inwood and Engineers. As a result, I do not feel qualified to rate his work. However, the work I have seen is very ambitious in its scale and its attempts to create unique and interesting golf holes. Attributes that would rank him very highly in my book."

Ran Morrissett:
"Still, given the praise that reigned down on Engineers throughout the 1920s and 1930s, one can only wish that club boards at Engineers will appreciate what they once had. As the black and white photographs show… plenty of photographic evidence exists to act as a blueprint for fairway expansion/mowing patterns, bunker scheme and green recapturing, and additional tree removal efforts. The property and routing are still in tact and fully restored, Engineers becomes one of the must-see original designs in the world of golf - short in length but long in design character like so many of the great inland UK courses such as West Sussex and Swinley Forest. And perhaps the great Herbert Strong would then eventually begin to get his due as well."

Tom Doak:
"The issue at Engineers is not about restoration at all, really ... it's that they don't like what they have which is basically pretty well preserved.  They are bound and determined to change it because they think it's too severe, and good players are constantly telling them it's too severe.

One would like to tell them to just keep the greens at 8 on the Stimpmeter and not try to keep them at the same speeds as other area clubs because the greens don't work at 10 ... their greens might not even work at 9 ... but the members just think they've fallen behind the times and need "updating.""

"….When I spoke with the green chairman at Engineers, it was pretty clear that he had decided that certain greens had to be changed, and there were a couple of them that I could not imagine changing, without changing their character significantly.  And I thought their character was worth preserving, so we didn't present a proposal for the work."

"…I did pass on doing any work at Engineers because it had to involve major softening of several noteworthy greens ... I'm sure Trip Davis did a fine job of that, I just didn't want to be the one who erased them."

« Last Edit: August 05, 2006, 08:39:13 PM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2006, 09:38:05 PM »
Jason
I've expressed my good ideas on Enginners so often that I thought it might be good to get the opinion of three of the more respected authorities: Hanse, Doak and Morrissett.

You can dismiss their opinions if you wish...I don't, but then again I happen to agree with them.

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2006, 10:19:55 PM »
"Jason
I know history and the history of golf architecture is not your bag, nor is it TE's, but for those interested in golf architecture and transcendant designs here are few quotes on Engineers & Herb Strong."

Tom MacWood;

History and the history of golf course architecture isn't my bag?

I'll tell you what Tom MacWood, I may not be the most confident guy in the world but I would stack my interest and knowledge and understanding of golf course architeture and its entire history up against you and yours any day of the week and bet just about anything there would be no way in hell you could touch me.

Essentially you're nothing more than a pontificating airhead when it comes to applied architecture.

Maybe you can sit out there in Ohio and spout the minutae of one old article after another. So what? But when it comes to the real world of golf and architecture you are pretty hopeless and frankly counter-productive due to your lack of understanding of the essential elements and aspects of real involvement in golf course architecture.

Real understanding of architecture, like golf, is in the dirt and  you don't know that part or recognize it or admit it.

My interest with you is to continue to expose your lack of credibilty in the real world of architecture and even restoration architecture. And thank God my efforts in that vein seem to be working just fine.

If you want a shred of credibility you are going to pretty much have to get off your ass, and get your head out of the past and get out "on site". Nothing else will suffice.

You think what your recent contribution to architecture has been is your continued criticism of Engineers?

What a stupid albeit hilarious joke that is.




TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2006, 10:26:11 PM »
Tom MacWood:

It's just typical of you to try to stand behind those comments of Hanse and Doak and Morrissett as a defense of your criticisms of Davis's project. Did they say those things before or after Tripp Davis's project?

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2006, 10:44:33 PM »
TE
Based upon your vast knowledge of Engineers (and Strong) what exactly do you find objectionable in Hanse, Morrissett and Doak's comments?

"Did they say those things before or after Tripp Davis's project?"

Yes. Hanse, Morrissett and 2 of 3 of quotes from Doak were pre-Davis. Why?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2006, 10:45:32 PM by Tom MacWood »

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2006, 11:26:49 PM »
There is the Ivory Tower and there is reality--unfortunately, the ivory tower does not work so well sometimes.  I have mentioned a couple of times how there are holes that cannot be faithfully restored in the ivory tower context.  I have had the good fortune to have played Engineers from 1990 to the present.  In 1990 the original 14th was pretty much a practice pitching green and most of the greens were fairly small and rounded.  Gil must be credited for beginning the transformation of Engineers and his work is still in tact in many areas.  I wonder if a lot of the criticism of Tripp has to do with a GCA favorite son being replaced.  Unfortunately, the 8th green came in terribly and and there were a couple of other issues.  Tripp was then given the opportunity and did a remarkable job.  Engineers is not in a museum, and it plays better today than at any time in the past 17 years.  There are a few new bunkers, but they enhance the playing characteristics of the holes.  Unless someone would like to pay for the maintenance, the hilly sandy waste areas cannot be restored.  They washed out during storms--they are not indigenous to the landscape.  The course is simply great these days.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2006, 11:37:44 PM »

Unless someone would like to pay for the maintenance, the hilly sandy waste areas cannot be restored.  They washed out during storms--they are not indigenous to the landscape.  


Robert
Is this your professional opinion or is this the opinion/experiece of a golf architect or Super who had to maintain the former bunkers? Are there any modern developments that might help this situation?



« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 12:21:59 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2006, 09:32:20 AM »
"Yes. Hanse, Morrissett and 2 of 3 of quotes from Doak were pre-Davis. Why?"

Tom MacWood;

Why?

Are you asking me that seriously? Do you think perhaps you might take a moment or two and hopefully figure that one out for yourself? Well, forget about it, you obviously never wiil.

Aren't we talking on here about Tripp Davis's Engineers project??

Isn't that whay you've been critical of on here?

If you are going to use Hanse and Doak and Morrissett's comments about Engineers as some support for your criticism of the club and Davis's project then don't you think at least it would be appropriate to admit that they made those comments about Engineers BEFORE Davis's project?  ;)

I really do wonder about your ability to deduce things but just to be sure here's a simple little test question;

What does 9+9 equal?

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2006, 09:45:09 AM »
"Robert
Is this your professional opinion or is this the opinion/experiece of a golf architect or Super who had to maintain the former bunkers? Are there any modern developments that might help this situation?"

Tom MacWood:

That you have to constantly ask questions like that only proves both how, how much and why you just don't know enough about the details and real decisions that need to be made on most of the restoration projects you comment on negatively as not being "pure" enough. If you bothered to get enough involved in a project like this one you'd very likely already know the answers to questions like that. One is not able to know things like that sitting out in some Ivory Tower in Ohio like you do and not observing first-hand the project or its result.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2006, 10:52:36 AM »
“Our thoughts on Engineers run very strong and very deep. Unfortunately they have been singed with frustration over the years. We have had a very long relationship with the club, and we have tried to be very patient in our efforts to restore this gem. Unfortunately the membership does not appreciate what they have, and the sentiment amongst a lot of the members is that it is a mickey mouse course with wild greens that are 'UNFAIR'. That has to be one of my most hated words in golf, that and 'backdrop' set off something in me. Anyway, I digress, the original layout at Engineers was so grand in scale and ambition that I think it could be one of the landmark courses of this era…Our efforts have been to restore the course to its original grandeur, and we have been steadfast in our reluctance to do anything other than that.”

"Still, given the praise that reigned down on Engineers throughout the 1920s and 1930s, one can only wish that club boards at Engineers will appreciate what they once had. As the black and white photographs show… plenty of photographic evidence exists to act as a blueprint for fairway expansion/mowing patterns, bunker scheme and green recapturing, and additional tree removal efforts. The property and routing are still in tact and fully restored, Engineers becomes one of the must-see original designs in the world of golf…”

"The issue at Engineers is not about restoration at all, really ... it's that they don't like what they have which is basically pretty well preserved.  They are bound and determined to change it because they think it's too severe, and good players are constantly telling them it's too severe….When I spoke with the green chairman at Engineers, it was pretty clear that he had decided that certain greens had to be changed, and there were a couple of them that I could not imagine changing, without changing their character significantly.  And I thought their character was worth preserving, so we didn't present a proposal for the work….I did pass on doing any work at Engineers because it had to involve major softening of several noteworthy greens ... I'm sure Trip Davis did a fine job of that, I just didn't want to be the one who erased them.”

Do you not comprehend what they are saying…1) Engineers is a landmark design that should be restored not redesigned, 2) the club did not appreciate what they had (or potentially had), 3) the club felt strongly that they must remodel the course.

And unfortunately the course was remodeled and not restored. Are you under the impression that Hanse, Morrissett and Doak would make an about face after seeing Tripp’s renovation work and say “you know we were wrong about Strong’s Engineers being a landmark course that should be preserved and fully restored…remodeling was the way to go after all”?

I’m a little surprised you feel so strongly that this historic course was better off being remodeled.

Jason
There was a large sandy waste bunker at #10 and #11.

The original 3rd was not a one-dimensional hole. There were plenty of choices off the tee, play short of the bunker, challenge the bunker and depending upon the wind challenge the green. The elevated tee was one of the most dramatic on the course…it was also one of the most photographed holes on the course as well.  IMO the old 3rd was an example of Strong’s routing ability and his excellent use of the terrain.

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2006, 11:06:27 AM »
Tom MacWood:

I comprehend what they were saying before Tripp Davis's project because that's when they said it.

Perhaps instead of you just making dumb assumptions about what you think they may say about it now you should simply wait and see what Hanse, Doak and Morrissett might say about the golf course AFTER the Tripp Davis project.

The fact that you never even seem to think of something like that pretty much tells me how myopic you really are on this general subject of original architecture and restoration projects.

I read Tripp Davis's responses about the project and from the way he described it they seem pretty reasonable to me given some of the obstacles involved in that project.

But the ultimate question remains and it's a question for you or Hanse or Doak or Morrissett or anyone else;

"If that course was restored exactly to the way Strong built it would it play today as good as most everyone seems to think it does now?

This is a question, Tom MacWood, you are simply going to have to deal with one day if you want to keep any credibilty at all. Because to date it's a question you simply refuse to acknowledge.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2006, 11:29:28 AM »
TE
IMO yes the original course would be an improvement...the old 3rd was wonderful hole and 2 or 20 is one of the great holes in golf history. Comparing these two to the current 3rd and 4th its a no brainer, the course would be much better with its original routing. And not re-establishing Strong's unique bunkering is a comparative weakness of the current layout too.

Which routing do you prefer?


TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2006, 12:57:58 PM »
Tom MacWood:

It just continues to be pretty fruitless for me or anyone else on here to have a productive discussion with you on Engineers originally, or before or after Tripp Davis’s project. You either don’t read or understand what people are saying to you or you only answer the questions that are convenient for you and refuse to acknowledge the others that aren’t and then you make totally baseless assumptions on what others have said, or you only answer questions to you with other questions. That’s not a very good way of carrying on a intelligent discussion of this course and its recent project.

“TE
Based upon your vast knowledge of Engineers (and Strong) what exactly do you find objectionable in Hanse, Morrissett and Doak's comments?”

For instance, when did I ever say to you that I find the comments of Hanse, Doak or Morrissett objectionable? I never said anything like that. All I asked you is if they made those comments before or after Tripp Davis’s project.

“Which routing do you prefer?”

This may be about the 3 or 4th time you’ve asked me something like that and I’ve told you a number of times I’ve never been to Engineers despite being brought up about three miles from it and despite the fact my best friend grew up right next to it.

I’m generally not in the habit of commenting on the various routing iterations of courses I have never seen and perhaps you should learn something from that about a project you’ve never seen or played.

What I’m asking you to do is comment on whether you think it is reasonable to criticize a membership for wanting to have fun on the golf course they own and play? And whether it’s reasonable to think they did something wrong if it appears they really do enjoy what they have now, and perhaps that they are wrong because they didn’t enjoy what they used to have for various reasons. What do you suppose Hanse and Doak and Morrissett would say to those questions? Do you really think any of them would say it is reasonable to advocate that they are wrong when they say the course didn’t work well for them the way it was and that they are wrong again for enjoying what they have now?

According to Tom Doak it’s not reasonable to play that golf course with some of those Strong greens at anything over 8.

I can understand that such as Hanse and Doak and Morrissett are enamored by the drama and radicalness of that original old architecture, I’m sure I would be too, but I’ve absolutely never seen greens on any of the great classic courses that are not capable of being played at least  at 9 or10, and I sure have seen plenty of radical great old greens including NGLA’s. PVGC’s Merion’s and numerous others.

I can certainly understand you’re being enamored by the look of that old architecture but its primary purpose, like all architecture, should be that it play as great as it can for those who own it and use it day in and day out.. I cant’ see that anything tops that ultimate goal when it comes to golf and golf course architecture and I just can’t see how Hanse or Doak or Morrissett would disagree with that.

I can see you disagreeing with that but not them because there's no question in my mind at this point that you are not reasonable in the slightest on this subject and you virtually never have been.

What golf course architect in the history of the art form would ever say that the ultimate purpose of golf architecture is something other than that those who play it enjoy it maximumly? What architect has ever felt that what architecture plays like should play second fiddle to what it looks like?

This is probably a hard and uncomfortable question for some self-proclaimed ultra purist and self professed defender of the old dead guys to contemplate but my advice to you would be that you better begin to try to contemplate it and answer it.

Anything less, is frankly not dealing in reality. It's dealing in a dreamworld that people who only live in Ivory towers deal in.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2006, 02:13:46 PM »
Tom MacWood:

It just continues to be pretty fruitless for me or anyone else on here to have a productive discussion with you on Engineers originally, or before or after Tripp Davis’s project.

Especially since you have no knowledge of either.

You either don’t read or understand what people are saying to you or you only answer the questions that are convenient for you and refuse to acknowledge the others that aren’t and then you make totally baseless assumptions on what others have said, or you only answer questions to you with other questions. That’s not a very good way of carrying on a intelligent discussion of this course and its recent project.

Evidently you didn't like my answer. You asked the 'ultimate question: "If that course was restored exactly to the way Strong built it would it play today as good as most everyone seems to think it does now?" I said the original course was better, the routing was better as I explained. Perhaps if you were more familiar with the course you could appreciate my response better.

For instance, when did I ever say to you that I find the comments of Hanse, Doak or Morrissett objectionable? I never said anything like that. All I asked you is if they made those comments before or after Tripp Davis’s project.

You've spent several pages of posts defending the renovation of the course (despite the fact you have no knowledge of the course and the renovation plan)...based on that I assumed you disagreed with those who advocated restoration.

This may be about the 3 or 4th time you’ve asked me something like that and I’ve told you a number of times I’ve never been to Engineers despite being brought up about three miles from it and despite the fact my best friend grew up right next to it.

I’m generally not in the habit of commenting on the various routing iterations of courses I have never seen and perhaps you should learn something from that about a project you’ve never seen or played.

For someone who does not comment on courses he's never seen you sure have made a lot of posts on Engineers and the debate over its renovation or restoration. You even have the gaul to question my credibility...thats pretty incredible coming from someone who has no knowledge of the subject.

What I’m asking you to do is comment on whether you think it is reasonable to criticize a membership for wanting to have fun on the golf course they own and play?

Yes. I do think it reasonable to criticize a membership for not recognizing and appreciating what they have. I have no problem with Hanse and Doak's critical comments about the Engineer's membership (if in fact it was the entire membership or relatively small group of powerful members). I have no problem with Child's criticism of the Yale administration or Hurdzan's criticism of Ohio State's administration, or Shackelford's criticism of Riviera's owner, or Mucci's criticism of the powers that be at GCGC, or Cirba's criticism of Merion, or Andrews criticism of the people at Banff or Manor Richelieu. Often the membership - for whatever reason - does not have the information necessary to make an informed decision and often they leave it to few knowledgable members or an expert architect. And as you can see from the examples above bad decisions are made.

And whether it’s reasonable to think they did something wrong if it appears they really do enjoy what they have now, and perhaps that they are wrong because they didn’t enjoy what they used to have for various reasons.

Its not black and white. Its not a case where the restoration results in a fun course and conversely the remodeling results in a course that is not fun or bad. We are talking about maximizing the portential of the course and restablishing a landmark design.

What do you suppose Hanse and Doak and Morrissett would say to those questions? Do you really think any of them would say it is reasonable to advocate that they are wrong when they say the course didn’t work well for them the way it was and that they are wrong again for enjoying what they have now?

Yes. This is difficult for you to understand because you have no knowledge of the subject.

According to Tom Doak it’s not reasonable to play that golf course with some of those Strong greens at anything over 8.

I can understand that such as Hanse and Doak and Morrissett are enamored by the drama and radicalness of that original old architecture, I’m sure I would be too, but I’ve absolutely never seen greens on any of the great classic courses that are not capable of being played at least  at 9 or10, and I sure have seen plenty of radical great old greens including NGLA’s. PVGC’s Merion’s and numerous others.

I can certainly understand you’re being enamored by the look of that old architecture but its primary purpose, like all architecture, should be that it play as great as it can for those who own it and use it day in and day out.. I cant’ see that anything tops that ultimate goal when it comes to golf and golf course architecture and I just can’t see how Hanse or Doak or Morrissett would disagree with that.

I can see you disagreeing with that but not them because there's no question in my mind at this point that you are not reasonable in the slightest on this subject and you virtually never have been.

What golf course architect in the history of the art form would ever say that the ultimate purpose of golf architecture is something other than that those who play it enjoy it maximumly? What architect has ever felt that what architecture plays like should play second fiddle to what it looks like?

Are you saying that Hanse, Doak and Morrissett's opinions of Engineers was based on how the course looked and not played? You have lost your mind...I can tell you all three are very good judges of architecture, and can apprectiate not only the look but also the playing characteristics of a design.

This is probably a hard and uncomfortable question for some self-proclaimed ultra purist and self professed defender of the old dead guys to contemplate but my advice to you would be that you better begin to try to contemplate it and answer it.

Anything less, is frankly not dealing in reality. It's dealing in a dreamworld that people who only live in Ivory towers deal in.

Before you speculate on what Doak, Hanse and Morrissett would say about Engineers perhaps you should become more familar with the course. You are the only person I know who can write several pages about a subject you have absolutley no knowledge of.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 02:17:15 PM by Tom MacWood »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2006, 05:38:41 PM »
TE
IMO yes the original course would be an improvement...the old 3rd was wonderful hole and 2 or 20 is one of the great holes in golf history. Comparing these two to the current 3rd and 4th its a no brainer, the course would be much better with its original routing. And not re-establishing Strong's unique bunkering is a comparative weakness of the current layout too.

Which routing do you prefer?


Tom

Based on the old photos of the bunkering that you sent to me I don't see where they played any more difficult in the past then they do today. Aesthetics is a matter of tastes and I might agree with you on that point.  I don't know what the bill would run me as a member to maintain them.

I really like the new par 5 4th hole and agree with Jason's interpretation of it vs. the old 3rd. I think I would certainly restore the old tee and make the routing entirely flexible from day to day.

Finally, I've thought on this point for quite a while and there is no way anyone can verify this but it is my contention that the current set of greens maintained under modern agronomic conditions are/would be more fun AND challenging to play and better then 18 fully restored Herbert Strong greens playing as slowly they would need to.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 06:31:48 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2006, 06:14:10 PM »
"Our thoughts on Engineers run very strong and very deep. Unfortunately they have been singed with frustration over the years. We have had a very long relationship with the club, and we have tried to be very patient in our efforts to restore this gem. Unfortunately the membership does not appreciate what they have, and the sentiment amongst a lot of the members is that it is a mickey mouse course with wild greens that are 'UNFAIR'. " ~~Gil Hanse

Jason
It ain't arrogant if its true. The few members I spoke to had no idea what they had. You yourself have admitted the history of the golf course architecture is little or no interest to you...although I assume these regular discussions we have had has expanded your knowledge of the course - for example the sandy waste areas. At one point the club website claimed the course was Emmet's....it may still.

I understand why you are so sensative...I got the impression you were a little hurt by the direction the Seawane renovation topic went in the past, but if members were the only people able to comment on a given course, this website would not last long. Are you not a fan of freedom of speech?

I'm in the game and this site has given me the forum to comment on and share information on courses like Engineers, Aronimink, GCGC, Bethpage, Hollywood, Quaker Ridge, Columbia, Manor Richelieu, Hirono, Kirtland, Eastward Ho!, Oyster Harbors, etc. Fortunately I don't have to pay dues at all these courses.

I'm actually optimistic but Rome wasn't built in a day, it takes time to spread the word about some of these great old designs and the potential they have, but I'm confident that eventually most will appreciate the historical significance and architectural potential although there will always be a few who don't care....there is nothing that can be done about that.

We do agree...Engineers was a great course in 1917, it was a great course in 1970 and 2004, and I'm certain it is a great course today.

You've been involved with or observed two re-design projects now (Emmet's Seawane and Strong's Engineers)...based upon what you've observed what did these clubs do right and what did they do wrong? May I suggest that your next membership be at a course designed by Hal Purdy.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2006, 06:33:55 PM »
Geoffrey
Is difficulty the determining factor when deciding if a hole or feature should be restored?

Difficulty, aesthetics, strategic interest, historic significance, uniqueness...there can be many reasons why you might restore (or preserve).

On the difficulty front the bunker between the old 8th and 11th was certainly more difficult. The greenside bunkers behind the 1st green were more penal. The steep sandy waste bunker at the 9th and 10th was more difficult.

"Finally, I've thought on this point for quite a while and there is no way anyone can verify this but it is myt contention that the current set of greens maintained under modern agronomic conditions are/would be more fun AND challenging to play then 18 fully restored Herbert Strong greens playing as slowly they would need to."

Its too bad you didn't see the greens prior to their recontouring, but based on their comments about those old greeens I think Gil Hanse and Tom Doak would disagree with your assessment. Too many greens with character are being altered because of the stimpmeter....its a damn shame, just think what could have been done with all that money.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2006, 10:28:39 PM »
Jason
If it is true its not ARROGANT. Your reaction to these discusions is IGNORANT.

You shouldn't take these debates so personally.



« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 10:43:31 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2006, 10:45:56 PM »
Tom MacWood said:

"Evidently you didn't like my answer. You asked the 'ultimate question: "If that course was restored exactly to the way Strong built it would it play today as good as most everyone seems to think it does now?" I said the original course was better, the routing was better as I explained. Perhaps if you were more familiar with the course you could appreciate my response better."

Tom MacWood:

As I'd hoped I think your opinion on the subject of Engineers following Tripp Davis's project has been shown for what it is---baseless.

You keep reminding me I know nothing about Engineers but you tell me the course used to play better than it does today and yet you have never even seen the course following Tripp Davis's project.

I don't believe there's anyone on here who doesn't see through your criticism now.

The same was true of your criticism of Aronimink. You were criticial of the way the restoration went and yet you've never even seen the golf course.

It's just laughable you actually think you know the golf course without ever having been to it. Criticizing the projects at Engineers and Aronimink the way you have without even seeing them pretty much kills any credibility you had. Don't bother trying to rationalize that away somehow---it's not worth it.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2006, 10:47:43 PM »
Jason
Thats wonderful...I'm happy for you. Things are good why do you allow  these golf architectural issues to upset you? Enjoy your golf (and flowers) and let others debate the finer points of GCA.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 10:55:39 PM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2006, 10:54:33 PM »

As I'd hoped I think your opinion on the subject of Engineers following Tripp Davis's project has been shown for what it is---baseless.


TE
You crack me up. Do you think you are qualified to say anyone's opinion of Engineers is baseless? I get the impression your architectural archives won't be devoting much space to Herbert Strong. Yikes.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2006, 10:58:20 PM »
Regarding the old bunker between current #9 and #12, I am injecting my opinion based upon obsevation.  The last series of storms required quite a few hours of bunker maintenance--the bunkers do not have those stupid liners that eventually become injury hazards to golfers wrists.  The severity of the the slope between the greens would result in washouts.  I am cerain that they would restore this if a few GCA's would pony up for the maintenance!  As for the difference in the greens--they are currently better than ever before--more pins with strategic implications.  For the better player, the front bunker on #6 was never in play--a shot towards the back of the green would spin down to the pin--now you have to worry about being on the wrong level--you need to think about placement.  Jason has pointed out how #4 plays much better.  I have played old #3 and it was pretty much a nothing hole--3 wood and then SW--though it was penal on right misses--good players are not going to miss this green right with a SW intheir hands.

T_MacWood

Re:To MacWood or Not MacWood (Ran too)
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2006, 11:37:40 PM »
Robert
Regarding the fate of the old 3rd I'm not sure the play of better players should be the determining factor and it doesn't sound like you've played it too frequently. Give it a chance.

I'll take the old 3rd and '2 or 20' and the original routing.

If the cost of maintaining that bunker is too much why not eliminate the two extra holes you now maintain?


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back