[T_MacWood]

TE
Re-read my reply #97 to Rich. While SPAB and similar organizations are good models for preservation and protection of our historic designs, I do not believe we should follow their guidelines to the letter.  Intelligent modification - taking into account the unique aspects of golf architecture - is what I favor.

We can also learn from these organizations by looking at their methods, why have they been successful and how have they survived so long?

If I'm not mistaken Rich has always advocated the idea of change and redesign as general rule. When discussing issues of preserving and restoring classic courses he often takes the contrarian position. I'm surprised you would fall into that camp. Then again, now that I think about it, perhaps you two do have more in common on these issues than one would have thought.  

What was wrong with the way Cypress Point's bunkers performed?  

I'm still not sure how you reconcile your support for the rebuilding/remodelling of the wild greens at Engineers with your support for restoring even wilder contours at the 12th at GCGC.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"the inherent purpose of its existence -- to play golf on it given the golf and architectural sensibilities of the current times."

Tom Paul:  I clipped this out of your post above because it is the crux of this argument that never seems to end.

If you extend your statement too far, one could argue that every course needs updating to current times.  I'm sure you understand that would be even more tragic than leaving some of them alone.

My view is that NOT EVERY GOLF COURSE needs to be updated to current times and especially to current "architectural sensibilities", that is precisely how we've lost a bunch of great work.”

TomD:

When I said that, what I was pointing out is that Tom MacWood’s recommendation that SPAB’s credo and manifesto (part of the theme of his entire Arts and Crafts essay of how Morris/Hutchinson/A&C primarily influenced "Golden Age" golf architecture) somehow applies to golf course architecture is inherently contradictory. And not just that, it appears he does not appreciate or even understand what the Wm Morris SPAB manifesto clearly and actually said.

Read what it in part says;

“In early times this kind of forgery was impossible, because knowledge failed the builders, or perhaps because instinct held them back. If repairs were needed, if ambition or piety pricked on to change, that change was of necessity wrought in the unmistakable fashion of the time; a church of the eleventh century might be added to or altered in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, or even the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries; but every change, whatever history it destroyed, left history in the gap, and was alive with the spirit of the deeds done midst its fashioning. The result of all this was often a building in which the many changes, though harsh and visible enough, were, by their very contrast, interesting and instructive and could by no possibility mislead.”

What does that say? What does it mean when it mentions ‘that change was of necessity wrought on the unmistakable fashion of the time; a church of the eleventh century might be added to or altered in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth of even seventeenth or eighteenth centuries…”?

The manifesto of Morris and SPAB goes on to say by these very contrasts, interesting and instructive as they are could not possibly mislead.

Is this not advocacy for waves and waves through the eras of juxtaposed redesigns within a single entity-----eg a building or cathedral or a golf course?   Is that not completely similar or even synonymous to what I just said about the current sensibilities of golf and architecture of the current time--or any time?

I’m talking here only about MacWood’s constant analogy to SPAB’s ideas, credos and manifestos and how they should be applied to golf course architecture, nothing more.

If the guy would just finally come to recognize and admit to the fallacies of the analogies he’s been using on here, then, and only then can we get on to a discussion of the way some architecture probably really should be treated in the future.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Re-read my reply #97 to Rich. While SPAB and similar organizations are good models for preservation and protection of our historic designs, I do not believe we should follow their guidelines to the letter.  Intelligent modification - taking into account the unique aspects of golf architecture - is what I favor."

Tom MacWood:

I don't need to reread your post #97. Now you are slowly but finally beginning to admit to the very things we have been telling you all along about your entire A&C and SPAB analogies and assumptions and conclusions as they apply to golf architecture, golden age golf architecture or golf architecture of any time.

Of course we shouldn't follow SPAB's guidelines to the letter. Of course we shouldn't just modify them. What we should do is recognize that they really don't even apply to golf course architecture and its preservation as we all probably see it should be treated in the future. We see and you should see also that in fact Morris' SPAB manifesto is apparently largely contradictory to the best preservation or restoration of golf course architecture.

You need to admit to this, if, at least for the reason that the very things that SPAB's manifesto actually recommends are actually remarkably counterproductive to golf architectural preservation or good restoration.

As Rich said, even a RTJ or Rees redesign juxtaposed onto a classic course appears to be the very thing of an era that SPAB's manifesto say is interesting and instructive and is the very opposite of misleading!

For God Sakes, man, would you rather see Aronimink's bunkering restored by Ron Prichard to Ross's drawings and plans or would you rather see Aronimink the way it was after RTJ completely redesigned all Ross's bunkers on that golf course.

What you need to do and quick is get real and admit to the fallacies of your analogies and arguements. Or at least admit that you don't understand Wm Morris's SPAB manifesto particularly well, certainly as it might apply to golf course architecture.  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

This part of your last post, the rest of it, I couldn't agree with more;

"My view is that NOT EVERY GOLF COURSE needs to be updated to current times and especially to current "architectural sensibilities", that is precisely how we've lost a bunch of great work.

One modern architectural sensibility is that every club wants a huge practice range close to their clubhouse.  I've seen five or six examples where clubs have converted two old holes to a practice range and tried to build "replacement" holes out on the far end of the course on new land ... and every one of those moves has been an unmitigated failure as far as building new holes of similar quality to those lost.  But none of the clubs are willing to sacrifice their beautiful new practice range for two good holes.

Not every club needs to keep up with the times.  Most clubs have memberships with a wide range of handicaps.  Their course does not need to remain as challenging for the top 5% of players as it was two generations ago, if it's still fine for everybody else.

[Forrest Richardson]

This is all very interesting, but I would really like to hear more about Tom Paul cornering a lady park ranger.

[T_MacWood]

TE
SPAB is a good analogy. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings was founded to counteract highly destructive restoration by many Victorian architects. Today in golf we need something similar to counteract the highly destructive redesign and remodeling often sold to us as restoration.

And although SPAB was the first organization to promote preservation (and for that reason a very important one), its not the only organization...as I have pointed on this thread there are plenty of analogous groups dealing with preservation and protection different types of designs and different disciplines (beyond architecture). You have the National Trust, the World Heritage List, the National Registry, the Venice Charter, the Florence Charter, and the Nara Document on Authenticity to name a few.

You need to get over your irrational reaction to anything that may have some slight connection to the A&C Movement. We aren't talking about A&C Movement, we are discussing historic preservation today and controlling unnecessary redesign and destructive restoration today. IMO there is a need for preserving and protecting our most important designs.  

[T_MacWood]

For God Sakes, man, would you rather see Aronimink's bunkering restored by Ron Prichard to Ross's drawings and plans or would you rather see Aronimink the way it was after RTJ completely redesigned all Ross's bunkers on that golf course.

I don't want to see either. I want to prevent RTJ's redesign in the first place....so we don't need Prichard restoring something that was never built or intended to be built. I want to prevent the redesign of important courses by Rulewich, Fazio, Rees and Tripp in the name of restoration. I want to prevent the original work of MacKenzie/Hunter & Wilson/Flynn/Valentine from being blown up.

[Forrest Richardson]

Penn Jillette (Penn & Teller) once said in a speech:

"In Vegas we like to blow things up. Everything is temporary. When a casino gets about 15 years old we put a bunch of dynamyte in it and we blow the sh*t out of it. But, before we do, we get a film crew to document it. And then, when we have the film, we erect a huge sign with lights and we broadcast the film on the sign so everyone on the Strip can see it — over and over. And then, when the sign gets to be too old — another few years down the road — we blow the sh*t out of it...but, before we do..."

[TEPaul]

"You need to get over your irrational reaction to anything that may have some slight connection to the A&C Movement. We aren't talking about A&C Movement, we are discussing historic preservation today and controlling unnecessary redesign and destructive restoration today. IMO there is a need for preserving and protecting our most important designs."

Tom MacWood:

This isn't about the A&C movement. This is about SPAB, its manifesto and how that would apply to golf course architecture.

Apparently you don't even understand what the SPAB manifesto says in that vein.

Read it again and read the posts from today again starting wiht Rich Gooddale's. Rich Goodale is absolutely right---eg it could hardly say any clearer that redesign of ancient buildings in the artistic sensibilites of various eras is not misleading, that it's instructive and interesting, apparently as long as some veneer of former times is maintained somehow. That manifesto clearly says as it would be applied to architecture that redesigning is OK in the artistic sensibilities of current times, just as long as someone doesn't try to interpret in a  restoration attempt the artistic sensibilities of some former times. How much sense does that make when applied to golf course architecture today? Basically no sense at all.

I think we have finally uncovered just how skewed your thinking is on this subject, Tom, but the irony is you apparently don't even understand what Morris's SPAB manifesto says in that it actually advocates redesigning something like ancient buildings and ancient cathedrals to the sensibilities of current times. Is that what we want for classic golf architecture?

Why do you avoid that fact and how can you deny it? It says it as clear as the noon day sun in that passage I quoted above from MORRIS' SPAB MANIFESTO!!

How is it possible that Morris and the SPAB manifesto felt that an attempt at restoring the ancient look and feel of an ancient building was WORSE than redesigning it to current artistic sensibilities?

Is that what any of us want for our classic golf courses? I'm tempted to say be careful what you hope for but in your case I think you need a bit of an education in understanding the very thing you advocate as an analogy---eg Morris's SPAB.  

The irony here is so remarkable as to be just laughable.

[TEPaul]

" I want to prevent the redesign of important courses by Rulewich, Fazio, Rees and Tripp in the name of restoration. I want to prevent the original work of MacKenzie/Hunter & Wilson/Flynn/Valentine from being blown up."

We all want to prevent that on here. But if most all Aronimink's fairway bunkers were redesigned by RTJ, as they were, then what's so bad about restoring Ross's Aronimink bunker drawings on that golf course?

[T_MacWood]

TE:This isn't about the A&C movement. This is about SPAB, its manifesto and how that would apply to golf course architecture.

Is that right? Not about the A&C movement? Go back re-read your rant to Tom Doak...this how you began:
"When I said that, what I was pointing out is that Tom MacWood’s recommendation that SPAB’s credo and manifesto [when did I recommend the entire credo / manifesto?] (part of the theme of his entire Arts and Crafts essay of how Morris/Hutchinson/A&C primarily influenced "Golden Age" golf architecture) somehow applies to golf course architecture is inherently contradictory. And not just that, it appears he does not appreciate or even understand what the Wm Morris SPAB manifesto clearly and actually said."

Followed in your next post:
"Tom MacWood: I don't need to reread your post #97. Now you are slowly but finally beginning to admit to the very things we have been telling you all along about your entire A&C and SPAB analogies and assumptions and conclusions as they apply to golf architecture, golden age golf architecture or golf architecture of any time."

For some odd reason you are unable to separate preservation from the A&C movement. Please get grip on yourself, this thread is not about the A&C Movement or the SPAB manifesto, this thread is about PRESERVING AND PROTECTING IMPORTANT DESIGNS and looking to organizations like UNESCO World Heritage List and SPAB and the National Registry for guidance.

You are the only one consumed by the manifesto. For some reason preservation is something you can't quite get your mind around....perhaps its your long standing defense of the Merion bunker project or  the redesign of Aronimink, and your general support for the Rossification of Donald Ross…and now your apparent defense at CPC (you never did answer why you feel those bunkers were not performing properly) and your recent support for the rebuilding of the greens at Engineers.

TE:Apparently you don't even understand what the SPAB manifesto says in that vein.

I know exactly what manifesto says and where I think it applies to golf architecture. For example the idea that repair (or benign restoration) is preferable to destructive restoration. That when ‘repairs are made, new material should always be fitted to the old and not the old adapted to accept the new. In this way the ancient fabric will survive.’ In other words we should not be blowing up all the bunkers at Merion or Cypress Point or Banff.

Sensitively repair the bunkers if need be but don’t destroy the original work. And if there are missing bunkers to be restored they should be made to match the evolved work, we shouldn’t be digging up all the old bunkers to match the new ones. And lastly respect for age, that gracefully evolved features deserve respect, and that age confer a beauty of its own.

From the UNESCO World Heritage I like the idea of recognizing the best of the best: “outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history" In fact I think should be the first step…recognizing the outstanding designs that should be preserved and protected.

I like the way the National Trust publicizes the outstanding works of architecture or garden art or natural preserves. Publicity and education are important components of preservation IMO.  

I like the way the Florence Charter addresses the preservation of historic gardens: “The historic garden is an architectural composition who constituents are primarily vegetal and therefore living….Thus its appearance reflects the perpetual balance between the cycles of the seasons, the growth and decay of nature and the desire of the artist and craftsman to keep it permanently unchanged.”

And this: “No restoration work and, above all, no reconstruction work on an historic garden shall be undertaken without thorough prior research to ensure that such work is scientifically executed and which involve everything from excavation to the assembling of records relating to the garden in question and to similar gardens, Before any practical work starts, a project must be prepared on the basis of said research and must be submitted to a group of experts for joint examination and approval.”

And from the Venice Charter: "The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation, Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based upon respect for the original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins.”

We can take a little from all these organizations. You need to open your mind. Like many of these exchanges you obsess over a relatively minor point (the SPAB manifesto) and miss the big picture (preservation of historic designs).

Got to take it easy (easy skankin).

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I have no problem whatsoever with any preservation organization or effort regarding golf course architecture or a select few golf courses of significance. I'd very much like to see it done. I merely question the potential effectiveness of it the way you outline it. Like anything else in this area preservation efforts and organizations won't be effective in this area unless they get directly involved with the clubs and the way they individually work, the same way some of us try to do that on an individual basis now. You need to make that jump in understanding or at least admit to it.

On the Merion bunker project your explanation above of my position on it is completely wrong and that fact is reflected over and over again in the old threads on this website. Or you could call the club and those I know over there who were responsible for the project and talk to them about it but obviously you never bothered to do that either or refuse to. Why is that? That you completely misunderstand that or missed that does not surprise me in the slightest. You just seem to continue to have an agenda of criticism about projects you really don't know. How would you even remotely know them if you've never even been to them?

Although these discussions between us have been long I think they are necessary as they clearly show your growing lack of credibility by refusing to deal with the reality of clubs and restoration projects. All you seem capable of doing, to this point, is condemning the term and the concept and the projects and architects for afar. That will never do, and I believe more and more on here are beginning to understand that of you.

[T_MacWood]

If the organization is formed properly, including the right people behind it, and publicized properly the clubs will come IMO. But thats all easier said than done.

All I know on the Merion bunker project is what you were saying publically on this site. You were defintiely taking the contrary position (defending the project) to Mike Cirba and others. To this day you continue to be critical of Mike Cirba on that issue.

IMO one clear thing these discussions show is that you have an irrational reaction to anything I say or do.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

I would be seriously interested in learning what you might do on this subject, if you ruled the world, and/or created SPOGA (the Society for the Protection Of Golf Achitecture).

Specifically:

--What would be your manifesto be?  (250 words or less, please)
--Which courses would you designate to "protect?" (preliminary list only, subject to #3 below).
--Who would be on the Committee who would chose not only which courses to protect, but also general policy and strategy within the framework of the manifesto?  (no specific names required here, although any you might offer would be appreciated.  Generalizations (e.g. prominent restoration specialist, tuned-in touring pro, etc.) would also be welcome)).
--If (in the vein of the great Gary Larson cartoon),you actually caught one of the "cars" (courses) that you chased, what would you do with it and how?

I probably have some other questions, but will await your reply, fur the noo.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

"If the organization is formed properly, including the right people behind it, and publicized properly the clubs will come IMO. But thats all easier said than done."

Tom MacWood;

I couldn't agree with you more. But it's time to get beyond the theoretical and talk about how it would work in detail and within the structure and administration of clubs.

You're telling me your opinion of my position on the Merion bunkers is because I've questioned Mike Cirba's position? That's really beautiful. That smacks of an agenda on your part to sort of tow some party line on here about the Merion project. That only underscores just how little you personally really do know about Merion and its bunker project.

With all due respect to Mike Cirba, who is a pretty good friend of mine, he had no real knowledge of that course, its bunkers or their evolution or condition before that project. He did not know what was going on with those bunkers before the project. I doubt he'd ever even set foot on Merion at that point. To date he may've been over there less than a handful of times.

Did he speak with anyone there before the project, during it or after it? I doubt it.

I've known that course for thirty years and really well, having been over there hundreds of times.

I was asked by what may be termed a dissenter to the bunker project before it was done to get involved and go speak with the project committee about what was going to be done with the bunkers.

I did that. I even took Kye Goalby over there with me because he had worked on Flynn bunkers with Doak/Macdonald at Atlantic City and he had what we felt was some great knowledge and information. Before that and after Hanse and Kittleman were sort of relieved from the bunker restoration project the club reached out to Crenshaw and then Coore, actually at separate times and in separate places. For various reasons Ben went really ballistic and Bill was sort of in a corner because of that. I sat within two miles of Merion having lunch with Bill just pleading with him to at least go over there and talk with them because they'd asked him to. I told him he could save those great old Merion bunkers if he'd just go over there. He just wouldn't do it. I didn't really understand back then why he really couldn't but I understand now, even if I still wish he at least could've just gone over there and talked to them. He probably would've said what we ended up saying---redo the sanding and drainage and just fix the surrounds that were broken down of falling apart. One thing nobody who knows anything about bunkers or Merion's bunkers before that project will deny and can tell you is that those bunkers needed capital maintenance in the worst way in every aspect and part of them.

Kye and I met with the committee, the chairman of Golf and Green, the super and the head pro on the course and went out and analyzed those bunkers before the project.

Our recommendation was that they simple do two of three restoration steps and not all three. We recommended that they completely redo the sanding and the drainage, both of which had totally failed and simply fix the bunker surrounds rather than taking them completely apart, throwing away all their turf and starting all over again reforming and reshaping the surrounds.

Kye even jumped into the fronting bunker on #12 and #13 and showed them exactly how to fix the some surround breakdowns. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

Well, apparently Fazio and Macdonald were near on hand and that apparently may not have been the way they saw it. The committee went along with their bunker project recommendations and not ours.

So don't tell me what my position on those bunkers and that project was simply because of whatever I've said to Mike Cirba on here about them. Frankly most all of what Mike Cirba knows about those bunkers and that project he heard from me anyway, and he knows that and I'm sure would be more than willing to admit it. Compared to me he doesn't know shit about the history and evolution of those bunkers, their condition before the project or the recommendations made before the project. How would he, he didn't get involved with the club like I did either? He has said he used to drive down Ardmore Ave. and look at them both before and after from his car, but Mike is smart enough and honest enough to admit that doesn't and can't give him much understanding of those bunkers and that project.

All this just shows again how little you really do know about these things you so gratuitously criticize. More people need to realize how bogus you really are on some of the things you say and criticize, and just how little you get involved. That's what I'm going to continuosly point out on here and your take on my position on those bunkers is a great example of your lack of involvment and understanding.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In theory, ten wives might sound appealing.
In practice, I think I'll pass on the idea.

I agree, in theory, with Tom MacWood's desire.
But, in practice, it will never happen.

Clubs are too independent of one another.

I would think that the single most influential method for undertaking TM's idea would be the marriage of the USGA with the Architectural Societies. (DR, AWT, WF, SR, etc., etc.)

That combination could exert real influence in the world of golf if the marriage was properly crafted (read prenup)

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I have actually given the idea a little bit of thought over the last couple of years. I haven't written anything defining the organization or its objectives - I have studied  other similar organizations, their goals and objectives. I have some ideas on that but I think the definition and objectives should be a group effort.

As far who would be in it in a perfect world: Ron Whitten, Geoff Shackelford, Brad Klein, Daniel Wexler, Ran Morrissett, Craig Disher, Dunlop White, TE Paul, Rand Jerris, Jeff Mingay, etc. etc., there should be regional coverage if possible. The architectural historians dedicated to important architects: Bahto, Morrisson, Clouser, Turner, Naccarato, etc. Select architects both in and out of the ASGCA, select superindents, perhaps some players, retired and active, pro and am, etc.

I'm open to suggestions on how best to form the group. It might be wise to start small with a relatively small (but prominent) group to set and define the parameters and then expand out from there.

One of the questions is should it be international in scope...I think it probably should be.

The courses that should be protected should be decided by a group. I could see this society recognizing outstanding well preserved works, I could see it recognizing courses that are endangered, I could see it recognizing outstanding designs that have partially compromised or totally compromised or lost all togther.  

The issue of equipment and its impact should be addressed.

I see this organization as more oversight and educational, I don't see it being actively involved in projects or running a project (besides providing information and critical feedback).

[TEPaul]

"I agree, in theory, with Tom MacWood's desire.
But, in practice, it will never happen."

Patrick:

I agree in theory too with some of what MacWood says. But let me ask you something---how effective is this website and its contributors going to be helping to get done some of the things they'd like to see done if all they do is CONTRIBUTE in THEORY??  

Good things happen in practice, not in theory. You know that but I doubt Tom MacWood has figured that out yet. Everything he says on here indicates he hasn't.

[TEPaul]

"As far who would be in it in a perfect world: Ron Whitten, Geoff Shackelford, Brad Klein, Daniel Wexler, Ran Morrissett, Dunlop White, TE Paul, Rand Jerris, Jeff Mingay, etc. etc., there should be regional coverage if possible. The architectural historians dedicated to important architects: Bahto, Morrisson, Clouser, Naccarato, etc. Select architects both in and out of the ASGCA, select superindents, perhaps some players, retired and active, pro and am, etc."

Tom MacWood:

I am going to hold you to getting involved and helping see to it that that group (and more) does get organized and does start to directly get involved with clubs. The time has come to stop just talking that talk on here and begin to actually walk the walk.

I know you know what I mean by that. An initiative is starting now and I know you know what it is. Potentially, and if organized and structured correctly, it has the future capacity to do some great things in this area.

I'm going to hold you to help me and others make this happen. I'm going to watch your involvement (or lack of it) carefully and if you avoid this one I will continue to pound away on here about your gratuitous criticisms without getting involved.

Are you with me and what are you going to do about it? I'm publicly calling you out on this. Are you going to answer that call?

By the way, you can add Bob Crosby, Phil Young, Michael Hurzdan and particularly Craig Disher to that list. At this point they are probably more valuable to this effort than any of those listed above.

[ForkaB]

Thanks Tom MacW

I hope you take up Tom P's offer of help/challenge and consider Pat M's good ideas too.  I'm sure you'll find a lot of help in this project from GCA'ers--particulalry if and when it moves from a talking shop to an organisation that is actually doing something.  The idea of a European connection is an interesting one, but I'd focus on the US and Canada for now.  Over here, the resortation/renovation issue is not a big one with most golf clubs and or golfers.

[TEPaul]

"I see this organization as more oversight and educational, I don't see it being actively involved in projects or running a project (besides providing information and critical feedback)."

Tom MacWood:

Of course I like your ideas on this but this remark above is one I will probably take issue with you. It's a subject I've always taken issue with you on.

To take a group or organization like this from some nominal and inherently ineffectual group or organization to one that really will have an impact within clubs and on courses, this group will simply have to learn the ways and means of getting involved with clubs.

Clubs don't resist this kind of interest at all. Matter of fact if done intelligently they tend to welcome it.

What clubs do resist and practically every time is being gratuitously blamed and criticized both personally and generally by outsiders. Their reaction in that vein is almost alway identical. Their response is the same and it goes like this---"Who the hell are these outside people who think they can tell us more about our golf course than we can without ever really taking the time to come here and see it, know it and understand it?"

And they most certainly have a legitimate point there. To the extent that you or anyone else fail to recognize that is the extent that this type of organization will never work well. The idea is to get their respect and confidence enough to get inside the door and to understand what their concerns are. That's about half the battle.

To the extent this organization and those who are part of it can learn that, is the extent to which this kind of organization can be truly effective and successful, in my opinion.

And I'm not being theoretical here. The Merion bunker project threads, discussions and debates on here were the best example of this type of thing this website has ever known. I think much of them were a tragedy in preventing what might have been.

There was a time when I truly felt that Merion and its committee would've participated on here. But before they could do that they were totally slammed, criticized and practically personally damned by all kinds of contributors on here, including a good number who really don't know Merion and even some who'd never even been there.

Do we need that? Not if we are going to be effective in achieving some of the things we believe in.

Oh sure, I know, some on here will say that stultifies their ability to be honest and critical.

Well, I say let them take that somewhere else first and at least let this site and perhaps this outside organization at least get inside some doors first without just gratuitously pissing off committees and entire club memberships.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with Pat, something like this succeeding is a long shot. The only way an organization like this will succeed - IMO - is if it includes the likes of Whitten, Shackelford and Klein to give it credibility and some passive support from major golf magazines to give it exposure.

Although something like this could help support the archive intiative and the archive initiative would benefit preservation, I strongly believe that a preservation organization needs to be completely independent...completely independent from the USGA or ASGCA or any of the architectural groups and organizations. It should have representation from all these groups but it should not be associated with any of them.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I must have struck a nerve...sorry.

Now I'm a USGA hater, an amateur conspiracy theorist, not grown up, living in an ivory tower & outside the real world, need to split my approach on various issues (whatever that means), and believe the ASGCA and USGA are completely corrupt. Hmmm.

Either this is a good example of character assasination or I'm really skrewed up. Maybe both.

Calling Dr. Katz!

 

[Dr Katz]

Yes, Mr McWood, what may I do for you, please? I have openings in the next weeks. Would you want to schedule? You most assuredly are skrewed up.
Dr Katz

[T_MacWood]

Add bad speller to the list. Amateur conspiracy theorist AND poor speller. How does next Tuesday work?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()