[Jon Wiggett]

Just seen the photos Mark. Wow, the second one looks really good.

[Mark_Fine]

Cary,
The course was done in 1926.  Tillie called it "among the best of his creations".  As you know, a lot of Tillie's best were completed by that point in time.  

[Mark_Fine]

Sean (and everyone else),
Those last two photos in my post at 4:23 were from Fenway (the 1st one) and Somerset Hills (the 2nd one) just to show some comparisons.  Interesting isn't it.  If you studied all three courses, you would see the similarities.  

Mark

[Doug Braunsdorf]

  Make the course better!  Sorry to be so flip, but I mean it.  Turning a bland, out of place bunker into a better one makes the bunker and the course better.  Don't worry what "Tillie would have done," or what "Tillie would do now."  You'll never know.  To coin a phrase, "Just Do It."

Jim-

  With all due respect, I do not care for this course of action.  There is too much gray area involved here, and this exact reason is discussed on here (insensitive "restoration") at many other clubs.  

  I feel it simply sets a bad precedent, in that it is okay just to go and make wholesale changes to the golf course.  Working backwards to posts from yesterday, I feel more safe in keeping with either restoring to a defined point in time (ex. 1926, etc) or restoring the course to Tillinghast's as-drawn plans.  

Taking this a step further, how would you feel about major or wholesale changes to your golf course, which I have seen in pictures, and looks GREAT, in, say, 80 years or so?  Admittedly, I don't know how your club is organized or if you have clauses and things written into your charter in order to protect the golf course from architectural changes.  I am simply saying that once precedent has been set and the door has been opened, it's difficult to shut it.  

  Now that I know which course this is, I can tell you the management/ownership structure is a little different from a private club  .  I am not certain at present if they have a green committee, President, etc. In this case, it may be a good thing.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark,

One thing is for certain, this is a nice problem to have. How to bring something back to grandeur!

I am jealous of Rick & Bob & can't wait to get up that way. Did you get my email today?

[Paul Payne]

Doug,

In general I do agree with your position (along with others who have posted to leave the bunkers as they are), but this does beg the question "can a great architect leave weak points within a course?". I would think the answer to be yes.

If one can assume that nobody is perfect, and things can change between whats on paper or in the mind, and what becomes executed on the ground, and what happens between initial construction and opening day, there are a lot of variables in play.

There is a part of me that says; if you recognize a flaw on a great course you should fix it. The problem becomes how do you get into the head of a dead guy to determine how he would go about executing the repair.

[Scott Witter]

Mark:

"These bunkers varied dramatically from all the others on the golf course which were dramatic in shape, depth and contour.  We were debating what to do with these bunkers because they supposedly were never touched.  Old aerials and photos seemed to confirm this"

"Old aerials and photos seemed to confirm this"  This is tough to argue against and some valuable research material to assist with your decision in my view.  I wonder, and though you didn't mention it, where do the other bunkers on the course measure up to what Tillie did?  Are they original?  Have they been reworked, sounds like may be they have been?  Dopes the club like those other bunkers? or do they even understand what they have?  Where/how do these other bunker stand with respect to those aerial photos you have?  It would seem that you clearly could develop a sound a foundation of what is and isn't Tillie's based around thes photos and drawings you noted...yes?

If these bunkers were "never touched" who touched the remaining bunkers and did they use/follow good research material?

I am also thinking that Philip Young will be a good sounding board.

Best of luck and do keep us inquiring minds in the know

[Lou_Duran]

Even the master classical designers did not get what they wanted right the first time (MacDonald at NGLA, Ross at Pinehurst, Dye at Crooked Stick  ).

Determine how these bunkers would fit the rest of the design best, and in the best traditions of the designer (as if he was there today), attempt to build them accordingly.  I am assuming that the membership is looking for the best course possible consistent with that style as opposed to what might have been there at the outset.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Paul-

  That's the whole crux of the problem.  Yes, an architect could leave weak points within a course.  
  I still prefer both avenues of thought; a fixed point in time and/or what is in the final plans.  Now that I work backwards on GCA, it was Aronimink that took this route (using Ross' plans as-drawn)

  Both approaches have merit.  

  I know of some clubs that went forward with the idea of modernizing/renovating their course, without using the 'fixed point in time' benchmark or as-drawn plans.  That is fine for them, it's their course, and I'm not a member, thus I have no say.  

  I have many reservations about the statement "if you recognize a flaw on a great course you should fix it", just for the reason that it's very open-ended and subject to interpretation.  I like the spirit of the statement, and in the right hands it can be a wonderful thing, but overall, I feel that in the dynamic of a green committee or membership where members are changing, this can be a very dangerous thing, and I am only speaking from what I have observed on here, because again, once the door is opened, it can be hard to close.  

  I'm hesitant to try to define 'right hands for the job', because again, this leaves the door open as well, which is why I again go back to either a fixed point in time or as-drawn plans.  

  One of the things I have learned on here from one of the 'senior' members of this board is that there can be little regard for the past.  I'm still thinking about this in conext of this question/post and will elaborate later, but wanted to throw it out for the group as a whole.  

[Paul Payne]

Seems most of us agree that this is a delicate situation and not something a greens committee should just go charging into headlong.

If it were me on the committee, I would want to start by verifying the pedigree of all the other bunkers (which sound like they are as a group more uniform). Then if I could verify that those were original I think it becomes easier to ask "should the two bunkers in question be rennovated to become more similar to the others.

This is all assuming of course that nobody can identify a particular reason why the bunkers in question may have been designed the way they are.

I as well would like to hear how some of the local historians on this site would handle this situation.

[cary lichtenstein]

When we did our designs, after they were printed, I can assure you that if given the opportunity, we would have tweaked a great many and made them better, both in the design area and the color area.

Not everything comes out as good as you intend, nor do you have the time or the budget in the beginning that you might have at a later date.

I also think that alot of this restoration while legit in many cases is way overblown in others. If you can fix the flaws and make the course way better, why not do that, so long as you do not compromise the intergrity of the original design.

I played Highland Links this month, and while the course is just wonderful, I thought the bunker work just didn't fit and could have been alot better.

[Ted Kramer]

Those bunkers don't look anything like what I would expect from AWT. I understand why this is a delicate issue, but I would vote for changing/improving those bunkers.

-Ted

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks for all the comments guys.  Isn't it an interesting process to try to figure out what best to do!  

Just so everyone knows, the bunkers on the course are essentially untouched (except from normal maintenance, neglect, care, evolution,... over the years.  They were not "rebuilt".  Some greens, however, had been rebuilt by Fazio and some of the surrounds for these greens were changed.  But for the most part, the majority of the bunkers look the same now as depicted in the old aerials (many have lost sand and/or were left to go to grass) but they are original.  We will be rebuilding the greens that were changed as best we can to greens that are more representative of the Tillinghast ones that remain on the course.  Fazio changed about half of them    Unfortunately, once an old green is completely rebuilt (redesigned as well) there is little chance to restore it.  You just do the best you can with the information left behind.  

Philip,
I did not get your email?  Please send again.  

Here is a quote from Tillie along with the name of the golf course:

"I maintain that Suneagles course ranks among the best of my creations".  

Here is Tillie's plan for the course:



Most of you may not have heard of it.  That is because it is owned by the military and is private for retired Army officers.  The Tillinghast society has offered to do whatever they can to help make sure it remains a golf course.  The base where it is located is slated to close in about four years.  Though not 100% sure, we now believe it will remain a golf course regardless of the fate of the base.  Permits, zoning, etc. should assure this but these days you never know.

Tillie was quite proud of this design and spoke highly about it in several articles/writings.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark, I'll send it this evening, it is a rather large one (KB size).

You should post the photo of the book cover with the Suneagle on it!

[Jim_Coleman]

Douglas:
   I realize that I am in a small minority here.  However, I do not believe golf courses are pieces of art to be cherished and admired.  They are meant for golf to be played upon, and, because golf has changed over the last 75 years, 75 year old golf courses must change too.
    I started a thread last winter regarding changes to Pete Dye's masterpiece, Teeth of the Dog.  Massive changes were made to the course -  bunkers added; bunkers removed; greens totally recontoured, even moved; angles of attack changed; of course, much more length.  A total hatchet job,  except one thing.  The changes were made by Pete Dye 30 years after he built the course.  Is the original architect the only one allowed to make substantive changes?  My opinion, no.  Hire a good consultant (be it Mark Fine, Tom Doak, or (God forbid) Jones or Fazio, and work with him.  Will the course be made perfect?  No.  Will it be better?  Probably subject to debate, but hopefully yes.  
   If Tillie built a crappy bunker, fix it;  if Flynn left out a bunker that would improve a hole, put it in!  If moving a green on a Ross course will improve a hole, move it!  If you want to see great art work, go to the Louvre.  If you want to play the best golf course you can, then make the effort.
    Sorry, that's my opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

Here is a picture of the cover of the membership book from 1926.  A rare find.  The USGA does not even have a copy nor does the golf club;

[ed_getka]

Mark,
   Do you have any idea why those 2 aberrant bunkers are so shallow? Drainage issue perhaps? I would bring the bunkers in line with what the majority of the course looks like. Being an original bunker is no excuse for mediocrity.
   Good luck with the project. I would love to hear more about how you go about doing the work on the greens.

[Mark_Fine]

Ed,
There are drainage issues on the golf course but that didn't stop Tillie from building up some of the other bunkers.  If you saw the stretch of shared fairway bunkers between #4 and #5 on what is basically flat land, you would be amazed.  They are huge.  They were all left to go to grass but the bunkers still remain.  Check this out!  



Note:  The green on this hole in the background is #5.  It is one of the greens that was changed.  Lovely mounding around it    That will all be redone when we rebuild that green.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Would taking deep core samples from in and around the bunkers you pictured help solve the mystery ?

[Kyle Harris]

Surprised nobody brought this possibility up.

Is it possible that the construction crew just royally f*cked up these bunkers during construction and that they were built after Tillie last visited?

Have you checked what is under the bunkers? Immovable boulder? Some other obstacle to construction in the twenties?

Many's the slip 'tween the cup and the lips.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Yes we have pulled some plugs.  Those bland bunkers are pretty much what they once were.  Not too much changed (they shrunk a little and were always very shallow).

Kyle,
It is very possible.  We have a similar situation out at Cherry Hills on a few of the holes on the back corner of the golf course.  We joke around but are half serious that Flynn was on the train home when these holes were finished.  It is so hard to say and we have found no proof to validate our suspicions in either case.  

For those of you wondering, in our Master Plan, we decided to recommend rebuilding these few bunkers in the style of all the others on the golf course as that is what we believe Tillie would have wanted.  If they were at Winged Foot or San Francisco GC or any other great Tillie course, they would be changed over night.  Maybe we will be critized for it.  But if you knew me, you would know I'm basically a purist and we would not do this if we didn't think it was the best thing to do for the design.  What is there is really poor, no depth, no character, no soul, like all the others.  They look lost and out of place and the new bunkers will fit in great once finished.  
There probably isn't a right or wrong answer.  Sometimes you just have to take a position.  

Thanks for the ideas and thoughts everyone!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

If you took deep core samples from outside the bunker lines you might discover a bunker configuration previously unthought of.

If the core samples reveal nothing, then you're back to the dilema, but, at least you will have eliminated a possibility.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
That is what we did looking for sand.  We do the same when we look to expand greens, etc.  Sometimes it is kind of like looking at the rings on an old tree that has been cut down.  You can see some history in the cores.  

[ed_getka]

Mark,
   In the big picture, is that supposed to be sand all the way over to the fairway edge?

[Mark_Fine]

Ed,
I assume you are talking about the grassed over bunkers.  Yes that all was sand!!
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()