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.


Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bunkering Signatures
« on: September 21, 2006, 12:58:40 AM »
Today, a group of us played a practice round at Wee Burn in Darien, CT.  Without knowing who officially was involved in the new bunker and tee work, the group consensus was unanimous on the architect.  Why would an architect build the same bunkers on a Travis, Emmett, Ross, Banks, And Duane course?  And I am not sure about Bedford's architect, but Tony(the head professional at Bedford) quickly identified the architect on record for the new construction.  And the consensus of the group was that the bunkers looked out of place and looked better at Brea Burn.  On the 0ther hand, the new tees are awesome and have restored long missing shot values.  However, the real question--why are some architects so constrained within a single style?

« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 12:59:30 AM by Robert Mercer Deruntz »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2006, 11:42:54 AM »
Rob,

If we guess the architect, can we get GCA bonus points?   ;) ;D

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2006, 12:29:42 PM »


Ken Dye :'(

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2006, 12:39:33 PM »
However, the real question--why are some architects so constrained within a single style?

Two reasons:

1) No sense of humor

2) No sense of Guiness

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Andy Hodson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2006, 01:10:56 PM »
A better sense of Guiness would help all architects.
I think.

Aaron Katz

Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2006, 02:35:26 PM »
My guess is Rees Jones.  

The reason:  Rees has the uncanny ability to channel the architects of old, each of whom tell him, "I would have used 'Rees's pieces' bunkers if I'd known how to build 'em."

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2006, 02:44:33 PM »
Its a shame because from what (little) I know Wee Burn is/was one of Dev Emmet's best preserved works.  Its a really nice golf course and when I played it about 3-4 years ago, the bunkers were fine.

PS- Mike Cirba- I was at Leewood CC on Tuesday (Babe Ruth's home course).  It is also a Dev Emmit 6000 yarder built on a large sidehill that was substantially changed by Stephen Kay.  In the locker room there is a very old photo of good old Dev without his funny hat and with his son.  Thre goes the myth about Dev!

Mike_Cirba

Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2006, 03:39:54 PM »
PS- Mike Cirba- I was at Leewood CC on Tuesday (Babe Ruth's home course).  It is also a Dev Emmit 6000 yarder built on a large sidehill that was substantially changed by Stephen Kay.  In the locker room there is a very old photo of good old Dev without his funny hat and with his son.  Thre goes the myth about Dev!

Geoff,

Of course he had a son.  All the men at that time had to keep up "appearances", and I'm sure he had a wife, as well.   ;D

It does nothing to dispel the fun, tongue-in-cheek GCA myth, and knowing the creativity and artistry of many gay men, I'm certain that the number of present-day gay architects probably reflects overall society at large in modern times, as well.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 03:42:13 PM by Mike Cirba »

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2006, 04:33:24 PM »
Corey Miller is correct.  I agree that it was one of the best  preserved Emmett courses.  It was beginning to play short in recent years, but quite a few holes have the room to lengthen which Dye has done a very good job.  A few greens could be expanded to their original sizes, but the slopes have not been changed.  And then there  is the bunkering!

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2006, 05:07:12 PM »


Straight from the Ken Dye bag of renovation tricks.   I am familiar with one classic era course that had two architects work on it.  He said he would "match their style".  The only style he was matching was his version of Tillie at WF which is a flashed sand maintanance nightmare with pam Anderson out of scale collagen lips around all the bunkers.

Not sure how he gets work but it is clear he has kept others employed erasing his renovations.  Sorry about that, I think he does call the restorations.

I would recommend a trip to NNJ where you can see two Banks courses built at the same time and very close by... One ECCC, restored with care and precision by two guys that care to get the look right (Hanse, Bahto) and another Rock Spring where it looks like Dye was trying recreate Fazio at Hudson National.  Most glaring is that the clubs are only a few miles from eacth other.

I have no problems if Mr. Dye sticks to restoring Duane other course should be left to those who actaully seek to honor the original architects intent.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2006, 11:34:07 PM »
The bunker work of Dye has been undone at Whipporwill by Tripp Davis.  My buddy who is the pro there is very enthused by Tripp's work--he tends to lurk on this site and has an extensive Golf Course Architecture book collection--ie.  he knows his architecture.  

Jason Blasberg

Re:Bunkering Signatures
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2006, 12:19:26 AM »
Thre goes the myth about Dev!

In one of my first gca posts I called T.Paul out for one of his Devie Emmet rants.  Boy, I wish I knew what I was getting into back then . . .  ;D