[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

You've got a hell of memory to rememer the site pre-Mucci.

I don't recall ever saying anthing about GCGC membership or any clubs membership - I believe you are mistaken.

I'm not a fan of anonymous posts. But I would never sacrafice my opinions for the sale of 'fairness' or defending bad work - you have to call a spade a spade, that is if you can recognize a spade.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I was a lurker for a long time before I was a poster, so I remember what the site was like well before I posted.

I've always commended you for posting under your name, and I continue to support your candor, and misquided posts  

I also recall explicitly, your uncalled for comments regarding my osmotic racism as evidence by my membership at GCGC.
I offered a long response regarding my being a member of two all Jewish clubs, serving on their boards, and the boards of several Jewish charities, and that my first wife was Jewish.
I relayed my feelings regarding your comments to others off line, and am not mistaken, but the past is the past.  So let's not lecture me about offensive posts.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You've got me confused with someone else. To this day I have no idea what GCGC membership policies are.  It's a subject I nomally stay clear of, I may have asked a hypothetical question, would you be member of a club that excludes on the basis of race or religion - but I seriously doubt that. And that ain't calling someone a racist. Based on your reaction, whoever said it, it sounds like they hit a soft spot. And frankly I don't understand your rational - how does your involvement in Jewish charities effect GCGC's membership policies - actually that would be a better served off the website. Send me an e-mail.

Your posts are not offensive.Its not a lecture, just an observation. The attitude you've brought has changed the dynamic of GCA from respectful disagreement and an atmosphere where one could (occasionaly) alter/evolve their stance without fear, to one that exhibits an in your face attitude (I'm guilty of it myself, your attitude rubbed off on me and the entire site). 'This is what you said on 8/23 at 7:37 PM' (usually taken out of context) or two years ago you called me a racist (what the hell are you talking about) or three years ago you said bad things about Atlantic/Rees Jones without ever playing the course (how many times have we heard that one) or you have a strong oppposing view therefore I'm going to call you biased. Or I don't like your view, I'm not going to articulate my opposing view, I'm going to attempt to discredit you. Often people mistakenly thought you were lawyer because of your courtroom tactics. Now everyone on the site is now a frieken expert - including myself - and you better be (or pretend to be one) or you'll be eaten a live. Exchanges with you are unprofitable because they often turn into pissing contests and nothing regarding architecture is ever discovered.

[ed_getka]

Hey guys, RELAX!!!  This is a site to discuss architecture, not to pummel one another into submission.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,
I feel I have a better understanding why we don't agree on this National issue, or any others, so let me say this as an answer to all of your questions.

In golf architecture and most other things related to art, there are people who evaluate based on their own lofty belief in their view, in themselves. This explains how people can love most modern art. They can take a bunch of wavy lines or a pile of metal, and say, well I see something special here, and I met the artist and he shared this vision. I paid $25,000. I see deepness here. I can tell people I own this, and I spoke to the artist. It's about me!!

There are then those who take the art differently, something not personal, but instead, it's something they analyze and enjoy by looking at an array of fundmentals and principles. They appreciate it, having it come back to them somehow is not of interest.  

We see this different approach to the two rankings, Golf Digest attempts to use categories for analysis, Golf Magazine proudly touts the self, the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" approach, which I must say is an ego-based way of looking at things.

I point this out because I believe you take these issues personally because your views are based on your sense that all that is required to make a point, and make it soundly, is you. You to judge, you to know. You are traditionally short on the facts you are always trying to get out of people who are expressing opinions typically created through knowledge and careful thought and a passion for enjoying well-conceived design.

Thus, it is a concern when some of us hear certain architects want to be involved in decisions or want to be consulting (for free?) at certain courses when they have shown a propensity to rely heavily on their inner voice, that voice telling them how they are better architects than anyone alive, how they are simply great and no one else is. So even if their ideas differ from what is in the ground, in photos, in the words CB Macdonald left behind, they know what they need to know because they are very high on themselves, their exaggeration of ego is immense. They know greatness when they see it. It's all about them.  

This is the central difference on this thread, and with the people on this site who enjoy certain types of architecture and want it preserved or genuinely restored, versus those who like to shrug all things off as "progress" and who want to get in and leave their mark. Because the idea of progressing these courses to some new and improved place, makes it about them. They are in now control, it's their idea, their way is better. We must address our games, our courses must be defended. We, us, our, me, I, me. And anyone who disagrees with that, is taking a personal shot at me.

But Patrick, it's not about you, and the view expressed here are not meant to question you or Rees as people, but simply to ask, will The National's membership go the way of other courses and start injecting themselves into the art that is found there in Southampton. I suspect not and hope not but I do think think it is vital that at the slightest hint something is astray (and I have plenty of reason to believe anything is possible), that we raise the issue.
Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

I would say that we probably have an equal love and respect for the architecture at NGLA.  But, that doesn't mean that changes which don't interupt or destroy the design integrity of the golf course can't be introduced, or are automatically bad.

I would cite changes to the 2nd tee, the 8th tee, 12th tee and the new 16th tee.

Not one of those changes disrupted or harmed the golf course,
its strategy or the original design integrity.

I feel that the added length on holes # 2, and # 8 preserved or restored the original strategy in the face of modern day drives carrying the intended hazards, and find those changes acceptable.

The DANGER you allude to is always present, and one must always be concerned about them and the domino effect, and the justification for changes that may detract from, or even destroy the design integrity of a golf hole.

But, I don't know if the answer is to never touch a classic golf course, especially if a hole or feature has already been modified.

Many classic golf courses have already been altered.
Would you not favor modifications that bring the original strategies back into play ?  Changes that restore the original design integrity ?

There are no blanket answers to these questions.
Each issue, each hole, each feature must be examined in its present day context, and its original context, and an intelligent decision should be made as to what to do with the hole or particular feature.

Art is static and the appreciation of art is as a spectator.
Golf courses are interactive fields of play constructed through the science of architecture blended with artistic expression.
One of the problems with golf courses is that the play and players for whom they were originally designed have gone the way of the dinosaurs, with a new breed of super athlete armed with high tech equipment which renders the original design principles outdated or obsolete.

I would certainly like to turn the clock back to 1950, but that's beyond my powers.  Changes occuring subsequent to that date have been both good and bad, and I don't think one can make the case that ANY change is bad, especially when a hole or feature has already been altered, and the attempt is to try to restore the design integrity or original strategy.

Certainly every proposed change should be scrutinized and questioned, despite your mandate that I give Tom Doak an automatic free pass      

I don't think we're that far apart on our views on the preservation and restoration of golf courses, I just think that prudent, intelligent changes can have positive results.

I too hope reason prevails, everywhere.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I recall the anonymous malicious posts that were prevalent on this site prior to my arrival.

I recall the BLIND and WILD accusations that ran rampant on this site prior to my arrival.

I merely questioned posters and requested the FACTS.
If the introduction of the FACTS confuses the issues, what can I tell you.

If someone makes a statement, they should be prepared to debate the issue and shouldn't be offended when they are asked questions or asked to produce the facts supporting their position.

I'm sorry that you find the quest for truth through the presentation of FACTS objectionable.

[George Pazin]

Anonymous malicious attacks have been around most likely since the site started, heck, most likely since the web started. They will continue, they should be ignored & dealt with by our esteemed editor David. I don't recall any difference since you joined the fray, Patrick.

I do recall specific threads & specific individuals who questioned you (I thought in extremely poor taste & manner, by the way) regarding membership policies at GCGC. I definitely don't recall Tom MacWood being one of those individuals (I will not disclose the specific names I remember because I don't have documentation) & to say otherwise without documenting it is a far worse slander than anything else written on this thead.

As I said to Hod on the bias thread a couple weeks ago, the continued danger of these types of threads is the way they inevitably degrade into name calling with no discussion of architecture, facts or otherwise. You cannot make sweeping generalizations like "there are architects who received most favored status" & then turn around and call everyone biased & wrong on any & all criticism of certain architects, which often takes the form of specific criticism of details, not the broad sweeping generalizations that are urged to be avoided in the interests of fairness. This is the same exact thing. Period. Double period. End of sentence.

[Arachnophad]

I didn't know Rees Jones had designed so many classic courses! I think that Baltusrol and Quaker Ridge are his best designs by far!

Did they forget to add NGLA and Maidstone to the list?

From the Santaluz website:


Rees Jones--
 
Since entering the field of golf course architecture in 1964, Rees Jones has made his mark on more than 100 golf courses, many of which are widely recognized to be among the very best in the game. In 1974, he established Rees Jones, Inc., a golf course design firm with offices in his hometown of Montclair, NJ. In 1995, Golf World magazine honored Rees by selecting him as Architect of the Year. Golf Digest has consistently included Rees on its select list of the five top present-day golf course architects.

The incredible Santaluz Golf Course is sure to continue the success of other award winning golf courses designed by Rees Jones:

Quaker Ridge Golf Club - Scarsdale, NY
Baltusrol Golf Club, Lower Course - Springfield, NJ
Congressional Country Club, Blue Course - Bethesda, MD
East Lake Golf Club - Atlanta, GA
Ocean Forest Golf Club - Sea Island, GA

The Santaluz Course also reflects the design talents of Greg Muirhead, a lead designer with Rees Jones, Inc. In addition to The Santaluz Course, Muirhead has designed or remodeled courses throughout the country, including the newly remodeled Torrey Pines South Course in San Diego home of the 2002 Buick Invitational.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I've never objected to critical objective analysis of particular features, hole designs or strategy.

Without CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, progress is impossible.

Discussions, based on facts, are healthy and informative.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Arachnophad,

Were you aware that Rees Jones turned down offers to be retained by Olympic and Riviera ?

Are you aware that the back portion of the first green at NGLA was added to, and built by Karl Olson ?

Can you post under your real name, or is it easier to be a coward ?

[TEPaul]

What the hell is going on with this thread? And Pat Mucci, what the hell are you doing? What are you talking about?

You keep spewing the same bullshit, post after post! You're apparently not reading a single thing anyone is saying here!

You just continue with this "BIAS" deal of yours!

READ MY WORDS HERE LOUD AND CLEAR!!!!

WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOUR CONCERN ABOUT BIAS!

And look over the topics on this website, look over the posts! READ them for a change! Some like the work of some architects and they explain why. Some don't like the work of other architects and they explain why!

Coore and Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse and many others are admired on this site but they don't get a free ride on this site, despite what you say! Fazio gets hammered on here but he's given credit too for the work that many admire, like Galloway!

Why have you missed that? Why have you missed the critique and the questions I've directed at Doak-and others too?

And what's this stuff you keep asking me about Atlantic City and it's restoration by Doak? How many times do I have to tell you I don't know what the course was before Doak? I certainly don't know if it was true Flynn! I told you I may have played it once in a tournament and I hardly remember it--and that was before Doak! I just don't know what it was! Why is that beyond you?

But I did see it about 15 months ago with Goalby after the Doak restoration! It looked OK to me but I can't compare it to pre-Doak (Flynn?) because I don't remember that--I just didn't know it! I guess I could always call Doug Frazier and ask him though because his family owned it, like forever!

And what's this crap about me sneaking down there to look at it--even with the smiley faces (you put in your posts?).

I did nothing like that! I went to Atlantic City to interview Linwood (nearby ACC) for GAP. On the ride home I stopped to see Hidden Creek! I haven't set foot on Atlantic City for well over a year!

And by the way, Pat--that Goldberg guy you say you had a hand in persuading to do something or another sounds to me like the worse nightmare owner and client I've almost ever heard of! Just imagine the thought of trying to turn Atlantic City C.C. (whether it was some Flynn or not at that point) into some kind of competition with Steve Wynn??!! Do you have any idea how much that course was admired by the players around here--whatever it was???

You know these people that bought ACC? That doesn't speak well of you to me when anyone tries to put it into a reasonable architectural context on here!

I'm glad Rees Jones stood up to Goldberg! I'm glad he walked or got fired or whatever the hell happened! If Doak took on the project and said it wasn't a sympathetic restoration sure as HELL DOESN'T make me admire Doak either for what he took on at ACC! He should have walked too, in my opinion, but yada, yada--these architects have to put food on the table! Bullshit, as far as I'm concerned when it comes to this discussion group and and analyzing a golf course and an asshole client like Goldberg! Doak should have said to his client--"leave the place alone'!

Although, again, I don't know what the course was when Doak got there, frankly, I don't care!! In my opinion Doak, TOO, should have walked! Good architects, with good architectural principles shouldn't work for asshole, egomaniacal clients like Goldberg (God rest his soul!).

I admire guys like Goalby who shaped for that Goldberg (Hitlton) project or whatever it was, and walked off the job he got so disguised with the work being done there by MacDonald's crew!

I admire Goalby a lot for standing up for his architectural principles instead of just a paycheck!

The two of us went down there to look at the golf course last year and had to put up with the super Jeff Kent telling Goalby he had a "RESPONSIBILITY" to finish that project because he started on the project!

I thought then and I do now that Jeff Kent (ACC's super) was a real asshole for saying something like that to Goalby! I hope he reads this and calls me to take exception to what I'm saying here! I'll tell him EXACTLY what kind of exception I'm taking and why!

I think the whole damn operation down there at ACC now is on the wrong track! They should take a good close look at themselves when it comes to architecture and who the HELL they work for, who they are and where they think they're going with that golf club!

Whatever ACC was before as a golf club, I really don't know! But what they appear to be now, a bunch of casino operators who only own a great old golf course for the sake of a half a handful of high rollers on any single day is way off base!

And you really know people like that, Pat Mucci? Maybe you do, but I sure hope you don't admire them when it comes to golf course architecture! I sure as hell don't!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I take it that you lost at the casinos.

Was it one of Arthur Goldberg's casinos ?    

If you had read my earlier post, you would have seen that I said that Arthur Goldberg was a brilliant casino operator but knew very little about golf course architecture.

Arthur was a friend of mine, but he had other visions for the USE of a golf course.  That doesn't make him a bad person.
As to people walking away from jobs, perhaps that's easy to say if one is financially secure.  But, when an architect needs work and needs to meet a payroll and expenses, how can you possibly fault him for taking on work
because it doesn't meet your critieria ??

If everybody quit in the middle of their job because they didn't like what was going on, it would be one chaotic world.
I wonder how you would like it, lying on the operating table, having open heart or brain surgery, if the assistant surgeon and head nurse quit the job because they didn't like the method the accomplished chief surgeon was employing.

Did you know that Karl Olson modified the rear of the 1st green at NGLA ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Once again, I didn't go to any casino in Atlantic City--Goldberg's, Trump's or anyone else's. I went to visit Linwood C.C. and stopped at Hidden Creek on my way home. I haven't been to ACC since July of 2001 when I went around the course with Kye Goalby.

And I certainly never said Goldberg was a bad person--you're the only one who said I said that! All I said was he seems to me to have been a nightmare owner and client for an architect like a Doak (or maybe Rees too) who may not have agreed architecturally with what Goldberg wanted to do with Atlantic City and was asking them to do.

I think you may have been the one who said Goldberg wanted to compete with Wynn or Trump or something using ACC as the site to do it! That's a scary thought indeed! Maybe it wasn't you who said that but someone did and you claim to be the one on here who knew him or knew him best!

And, as for architects doing things they really don't want to do, and don't agree with which seems to me might be compromising their architectural principles--well, I can certainly understand their logic--and I do realize that even architects have to eat too, but is that supposed to mean then that I or anyone else should condone what they do architecturally for the reasons of JUST putting food on the table?

I don't think so Pat, but you might!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe some casinos had an arrangement with Galloway, and Arthur Goldberg saw what happened when Wynn created Shadow Creek for his casinos.

I opposed Arthur Goldbergs thinking, relative to changes to the golf course.  But, he paid millions for the property, and as such was free to do as he pleased with the golf course.

I'm sure many of us object when an individual buys a house, then demolishes it, to erect a palatial home that might not suit our tastes, but again, that's the owners perogative.

We live in the REAL world, and have to deal with actual, real world situations, not hypotheticals.  

I'm sure you're also aware the the Marriott Corp destroyed several holes at the Seaview Pines course when they bought the property.  While I found the changes distasteful, there was nothing that I could do about it.  At least with Arthur, I had his ear, and so did others, and that resulted in a better golf course than had he had his way unchallenged.

If Tom Doak didn't do that project, I have no doubt in my mind that the resultant golf course would have been even more objectionable to you and me.

So, Tom Doak shouldn't be taken to task for taking the job.
Business and family obligations mandate it.

Should the Fraziers not have sold, understanding what was probably going to happen to their golf course ??

Again, I think you have to look at a lot of these issues from a real world perspective, not an idealistic one.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

We're having a discussion here, I guess, but we certainly aren't talking about the same thing.

This is an architectural discussion group not a discussion group about what the real world is and isn't! It's not a discussion either about a buyer's rights to do with a property whatever he wants to. Nor a discussion about whether the former owner should have sold the golf course or not!

I'm not questioning any of that! I'm not even interested in discussing that! The Fraziers had every right in the world to sell to Goldberg! I wish they hadn't--I wish they'd kept the course but they didn't and I sure don't hold that against them!

Goldberg could have put a casino on what was ACC as far as I'm concerned--he had every right to if the community would have let him!

And I believe you are right that Doak may have been the architect who could have done the best in a bad situation with a nightmare owner like Goldberg (who apparently wanted to do God knows what with that old course)!

You're saying things could have been much worse! And I agree, of course they could have been!

But we're only looking at the architecture here and frankly I think it's OK, from what I saw--and without having any real knowledge of what it was before or had been at some time previously!

But you seem to be saying what Doak and people like you did with a nightmare owner like Goldberg was the best that could have been done in a bad situation!

I don't know that and I don't think you do either. Goalby was a guy who spent a lot of time shaping some good stuff down there and it kept getting wiped out by some very untalented people who worked for MacDonald and Co, so eventually he walked in disgust!

I sure don't blame him for that, particularly if he felt it was compromising some of his architectural principles day after day! And for a guy like that super down there, Jeff Kent, to stand there and tell Goalby he was shirking his responsibility to something by walking was the height of arrogance, in my opinion!

Goalby didn't even say anything to him which in retrospect I guess I admire but at the time if Goalby told him to go screw himself or even decked him that would have been cool with me!

You may just think that anyone has to do, should do, whatever the guy paying the bills wants him to do!  I don't think that way, and I don't think Goalby does either! Everyone can make their own choices, you know, particularly if they feel their principles are being compromised!

You may not call that the real world, Pat, but I do!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You seem to totally dismiss the client employee relationship.

On more than one occassion Tom Doak was reminded of same when he wanted to do one thing and the client another.
Invariably, the client wins.

You may not be aware that Arthur wanted to build/buy/renovate courses at other locations, hence ACC could become a stepping stone to more work and new work.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What's going on with you? I'm not denying the client/employee relationship at all! But you certainly seem to be and it seems to me you always have!

From the way you talk and present things it seems you believe it isn't even a "relationship", that it's really no more than client dictation completely, more akin to a "one way street"! What the client wants, the client gets!

That may be so in some architectural projects and very well may be a prime reason for some lousy architecture and many failures as well!

We try to talk generally on here about what works well, or at least I thought we did!

Have you ever noticed or have you ever known why it takes Coore and Crenshaw such a long time to sign a project contract?

It takes them quite a while so they can be as sure as possible that they DO have a good client/employee relationship before anything gets going!

They are not interested in having a client push them into doing things they don't want to do and don't believe in and they certainly don't want to push a client into something he might not believe in either!

This is elementary stuff, Pat, but it doesn't seem like you've  figured it out after many years on here.

If you really think a client can hire any old architect and get him to do the exact same thing, the same kind of quality as any other architect just because he (the client) is the one with the money, you're sorely mistaken, in my book!

I thought you were well beyond that fantasy by now!

[Rodney King]

Can't we all just....aw, hell, never mind...

[Kye Goalby (Guest)]

I Had not been on GCA in a while and saw a big thread on the National, i figured I would start at the end and lo and behold I find it has somehow degenerated into something that includes me  walking off ACCC.    

Jeez

Just to set the record straight.

 I left the project to have a hernia repaired before leaving  for Scotland to work on Doak's Archerfield project.  After a couple of weeks of rest the scotland project seemed moribound and I was asked If I would return to ACC by McD's project manager and Renaissance.  I was not having a lot of fun on the project and asked for more $$ to come back which I think offended the ACCC people and McD and Sons.  I never heard back from them and never made it back to work on the last few holes.  There were no big moralistic stances or anything else, just  a plain old capitalistic one.  

As for McD wiping out stuff I did,  there were some bumpy things they definately did not see as golf and tried to help me "fix" by smoothing them out and removed some of the third dimesional bunker stuff,  but Doaks guystried to resolve that and in general from what I saw in my only return visit there (with the pascifist TEPau!)   a good bit of the shaping was still there  

Ultimately I think what is there is what the  client asked for and it was built the way the powers that be believed was best.

Now, could you guys could leave this ACCC stuff alone and get back to some facts on what is happening at the home of the best golf architecture I have seen, NGLA

[TEPaul]

Kye:

Sorry if I misrepresented anything that went on back then with you and ACC. But it seems like it was about on the same page! Sorry about the remarks too about Kent's remarks to you--that may have just been my impression and not yours--so I'll admit that here!

You're right too that we should get this thread back to NGLA! On that note why don't you and me and Brain Schneider jump in the car and head on up to NGLA? And when we get there if it looks like we've found someone who wants to wholesale change that golf course I'll help you two chase them all over the property the way you two chase Kyle Franz around Stonewll2 every day!

And if either of you are fast enough to actually catch that person (I don't run, by the way) then we can all decide exactly what to do with him but only in the name of protecting the historic architecture at NGLA, of course! Instead of beating that person up until he screams "uncle" do you think maybe running him all the way up the flagpole by his collar might work until he swears never to touch any architecture?

Unfortunately now that Karl may be gone I might have to bring my little phantom dog with severe diarrehia and turn him loose on NGLA so we can tell those folks we need to get on the course to retrieve him!

[Ken_Cotner]

Well...I can't let an Atlantic City topic die (sorry, Kye!) without one quick song lyric:

"Well now everything dies baby that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies someday comes back"
     From "Atlantic City" (naturally) by B. Springsteen

Heck, that lyric could be the mission statement for restorationists everywhere!    

KC, sorry for the tangent...

[Paul Richards]

Dear Mr. Olson:

Having just (very) recently enjoyed visiting and playing NGLA, I can only say "WOW" to the job that you have done there!

Not only is this CB MacDonald course spectacular, but the
job of restoration that you have accomplished there is nothing less than amazing.

Best of luck to you at your job!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

Could you list exactly what Karl restored at NGLA ?

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

I can add more at a later date, but I understand the most obvious part was the removal of a very significant number of trees.  

Now the vistas are much more open within the course confines and the beautiful rolling terrain is very evident.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()