[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The moment you make that change to the score card, you're catering to the PRO set-up mentality, and that's a dangerous concession and strategy.

Tom Doak,

Are you saying that you support retaining the 12th hole in its present form ?

Are you positive that comments weren't made about the 12th hole being out of context with the rest of the golf course ?

CBMac,

Rees has been a member of NGLA for quite some time and is consulted on the golf course.   Some changes have been made to the golf course, and NO ONE has objected to them over the years.  Could you tell me which changes or alterations you object to and why ?

Are you familiar with the marching orders given to Rees relative to the design of The Bridge  ?

Have you played Atlantic ?
Have you played Atlantic since last years changes ?

von Hayek,

I'm with you.

# 7 and # 18 are sensational par 5's that get more difficult as you get closer to the green.

# 5 isn't a bad par 5 either.

There is no need to cater to a PGA PRO mentality and change the golf course.  It is wonderful the way it is, and you can always lengthen # 7.  I support taking the tee at # 18 straight back, but that would mean moving the gates and rerouting the road slightly.  I know it would cost a few dollars, but to preserve the strategy of the hole, it would be worth it.
Hell, I'll even chip in a few quid.

Geoff is rightly concerned about altering a GREAT golf course.
If nothing was changed one IOTA at NGLA it will remain one of the all time GREAT golf courses, but once one change is made, it opens the flood gates for every interest group, every disgruntled golfer, every amateur architect to experiment upon a golf course that should remain UNTOUCHED.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It's not THE scorecard--it's A scorecard!!

Making some par changes by printing alternate scorecards (to be used by whomever or whenever they think it necessary) would be a lot cheaper and a HELL OF A LOT BETTER IDEA than to consider architecture changes to NGLA for WHATEVER reasons---for pros, good amateurs or for just some misguided PERCEPTION!!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I agree with you that NGLA should remain UNTOUCHED!! And presumably MacD's gate and the 18th tee is included in NGLA!!

What changes have been made to NGLA resulting from Rees Jones consulting the club.

And I want FACTS!!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You want the FACTS, you want the FACTS....
You can't handle the FACTS.

Start with holes # 1, #2, # 8, # 16.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Yes, well that may be a start on the FACTS but a miniscule one. What did Rees recommend and what did they do with it? Did he recommend changes to NGLA or was it restoration related and if so what? I don't have a type size small enough to describe the itty bitty facts you just supplied! What did Rees recommend for holes #1, 2, 8, 16? And why is it that NGLA seems not to recognize design attribution other that MacD and Raynor?

[ian]

Rees is a member of Maidstone, that I can confirm.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wouldn't it be a fantastic thing if Rees Jones went to the powers that be at Maidstone and NGLA and said, in effect;

"With your acknowledged understanding and appreciation of the great game of golf and it's marvelous history, I'm sure you're not in the least surprised to hear me say that you are charged with the preservation of a masterpiece of golf course architecture, that has provided immense pleasure to your fathers and their fathers, as it does each day for each of you."

"Yes, I could come in here and build new, longer tees that might be used once every couple of years, or move hazards that might come into play for 001% of golfers, and make the course HARDER, but potentially less interesting or rewarding, and I could probably even redo every green complex to make it visually apparent, starting with removing the hill on the blind Alps hole....yes, I could easily get the bulldozers rolling tomorrow and do all of those things very easily provided you folks are serious about this and capitally funded."

"But, let me say this first.  The odds that you will have a better or more enjoyable golf course that is sympathetic to what you have been priviledged to be caretakers of, and that has held the entire game of golf enrapt for generations now, is questionable, at best.  For any slight improvement I may make in terms of adding additional challenge for the very best in the game will likely also tip the balance of the scale into a territory that the remainder of you may find questionable, or incongruous at best, with the NGLA and Maidstone that you've loved all of your lives."

"Please weigh your decision very carefully, because the golf world is watching, and your decisions are for the most part, irrevocable."

[Chris Kane]

Mike,

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every architect consulting to the classic old courses had the guts to say something like that!  If they were able to forget about their ego for just a moment.

I suppose that the problem is that saying that to a greens committee doesn't make the architect any money, and he can't list that kind of accomplisment on his website.

[Gene Greco]

Mike:

     Brilliant.

 Your words should be manifest for all architects and green commitees considering change to their classic gems.

   Bravo.

[TEPaul]

We can talk about an architect having the guts or not to tell a club, like an NGLA or Maidstone, they should just leave their architecture alone, but unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than that and certainly we on this site should recognize that instead of just calling anyone who doesn't agree on this issue an idiot or gutless or else always possessing enormous egos!

There're a lot of issues in most clubs when it comes to things like this!! And no architect can deny them or avoid them, unfortunately! Even an architect like Rees Jones who's a member of Maidstone and NGLA can't really get away with just telling a membership they should leave the course alone, he has to explain why and he has to also come up with some ways of allaying those memberships concerns and protecting the architecture at the same time!

Most memberships that are considering these changes have their own set of reasons for doing it (and those reasons are remarkably similar amongst these famous clubs!).

However, they take those reasons far more seriously than most on here seem to want to admit. And many of these clubs actually do have real pride in their courses--but a pride that we aren't acknowledging--a pride like their course's ability to test players (probably even touring pros) well! That's a very general and common club and course pride and something many of the famous clubs were once known for.

Issues like fear of technology advances (the distance the ball is going), the fear of their course having become too easy, and very much the concern about what this means in the way others perceive the "quality" of the course which unfortunately very much relates to the course's RANKING!!

This is one of the reasons I really don't like the rankings--this kind of club sentiment to decreasing ranking leads first and foremost to the club considering altering their architecture and making the course harder or at least keeping the perception of the course's difficulty up!

A guy like Rees Jones, if he's going to tell a club like NGLA and the Maidstone to just leave those courses alone has got to deal with these sentiments too!! He can't just tell them that the courses are famous and good and to leave them alone only for that reason!

I wish he could and I wish they would listen if that's all he did and said but that's just not the reality of these issues and most all of us should start to understand these things if we're interested in classic architecture and really want to be effective at preserving it!

Just like Rees does, any of us have got to find better ways of explaining to those clubs some rational answers to allay their fears and concerns and simply calling the memberships of any and all these classic courses idiots is just not the best way to go about doing that!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Are you certain that Rees hasn't already said words to that effect to NGLA ?

Chris Kane,

Since when is adding tee length a bad thing ?
Most classic architects provided for flexability, allowing for that very change in their original design and acknowledged same.

Every course that I know of, including St Andrews has added tee length.  I don't hear anybody complaining about the added length St Andrews has acquired over the years.  WHY ?

The 2nd hole at NGLA has been lengthened as has the 8th hole.  The 16th hole has had a new tee added to the left of the 15th green up on the hill.  Has anybody complained about those changes ?

If technology takes the center line bunkers on # 8 out of play for decent players, is it wrong to lenghten that tee to bring them back into play ?

All of a sudden Rees is a villain again, and he's done nothing than any of you are aware of at NGLA and Maidstone.

Nah, there's no double standard or Bias on this site.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- Bravo from me as well. I think your words should be heard by any architect who wants to be involved in restoration.

Tom Paul- that last post of yours might be the worst stuff you've written in the last two years.  Sorry, but you're saying that just because these fellows are in power at historic old clubs and they are well intentioned that architects need to accomodate their idiotic ideas.  Well, I'm sorry but they really don't unless they simply will do anything for a paycheck.  I understand that the great old courses were built in part to test the best players of the time and at the same time give enjoyment to the members but perhaps it is just these bluebloods that could influence the USGA instead of changing their course.  Perhaps the architect could say that your course is stretched out as long as we can make make it and instead of altering the architectural integrity of your course which would not make the course any better, you should get the golf ball back to where it should be! Imagine Merion, Cypress Point, NGLA, Maidstone, Augusta, Seminole et. al. all working to preserve golf rather then altering their courses in response to the need to satisfy 0.001% of golfers who play their course rarely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey,

I have to disagree with you and everyone else who maintains the changes are for .001 % of the golfers.

The changes are for 100 % of the golfers.

Forgotten in everyone's preoccupation with the PGA TOUR player is the multiple forward tees these courses offer.

Modern technology, with gear effect, low torque, lighter clubs, LARGER club faces have allowed every level of golfer to hit it longer and straighter, including those who play from the FORWARD tees, thus defeating the intended architecture, at every level, not just for the PGA TOUR player.

Most, if not all, classic architects built into their designs the ability to lengthen their golf courses, why should that flexibility be looked upon unfavorably ?

TEPaul,

I'm with you on this one, but don't you go thinking this is going to be a permanent alliance.  

[GeoffreyC]

Pat- so when National runs out of room to move back the tees you advocate other changes to the course to create challenge and difficulty for elite professional golfers who may play a tournament there every few years?  

[Tim Weiman]

Geoffrey Childs:

I completely agree with you. When great golf clubs like NGLA start lengthening their courses to accomodate professionals who show up every now and then, they are endorsing the mindless golf technology arms race.

They should put their energies toward getting the USGA to finally act on the technology issue rather than encouraging more clubs to spend money modifying their course.

We need guys like NGLA to be leaders, to play a constructive role. Fueling the golf technology arms race is a step in the wrong direction.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I understand and respect your views as far as "ratings", but I don't believe that is what is at play here, in the least.  The evidence doesn't support it, clearly.

Twenty years ago, in 1982, there was one prominent ranking list in this country and that was Golf Digest.  At that time, the whole idea of "challenge" and difficulty took precedence, which is probably natural coming out of the Trent Jones era of design.  If there was ever a time for NGLA and Maidstone (as well as Garden City) to be affected by rankings, it was then...not now.  Why?

Simply, because somewhat unbelievably, at the time, NGLA was MISSING on the Top 100 list published by Golf Digest.  Maidstone and Garden City appeared in the "Second 50" of the Top 100.  

Let's look at the design history of each, because these are clearly not clubs that have been affected by each design whiim and trend over the years, much less by ratings.

In the case of NGLA, other than Karl Olsen's vaunted "restoration" work to clear trees and other growth, I don't believe anyone made any substantive design changes to the course for the past 70 years or more, when Maxwell was there.  RTJ Sr. installed some irrigation lines, but that's about it.  For the most part, the course is as Macdonald left it.

With Maidstone, very little has been done since Maxwell rebuilt several of Park's holes after the hurricane in the later 30s.  A handful of minor touchups by Dick Wilson, Alfred Tull, and most recently Brian Silva, but almost nothing of substance that would have altered Park's work in any significantly aesthetic or functional way.  

At Garden City, we know about RTJ Sr. and his work on the 12th, but almost without exception, the course is as Emmett and Travis left it at the turn of last century.  Tom Doak was responsible for some restoration work recently (mostly tree clearing), and the club rebuilt their bunkers using inhouse workers.

So, these are courses that are not only historically important, but also clubs where the memberships have historically been averse to "keeping up with the Joneses".  In a way, each is almost the antithesis of Augusta National, for instance.

So, back to rankings.  Now, 20 years later, after being essentially "dissed" due to their purported lack of challenge for the modern game in 1982, where do each stand on the major rankings?

NGLA is ranked #11 on Golfweek's Best Classical course list, #14 on Golf Magazine's list, and #16 on Golf Digest's (interestingly, the only one that uses "Resistance to Scoring" as one of its criteria).  

Garden City is ranked #18 on Golfweek, #33 on Golf Magazine, and #27 on Golf Digest.

Maidstone is ranked #33 on Golfweek, #39 on Golf Magazine, and #42 on Golf Digest.  

It seems to me to be ironic that these courses have climbed significantly in the rankings over the past 20 years, and are now seemingly being viewed by some members as antiquities that are no longer functionally relevant.  They are AWESOME in their present form, and should remain so as they have done for the last century.

Patrick;

I don't know that Rees didn't say that, nor did I imply that he didn't.  I only said "wouldn't it be great if he did?".  

I certainly hope that he would!  

In the case of Maidstone, I had heard that he previously declined to work on the course because he loved it so much and didn't see the need.  I'm not sure what has changed his mind, if he has now accepted.  I would think he would feel similarly about National.  

  

[TEPaul]

GeoffreyC:

You're a very smart guy, most everyone on here knows that,  and if you really think about it you'll know what I wrote there is not the worst I've written in the last two years! Matter of fact, I consider it some of the best and certainly the most honest and realistic.

And I certainly never said that any of these people who control these old clubs are doing what they are doing in a "well intentioned" manner (the way we look at "well intentioned" anyway), although clearly most of them feel that they are, and I too feel that they think they are! And I think the sooner the likes of us on this website realize that the better it will be for them, for us, and for these golf courses generally!

Intentions are actually the sole issue here and the question of this particular topic is too--"Does the ........membership know what they have?

That's the most important question and the one I feel an entity like Golfclubatlas and some of its contributors can help immensely with!

My feeling, after all this time, is that they really (the clubs and memberships) do think they understand what they have, and they feel proud of it too but they do not understand how that architecture needs to be handled now and into the future. They don't really understand that because just they don't, because they haven't done some of the research and obviously intense general and specific analysis that many of us have of these types of courses and architecture, what their inherent design intents generally and specifically are and how truly understanding that can be used to allay and even solve some of their present day concerns about their courses and how it plays and holds up to the future (for anyone, real or perceived).

My more immediate point, Geoffrey, is that these people do have concerns, and to them they are very real--although to you they don't appear to be! To help these people understand other ways to solve and allay those concerns takes education, it takes cooperation that's essential to establishing any kind of collaboration and information sharing which leads to education and eventually to the correct decisions and products.

God knows, I'm certainly not saying that these courses need to be redesigned by someone like Rees or Fazio--I'm very much saying that many of them probably DO NOT need to be! Furthermore, I'm saying that many of the CAN'T be without destroying them in some way!

But somehow those concerns have to be dealt with intelligently and the apparent automatic inclination of those on this site to call these people "idiots" and "egomaniacs" and even worse is NOT the way to go about accomplishing that!

I repeat, this is NOT the way to go about accomplishing anything constructive for those people, their clubs, or us in our interest in preservation of these classic courses!

Do you think that Linc Roden started out some 30 years ago with the membership and the powers of his golf course calling them all "idiots" and "egomaniac". No way in hell did Linc do that! He did it very slowly (because basically noone had done it anywhere before him) educating those people into the realities of those courses and their architecture!

We need far more people on here now like Linc Roden and far less people who use the knee-jerk automatic and easy way out of just calling these people idiots and egomaniacs and worse!

This isn't even about architecture anymore, Geoffrey, it's about commonsense, its about consideration and ultimately it's about doing something that will work better for all of us!

I think some people on here get into that easy reaction because they don't really know that much about the architecture of those courses anyway, they certainly know very little or nothing at all about the concerns of the memberships! They don't know how to go about even analyzing and solving the problems for all with these courses, so they just say derogatory things, and it's pretty clear to me at this point with Golfclubatlas that's never been of much help at all doing it that way!

I've been on here for over two years, I've seen how these things have gone, particularly at Merion and a few others and if we could go back two years and try to be a bit more cooperative, to be less confrontational, I can almost guarantee that better things would have happened for all of us!

I don't think what I wrote is the worst in two years, I think it's the best--and will in the future also have the best chance of success for all!

Calling anyone an "idiot" no matter how wrong they someday may come to see what they've done is, is just not the best way to go about this!

And if most everyone on here, including you, is going to seriously try to convince me that it is, it will probably be the last you'll see of me on the restoration and preservation end of things on Golfclubatlas!

I'll just go and try to find a better way to go about this and a better place from which to do it!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I understand that these clubs are proud of their golf courses and I understand they undertake these renovations for many different reasons. I also understand that these clubs are not going to be asking me (or GCA) what I (we) think, but they will ask an architect. I'm sure Riviera, Medinah, Merion, Bethpage, Equinox, CC of Virginia, Yale, Hollywood, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge, Congressional, East Lake, Seminole, Old Town, Inverness, Dornick Hills, Scioto and Oak Hill all asked an architect for their professional opinion. I'm not professional architect; I am a golfer who enjoys golf architecture -- as are the majority on this site. I am also not a member of any of these clubs and obviously I'm not involved with the internal politics, and really could care less. But as someone who selfishly enjoys great architecture and the history of golf architecture, I don’t really think it is that important for me to understand or agree with the rational of the club or their hired gun. My focus is on my own selfish love for interesting (and important) architecture.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t believe anyone called anyone an idiot or gutless on this thread. And isn't a concern for the rankings somewhat ego driven? And wouldn't an over concern for a ranking, force you to question a club's knowledge of what they actually had architecturally?

As far as Rees Jones’s involvement is concerned. Of those people who have actually met the man, I have never heard a negative word. He universally well liked -- he has to be a super nice and charming person. His friends and acquaintances are all loyal supporters. From what I have seen of him on TV, he impresses me as someone who is very bright, intelligent and confident, as well as modest. He has enjoyed critical acclaim from the media for his work at The Country Club, East Lake, Congressional, and Bethpage to name a few. He clearly knows how to move a course up the rankings.  It is no wonder he is the popular choice with many of these clubs and organizations. I’m sure there is no doubt in his mind that he has both improved and preserved the architecture of those clubs who’ve hired him -- and fulfilled his mandate! And I’m sure he is confident he will do the same for both Maidstone and the NGLA. We shall see.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Look, I know where you're coming from, I really do! I know what your intentions are and they're the same as mine, and I think you know that!

I think you have a very good understanding of these courses and what they are and what will make them work best and preserve them at the same time.

I hate this to sound blunt or arrogant and I don't in any way mean it to be, but I think I almost HAVE to say it at this point! I understand these courses too, and I understand them, I believe, about the same way you do.

But what I understand far better than you do, there is no question of it, is the memberships of some of these clubs we're talking about here! I know these people and I know what they're thinking and why; I know what their concerns are--and sure, some of them probably are "idiots" and "egomaniacs" when it comes to really understanding architecture but they aren't out to destroy these course--or they certainly don't feel they are!

And that's where people like us come into this--and the supreme irony is THEY KNOW that TOO!

But they aren't going to EVER talk to us or cooperate with us or even ask us for a single opinion or advice, if we say some of the things we have and do about them!

Would you cooperate in any way with people who say those things about you? I wouldn't, probably even if I thought they might be right or could help somehow!

I know you care so much about this architecture, Mike, and I know you'd like to help do something about it!

There's a way to go about that and there's another way where it will never happen for us! I know you know what that is and that you agree with me on this or that you will!

Stop saying or even implying these people are "idiots" and "egomaniacs" (even if you actually feel that they may be) and help me and the rest of the knowledgeable contributors to this site cooperate with them and help in an educational effort with these courses and their architecture.

But before any of us can help do that we have to listen to them and their concerns and figure out reasonable solutions for all and how to explain the solutions to them! I know that's what you want to do and I know you will understand that's the only way to go about it.

If we can never do that we will never be able to do the very thing that we all want to do--preserve classic architecture and increase real understanding of it!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I'm really confused.  

I understand and agree with what you're saying as far as not alienating people in the game....cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces, so to speak...but the part I'm missing is where you say I've said or even implied that the people involved there are "idiots", "egomaniacs", or anything of the sort.  

Please re-read what I wrote about "wouldn't it be great if Rees would say that", because I'm not sure where you're inferring that from....and I promise I'm not trying to be somehow coy or misleading in the least!    

Instead, my post stemmed simply from reading an article about Rees Jones about a year ago where it was mentioned that he saw no need for architectural changes at Maidstone, that he LOVED the course, and that he therefore declined the overtures of some members who pressed him to do otherwise.  I remember being VERY impressed by his refusal, and personally heartened that he recognized the course for what it is.

So, in thinking about that, I was hoping that his future role at both clubs might be simply to make sure that they are "preserved", as is, with the possible exception of some back tees where the land will accommodate it,  where angles of play can be maintainted, and where it might help retain the original design intent against the onslaught of technology.  

And, you're correct.  I know not a thing about the internal dynamics, politics, etc., at these clubs, nor their memberships.  As such, I'd want to be particularly careful not to carelessly offend anyone at either club.  

I hope you can understand where I'm confused.      
  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You sure have missed what has been said about people and memberships on this thread and on this site for the last few years (or since it came into existence)!

The same can be said about some of the architects mentioned on this site too, and you certainly have to be aware of that no matter what you may or may not think the efficacy or impact of that might be!

Even the architects themselves, I believe, may be far more inclined to listen to some of us or certainly to pay more attention and cooperate with us and do the correct thing when dealing with and educating members and clubs to what can be best or a reasonable solution for these courses and their architecture now and into the future of the times we live in with golf!

You said it yourself Tom in your last post! You said you don't care about those memberships or understanding them or their hired guns, you said all you really care about is "my own 'selfish' love of interesting (and important) architecture!"

Well, I'm telling you, Tom, imploring you really, it's about time, you of all people, who has the ability to do great research and help out, should begin to start thinking less "selfishly" about this subject and this architecture and your love for it and start thinking how you too can cooperate and help out here!  

I know you would like to help preserve it any way you can, or I would think you would! One of the ways to do that is to try to start to deal directly with these clubs and also the architects they hire. It's no secret both Fazio and Jones read Golfclubatlas and are clearly turned off by the insulting attitude on here about them!

Is that really the way you think this site and any of us on here can cooperate with and help any club or their architects if they would like us to? Or maybe you just think they're never going to like us to that or want us to in any way.

Well, that's certainly not my experience. Some of the clubs mentioned on here say they would like to and they probably would if we'd try to be a bit more cooperative. I take what they say seriously and that's why I'm mentioning the things I am on this thread!

I'm not trying in any way to create an "apologia" for anything that they may have done at any course, and they know that. But I'm serious about what I say and I really think, at this point, a few of these clubs are too. I don't even care if its only one for now--that to me is enough!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey and Tim,

You're both way off the mark.
It's not the PROFESSIONAL that is impacting the desire to retain the playability features of the golf course, it's the AMATEURS.

A few years ago, at Point Judith, when I first witnessed Terry McBride hit his new biggest big Bertha 30-40 yards by me and my AJ tech big bertha, I thought I was hitting defective balls.  After hitting Terry's driver a few times during that round I was convinced it was the equipment, so the next day, everyone in our foursome went out and bought a Biggest Big Bertha.

Do you know what one of my first thoughts was ?

Now I could carry the bunkers on # 8 at NGLA and not worry about which side of the center line bunkers I should hit my tee shot to.  And, on # 18 I could carry the left side fairway bunker.

That single club had an immediate impact on my play of holes # 1,2,3,5,7,8,10, 12, 16,17 and 18 at NGLA.

That single club rendered much of the bunkering and intended strategies obsolete.  

And, it wasn't as if I was a young buck, I was an old guy, in my mid to late 50's.

Kids today, with handicaps of zero to 18 hit the ball longer than I do, and when the higher handicaps play from the forward tees with their new equipment, those same bunkers and intended strategies become obsolete as well.

Now Geoffrey, you ask a very interesting question.

What happens when you run out of room.

Nowhere is this dilema more evident than at the 16th at GCGC.
There is no more room, the tee is right up against the property line and a chain link fence.  
The problem, the first row of right side bunkers are totally out of play for almost every level of golfer, taking in to consideration the use of different tees markers, which now number three at GCGC.

If I had my druthers, I would either add additional bunkers forward, or move those obsolete bunkers forward, retaining their original strategic intent.

The same problem, though to a lessor degree, is occuring at # 11 where the step row of cross bunkers is becoming more and more out of play for more and more golfers, defeating the architectual purpose of the bunkers.  The immediate, least expensive solution is to move the tee back 20 yards.

I think many of us would like to see a dial back in distance with a standard golf ball, but that may never happen.

If the original architects contemplated adding length, what's so bad about doing so.

As to moving bunkers to bring them back into play, I say in some cases, it may be the move of last resort.

Noone complained when the 2nd tee at NGLA was lengthened by about 20-30 yards.  Noone has complained that the 8th tee was lengthened by about 10-15 yards.  Why all the commotion about doing the same thing on some other holes ?

[TEPaul]

Oh shit, MikeC, I'm not accusing you of calling anybody an "idiot" or "egomaniac", and if I said or implied that you ever had (or even if you actually had) that's not the point here!

You know what my point is, how else can I say it better or more clearly?

Help me figure out a better way of trying to get Golfclubatlas to cooperate with some of these courses! Some may not want to no matter how cooperative we may seem to be but others do want to!

What could be clearer and less confusing than that?

Almost everyone on here seems to take everything that's said on here so personally! They shouldn't! I'm not talking about you personally, I'm talking about the way the tenor of this site on restoration is or certainly is perceived to be. Did you and I invent the term "treehouse"? No way!

All I'm saying is let's try harder to cooperate if that's what any club would like to do!

Apparently some on here must feel if it's even suspected that they have anything to do with some of these clubs, memberships or their architects it selling out on their principles or something!

That to me is total BS! I think that's a true cop-out!

For someone to tell me he cares about a course's architecture and if it gets preserved properly but he has no real interest in what that club's membership understands about it or thinks about it, is just completely lacking in commonesense to me. Matter of fact I think that attitude is completely ridiculous, but even worse very counterproductive!

And I would like to help change those attitudes and also any club's willingness to cooperate too.

What could be less confusing than that?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

A permanent alliance with you?? No way in hell! Even if we actually had one, I'd never admit it!! There's definitely no fun in that!

[ChipOat]

Patrick (and others):

RE: Moving the bunkers FORWARD to bring their original strategic purpose back into play.

It's more expensive than moving tees backwards, but perhaps more consistent with restoring original shot values.

ANGC did just that on #5 recently.  Despite the misgivings of many on this site, I'm of the opinion that most of the changes to MacKenzie's original design have been pretty effective.  Even RTJ Sr. made a major improvement there on #16!! (from what I can tell).

The problem is, to most members, repositioning bunkers is like taking out a Stupid Tree - it's significant, very visible and dealing with it is mandatory.  Playing longer tee markers is optional and, to those who don't bother, somewhat covert.

What is Tom Doak saying about the 12th green at Garden City??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()