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.


WilliamWang

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #100 on: August 23, 2002, 11:57:26 AM »
tom - the comparison is between the old 1938 course to the new course (date unknown).  the 1994 aerial that i posted a while back has similarities to the new course aerial, in particular to the left side bunker on 12 and the missing fairway bunker on 11.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #101 on: August 23, 2002, 01:32:50 PM »
Question- If we did a similar exercise and posted photos of

Pine Valley 1925 vs. Pine Valley 2002
Shinnecock Hills 1931 vs Shinnecock Hills 2002
Pebble Beach 1229 vs Pebble Beach 2002

and looked at the aerials alone, would we see fewer or more differences then we see between the two aerials of Bethpage 1938 vs. today?

Which leads me to the question that has not been answered yet-  Is Bethpage Black a remodel or is it a sensitive modernization?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB1

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #102 on: August 23, 2002, 01:47:40 PM »
Geoff - I don't know that this is a sensitive restoration. Who is really the beneficiary of the redesing/restoration? Sure, the regular golfer  enjoys the enhanced conditioning of the course (although there is no guarantee that it will stay that way for a meaningful amount of time). However, the USGA benefits from getting a stern test, with considerably narrowed fairways. Look at those old aerials, the elimination of the width of the fairways is the most astonishing thing I notice. I believe avenues of play has been compromised by the restoration, so I think the regular player suffers in that respect.

Is it zero sum, though?

man i hope this thread is still alive after the weekend. there is a lot of good stuff to work with.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2002, 02:06:41 PM »
Sean

I think you bring up a maintenance issue more then a restoration issue.  The hole corredors are still all there without nearly the tree impingement you see at most other courses (ie Pine Valley!- does that make the valley insensitive preservation?).  

I see a striking similarity in the Bethpage of 1938 with the Bethpage of today from those two aerials.  I can tell you from experience that the course plays much the same today (except of conditioning/maintenance) as it did in 1969 when I first played there. In fact, from the air, the shapes of so many of the bunkers is identical or similar that I'm somewhat surprised because they don't look similar on the ground to the ones from the more recent past.  I think that also points out how the shapes were altered by all the play over the years and the lack of careful maintenance.

If we subjected Shinnecock, Pebble or Pine Valley to the same scrutiny looking at old vs. new aerials would they fare as well, better or worse? Better yet Cypress Point today vs. the year it opened?  Would we be bashing whomever worked on Cypress for the changes or calling the present day Cypress Point a remodel?  I think not.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #104 on: August 23, 2002, 06:12:41 PM »
Geoffrey
If we looked at the before & after of those courses we'd see significant differences, but I don't think those courses have undertaken similar projects. And if they did, I think most architectural students would be disapointed if they were not restored to their past greatness. I know I would be. But that disapointment does not mean that the current course is poor.

What is a sensative modernization? I can see the obvious need to build new tees to counter modern equipment, but I can't see why a great design would not be restored to its former greatness as accurately as possible. There seemed to be a lot of creative liberty taken at Bethpage (especially at the greens) which I don't understand after looking at the old version - was the Tillinghast version flawed? Maybe I'm too focused on the architectural details.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #105 on: August 23, 2002, 07:23:59 PM »
Tom

A sensitive modernization in my opinion is NOT what RTJ did at Oakland Hills.  Completely changing the bunkering patterns, pinching landing areas with bunkers on both sides of the fairways and SIGNIFICANTLY altering greenside bunkering.  Thats a remodel.  

In the case of Bethpage I think the only similarity is they both had to prepare for a US Open yet keep a course for the public to play all the rest of the time.  I would hope that Rees decided that the old Pine Valley bunker edging was not practical for massive public play but he had to maintain size and depth.  He went for his version (give me some leeway here) of Winged Foot Tillinghast type bunkers.  The old course had no irrigation and the revised one would certainly play a bit softer and the modern equipment as such called for more of an aerial game and so a bit of tightening around a few of the greens was attempted.  #'s 6 and 7 play essentially the same as before (7 is slightly tighter at the green opening but there is still plenty of room), #9 is essentially identical around the green as is #10 (ther never was a ground opton here).  #11 might be the most significant change but again, there is an upslope leading to the front of that green and modern irrigation precludes somewhat a ground game.  There is still some room to run the ball on. #12 is about the same and #13 has that cross bunker short of the green that alters play compared to 1938 but I doubt anyone was going for that green back then and if they were it was a running shot that again irrigation precludes today.  #'s 15 and 16 play the same and on 17 you can't see it on the aerial (which looks remarkably the same) but the lip on the deep front bunker is lower giving more visibility). In fact, thats the change I object to most.  18 is another discussion entirely.

So, I contend that the course is mostly the same as it was when I knew it and maybe even more close to the 1938 version (except the all important look).  A few decisions were made to move tee boxes back and push a few bunkers to somewhat different locations.  I think many of these could be attributed to equipment, a US Open and irrigation and firmness through the green differences in the two eras.  Overall, I'd call that a "sensitive modernization".

I'm saying all of this knowing this is a public venue destined to be a tournament course and a Major tournament course at that.  Had this been a private course that I was a member of, I would have voted for and strived to put the course back exactly as shown in the aerial and ground photos (Pine Valley appearance and all) and told the USGA to take their tournament somewhere else.  Given the circumstances, I'm pleased as could be at the results. Think of it, Roger Rulewich could have been given the job and then what woudl Bethpage look like?  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #106 on: August 23, 2002, 07:41:13 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I think you have to exclude Pine Valley and Cypress Point, because they have never held a US OPEN and have never been asked to make the course competitive, relative to par, for the best players in the world.

Had they been in the OPEN rota, I suspect that they too might have had some changes beyond what they actually experienced.

I don't think you can compare two courses with two entirely different design mandates.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back