Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restoration

[Patrick Mucci]

Dunlop White,

I would agree with most of what you state, but take exception to the statement that the architect chooses the contractor.

An architect will recommend a contractor, but clubs frequently bid the work as well, and select from the competing bidders the firm most qualified to do the work.

The architect must oversee the construction of the bunkers and sign off with his approval, as should the Club's designated project manager (individual or committee).

A club doesn't wake up one morning to find 140 bunkers built to specifications.  The process is sequential.  The bunkers initially completed are approved, rejected or modified, setting the stage for the balance of the bunker work.

But, in the ultimate, after the project is completed, only the members remain to play the altered golf course.  
The architects, consultants and contractors, like ELVIS, have left the building.  The CLUB has the ultimate responsibility to their members to insure that WHOEVER THEY HIRED, architect, consultant and contractor, GOT IT RIGHT.

Mike Cirba,

You may remember a Thread I posted which dealt with obtaining, architectual second opinions, prior to undertaking a project.   Some, including architects, objected to the idea.
While I agree that too many cooks can spoil the broth, a misquided project can ruin a course for years to come.

I'm a strong advocate of second opinions because clubs normally take about 20 years before they will consider another project, and I'd rather take the extra effort to get it right the first time.

Willie Dow,

The 1991 report you cite is quite an interesting bit of information, and would seem to support some of the work done by the architect and contractor, but it doesn't explain a construction process that left the bunkers difficult to enter and exit.

TEPaul,

I think Geoff Shackleford mentioned that clubs must decide first, why they want to alter their course, or why they are hiring an architect to propose changes.

I agree and think clubs have to have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish before setting out to find the instruments of change.

Unfortunately, as time goes by, fewer and fewer members have an experience based historical link to the clubs past.

So, who does a club draw upon to supply information relating
to the original design or play of the golf course ?
Someone who's been a member for 15 years
Many, if not most clubs don't have the invalueable archives to assist them.  Most clubs have gone through many changes over the last 60 plus years, wrought by greens committees, boards, and presidents, and their wives.  It is getting more difficult to document the clubs architectual history, hence the history to the clubmembers becomes less and less important.

How many clubs are fortunate enough to have a member like Tom Paul, who has a historical connection to golf, spend the time and effort to research, understand and publish a detailed architectural history of the club   Very, Very few.

One last bit of OPINION.
The ego/s of the club usually feel that they are quite capable of making the changes they want without any outside help.
BUT, when the work is done, that same ego/s are not prepared for the discerning scrutiny of their work and the finished product, resulting in them presenting a highly defensive posture and little in the way of data to support their decisions.

REMEMBER,
WITHOUT CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM,
PROGRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE

[TEPaul]

JamieS:

You asked me earlier if I knew if the restored bunkering at Aronimink was to Ross's specs and if what was done in the restoration was what Ross intended strategically and with the look.

I said I really didn't know if Ron Prichard followed Ross's bunker specs accurately but that he always had copies of Ross's plans and drawings in his hand.

Just got a call from the member of the green committee who spent most all the time on the course with Ron during the restoration and he said what they did is exactly to Ross's specs--exactly!

I did say at some point earlier that at first Ron was confused by the early aerials of Aronimink because the bunkering appeared different (in sets of two and threes) instead of how they were drawn in detail on the plans by Ross and Walter Erving Johnson.

When he talked to me about it well over a year ago I said it didn't sound very reasonable to me that the bunkering would be completely altered from the plans just a few years after the course was built particularly since that was in the middle of the depression.

So Ron concluded that for some reason the course was not originally built as per Ross's plans and the reason for it may have been McGovern doing things on his own during original construction.

Ron therefore decided to restore Aronimink exactly to Ross's original plans even understanding that the course may never have been built that way. That's a pretty unusual situation and I think an interesting one.

So what you played yesterday is exactly the way Ross drew the plans and what he intended as per the plans.

I told the green committee member that some of the competitors in yesterday's Patterson Cup and contributors to Golfclubatlas were wondering if Ross really did intend basically a one shot penalty out of fairway bunkers and he said he must have because all the bunkers were done exactly to his detailed plans.

As to the reasons why Ross may have done that at Aronimink when he wrote elsewhere that was not necessarily his stated principle about recovery from fairway bunkers, the green committeeman just said; "I don't know, I guess the only way to find out is to wake up Donald Ross and ask him because we did the bunkering exactly to his very detailed plans--the mearsurements, in other words, both on the plans and during the restoration were exact!

[Dunlop_White]

Patrick:

I agree, ideally club officials should take a more active role in the selection of a contractor and rely less on the architect.
The club officials have the ultimate responsibility to their members to insure that all parties hired have the best chance "to get it right".

However, you act as if such is commonplace. You are simply wrong! I doubt that many clubs have a chairperson who is as knowledgeable about contractors as those who frequent this forum. But I applaud those clubs that have done their due diligence and make such informed decisions. The checks and balances are in force under this scenario, as opposed to architects making their own selections or worse, doing their own shaping.

My experiences though have led me to believe that it is the architect who chooses the contractor. Typically, club officials trust architects and rely upon their expertise to hire the best contractor available for the job. Unfortunately, this appears to be the custom around here.

Again, I truly believe it is a team effort. The ultimate reponsibilty lies with the team. Each part is integral to the process and should serve as checks and balances on the other.  One bad piece "could" destroy the whole.



Dunlop

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop White,

If the club chooses ONE source, ONE individual to head the project, with that one individual responsible being the architect, then I would agree that HE is the SOLE outside agency responsible and accountable to the club.
He would then be the one source responsible for all sub-contractors and vendors.

But, I ask you this question in response to your post.
If the club doesn't have a knowledgeable member intricately involved in this project, what in the hell are they doing involved with a project that they know very little about in the first place ??

Question # 2:  WHY and HOW did this club decide they needed to do work on their golf course ?

If a club places their architectual future in the hands of others, on the blind, they deserve whatever they get.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember Charlie Chan, and the advice he gave to his number two son.... Trust Noone

[TEPaul]

"Club officials have the responsibility "to get it right"".

Maybe they do have that responsibility but as hard as they might try to fulfill that responsibility how in the world are club officials going to understand all the detail and nitty gritty to even know how to "get it right"? Most clubs don't even have a single member in the club who really understands what "right" is architecturally and certainly not when it gets down to architectural detail.

If a club hasn't got anyone in their club that can do that for them or one who has any kind of say or control, things probably won't work very well. Frankly, the membership may never even know it if things are done right.

Dunlop is right, it does take a team effort and an architect is pretty central to explaining to the committees in charge and to the members what some of the differences and distinctions are all about in architecture and its detail. But it's definitely up to the committees and those running things to inform themselves as best they can and ask questions and intelligent ones of the architects and others with good knowledge.

One of the biggest sidetrackers of a good project, however, are when projects come out of the box with some off the wall assumptions (that can lead quickly to off the wall conclusions) that sometimes don't make real sense and once some of those assumptions (and conclusions) take hold in clubs early in the process it's hard to get rid of them and they can often take a project down a poorly conceived path.

It's a team effort and everyone should contribute and do their homework. Architects should give committees some architectural education--ours did--and then the people on the committees should ask questions and pass on what they're finding out to the membership, if need be.

It's really not that much different than my mother when she was having a wing built on her house. She really had no vision at all in her mind about what she wanted. She got an architect and a contractor but she couldn't seem to tell either of them what she wanted. So they probably started doing what they thought she might like but every day she didn't like what they were doing and kept telling them they should have told her what they were doing and they kept telling her she never told them anything either and she never even asked any questions--only kept telling them they were doing it wrong, but always after the fact.

Probably the same with most clubs. Unless everyone involved understands exactly what they want and who can do it best they aren't very likely to be happy at the end!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your third paragraph would appear to be in total conflict with Geoff Shackleford's posting on SI, where he states that it is the clubs clear responsibility to clarify WHY the architect is brought in, to define what the mission statement is.

How can a club proceed with a project if they have noone with any knowledge at the helm or in positions of influence, or if they don't know what they want ?

The scenario you present is a rudderless ship, and we all know that they will eventually founder

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

According to you many of the things I say are in "total conflict" with someone!

That's OK, it's probably inevitable. I don't really mean to say that clubs are rudderless ships. They all have rudders some just have better rudders than others! And you know the way it goes--many golfers think they're architects for some reason!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It is not unusual that and idea, even a bad idea takes on a life of its own, resulting in harmful work to the golf course.

It is hard to prevent this, however, a possible deterent is GCA.

I believe, that if clubs, especially classics, know they are going to be subjected to incredible public scrutiny, perhaps they will think carefully about the work that they are about to undertake, and perhaps architects will also reflect upon their design advice, before any implementation takes place.

WITHOUT CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM,
PROGRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE !

P.S.  If I didn't tell you, who would ?  

[rob_mauer]

Patrick Hitt:

If I'm reading your post correctly what architects are you talking about as far as what MacDonald & Co can emulate and follow the exact direction of or not?

Are you talking about Ron Prichard or architects such as Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas etc vs architects such as Ross and even Fownes?

It's beginning to look to me like MacDonald & Co are pretty damn good at emulating the original look (and playability) of Ross's bunkers, particularly at Aronimink. But it's also beginning to look like they aren't that good at emulating the original look and playability of the various styles of bunkering of Flynn, Tillinghast and Thomas. The reasons, in my opinion, has almost everything to do with the differences and distinctions in the styles of Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas et al vs the style of Ross (and even some of Oakmont by Fownes).

It's all pretty interesting and seems to just have to do with what those styles were and what MacDonald &Co can do well today and what they don't seem to do well (if you really want an exact restored look and playability).

All this bunker restoration stuff is very interesting, particularly since Gil Hanse is about to restore my club, Gulph Mills's bunkers! Let's see how well Gil does there with our Ross bunkers (and even our Maxwell bunkers!).

I really liked what Lancaster's (Flynn) bunkers turned out like by Hanse--they just seem to be the way Flynn had them. But at the same time we have Ross bunkers and I don't want to see Gil turn them into the look of Flynn either (or Tillinghast or Thomas et al!)!

I know Gil pretty well now and if that starts to happen maybe I should tell him we need to go with Ron Prichard and MacDonald & Co judging from what they did at Ross's Aronimink!

It looks to me like MacDonald & Co can do Ross bunkers well  but not Flynn, Tillinghast and Thomas et al! I spent quite a bit of time at Aronimink when they were doing the bunkers and I know exactly what Ron Prichard was looking for in Aronimink's "Ross look". I also know that Ron felt the MacDonald shaper on that project was very likely the best the company has--or at least he was very good!

Gil can sure do Flynn and apparently Tillinghast but if I really want to find out how Gil matches Ross bunkers with they way they were all I have to do is go up to Plainfield and do some research!

Furthermore, EXACTLY why MacDonald & Co seem to do Ross type bunkers (and possibly even Oakmont's style) well and not some of the others is becoming much clearer!

[rob_mauer]

willie,
well said!! The only other combination that may have worked would be Kittleman, Valentine, Armen Suni and or Lou Morgan. Both Armen and Lou were former assistants to Richie who had a respect for the classic design and natural weathering of the true white faces of Merion.

No Ed, but they are in good hands with our present GCS.

Hopefully, with proper controls on watering, working with various grasses, and shaping to bring back the Merion look with more sand, we can doctor ourselves back to the Valentine, Kittleman, Bader years.

As said before, things evolve.

[TEPaul]

Willie:

That is an interesting letter from Bator and maybe that's one of the reasons Bill Greenwood said during the GAP restoration forum (with Fazio and Klein) that essentially Merion has been undergoing a restoration project for over twelve years now.

I don't know much about grasses but isn't the vast majority of what's on those bunker surrounds--basically only the parts that are now being kept quite short, almost entirely blue grass?

If that's so wouldn't the club need to replace that blue with fescues or at least more fescue in that area? Maybe the mix is something like 80/20 blue but wouldn't it be better to alter that mix to much more fescue in relation to blue.

I really don't know much about grasses so that's no rhetorical question, I really have no idea but would love to know!

Or put another way--do you know what was on those bunker surrounds on like #3 at Lancaster greenside that we were looking at the other morning? Whatever those grasses are or whatever the mix is--that to me would be the ticket!

The next question would be how different was the construction methods at Merion vs Lancaster just before the bunkers surrounds at both courses were grassed?

In other words, if there is something like heavy batter-boarding up under those grassed lips at Merion getting that evolved look maybe a bit of a problem--but maybe not.

I don't know this but could sure easily find out but it looked to me on those Lancaster bunker tops, lips and surrounds like they might have just stacked some layers and between 1996 and today those layers have started to slip down naturally, cup, whatever to form all kinds of interesting looking edges and natural looking little formations.

That to me looks almost exactly like anyone knows happens to earth when natural forces--weight, wind, water, whatever has an opportunity to work it's natural looking wonders on the earth! The grasses are important but the natural looking formations should either come first or work in tandem with the grasses!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Willie's letter shows what I think is the best way to go.....slowly and perferably in-house. If you have an excellent superitendant with a genuine appreciation for his golf course and its architecture, he would seem to be the best person to carry out a 'restoration'.

The superintendant presumably would have all the historical data and what he didn't have he could get his hands on. He would have the greatest resource/evidence at his disposal -- the golf course. Studying the land forms, investigating the layout and probing the features on a everyday basis over an extended time. As result he would be intimately familar with the golf course and its history and its potential. He could do the work deliberately and by hand. These professional 'restoration' projects look to be more professional mdernization projects. Those carrying out the work are many times hired guns, under time contraints, who don't have a familarity with the course, and in many cases do not love the course. The result is a modern looking golf course.

If the super is not architecturally inclined perhaps an architect would be needed to lend his guidance, but the work should be done in-house if possible. Although there are special circumstances, for example if the course contains some particularly complex features or has lost a number of complex features that require a skilled bunker craftmen - restoring the work of a MacKenzie, Thomas or Thompson is not the same as restoring the work of Ross and is not easily accomplished even by the most skilled people, in fact many times it borders on impossible. Not that Ross or Raynor or Langford are easy, they too require skill and considerable homework to get it right.

And I wonder about these Ross specialists. Are we going to have singular Ross style after they make the rounds - the description of the fairway bunkers at Aronomink makes me wonder. I'll be very curious to see how Beverly turns out. It would help if Pinehurst #2 was restored to its late 30's look, I suspect it is at the root of all these look-a-likes. And are all Macdonal-Raynor courses the same? Do we have or are we going to have similar phenomenon with their course restorations?

There needs to be a resource or data base of information to assist these projects. Geoffrey claimed Century was restored in a way that recreated the Alison style. I asked what was the Alison style I'd like to know - no response. And I'm sure that is true with a number of lesser known architects like a Herbert Strong or a Willie Park-Jr......or even a Ross-Hatch as opposed to a Ross-McGovern as opposed to a Ross-Ross.

And Bethpage should not be included in a discussion about architectural bunker restoration, I don't even think the project architect would consider it in that light. That was a remodeling in preperation for a major championship, closer to what RTJ did at Oakland Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If I understand your post correctly, I would agree that sometimes in house thinking, regarding restoration might be preferable to outside influences.

I'm not so sure about in house construction, and believe it would fall within the course specific category with respect to qualifications, understanding and the ability to do the work without compromising the daily or seasonal maintainance practices.

Superintendents are employees of the club, unfortunately, at some clubs, there are 300 bosses getting in the way.

At clubs that are fortunate enough to have the right ingredients, a highly competent/knowledgeable superintendent, and a committee/board/membership in harmony with the preservation or restoration of their course, success is almost assured, however, that situation tends to be more rare than commonplace.

Successful RESTORATIONS at a nearby club seems to be a driving force behind the undertaking of a restoration project at other clubs, hopefully, this type of keeping up with the Jones's will be beneficial.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

Thanks for the answer. That is very interesting info.

Having never played a Ross course that featured bunkers as found at Aronomink, I figured it a logical question to ask.

After reading about some of Ross' design principles, the bunkering at Aronomink struck me right away as "out of character" for a Ross course.

I suppose he was going for something a little different.  I certainly have not seen that style at many courses.  It is very bold and imposing for a golfer standing on the tee.  I wish I would've played the golf course before a competitive round in order to find a game plan.  It is imperitive to select the correct club off the tee for placement.

There is constant talk on this site about how to curb technology and the distance players are hitting the ball these days...maybe Ross figured it out long ago?

The bunker style and more importantly, the bunker placement found at Aronomink "dictate" to the golfer where to hit the tee shot, and how far. You can no longer just bang your Driver for distance even if you hit it straight. In theory it works just like many of the links courses in Scotland. The bunkering requires the golfer to execute tee shots that are both straight and the proper distance. It is not a feature found at most US courses, and it definitely takes a different mindset and approach to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Forgotten in your original post, and the subsequent responses, is a critical factor......... MONEY.

And, each CLUB'S view on spending MONEY.

FEW club's provide open checking accounts to their architects, contractors and sub-contractors, and the bunker work you desire in the ultimate, may be limited in the absolute, related strictly to the DESIRE AND ABILITY of the club to gain membership approval to raise funds for a MORE EXPENSIVE PROJECT.

The assessing and spending of money will continue to be an integral part of any restoration project, perhaps, even the ULTIMATE determiner of the finished product.

That's the reality of many if not most if not all substantive projects.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The more formal the process, the more expensive the project. Hiring an architect who may or may not have the required knowledge of the course and the architect, who might involve a professional contractor who may or may not have a  knowledge of the course or the architect is expensive. Let someone who cares for the course and has to live with the course daily handle the work. He is less likely to do something drastic or evasive to his course. Who wants an architect and a contractor who have their own personality and style consciously or subconsciously leaving their mark? Let the home boys handle it.

Big plans lead to know-it-all over bearing members involving themselves - the single most destructive force to golf architecture. The reason many courses in the UK are so well preserved is because you don't have these whole sale changes in either direction. In our country we have these 'powerful' asses who come and go every couple of years, who for some reason think they know whats best for the golf course, a golf course they enherited and which they will have to leave for those who follow.


Let the superitendatnt care for his course and let him handle the 'project' slowly and quietly, just as part of the normal maintenance of the course. Several trees go each winter, a few greens are expanded each season, a bunker of two are restored by hand each year, no interuption of play. Very few would even notice and certainly it would not require a large budget (comparatively speeking).

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I agree money is a huge determinant in any project but it doesn't cost all that much to find out what various things cost first and then you can decide if you want to do them for whatever they may cost and certainly in what order or progression. Even very partial restorative projects have an interesting way of getting the attention of memberships and if popular then you get into an interesting situation of far greater value in the minds of memberships with projects that may follow and meld into the overall restoration, if you know what I mean. That's when it definitely becomes easier and less controversial to raise money for restorative projects.

You can't believe what creating a little awareness in the minds of memberships of what they have can do as far as building a consensus to do restorative projects. Build a little awareness in the history of the golf course, it's architect and architecture and that can immediately translate into value in their minds. With that, the ability to raise the money to continue with projects that meld into a completed restoration becomes a lot easier!

[TEPaul]

JamieS:

Yes, it's interesting about the Aronimink restoration and I just heard a few things last night that I think are very interesting about the course and Ross and the original head pro etc that should be mentioned on here. I think though that I'll bring up the Patterson Cup/Aronimink/Applebrook topic and put it on there.

[TEPaul]

Actually, I think there's enough detailed information coming out or about to about Aronimink and its just completed restoration by Ron Prichard that should generate interest particularly after most of the A players in Philly played the course this week in GAP's Patterson Cup to start another topic on Aronimink alone.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How would you evaluate the work done at YALE by its former superintendent ?

Most think he ruined the golf course.

Your idea is really out of touch with reality.

Some of the biggest mistakes made to golf courses were made by agronomists thinking they were architects, or members thinking the agronomist was a qualified architect.

Donald Ross, Tillinghast and Charles Blair MacDonald encouraged clubs to ALWAYS work in conjunction with an architect, which is in direct conflict with your advice.
Take it from people who have actually done design work, built and revised golf courses, HIRE AN ARCHITECT.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood

I didn't see any question directed at me.  In any event, you of all people should certainly have researched the style of Alison and Colt so why ask a question you know the answer to already.  Testing us perhaps?

You should really go to Daniel Wexler's book Missing Links.  You know- its the one you thought I hadn't seen before.  Look at the photos of Timber Point.  Also, you might try to get over and play some courses like perhaps County Sligo to see what the bunkers look like.  There are some real differences in the styles among the courses I've played that still have a semblance of realistic Colt/Alison's work and the pictures I've seen but best I can tell, Gil Hanse restored the bunkers at Century within what I would call the style I recognize from those architects.  Have you played the course and if so do you disagree?

Finally, since I've answered your question perhaps you will post all of those photos of bethpage including the aerial that you used to make you assessments of the course?  Its been a really long time since you failed to respond.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom:  I sensed you might look at this evolution in this manner.  Taking in costs, know/how and membership awareness, the GCS route is the best. "Slowly, and preferably in house.
Pat:  When a course has been changed by an architect (unpaid but responsible), and members have seen and played against the results of his construction crew, many of the "bosses getting in the way" are in hibernation.

The club should look back to what is available from the past.  Listen to those who have been there, done that, and can help correct the mistakes.

I hope Abe will not mind my using another quote from his 1988 Comprehensive Plan:
"Therefore, what philosophy and policy will restore and preserve the best from the past, embrace the most desirable of changes that have occurred over the decades, and configure the East Course in such a manner that its quality and character will be retained in traditional form for future generations to enjoy?  And what standards and principles are appropriately applied to a maintenance program for the course in the future?
It is suggested that they be policies and standards which are primarily focused on providing a course for the enjoyment of its membership under normal conditions while at the same time providing one which can be fine tuned for a championship tournament with;out requiring extraordinary measures of reconditioning or unduly interfering with play by the membership."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie Dow,

I'd appreciate a candid response on the following statement, the members can't be happy with the bathtub nature of the bunkers.   True or False ??

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Just a phenominal Topic with some pretty good questions and answers.

Tom Paul--Is the work Ron Pritchard is doing at Aronomink the same as in the pictures hanging in the barber shop, in the locker room?

Shooter just recently emailed me asking about Ross's style of bunkering and how in Golf Has Never Failed Me Ross spoke of less natural looking bunkers, professing more of the clean-edged type. (I have yet to find the exact statement in the book, but had also forgotten Ross' detailed analysis of how to build bunkers in the book.)

My reply to him was, and while I have seen all of (4 ) Ross courses that I felt that Ross bunkering was of a quirky-natural man-made feel, not unlike that one would find on some of the great links of Great Britain--Dornoch in example. But Ross also did some pretty interesting natural stuff too, like at Lu Lu Temple #18 or the massive quarry filled with sad at its bottm that once existed at Gulph Mills. The key to Ross's bunkering was not so much the look as the placement and its relation to the target it was protecting. There is no doubt in my mind Ross wanted a 1-stroke penalty for entering his defenses, but he also was wise in knowing how to properly allow that one lucky chance to escape doom and pull of a GREAT shot. We also have to remember that this style of bunkering was before the days of the 60 degrees plus extraction tools that are on the market today.

From the tee, a famous Ross cop bunker not only blinded the player hitting over it, but also demanded srtategic play around it for those who couldn't pull the shot off. (the advent of the half-stroke by our favorite Golden Age Designers. You simply place your shot away from the hazard, and took another line to the target. Hence the strategy of how to play a golf hole due to ones given abilities.

But on to Gil vs MacDonald--There is NO comparison and I find it hard to believe anyone could ever hope to place them in the same category. The group at MacDoanld and Sons has yet to prove to the golf world that they compare to the Hanse & Co's; The Renaissance Group; and THE BOYS. (For those of you that are new to GCA Coore & Crenshaw and company) MacDonald's work shows me one thing--that there is little passion when it comes to the actual art of it all, but more then enough accolades for getting it done in record time, and creating something that looks.....well......conventional? ? ? ? ?

All of the above mentioned, I have to say take great pride in what they do, they live, eat and breath golf course design. I have seen many others that work for some of the top construction firms in the business who don't even golf. This is the difference of an operator making a bunker look like it belongs in a park and one that makes it look like that found it already there.

The GREAT Merion Debacle is a due result of EGO, EGO, and EGO. It has not a lot to due with Fazio other then playing sort of a watchdog to a under-associate who thinks he knows better then the 80 years of history has showed him. result; an amateur champion who sells cars for a living that suddenly fancied himself smarter then Hugh Wilson; A greens-chairman that felt that he was doing the RIGHT thing, by restoring things back to 1930, when in fact, he had better then 1930 there in front of him; just needing a little nip-tuck-cut here and there; and....the committee that green-lighted this whole mess.

Many of you can say in Six Million Dollar Man-fashion: They can rebuild it. We have now have the technology.... but unfortunately, it will never be the same--ever! Unless they start a new chapter in their history and call in a power that Hugh Wilson or William Flynn could somehow deem appropriate for the task (Historians and people that know the club.) Someone that knows how to properly emulate the rough, un-perfect lines of nature that are so beautiful and were the biggest feature to the Great White Faces. SOmeone that is not of name-stature or ego that would do the project simply to get it right. I know of a few names, and so do the clubmembers responsible for this mess.

The only thing is that they have to make the call.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I've seen the old photos of Timber Point, were they going for the Timber Point look when restoring Century? How does that look compare to Burning Tree or Park or Kirtland or Knollwood?  How would you describe Alison's bunker style, I'd like to know, I've been trying to figure it out myself? The point I was trying to make is that trying to capture the Alison style is difficult because very few - including most architects - do not know what Alison's style is. County Sligo is Colt.

Call me at 614-792-2846 and give me your credit card number or we can make other financial arangements. Then I can go ahead and order copies of those superb aerials from the state of NY. I've already spoken to them and they've agreed to do it, for a price.

Patrick
Which Super at Yale and how long was he there? There are incompetent people in every profession and hopefully they are removed when their incompetence is discovered. One would hope the courses that are worthy of restoration hire excellent superitendants - but there are exceptions to every rule.  I've been wondering if the British model of a long term Secretary is the best for golf architecture as opposed to our model of temporary (by popular vote or god old fashioned brow beating) know-it-all greens committeemen. It seems like our preserved courses have either a single long term figure (Pine Valley, Seminole, etc.) or an excellent long term Super (NGLA, Merion, etc.). I'd be interested to know the history of Chicago Golf's power structure, I'll bet you'll find some long term forces were behind that well preserved course.