[Willie_Dow]

Patrick
Your guess about the "bathtub look" is as questionable as mine.  Is it Merion? NO!  But who am I to say?  My buddies play the West, but those of us that played the East today, and they are buddies too, would say "let's go back to Abe's thoughts".
Unfortunately, Abe only plays the West.

[Mike_Cirba]

When "all of the stars are in alignment", to steal a phrase, inhouse restoration can work beautifully.

Take the case of Philadelphia Country Club.  Yes, they hired an architect, Ron Forse, but in a consulting role.  The hands on work was done by the Superintendent, Mike McNulty, with his staff and the results are exquisite.  

The bunkers look like William Flynn; period.  The multi-grassed surrounds are fabulous already, and will only get better with age.  They are full of inconsistency, variability, psychological intimidation, and rugged beauty.  Willie Dow mentioned them to me a year or so ago, and he was RIGHT ON THE MONEY.  I defy anyone to look at the work that has been done and say they can tell that massive restoration work has been done to the bunkers in the past 2 years.  The bunkers are seamlessly integrated into their natural surrounds, and they are things of beauty.  

Oh yes...they've also taken down a tree or two.  Director of golf Greg Nolan has spearheaded this restoration effort, working with all club officials and the membership, and it's truly become a shining example of the type of wonderful return to the past that so many of us here admire.

The 11th and 16th greens are almost conjoined, (ala Fenway), not that anyone would have noticed in years past with the forest growing between them.  Looking at it now from the 11th tee is startling...looking at it coming over the rise to the 16th green below is awe-inspiring!!    

I think what I learned is that with the golf course in the right hands, and with the proper talent on-site, along with the wisdom to seek outside professional opinions, the "in-house" method can yield wonderful results.  

But, as they'll tell you...you've got to get ALL of the stars aligned to make this type of thing happen successfully.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

Our look-see at Lancaster fits closely with Mike's observations at Spring Mill.  My guess would be that much of the surrounds which now exist at Lancaster were either planted fescue into the existing soil or came from sod banks that were known to yield good turf that matched the existing soil.

I seem to be bringing forward a number of old comments, and you mentioned Mel Lucas, but I think his read on our bunkers was "right on". 18 October 2000, Mel wrote me: "Herein lies some concerns as to off site sod.  At PRC, I was forced to purchase sod rather than borrow from an area on site as I had done at GCGC.  The sod was basically a straight Bluegrass type, but after years of harvesting sod on all sod farms of Long Island the topsoil was depleted.  The biggest problem with this material was found on all southern exposed slopes from mid June on and that was wilt.  The clay base shed the daily watering of greens and the beautiful rich soil under it became bone dry.  The syringing of banks; pitch forking of them to open holes in the sod; the spraying of wetting agents and hand watering in took many man hours.  All this could have been avoided if we had utilized sod harvested from banks that yielded good turf.  The initial and startling recognition of this problem comes at you broadside and it is a catch up dilemma.  There was some turf loss that was hard for the membership to understand and moreso to accept.
As one addresses bunker restoration, you will note the many areas of sand bunkers that have grass which has crept into the sand.  Much of this grass can be salvaged and laid on top of the good soil found under the built up sand.  This grass has grown on site for years, it is acclimated to that bunker environment at Merion. When placed on good topsoil it will thrive and immediately blend into all surrounds.  The native species of grass you desire are already there."

With this in mind we must move forward, in house!

Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The superintendent at YALE was there for a long time.

Pine Valley recently built another 8th green and a 10 hole short course, with 8 holes replicated from the big course, all done in house, with FAZIO as the consulting/supervising architect.

Hal Hicks is the superintendent at Seminole, he was hired away from PINE TREE a few years ago.  Seminole retained Brian Silva as their consulting architect.

A superintendent's primary function is course maintainance/agronomy, not architecture and construction.

Mike Cirba is correct, A club has to be lucky, the stars have to be properly aligned. but, we know that only occurs RARELY.

The problem with allowing a superintendent to act solely as a club's architect is as follows:  

The political structure and stability at the club at the time the incompetent work is done, will preserve that work, and continue to do more bad work until their days are over.

Once the work is done, it is very difficult to get it undone.
It is costly, and it is controversial.
I ask, under whose guidance will the club proceed
Who will the club listen to in the evaluation of work that you find incompetent.

You may not like the domineering or overbearing member as you choose to define that figurehead, but, If you look at those same clubs you mentioned as examples of success, Pine Valley, Seminole, NGLA, they are all ruled by an autocracy or at the very least by an oligopoly.

What is key to the governance of the club and from an architectural perspective is:

They have to have a love of the entity
They have to have knowledge and wisdom
They have to have the time to devote to the club
They have to have thick skin.

Those are the guys on the horse leading the charge,
not the committees.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I was referring to John Arthur Brown and Chris Dunphy, I have no idea what the current make up of those clubs might be, but I think the single long term force is a good one. In Britain it is the club Secretary, at The Addington and Woking it was Abercromby and Paton; at Seminole and PVGC it was Dunphy and Brown; and at Merion it was the Valentines and NGLA its Olson. It seems clear that it is beneficial when there is a single long term force in-house and the British model of a Club secretary seems to me to be better one than our temp Green committeemen who don't have the time nor the inclination of a full-time caretaker. I don't think the normal American system works well and is why we are in need of a great number of 'restorations' today.

I believe there are more than few very good in-house restorations, but being in-house they normally don't recieve as much notice (which may be why they were successful). Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the restorations/preservations of Brookline, NGLA, Crystal Downs, Prarie Dunes, Merion (Kittleman era) and Cypress Point done largely in-house? Hasn't there been excellent in-house work done at Westhampton and Berkshire Hills?

To answer your question of under whose guidance should the club proceed, under the guidance of the professionals they hired to care for the golf course - be it a quality superitendant or the club secretary (and a qualified golf architect if the circumstances dictate).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I've always been in favor of dictators, John Arthur Brown, Chris Dunphy and others, but their ranks are thining, and if you look at all the clubs in the US, the dictatorships represent an infinitesimal number.

The UK has historically had a different social structure than the US and that impacts golf clubs and the way they are run as well.
While I may favor that structure, I don't see it being adopted on a meaningful scale in the US.

Clubs in the US are becoming more democratic,
not imperialistic.

I wouldn't classify the work NGLA undertook as RESTORATION
I would classify the work as RECLAMATION.
I think there is a substantive difference.  
NGLA had no holes redesigned or rebuilt other than the cape hole green over the last 70 years, so I don't think it's accurate to describe the good work Karl has done as true restoration work.

A club needs to clearly understand what they have, and why and what they want to alter, and they should always consult with a competent architect prior to undertaking any project that will impact the golf course.

While I hope the trend toward sympathetic restorations expands and continues, I see other, not so positive trends,
that will disfigure or destroy wonderful golf holes and classic golf courses.

But, that's just my opinion, I hope I'm wrong.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

"OLIGOPOLY"??

And you're the guy who's the expert at managing projects through club memberships??

Oligopoly sounds like that mess I had for dinner the other night at a Greek restaurant--damn near made me sick to my stomach.

Be careful when you try to buy $5 words to use on this website--you might not have enough coin in your pocket to afford them. In this case it would appear so as the definition of oligopoly is--a market condition that exists when there are few sellers!

I think the kind of club structure you had in mind controlling things might be called an oligarchy!

"Archy" is basically the Greek root for "rule" or "government" and "oligo" is the Greek root for "few".

But I can understand your hesitancy to use a word with "archy" in it as it's also used with "anarchy" which I do understand completely offends your sense of order, symmetry and formulaics, like bunkers with depths that don't conform to the length of the shot to the green!

So the word you were looking for was "oligarchy" and if I see it on the menu in a Greek restaurant I ain't having any--it sounds like it has too much oil in it and it will probably make me sick to my stomach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Funny that you should bring that up.

I wanted to use another word, more fitting the circumstance, but couldn't remember it, so, by default, oligopoly was inserted.  I'm sure the word will come to me, as I've used it before, but, as you get older, a few things start to go and one of them is your memory.  
Right now, I can't remember what the other things are  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

"....,as you get older a few things start to go and one of them is your memory."

Tell me about it! Or, I guess I should say that's just another thing you don't need to tell me!

[GeoffreyC]

Without proper care and guidance more harm then good can occur.  Pat mentioned the superintendent at Yale and Tom MacWood aparently didn't believe him.  Well here are a few of the misguided (and perhaps/probably even well intentioned) changes that were made in the name of more accurate putting and who knows what other excuses.

Back in the 50’s the superintendent (Harry) was given a bulldozer for a present and he apparently liked to use it!

On #1, he removed the tall lip on the front left bunker that created a punchbowl on that side of the green and it altered visibility of the shot as well. I played with a member who has been playing the course since 1951 and he remembers this feature quite well.  Do the current “restorers” of the course bother to look for such valuable information?  Of course not!

On #2, a right greenside bunker was removed as were mounds and humps on the right side of the green.  Again, the long time member recalls these features including the humps on the green and their locations very well.

On #3, the entire HUGE double punchbowl green next to the pond was plowed under (drainage was apparently a problem) only to build the current out of character green behind the hill.  Folks mistakenly think this might be the alps hole.

On #6, a ridge running through the green was removed.  The old time member could be the last surviving person to recall this feature of the course from the early fifties.

On #7, the right greenside bunker was almost the size of the entire green and it apparently had a monster lip that intimidated the play to right pin locations.  It was “restored” recently into a peanut shaped virtually out of play shell of its former self in size, placement and depth.  I hope an old photo of this amazing bunker is part of George Bahto’s book.

#12, the alps hole is another amazing use of a bulldozer in the hands of a marauding superintendent without guidance.  He removed about 6-7 feet of the alps hill, covered over the 8 foot deep trench bunker and instead built two lifeless little shallow pot bunkers left and right.  Again, the old time member recalls this vividly.  Does anyone really think that Roger Rulewich with the permission of the esteemed committee will restore the hill AND dig the trench bunker 8 feet deep?

#13- The rear bunkers on the redan were removed.

#15- The eden hole.  The front (Strath equivalent) right bunker was made smaller by the superintendent eliminating a masterful right portion of the bunker extending into the right side of the green.  I was told how the “restoration” would reestablish the depth and a finger that extended into the right front of the green to create a “sucker” pin location.  Of course the shape and positioning of the new Rulewich/committee bunker is all wrong and failed to create the finger and sucker pin.  I’ve blown up the 1934 aerial and measured the bunker on 15 relative to what I make out to be the green and the newly “restored” bunker is not even close in shape and location to the original it was supposed to replicate.

On 17, the superintendent removed the principal nose bunker complex short of the green and the right greenside bunker.  The he really gave the bulldozer a workout when he removed about 7-8 feet of the hill which must be driven over off the tee.  Again, the old time member recalls these features with great detail.

There were a few less egregious acts like removing the bunker on the hillside off the tee on #10 and the hillside bunker on #18 before the upper fairway (all on the 1934 aerial) but who’s counting at this point.

So, you ask what can be done without proper direction.  Here is a striking example. The Yale administration is asking the members for money “for achieving a complete restoration of our magnificent Charles Blair MacDonald golf course”.  Does anyone think that the “complete restoration” they are talking about will address the points I’ve outlined above? If you answer yes to this question then I have some swampland for sale to you at a good price.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood- The check is in the mail  

I guess that your needing the NY State aerial (and my money for it) and not posting what Bethpage photographic research you have is a pretty solid admission that you don't have the actual data you need to make the claims about Bethpage that you've been spouting all these months.  Admitting this is the first sign on the path to your recovery to honesty in research and publication  

[TEPaul]

What's going on with you two guys? It sounds like you both might need some Katzonian mediation! If you'd like I'll put in a call to Dr K.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
That is a pretty strong condemnation. I'm still not sure exactly it is you disagree with in my findings - but if my consclusions are false, dishonest or inaccurate let me know and I'll either edit what I have written or have the essays completely removed from this site.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

I generally respect and agree with much of what you write.  however, with respect to the Bethpage issue I must argue with the means you seem to have used to come to the conclusions you draw SPECIFICALLY about movement of bunkers and more about your statements about CURRENT PLAYABILITY being more in line of what Tillinghast intended on the holes that Rees apparently changed the least.  These statements it seems to me required you to either have played the course before and after or (less desirable) have quality images that can be blown up and measured relative to other features. Accurate renditions should have required both aerial and ground level photos.  You claimed to have used both and I wanted to see the quality of the images you used to make these statements. Had you just stuck to your impressions and opinions from the new photos that abound I would certainly respect your opinion but it seems to me that you went beyond a simple opinion about the "look" of the course. This was brought home to me in your excellent article about the history of Bethpage in the in my opinion section of this site which was solely about how the courses were initially formulated and if Tillinghast was responsible for the Black course.  You interjected (IN BOLD TEXT) your thoughts basically that Rees ruined the course.  That statement had no place (in my opinion) in that article which had no modern history anywhere else in the text.  In my mind that showed a bias that combined with some of your other statements about how the course looked in 1938 led me to ask you for the data you used to draw your conclusions. We have not seen it.

With respect to the "look" of the new bunkers I actually don't have a beef with you but I would however refer you to page 217 of "The Golf Courses of the MGA" book by Bill Quirin.  There is a nice photo of the 10th hole at Winged Foot West clearly showing the two quite famous bunkers with their "whales tail" shape. I don't for a second want to argue about the esthetics of those two bunkers with the ones at Bethpage but the shapes are strikingly similar.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
To be totally accurate I did not state that Rees ruined the golf course, I wrote:  "(unfortunately the Tillinghast look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling)"
This is a website devoted to golf architecture and my essays many times deal with the history of golf architecture, golf architects and their work - I included that statement so no one would get the idea that the current course and its bunkering was a historically accurate depiction of the course as Tillinghast designed it. Other than yourself, I don't recall anyone else disputing that statement or disturbed by its inclusion.

And the Tillinghast look was ignored, it is my opinion that the bunkering of the course now looks more like the work of Rees Jones than Tillinghast - a conclusion shared by Ron Whitten who claimed the course looked more like Atlantic than Winged Foot. Personally I was hoping it would look more like Bethpage.

And it was disfigured. It is a fact that a number of the bunkers had either their shape significantly altered, or were moved, or were not reestablished. Not to mention the new bunkers that were never part of the original design.

There is nothing about the playability or movement of the bunkers in that essay or any other essay I have written. So to claim that I am in need of honesty and accuracy in publishing seems to me to be bordering on slander.

But I will post once again on this thread, bunkers were moved and new greenside bunkering schemes were implemented - do you dispute that? I don't ever recall commenting on the playability of those bunkers, since I've never played from them. But I do believe that moving bunkers, not re-establishing lost bunkers and adding new bunkers does alter the way a course plays strategically - don't you? Rees Jones himself commented that they attempted to emulate the strategic requirements found at Winged Foot with large wing bunkers placed very close to the putting surfaces - isn't that a change in the courses original strategy.

I stand by my conclusion, the original look of the course as designed by Tillinghast was ignored and disfigured. You may have a different opinion, and you have every right to dispute my findings by conducting your own independent research and drawing your own conclusions that either dispute or confirm what I put my name on. But you have not, in fact you have admitted the course was not restored. For some reason when I make the claim, I am told I'm not qualified to draw these conclusions, I have not played the course, I am dishonest and that I am required to disclose all of my research. I think I've conducted more research than just about anyone on this site and I pride myself in drawing accurate, well reasoned and intellectually honest conclusions. I think in this case I may have a struck sensative nerve and for that I oppologize.

Call me at 614-792-2846 and I will give you the name and number of the person with the state who will provide you with a copy of the aerial. I would love to see it posted on this site beside a current aerial. I've invested enough of my valuable time, I'm not going to invest any of my money. I am totally comfortable with my conslusions.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

You have twisted my points once again but I stand by my conclusions about part of your research which I believe required good photographic evidence that you apparently don't possess. This will be the last I comment on this matter as it has taken up entirely too much of my time.

You said back in June (and I quote) ""The most distinctive/interesting approaches were to the green complexes that remained most true to Tillinghast's vision (#2, #4, #5 and #15 come to mind)." This quote it seems to me requires knowledge of playability before and after the work Rees did and at least a very detailed knowledge of what the course looked like on the ground in 1938 and at present. Since you've never set foot on the Bethpage property I wanted to see your evidence.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I think it would be helpful to describe the context of my statement - it was in response to a thread in which Mike Cirba specifically asked for the opinions of those who had not played the course and that was part of my answer/impression based on the US Open (I can pull it up if you want). It seems pretty inocent to me, was my response to that question lacking honesty in research and publication?

If you recall I detailed the changes to every hole on the course based on my research - do you think I made it up or pulled the information out of my ass? (If you want we can pull that thread back up too)

I later discovered there was a photo of the '38 aerial in the US Open program and let everyone know it was in there so they might compare the accuracy of my description with the aerial, if need be with the help of a magnifying glass (hell most of the major differences I mentioned can be seen without the help of a magnifying glass - #4, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15 and #18). I take it my research/description was accurate because, as far as I know, on one disputed it or found fault with it. As someone who has admitted to be very interested in Bethpage's history and a great fan of Tillinghast's work, where do you think my description of the changes missed the mark?

I think you said you had a program that could enhance less than perfect pictures, blow up the aerial in the program and do some enhancing. If you want better quality call me at 614-792-2846 and I'll hook you up with the person with the LI State parks. I'll make a deal, you do that and I'll send you my aerial. As an admitted Bethpage afficianado I'm surprised you haven't independently tried to uncover the truth about the '38 Black and secured your own aerial. Why haven't you?  

By the way I'm still interested in your description of Alison's style. Maybe we can all benefit from this thread's unfortunate sidetrack and learn something about Alison.

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom

I'm really tired of your deceptive answers.  Mike Cirba's original post was a question that asked "How much will Bethpage Black move up in the rankings?" He asked impressions (ranking impressions!) of those who have played the course and those who  have not.  You used the opportunity to berate the work done by Rees Jones again and again and again.  You twisted it here again. Where will Bethpage go in the rankings?  You never did answer.

Finally, on June 18th at 9:13 PM and a couple of other times within a day of that you go on and on about the ground photos that you examined.  You said there was no sign of fescue and so on.  YOu describe rough edges to the bunkers and some flashed .  They must be pretty good quality since you say your aerial is poor and you can't make out greens or even fairways for that matter.  Then at the same time you describe what you see in the aerial along with distances like the bunkers on #6 that extend from about 180 to 230 (?) yards.  Boy - you can even measure distances but you can't see greens or fairways. You can apparently see great detail in the ground photos but you won't post them.  Interesting.  Are ALL of your ground photos those tiny little images in the Tillinghast book or do you have others?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I chose not answer the question about the ranking, just like I chose not answer 98% of the questions that appear on this site. I instead anwered the last set of questions:

"For those who haven't played it, was it about what you expected to see?  Or, was it better or worse?

What's the big deal? Does that make dishonest in my research?

Yes that is correct I didn't see fescue in the old photos, big freaken deal, sue me. Maybe it was added later, maybe Tillie wanted and Burbeck didn't, who gives a crap, I like the fescue.

Why is it that only my photos of Bethpage are questioned as dubious? Why would I make this stuff up? Anyone with an interest can get a similar aerial, in fact as turns out it was in the US open program, anyone check my conclusions. You can not seriously believe that the current bunkers look like old Bethpage or Tillinghast - do you?

As far the distances they were estimates/ranges to describe the staggered effect of the fairway bunkers, do you want me to get out some kind of calibrated measuring device?

Have I ever posted any photos in all the years I have contributed to this site? Can one only contribute to this site if they have the capibilities of posting photos?

The moral to this story is don't write anything that could possibly be construed as negative when it comes to Bethpage.

Alison?

[GoeffreyChilds]

Tom MacWood

You write "The moral to this story is don't write anything that could possibly be construed as negative when it comes to Bethpage."

That's again totally untrue- I contend that the course that I intimately knew from 1969 to 1995 or so was infinitely improved by the work done by Rees.  I believe that NUMEROUS posters here on GCA who also share this opinion because they have played and observed for themselves would agree with this statement.  I believe there has not been a SINGLE opposing view to this from those who have seen and played the course.

You would contend from the comfort of your living room or den without EVER setting foot on the property that the course of 1938 was better.  You did this apparently from observing a small sized dark very xerox copy on two pages of the 1938 aerial where you admit you can't make out the greens or even the fairways.  You talk about ground level photos of the BLACK course (not the yellow, blue or red which are different in depth, style and bold size) that show their features but never say where the source of them might be, what holes or anything else about them. You certainly won't post them. I asked if they were from the Tillinghast books by Wolffe but you didn't answer.  If they were from the Tillinghast books then I would ask everyone here to look in them for ground level photos of bunkers and other features of the BLACK course because they are few and far between and very tiny.  That is why I contend YOU can not accurately tell us enough about the Black course of 1938 to berate Rees Jones for what he did to improve the course for all the grateful players.  Thats why I say you have not done enough accurate research because you don't have either the data or the on site experience to make conclusions of that kind.  

I know you will contend that he had the information about the 1938 Black course and he should have done a faithful restoration but that was simply not in the cards nor was it necessarily the best thing to do for what is now a US Open course and one thats played from dawn to dusk every day in between tournaments.  Sometimes compromises are the best result for all.

You Alison question was already answered unlike all of the unanswered questions directed at you.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I've also said that I find the original Augusta National more interesting, and the '29 version Pebble Beach, and the original version of Shinnecock, and of Timber Point, and pre-Fazio Inverness, and Oyster Harbor, and Bel Air and so on so on. I don't recall you questioning my view in those cases or asking me to produce photographic evidence or claiming that my research was dishonest. The reason is simple - it was Bethpage.

I have on numerous occasions said that I had not played Bethpage and I have also said on numerous occasions I don't doubt the course is a great improvement over the delapitated course. But just because you and everyone else believes the course has been greatly improved by Rees, does not mean all research must sease, or that there can not be an opposing opinion or that the original course designed by Tillinginghast may have been superior? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I have seen old photos of the Black course in American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, Golfdom, the Times and Golf Review Monthly. I am very fortunate to have access to a private collection (it would not have been possible to carry out the research of Bethpage without it), and I will not be doing anything to compromise the privledge. Your opinion is not that important to me. The strongest evidence of the original course's make up is provided in the aerial of 1938 which was obtained from a University. Pointing out the course was not restored is not to berate Rees Jones - it is a fact. Berating is what you have been doing to me ever since I wrote the essay on Bethpage.

I'll ask you once again where do you find fault with detailed description of the changes? And please point out the factual mistakes in my research, if there are mistakes in my essays I will correct them (I am sure I have made mistakes)or I will remove them from this site. I'm tired of your complaining.

You do not describe the Alison style, but not that interested.

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom

You bash Rees for his work at Bethpage and every other bit of work he's done without ever leaving the comfort of your home to see it and play it.  This includes all "restoration/remodel work as well as his original work at Atlantic and just about everywhere else.  Its so easy to do that and hide behind your veil of research that gets no peer review.

I refer everyone to your 5 part essay on Arts and Crafts for literally a hundred old photos from your research. Excellent I might add but I guess they don't compromise your privledge to access of information.

[TEPaul]

What you two, Tom MacW and GeoffreyC, should do is stop dialoguing in generalities and begin to get down to more and more detail of the before and after Bethpage Black. The more detail you both get into the more apparent it will eventually become which one of you probably knows the golf course, the details and the nuances of it both before and after better than the other and therefore the more valid your research and analysis will be! And if you do that we'll all benefit, I'm sure!

That's generally the way it goes on here with good architectural details and detailed analysis of architecture. Generalities are never remotely as good as getting into the nitty gritty and the particulars of architecture, the nuances--

It sometimes goes beyond even legitimate subjective differences of opinon which can happen after complete agreement of the overall visual facts of something etc--sort of like the restored bunkers of Merion if the both of you were standing shoulder to shoulder and looking right at one of them with the same photo of that bunker in your hands before the bunker restoration!

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom Paul

I'm not interested in Tom MacWood's research on Bethpage in the least. Changes made to bunkers are documented without it.  I've played the course over 60 times before and after Rees and others here have played it hundreds of times. Those are the opinions I'll respect every time. What I object to is the BASHING of Rees based on data and photos of questionable quality.  Even this wouldn't be so objectionable if he didn't have a history of BASHING every bit of REES' work NONE of which he's ever laid eyes upon. I don't think thats fair or reasonable so I question the QUALITY of the images he uses to do his bashing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How do you assert that the original Augusta is more interesting then the current Augusta when you've NEVER played either golf course.

Tom Doak concurred with me when I stated that one must see and play a course in order to make a thorough evaluation of same.  

I believe Charles Blair MacDonald provided similar advice, in
"Scotland's Gift".

Yet you make bold statements about a golf course, its architecture and playability and draw conclusions about same, never having set foot on these golf courses, pre and post project work.

Would you admit that there might be a difference with respect to a golf course's original versus current playability in light of the huge difference between the old timers and modern day players and their high tech equipment ?  
And that restoring golf courses to their opening day design and configuration would be foolish from a strategic and playability perspective ?

You can do all the research in the world, but if you've NEVER played a golf course how can you make CREDIBLE evaluations of its strategy and playability in a pre and post project work context ?

You did throw in an uncalled for pot shot at Rees, and that is what I believe, Geoffrey, who has played Bethpage pre and post project work innumerable times, objected to.  

Missing from your judgements at Bethpage, Hollywood and elsewhere is the knowledge of exactly what Rees's marching orders were, the specific directions and prohibitions he was given by those in power.  

Wouldn't that information be very material and relevant to any conclusions a prudent person might draw ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()