TEPaul,
You're in the enviable position of being in the middle of a substantive project at your club.
You've done extensive research, as evidenced by your fine History of Gulph Mills. You're aware that several NAME architects have made alterations to your golf course, and that you still have to dance to the tune that your membership fancies.
Tom MacWood continues to live in a romantic, ideal world where he would like to see most courses returned to the design that existed on their opening day. And, he thinks that the memberships of all these clubs agree with him.
Neither could be further from reality.
You've experienced first hand the arduous process of educating your membership, convincing them that the proposed changes are in the best interest of the club and the membership, and that the funds they will be asked to commit will be well spent. I'm sure that you've also experienced the necessity of compromise, and had you failed to yield on one single aspect of the overall Master plan, the entire project may have been rejected by the membership. And, I would imagine, that some factions within the club still feel that nothing should be done.
EXPERIENCING a project of this nature gives one an altered perspective on how things get done in the real world,
and it's not by adhering to an absolute, as represented by the original design.
Tom MacWood,
I've never indicated that you should stop expressing your opinions. It's disengenuous that you would make that statement. I'm not trying to stifle your opinion on certain issues, I merely disagree with it. For you to imply that to disagree with Tom MacWood, is to try to prevent him from expressing his opinion, isn't honest, is it ?
I still fail to understand how you can make a comparison of two golf courses when you've played neither. On courses you've played and made comments, I respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not. But, when you haven't set foot on a golf course and make a critical evaluation of its architecture, and PLAYABILITY, I have to take issue with your contentions, just on the underlying principals.
How can you document and analyze changes without knowing all of the facts behind the reasons for the changes, or is that of no concern to you ? I would think that thorough research would include the agenda of all factions and influences.
I find fault with your attributing every change, or every failure to restore a hole to its original form, solely, to the architect, when other factors can be involved, including, but not limited to the memberships, Superintendents, ground & construction crews, environmental groups and governmental agencies.
Since you brought up the 12th hole at Garden City Golf Club,
I can't think of a substantive single reason that a prudent person, knowlegeable in golf course architecture and golf history wouldn't champion a sympathetic restoration of that hole. Yet, 40 years have passed since that "signature" hole was altered and lost, and.... there are those who continue to oppose, directly and indirectly, its restoration.
On this issue, you and I are in complete harmony, but, ask yourself this question, "why isn't everybody else ?"