Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restoration

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
Ask Ran about the circumstances involving the photos for my A&C essay.

Patrick
I believe the original ANGC was more interesting than the current version (I particularly like the the original 9th green and 14th hole). And the same with Pebble and Shinnecock. I've played both courses - I have no doubt I would have had the same opinion before playing either.....the original courses were clearly more interesting. You might disagree, so be it. I'm not going to stop expressing myself because you don't like my opinions. I've also said in the past I believe the original version of Yale and the original 12th at GCGC were superior (oddly I don't recall a similar reaction). I wonder what Tom Doak thinks of that?

I'm not really interested in Rees' marching orders or Rulewich's or Doak's, I'll let you worry about marching orders. My interest is documenting the changes and anaylyzing those changes. In the case of both Bethpage and Hollywood I believe I was one the few who was trying to detail exactly what did occure and what did not occure. And in both cases there was considerable confusion and disinfromation. I do not recall making any inflamatory remark about Rees in regards to either Bethpage or Hollywood - do you? I go out of my way not to even mention his name for fear of setting off a fire storm. Exposing the facts is not bashing or a cheap shot.

TE
Here is the detail I provided back in June, interestingly there has been no detailed response:

1st: The original hole and bunkering was identical to the pre-Rees course, with one exception. There was a large bunker and smaller bunker to the right of the green pre-Rees - they combined to form one large bunker originally. The lefthand bunker was absolutley identical. Rees enlarged the leftside bunker and shrunk the rightside bunker and created pronounced protrusions of grass in both.

2nd: Again no fairway bunkering. The large bunker cut above the green on the right was original (and Rees reestablished it), it however did not have the capes and bays. The lefthand front bunker was slightly larger and up against the green, I suspect its grass bank was originally flashed with sand up to the green.

3rd: The green was guarded on the middle left by an oblong bunker. There was a large irregular bunker that started in front that bunker flowed down and back toward the tee - creating an interesting visual effect.

4th: A large irregular bunker down the left not as long as the current bunker but wider especially into the rough on the left - it appears to have an island of grass. A medium sized irregular bunker behind it and third bunker behind it cut on the hill on the edge of the forest. A large waste area on the rightside across from the bunkers. Glacier bunker was about the same strectching a little farther down the right, no fingers of grass, just an irregular outline - serpentine wall of sand. The hillside in front of the green guarded by larger longer bunker without any capes.

5th: Identical to the pre-Rees hole and almost identical to the post-Rees hole. The only change appears to be the left front bunker with is large grass notch.

6th: A very interesting hole. The fairway bunkering pre-Rees was very similar. Down the left out about 185 to 215 was large irregular bunker (combine the two bunkers of the pre-Rees course to create that single bunker) and down the right about 210 to 240 was another large irregular bunker (larger than the pre-Rees version). It appears the choice was to play safely to the right or attempt to carry the bunker on the left and possbily shoot down a large hill. The green was oriented toward the left with longish irregular bunkers (both left and right) stretching out the length of the green and slightly past the front. there was a second leftside bunker that strectched about another 20-25 yards straight out. For those approaching from the left their was an open ramp. From the right it was all carry to a severely bunkered green.

7th: The waste bunker is identical. The two staggered fairway bunkers that guarded the second shot are also nearly identical - any difference is minor. The left greenside bunker is very close to the pre-Rees version prehaps a little more irregualr in outline. The hook shaped bunker on the right was actually part of what looks like another waste area that extended back toward the tee maybe twenty yards and up to the right portion of the green. Rees added a large right greenside bunker featuring a whale's tail and increased the size of the left hand bunker which looks to be closer to the green.

8th: The is the first hole that appears in the second frame (which is poorer in quality). The green is guarded by a fairly large bunker to the left-rear that rose up the hill and smaller bunker behind and a bunker carved into the hill on the right.

9th: The tee shot was dominated by singular mid-fairway bunker carved into the base of the hillside. It appears the safe choice evidently was out to the right (or short of it, probably leaving a blind approach). The bold play would to sneek your drive to the left and cutt the dogleg or directly over the bunker - which may have been less difficult than appears - I don't know. An exciting shot none the less. The green was guarded by a large righthand bunker (a combination of the two pre-Rees bunkers) and left hand bunker of a more regular shape - very similar to the pre-Rees bunker. Rees created two wing bunkers with grassy protrusions.

10th: There was series of large bunkers gently curving down the entire left side (the remnants can be seen in Mr.Wangs aerial, although not ordinary in outline not as excentric as what is seen today). Two more irregular bunkers guard the right. The green was bunkering was similar to pre-Rees. The left hand bunker was more boomerang in shape. A simple shaped bunker behind the green.

11th: An irregularly shaped directional bunker short of the fairway. The same series of gently curving bunkers down the left that stretch right up to the green. Bunker to the right off the fairway, followed by two more irregular bunkers, the last just short of the green. Rees created two large flanking greenside bunkers with bold grassy protrusions

12th: (Back to the 1st frame)The corner of the dogleg was guarded by a very similar irregular bunker. The greenside bunkering was inearly dentical to pre-Rees. One the left a large bunker with smaller oddly shaped bunker behind it. The bunker on the right was nearly the same as pre-Rees with the rear globe bulging a bit more. In place of this very typical Tillinghast bunkering scheme Rees created two wing bunkers with distinctive grassy capes (including another whale's tail).

13th: No fairway bunkers off the tee. The clover-like bunker seen in the pre-Rees photo was similar, but with the righthand lobe stretching out into the fairway at 90 degrees - nearly forming a cross-hazard. The bunker short of the green was larger and ran diagonally from the right to the left - closest to the approach on the left. The angle would mirror a long left to right approach. Rees left the first fairway bunker pretty much the same, for some reason it was not fully restored. The bunker short of the green was rebuilt but at the opposite angle. A new bunker left of the green was added.

14th: This green was originally protected by two bunkers where the single bunker now sits. There was a third bunker between the left hand bunker and the tee. These bunkers were larger than the 'Mickey Mouse' bunkers and in different locations.

15th: This hole is very similar to the hole as it looks today. There were no fairway bunkers and there were three bunkers up on the ridge guarding the green. Nearly identical to what is seen in the black & white photo above. Rees added  deep grassy notch in the left hand bunker and expanded the right hand bunker with large capes and bays.

16th: Again no fairway bunkers. By the green, the lefthand bunker was the same as what is seen pre-Rees perhaps slightly more irregular in shape. There were two bunkers on the right that stretched well down the fairway - an elongated-Y puffy shape and a squarish L-shape - their shape was very typical of Tillinghast. Rees expanded the lefthand bunker addding distinct capes and bays. His single righthand bunker sits where the two bunkers once sat. The Y-shape can be seen but the original did not have the obvious cape more of a subtle bulge.

17th: The configuration of the bunkers is identical.

18th: The complex of fairway bunkers was very similar as what is seen in the black & white photo above. The difference, on the right the two smaller bunkers nearest the fairway were not original and the four small bunkers of the leftside complex that form the Principals Nose were also added after 1938. The front greenside bunker was the same, the two back bunkers were actually a single large bunker with straight edge closest to the green. Rees re-did the fairway cluster bunkers left and right. He also created new wing bunkers by the green - left and right - with massive fingers of grass.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Thanks, that's a lot of detailed documentation of changes. But you said your interest is in documenting changes and analyzing those changes.

You most certainly did document the changes (I don't know anything about the course really to tell how accurate your documentation of changes is but I'm sure GeoffChilds does since he's so familiar with the course).

But your other interest of analyzing those changes---where is that analysis except to say the course isn't exactly like it once was? Maybe you'd care to analyze the changes in the context of the last US Open and what before and after effects would have been on the US Open.

We're going to restore my course too and do it pretty accurately but we're certainly going to do some things to accomodate the way golf is played today vs the way it was planed in 1920! I hope that's not compromising our restoration. Would you think it would be?

I did go to a lecture in Atlantic City where among others the superintendent not only showed a ton of slides of Bethpage Black but he also explained how the course once was, how it had gotten to be and also the logic of exactly why they did the things they did there in preparation for the Open.

Not knowing the course well, though, it's hard for me to not only relate the details but even remember them!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
You're a real masochist.

Thanks but no thanks, I have expressed my opinion on that subject before and it didn't go over real well. And I'm not interested in setting off WWIII. There are certain courses and architects its best not to discuss.

But as far as the subject is concerned, I would not call Bethpage a restoration, it would be more accurate to describe it as a redesign. But no I don't think it is necessary to restore a golf course to a certain point in time. Each circumstance is different. For example I think the 10th at ANGC is an improvement over the original hole.

How about the Hanse bunker restoration!?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?"

[GeoffreyC]

Bethpage Black a redesign? - absolutely not.  Its not a restoration either.  Sympathetic modernization is the term I would think is most accurate.

Here is Ran's complete reply to your asking the circumstances of posting a hundred photos in your arts and crafts essays

"He sent me JPEG's and I inserted them into his article."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Patrick
I believe you may have misstated my position on restoration. First of all not every course is worthy of restoration, those courses which are not, are canidates for modernization or redesign or whatever you want to call it. Very few courses should be restored to the day they opened - Cypress Point, Pasatiempo, Hirono, perhaps a handful of others. But most have been improved over time - for example Merion, Pebble Beach, Muirfield, County Down, Dornoch, Chicago, Garden City, Shinnecock Hills. Every course has to be evaluated individually, some improve over time, some devolve, some a little of both, that is where research is important. It is not cut and dried or black and white. I would call myself a pragmatic romantic. I believe there is a certain amount of romaticism in anyone who truly loves a given art form.

I'm sure all of your experience with politicing and the struggles in getting things done within a club is interesting to many and very helpful to others, but not me. I'm more interested in the architecture.

Geoffrey
Call me and I'll fill you in on the details (or e-mail me your phone number and I'll call you). I won't bore GCA.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood- your last post is something I think we completely agree on  

I would argue that unlike Yale, Riviera and others, Bethpage is an exception to the rule due to the extraordinary circumstances of its management and the "deal with the devil" if you will to fix it in exchange for a US Open. Even without playing the course, do you really think the differences in the current course represent a redesign?  Oakland Hills was a redesign for sure but none of the changes here affected play to ANY measurable degree (especially given the changes in equipment over the years in question- even from 1969 when I first played there).

[TEPaul]

Whoa--some really fine posts there starting from Tom MacWood's 1:53pm on down!

Pat yours is a beauty and pretty much says it all--it really is the truth what you say and oddly no matter where you are or which golf club you're with it really is pretty much the same! Sometimes the degrees are different but it's pretty much the same from course to course and club to club! And when I think back on the things that a Bill Coore said about those things some years ago--I see now I should have listened even better.

Those last few posts should be read by newbies and guests because not only are they a compilation of what so much of what we discuss on here ultimately gets down to but it also shows quite clearly where certain people's interests and strengths lie and where they don't. And that's always good to know and why Golfclubatlas itself is such a fascinating entity and place--when taken in its entirety which are all those people and their individual interests and strengths!

Tom MacWood is unquestionably one of the finest researchers I know but to really do complete justice to architecture and the researching of it you can never really stop in one area or at one level--you just have to keep on going! No one, I would say, in any phase of architecture ever reaches the absolute top of the learning curve--ever! The most ongoing useful cliche I know is to always know what you don't know and if you start to think you know a lot to remember you won't know it all!

But architectural research is one of the things that fascinates me most and always checking and rechecking what you find and what you assume from it is essential. One of the little things I once found out about Pine Valley and the analysis of the beginning of the creation of it was a simple little date on a significant thing--piece of paper. I assumed it meant one thing and my asssumption wasn't necessarily wrong but it wasn't the kind of assumption you could draw an accurate conclusion from. And the conclusion I was trying to draw was huge! So you always have to keep checking and going on!

Easy assumptions in architectural research really upset me more an more these days because they can turn into easy and wrong conclusions and then bad things can happen.

But the best thing I guess I've learned is that no matter what-- not everyone will ever agree with you on certain things--not even close, not even remotely close--and ultimately that's OK!

After a while that's made me, anyway, really appreciate golf architecture and golf itself for the differences in it as much as anything and even that various people will look directly at the same thing at the same time in vastly different ways! That's OK too as long as it doesn't destroy things--certainly one being those very differences.

That's why I really do feel that; "Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

Now, since I love all this stuff so much, I think I'll just go into the livingroom, pour myself a nice glass of wine and have a nice little cry!

[GeoffreyC]

I think that one thing this entire discussion should make people realize is that this site is a great public forum to keep restoration work out where people can read about what is being done at various venues.

We should applaud Gil Hanse and company who with Steve Frankel did such a masterful job at Fenway and we should let everyone know that this is an example for others to follow.  Same apparently with Ron Prichard at Aronomink and several other courses. I think we should make every effort to highlight these success stories within this highly visible public forum. Its a great way to potentially have new projects done in a sympathetic manner.

Similarly, Merion, Riviera, Yale and others should know that the work being done there is under examination and it is not taking place without scrutiny from the outside world. Trust me, I know this makes a difference.  We can disagree till Hell freezes over about Bethpage but it doesn't take away from the value of this site!

[TEPaul]

GeoffreyC:

I guess the question for you that maybe a Tom MacWood would be interested in, particularly after what you just said about Gil Hanse and Fenway is--after all that you've said about Bethpage Black and your impressions of the work done on it recently what if anything would have been different about the work done to it if Gil Hanse had worked on the course for the Open instead of Rees and MacDonald & Co.

You know Bethpage before and after, you know Rees on that and other things and you also know Gil Hanse and his work so, come on, give us a guesstament on Bethpage if done by Hanse & Co..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Following up on your post,

Who determines which courses are worthy of restoration and which courses aren't worthy of restoration ?

From a purist or a pragmatic point of view, unfortunately, the Memberships do.  And once you concede that point, you fall into the realm of reality.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom Paul

Here is part of my first post from this discussion. It was actually sticking to the topic  

"If I had one piece of advice from what I've seen personally it would be to go with Gil Hanse, Rodney Hine, Bill Kittleman etc. I would not hesitate for a SECOND that they could recreate the precise style and playing characteristics of ANY architects bunkers.  I've seen them do Tillinghast style at Fenway and it is a masterpiece.  Go down the street to Quaker RIdge and look at the difference.  Its night and day trying to compare what Gil did with the Rees Jones work at QR (Mike Cirba or Bill V can both attest to this).  I've seen their work at Century to recreate Alison (and Colt) style and again they left their ego's at the gate and recreated the Alison style beautifully.  You want Ross?  Please go and visit Plainfield.  I's absolutely beautiful the work they did there.  I'll take your word about Aronimink but those photos posted here didn't look all that great to me.  Maybe Mike can chime in here again since he's actually seen Plainfield and Aronimink recently.  

I couldn't agree with you more about the restoration work done by Gil's company.  I sure as hell wish they would get the job at Yale (I've tried to recommend them) instead of that unnamed butcher working there now.  Bill Kittleman is a Yale man too! "

Now to answer your question directly.  The short answer is that I would choose Gil's group in a heartbeat.  However, we must remember the faustian agreement the USGA and the State of NY came to inorder to "fix" Bethpage Black.  They had to make it into a US Open venue for todays pros using todays equipment.  The course was a par 71 of 7065 yards.  The revised course needed yardage and was decreed to play at a par 70.  I think that alone necessitated moving some fairway bunkers out into play yet still we would like to have the bunkers come into play for the current ProV1 swatting Bethpage regulars from the white tees. I don't know what Gil would have done about slight repositioning of greenside bunkers knowing this was to be a US Open course.  Its a tough call waht exactly to do but those were the facts.  I think the bunkers would have looked much better and in character had Gil done the job.  If he did the job as required, however, it would still be a sympathetic modernization.  I asked Gil when we were at Rustic Canyon I believe if the old look of the bunkers could hold up to all the play required if they were restored.  I honestly don't remember exactly what he said (senior mement?   ) but he thought they might but he wasn't sure. Does that answer your question?

[Mike_Cirba]

Damn...and here I've been trying to avoid the whole discussion/debate, as relates to Bethpage, Aronimink, et.al...

Ok...since I've been called in, I'll say this.  

I completely agree with Geoffrey that the restoration (I'm starting to HATE that word!) work that Gil Hanse and crew did at Fenway, Plainfield., etc., is exemplary.  I also think the bunkering at Bethpage looks like Rees Jones, trying to capture the scale and flair of Tillinghast.  The bunkers at Aronimink look like MacDonald and Co. doing their best to capture the Ross flavor, with grassed faces and flat bottom bunkers, but still not capturing the natural essence, despite the well-intentioned goals of Ron Prichard.

When it comes right down to it, there is NOTHING that replaces time, diligence, respect, and HANDWORK.  NOTHING.  

We can argue and debate all we want about the details, but the results are on the ground for all to see.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I understand you quest to research and study architecture, and your distain for politics within a club, BUT, sometimes the
POLITICS within the club determine and produce the final architecture wrought upon the golf course.

The two, politics and architecture can't be seperated, if one takes a global perspective on the issues.

[Craig Disher]

So we're all working from the same information - assuming most people by now are fairly familiar with the current version of Bethpage Black - here's a view of the course from 1938.



A larger version of the same photo can be seen at

http://home.earthlink.net/~cdishe/data/bpbs.JPG

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Craig
Thanks for your help - that really is spectacular.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow.  What a fabulous aerial!  Thanks Craig!!

Those clearly look like Burbeck bunkers to me.

Scott....Any chance you can re-post the recent Bethpage AOTD aerial here for comparative discussion purposes?

For cautionary purposes, I should mention that I know only too well that aerial-only photos don't show the "whole picture", but at least we should be able to get an idea as to what bunkers were added, removed, moved, expanded, reshaped, etc.  

[WilliamWang]

bethpage 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12

from the air at least, i'm not sure what the critical fuss is about.  seems pretty consistent.




bethpage 1, 15, 16, 17, 18

[GeoffreyC]

Thanks Craig thats FANTASTIC.

William- great job of lining up parts of the two aerials. The only significant change I can see from a quick look is there is a bit less room to run the ball up on #11 but we knew that already.

[GeoffreyC]

Here is a different region of the aerials to compare.




There are more changes here.  The 18th is obvious. The crossbunker in 13 is perhaps the biggest as far as playability.

So- is this a remodel or a sensitive modernization?

William- you snuck those two addional images in there after I posted this- thanks

[WilliamWang]

bethpage 5 and 6



geoffrey
yeah, i just logged on and had not had time to post them.  i deleted them to avoid redundancy.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey/William
The greenside bunkering on 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 look completely different to me in size and shape. The bunkering of those old greens exhibit variety in scheme. I also like the look of the big greenside bunkers seen at #7, #11 and even #12. Those greens also appear to have been open in front.

There was a directional bunker on 11 and it appears the fairway bunker on the left of 12 was actually a nest of three bunkers.

[-2]

An observation here that I have noticed more and more as a differentiator betweenst the new and the old stylings is having to do with the way greens and greenside bunkers "integrate".

To wit, and from my purely novice point of view, take a look at the way the old Bethpage Black greens 1, 4, 10, 11 for starters seem to fairly "embrace" or "kiss" the green surfaces.  Compare the "new" bunkering to the old now.  

See the big and onerous "fingers" that protrude somewhat contemporarily outward from the singularly roundish greens into the bulk of the new bunkering.  Is it just me, or does this type of modernish fingering of turf into the bunkers not completely destroy the finely tuned Tillinghastian design?

There is a-plenty of fingering now, just in appropriate places such as out in the fairway bunkering, or on the opposite sides of where the greenside bunkers "kiss" the green surfaces.  The "new" way seems quite arbitrary and misses the boat.  Taken alone, perhaps not a big deal.  However, when taken as yet one more ingredient misplaced, its net effect is one of going, in my novice opinion, far too far away from the original effect.

Of course, I could be wrong..........

[WilliamWang]

the photos are not to the same scale, so size comparisons are difficult and not accurate.  the three bunkers clumped together as one on the left of 12 and the missing fairway directional bunker on 11 were that way in the 1994 aerial that i posted months ago.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

William
Are we comparing the old course to 1994 or to the current course? Isn't the color photo the current course? I don't recall the bunker closest to the 11th tee (the directional bunker) in the photo of the 1994 version of the course.

I'm not sure about the scale, but as large as the current bunkers are, it appears the old bunkers were even larger. Pretty amazing. It seems clear they were going for the Pine Valley comparison. Six looks like a very cool hole.

Do you think they could have played the US Open (with some additional length) at the old course and maintained it for public play? I have to admit the old course was much rougher in character, would that have been too difficult to maintain? But then again those pronounced capes & bays and whales tails of the new stylized greenside bunkers can't be that easy to maintain either - who knows.