Tom Marzolf quote in Tony Pioppi's LINKS article Speed Trap

[Noel Freeman]

I was quite surprised to see this quote. Obviously this is a conflict of visions with other architects out there now.

Tom Marzolf, senior design associate for Tom Fazio---"Marzolf argues Golden Age architects designed slopes that were in line with the maintenance practice of the time. He surmises that if those designers were alive, they too would be altering their putting surfaces to reclaim hole locations lost to speed. 'I think there is a lot of romance that goes into preserving the past,' he says. 'I think it's just a bunch of nonsense.'


Well at least he doesnt mince words or his opinion...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete Dye has said the same, more regarding Ross adding back tees at Pinehurst, since he believes (and old photos in Rich Mandell's book confirm) that Pinehursts greens are nothing like what Ross envisioned.

Beyond that, what is truly a more sincere, and better approach to design - ID a problem or situation and try to find the right solution for today, or semi blindly try to recreate what MIGHT have been in exsistence at some point in the past? 

I have to believe that desiging for the problem at hand is at the very least, a contender for the best approach to a remodel.  Not to say that the original intent might not be the best solution, either, and if it is, no reason not to go with it, or at least a style sympathetic to it.

But if cart traffic is your issue, for instance, or keeping greens in good shape, the ODG didn't deal with the first, and where play is greater, didn't really deal with the second either. 

For that matter, I don't recall a single ODG saying putts should go off the green.  Colt wrote that putts shouldn't leave the putter like a swine possessed by the devil.  So, in remodeling a Colt green, do we restore the 8% contours or flatten them to follow his advice in this matter?

I have my vest on, so let the arrows fly!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff

Please contact Rich Mandell immediately as apparently you were given a knockoff Chinese copy of his book!

The pictures of #2 in the legitimate book do show wild and humpbacked greens and furthermore Mandell's research concluded today's greens are as true as can be hoped (several rebuilds were just awful), with the exception of the maintenance of the green complexes. The banks originally were not shaved. But he concluded the top dressing story was myth.

As to Marzolf's comment, how can anyone generalize so? But the lie in it is to benchmark Golden Age greens to their contemporaries. MacKenzie's and Maxwell's were wild for their day.

Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I can look at the pictures of P2 and draw my own conclusions based on visual evidence.  They are wild, but off hand, I can recall at least a few photos of valley type, rather than hump type greens.  While perhaps similarly wild, at various dates in those photos the greens look nothing like the ones we see today. But, I will check again.

I agree that Mac and Max did contour greens more than the average gca of the day, from what I can tell.  That said, some of the old Riviera photos of Thomas and some Tillie greens were pretty bold, too. 

In general, they were all steeper than we could putt today.  I don't think that can be debated much.  Whenever I have measured golden age greens, they have general contours of 6-8% throughout putting surfaces. Today, 2.25% would be the absolute max most would use.  However, I recall that Harbottle "softened" LACC greens from 6% to about 3-4% slopes. At green speeds of 11 they are still puttable, IMHO.

Even if we agreed that in general, Max and Mac greens should be rebuilt a bit more steep than others of the era, would that work? I mean what difference does it make if you putt it 20 foot off the green or 10 if your goal is to build a green that members can putt reasonably today?

And, as to generalization, almost anyone who weighs in with an opinion on restoration (my opinion on these posts included..... ) is making a generalization.  It goes back to the club doing the restoration/renovation.  Do they want a design that works for them now, or a museum piece?  Or do they want both - a workable design that doesn't vary from the original gca's intent (where it works) and is sympathetic and practical?  And how do they deal with all the value judgements that implies?

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I too read that story and was stunned.  Based on his work, I have no doubt Marzolf believes what he said.  His work at Riviera shows little or no regard of the original golf course.  He has ignored any old pictures and added funny green slopes on edges (tumors) which have nothing or little to do with the rest of the green complex.
If the desire was to add hole locations, all he simply had to do was take the greens with their original contours out to where they were in 1928.  The pictures are there for the taking.
It would not have affected any cart paths.

[David Stamm]

I wasn't surprised at all by the comments. This is an attitude promulgated by Fazio himself.

[Bill_McBride]

That quote ignores the fact that greens don't have to run 11. At 7-8 like we played Pasatiempo two weeks ago, the greens were playable and fun if challenging.

[Ian Larson]

I wrote off Marzolf when I was working at Riviera. We started the renovation in 2005 with #3 green extensions and bunker reshaping. Marzolf and I were standing together looking at the front right greenside bunker and he was about to start painting the new bunker edges. Being a huge fan of Thomas and Bell I was really excited to get started bringing back the scallopped edges. I asked him about it and his reply was, " We are not restoring the bunkers to how they originally looked because the weedeater will ruin it." And he proceeded to paint out these god awful Fazio curves. I was so disappointed. Im sure everyone here is familiar with the picture of #6 in the back of "Golf Architecture in America" where the caption is clearly stated by Thomas that " the bunker edges were shaped to appear as if eroded." (dont quote me on that, its close enough). Then to have an architect blatently turn his back to Thomas. It really upsets me. As far as the weedeater comment......architecture should dictate the maintenance, maintenance shouldnt dictate the architecture. Maybe at Rancho Park but not Riviera. His comments dont surprise me at all, he is a nice guy though.

[Jim Nugent]

How would it affect the pro game, if we made greens the way the old guys did: with much greater slopes but also much slower?  Do you think that would put more of a premium on putting, or less?  Would it change who the great putters are? 

Would it make courses better or worse? 

[Steve Burrows]

I had a similar experience with Marzolf the previous year at Riviera  when we were re-working the 1st green.  I don't know how many times he said the phrase, "Thomas would have wanted it this way," or "Thomas would do the same thing if he were here."  He was always talking about tournament scoring and the relative level of difficulty for the once-a-year tournament, wondering how the new contours would add or subtract to the average score.   In retrospect, I rather wish I had simply refused to participate on the project.

I would agree, though, that he is a very knowledgeable guy, and very skilled at his craft.   I just tend not to agree with the ethical compromise that in inherent with such thought processes and decisions. 

P.S., how's it going, Ian?  I haven't heard from you in a while.

[jeffwarne]

In general, they were all steeper than we could putt today.  I don't think that can be debated much.  Whenever I have measured golden age greens, they have general contours of 6-8% throughout putting surfaces. Today, 2.25% would be the absolute max most would use.  However, I recall that Harbottle "softened" LACC greens from 6% to about 3-4% slopes. At green speeds of 11 they are still puttable, IMHO.

Even if we agreed that in general, Max and Mac greens should be rebuilt a bit more steep than others of the era, would that work? I mean what difference does it make if you putt it 20 foot off the green or 10 if your goal is to build a green that members can putt reasonably today?

And, as to generalization, almost anyone who weighs in with an opinion on restoration (my opinion on these posts included..... ) is making a generalization.  It goes back to the club doing the restoration/renovation.  Do they want a design that works for them now, or a museum piece?  Or do they want both - a workable design that doesn't vary from the original gca's intent (where it works) and is sympathetic and practical?  And how do they deal with all the value judgements that implies?

If a Golden age course (or a newly built one) were to restore or build 6-8% slopes and maintained them at speeds that worked (5-7?), wouldn't the greens be more difficult?
Certainly the variance between uphill and downhill stokes would require much more judgement,feel,and skill.
It amazes me how clubs renovate with intentions of making the course more resistant to scoring(usually with additional length), and then soften the green contours.

We're all convinced that members wouldn't accept slower greens, but I think we sell them short.
perhaps people are quitting the game/playing less golf because courses are becoming more homogonous with modern agronomy limiting severe/interesting design features in/around greens.

Tennis is played on different surfaces and different speeds, and grass courts are revered, even though they're not the fastest.

The question is, which high profile club/superintendant have the courage and be the first?
To some degree I think Sebonack and Friar's Head do a nice job with matching the green speed to the contoured greens, but in Sebonack's case I think the greens are a bit faster than Doak would have them in a perfect world (for every day play)-just my opinion.

Clubs such as this have the pockets to do whatever they want, but somewhere along the line the general public has to convinced that green speed isn't nearly as important as green interest, which can be maintained far more affordably at lower speeds.

[Lou_Duran]

"I just tend not to agree with the ethical compromise that in inherent with such thought processes and decisions."

Mr. Burrows,

If Marzolf was following a plan which had the approval of Riviera's owners, can you explain what ethics were compromised?  Are thought processes which result in decisions that another person may not agree with inherently flawed or less than honorable?  Can people view the world differently and still be on the up-and-up?

Mr. Larson,

In another thread, superintendent/GM/construction and grow-in specialist Don Mahaffey (re: Wolf Point)  notes the importance of getting the design, construction, grasses, materials, maintenance etc. all melded from the outset.  Maybe he'll chime in here on your comment that "architecture should dictate the maintenance".  What if the architecture doesn't work with the soil, climate, maintenance budget, and membership/owner preferences?

What Marzolf said about edging and bunker maintenance appears to be accurate.  Over time, the ragged and "scalloped" edges seem to evolve into cleaner, rounded lines.

Perhaps the architecture of some classical courses has changed not out of lack of respect but due to practical reasons.  Could it be that ragged, frayed-edged bunkers came into being because of the nature of the soils and climate in the areas where golf started and that it was impractical to build and maintain them with cleaner lines?  Did Tom Doak and Jim Urbina try to recapture the original rugged look at Cypress Point and Pasatiempo when they redid the bunkers there?  Did Mike DeVries at Meadow?  Certainly these gentlemen are as "ethical" and sympathetic to what we call classical architecture as they come.

Regarding green speeds, according to the pro shop at Pasatiempo, they run consistently between 9.5' and 11.5' depending on weather, maintenance, and event schedule.  At slower speeds, say under 8, they would be easier to putt, though the considerable natural slope (mainly going away from the clubhouse on the front) of the ground, would still make them difficult (with a large range in speed based on the slope).  Slower green speeds, in my opinion, reduces the premium on the short game.  I think that Pasatiempo would be a better course with greater balance if green speeds were kept at around 8'.   

[Bill_McBride]

I think that Pasatiempo would be a better course with greater balance if green speeds were kept at around 8'.   

Exactly!

Lou, did you think they were much over 8-9 two weeks ago?

[Steve Burrows]

Mr. Duran,

There were very few, if any, plans drawn prior to the work that was done on the first green at Riviera.  A decision was made to "restore" the green to its original splendor using pictures from the late 1920's, shortly after the construction of the course.  However, the pictures were used only as a baseline, and the work itself was done through decisions made in the field, which changed the nature of the project itself.  This is what brings me to my conclusion that compromises were made.

[Ian Larson]

Mr. Duran,

I let your comment simmer overnight trying to find any sort of rationale to it. I am a golf course superintendent with as much experience in construction / grow-in and renovation. Im also a closet soil science geek. I cant think of any situation concerning soils where you couldnt create or restore bunkers from hard lines to scallopped and shaggy. There are several types of grasses within the cool season and warm season climate categories that can accomplish this look. The soil type also is irrelevant. If it is a plant that roots it can root in any kind of soil. Its up the superintendent to manage the grasses in that soil, pH and nutrient values are always factors that are ammendable. This look can be and is accomplished all over the world.

The only factor that can dictate if this look will be created or restored is if the membership or ownership has established that it is not the look they want. Whether its finances concerning the upkeep or they just dont WANT that look. And thats their perogative. Where it gets to be shady is where the architect may sell himself on one style and mentality and then create something outside of those parameters already established. And Im sure it happens alot.

As a superintendent I can assure you that I would never try to step in the way of an architects vision when it comes to the style of bunker he is creating. Why would I do that? To make my job easier? If thats the case I would be doing the club and the course a great disservice. The fact is that a motivated superintendent would adapt to what he is given. The good ones have the artistry and creativity to adapt. To think that using a weedeater or an edger is the only means to maintain bunker edges is extremely naive.

I think the point that Mr. Burrows (hillarious) and I are trying to make is that a place like Riviera is Thomas and Bells crown jewel. He wrote "Golf Course Architecture in America" during and after his time there. Its a direct channel to his vision and his thoughts. I think that its a shame that the ownership, Fazio / Marzolf and perhaps the membership (maybe / maybe not guilty) couldnt have that same vision. That in my book is what preserving a clubs heritage is all about. Using a Fazio / Marzolf combo over a Hanse / Shackelford combo is unethical. And its unethical for something larger than an owner, architect or memberships agendas. Its all about the the golf course and its creators vision. Hopefully some other purist out there can agree with me.   

[Ian Larson]

...one last thing. I do realize courses need to be changed due to the advances in club technology and cases like Riviera with its tournament. But I absolutely think it can be accomplished with preserving the courses "look". I dont dislike what Fazio and Marzolf did at Riviera. I just dont think it fits with the "look". If it were a new Fazio / Marzolf course their "look" would be great.

[Bill_McBride]

This is such an interesting discussion because a friend of mine who is a member of another George Thomas course up the coast tells me there will be a restoration there - long overdue.  My friend doesn't really understand why the course should be returned to the original as designed and built by Thomas and Bell.  He said, "why build an antique car when there are modern cars that run a lot better?"

I was speechless, which doesn't happen very often. 

After a while I tried to explain what might be the club's motivation but my efforts were more or less fruitless.  He loves his course the way it is today.  Not everyone has the vision.

[Lou_Duran]

Bill McBride,

I thought that Pasa's greens were running around 10', give or take a foot.  One of the assistant pros said they are typically maintained between 9.5' - 11.5'; probably toward the lower end of that range on KPVI day due to aeration two or three weeks earlier.  Admitedly, I hadn't played much golf and my touch was that of a blacksmith, but the greens felt pretty fast to me.

Steve Burrows,

Compromises are made all the time and the results are not necessarily bad.  Ethics do not have to be involved in such decisions as you had suggested in your first post, but not in the second.

Ian Larson,

I trust that after letting things simmer a few hours you found at least a small bit of rationale to the comments and questions I addressed to you.  I knew precisely the points the "hillarious" Steve Burrows and you were trying to make.  It is not uncommon on this site to make personal aspersions against people whose view of the world differs from our own.  Asserting that a man's ethics are suspect because he doesn't share one's stylistic preferences is simply wrong and counterproductive to the objectives of this site (I think).

With all due respect to you for your outstanding credentials, there are people similarly qualified who may beg to differ on this issue, not so much with the physical possibility of maintaining this "look", but with the practical and financial aspects- the cost/benefit analysis if you will- of doing so.  By the way, I personally prefer the shaggy/ragged/rustic/natural look.

No doubt that given sufficient funds, there are ways of maintaining most any architectural style.  And if I was the COO or head of a cost center, the larger the budget, the greater the amount of responsibilty, prestige, and compensation that I would enjoy.  Unfortunately, for most courses- perhaps not Riviera- costs are a factor and design must necessarily be compromised not only to construction budgets, but also to ongoing maintenance allotments.  Of course, being that you're in the business, you already know all this in spades.

Your last comments: "Using a Fazio / Marzolf combo over a Hanse / Shackelford combo is unethical. And its unethical for something larger than an owner, architect or memberships agendas. Its all about the the golf course and its creators vision. Hopefully some other purist out there can agree with me." should be disturbing to those who seek to be fair minded.  I am not sure that I understand what the two middle sentences actually mean, but the implications are that something dastardly was perpetrated by an owner and an architect on the righteous.  Can't we articulate our preferences with clarity and conviction without making others into heavies?

In the case of Riviera, I suspect that the seemingly unpopular owner has his price.  The club has many well-heeled members, and, fortunately, anything that Mrssrs. Fazio and Marzolf have done to this wonderful course can be undone (check that, it is in California, so maybe not!).  Perhaps a man of your ability and conviction can get the ball rolling.  But, as Bill McBride noted nearby, not everyone shares our vision.  Unethical bastards all?  I think not- maybe just unsophisticated, underexposed, taste-impaired, starved for knowledge, etc. awaiting edification from the better angels of gca.com.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

Lou, what are you doing dragging me into this?

But since I’m here…what I love about my current project is Mike and I worked very closely together to produce the course. I never said, ‘we can’t build that because I can’t maintain it”, but I did say, that looks great, but lets not do too much of it. I knew the limits of the resources we were hoping to maintain the golf course with and although I was very supportive of high maintenance areas if they added to the project, I was watchful of over doing it. It helps that Mike and I share architectural tastes, which meant we never really fought too much. If anything I tried to limit the use of any superfluous bunkers, but Mike will concur with me when I say that whenever he felt strongly about keeping a bunker that I didn’t want, the bunker was built. 

Some other comments...IMO, most features that start out rugged tend to soften over time on most golf sites. Your crazily rugged bunker this year may be softer to the eye in time. Where this doesn’t happen is when the golf maintenance staff takes great pains for it not to happen, or on sites where erosion is a concern like you might find on a sandy site with lots of wind.  This is where I strongly disagree with Ian’s contention that the soil type doesn’t matter. Yes, we can put a man on the moon, dam the world’s biggest rivers and we can make a clay site bunker look like it’s built in a sand dune. But, it’s a lot of work to maintain and quite honestly, IMO, plainly stupid.

I played a lot of golf at Riviera in the late 80’s and early 90’s and those bunkers had evolved into fearsome beauties; that look of large, over hanging think lips could have been replicated by the Fazio group. Instead they took the sterile approach.  If I was the architect would I have replicated Thomas/Bell’s original look? I don’t know as I’d like to do some research and see how long they actually stayed that way. (I need a Shackleford to help me here) I may have done something more along the lines of what the bunkers eventually evolved into as I believe it was an acceptable look and reasonably maintainable. For me, part of the charm of a well designed golf course is as the features age they sometimes get better. Get it right and your bunkers get better over time, build something that requires intense maintenance and you get to rebuild every 5 years…or what ever the society uses as a guideline.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

"Part of the charm of a well designed golf course is as the features age they sometimes get better. Get it right and your bunkers get better over time..."

Don - I always enjoy and appreciate your posts. I particularly liked those lines above.  We use terms like "naturalism" and "minimalism", and there's probably some confusion/disagreement about what the terms mean. But I think one thing they should mean is that a golf course is designed such that its features get better and look more natural and are easier to maintain over time, and as nature takes its course.   

Peter

[Lou_Duran]

Don,

Sorry.  It will not happen again.  I keep forgetting that while this site's explicit raison d'etre is to promote frank discussion of gca, orthodoxy sometimes gets in the way.  If you want some cover, I've talked to numerous superintendents over the years and I could have referenced any number of them to make my point.  Some of the features many of us here love are not readily compatible with a variety of factors, budgets and member/consumer preferences among the more important ones.  My hats off to the fine folks at Merion and the few other such courses who have been able to preserve "the Look" over time.

If anyone has been to Barona Creek recently, I'd like to hear how their ragged-edged bunkers are faring.  I'd think that the conditions there would be more conducive to maintaining the original look through time.    

[Pete Lavallee]

If anyone has been to Barona Creek recently, I'd like to hear how their ragged-edged bunkers are faring.  I'd think that the conditions there would be more conducive to maintaining the original look through time.    

Hmmm, considering they didn't remove the bunker liner material that was shoring up the native sides of their bunkers until just before the Nationwide Championship last Nov., it would be interesting to get Sandy's opinion on whether these bunkers grew in as hoped or is there still a ways to go? That material was left there for over 6 years; I know Todd had advocated removing it years ago. The bottom line was that the native sides never really grew in fully. I haven't played there since Dec.; it will be interesting to see if there was any wash out during our rainy season.

[Ed Oden]

Some other comments...IMO, most features that start out rugged tend to soften over time on most golf sites. Your crazily rugged bunker this year may be softer to the eye in time. Where this doesn’t happen is when the golf maintenance staff takes great pains for it not to happen, or on sites where erosion is a concern like you might find on a sandy site with lots of wind.  This is where I strongly disagree with Ian’s contention that the soil type doesn’t matter. Yes, we can put a man on the moon, dam the world’s biggest rivers and we can make a clay site bunker look like it’s built in a sand dune. But, it’s a lot of work to maintain and quite honestly, IMO, plainly stupid.

I played a lot of golf at Riviera in the late 80’s and early 90’s and those bunkers had evolved into fearsome beauties; that look of large, over hanging think lips could have been replicated by the Fazio group. Instead they took the sterile approach.  If I was the architect would I have replicated Thomas/Bell’s original look? I don’t know as I’d like to do some research and see how long they actually stayed that way. (I need a Shackleford to help me here) I may have done something more along the lines of what the bunkers eventually evolved into as I believe it was an acceptable look and reasonably maintainable. For me, part of the charm of a well designed golf course is as the features age they sometimes get better. Get it right and your bunkers get better over time, build something that requires intense maintenance and you get to rebuild every 5 years…or what ever the society uses as a guideline.

Don Mahaffey:

What a great post!  Thanks for the nuggets of practical wisdom.

Ed

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't believe it was Marzolf who did the bunkers at Riviera.

Rumor has it that Huge "Puffy" Wilson's west-coast gang-banger cousin Gorge "Upholstry" Thomas was involved, and put a nice thick lining of uniform grass on those faces along with some soft Fazioian curves.

Is there a problem with them?   There better not be! 

[Ian Larson]

Thanks for the responce Mr. Duran,

Let me clarify myself a bit and retract the comment of not finding any rationale.

I prefer all types of bunker styles. I completeley agree with you about bunkers and their costs. Some clubs afford it. Others dont. Some clubs want a restoration, some want a renovation. Its up to the membership and or owner to select the appropriate architect for what they are trying to accomplish.

Bunkers that are more natural looking with the scallopped edges or taller fescues are not always ALOT more money to maintain. And I think that needs to be clarified. Hard edging all the bunkers on a course could be just as much cost to maintain as a more natural bunker. Once a month I send a crew out to hard edge the bunkers at LACC South. Typically it takes a crew of five guys two days to do all bunkers, sometimes longer if theyre checking sand depth and moving it. On an average day it takes four guys four hours to hand rake all of them. Now lets imagine that I clicked my fingers and they instantly turned into bunkers with the scallopped edges and tall fescue banks. The average day of raking them would not change. And when I edged them I would do it maybe only every other month. And the crew would use pitchforks not mechanical edgers. The only added cost would be maintaining the fescues once or twice a year which would probably be very comparable to the time we spent flymowing all the banks and noses twice a month. If I sat down and put some hard numbers together I think alot of people would be surprised.

My earlier posts were actually specific to Riviera and not the golf industry in general. In Rivieras case I most certainly think that the bunkers should incorporate some of the characteristics from Thomas and Bell and they do now to a certain extent! What we see now is the evolution of their bunkers. The bold capes and bays with swooping edges. Todays bunkers are the result of sandblast. The sandblast over time has exagerated the contours making them bolder than what they ever were and I love it.

In my perfect world I would have liked to have seen an architect come in and really take Thomas' vision seriously. And I know for a FACT that Hanse and Shackelford would have. Im not saying they are the only ones but they, with Jim Wagner, would have been my first choice. Hanse and Wagners artistry with Shack's accuracy would have been a home run. And Im not saying make 'em all shaggy like Merion. I think something along the lines of bringing back the scallops and washes but doing it along current contour lines and maintaining the banks and noses would be appropriate. Look at Hanses bunkering at Soule Park, something along those lines. And a superintendent thats on board with the architects vision would properly train the crew on maintenance. Bunker edging dulls bunker features when the crew carelessly edges them. Usually due to a lack of training or supervision.

To wrap this up, comprimises are always made and results are not always bad. On the field changes always happen, thats what artistry is all about.

......."It is not uncommon on this site to make personal aspersions against people whose view of the world differs from our own.  Asserting that a man's ethics are suspect because he doesn't share one's stylistic preferences is simply wrong and counterproductive to the objectives of this site (I think)."

....I would never suggest that someones opinion, idea or tastes are wrong or unethical. Especially on this site. But because of my love for golf its history and great courses I feel Riviera chose the wrong guy and it saddens me to imagine what could have been.