TV and "the Open Doctor"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I will guarantee you, let me repeat, GUARANTEE YOU that if MacDonald & Co were the sub-contractor doing a RESTORATION project for me, the bunkers would turn out as they were INTENDED to turn out.

If Ernie Ransome was in charge I guarantee you the bunkers would turn out as they were intended.

Do you have any doubt on either of those statements ?

Tom, it's the club, and those in charge of the project who determine how it turns out.  The others are professionals hired by and responsible to the club.

Is it your contention that where Gil Hanse was terminated, Coore & Crenshaw would have prevailed ?
Do you think that Gil Hanse didn't present his reasoning or methodology for the bunker work properly ?  That he didn't profer the same arguments that C & C would offer ?

Some individuals have said there was a timetable constraint and that Gil's methods were labor intensive and that by building the bunkers his way, the club couldn't meet the time line they had set.  Are you now saying that Coore & Crenshaw would have abandoned their labor intensive bunker construction methods in order to meet Merion's time line ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I have no clue what Silva did at Preakness Hills or what Rees plans to do at Medinah (although I said his involvement might be a positive), I just found it ironic that you would correct shivas for metioning Rees at Medinah when he should have been looking at the MEMBERSHIP, however just the other day you were discussing Silva's work at your home course without mentioning the MEMBERSHIP.

After all this a web site devoted to the art of golf architecture, it seems logical that we discuss and analyze  the actual merits or faults of the work of these men. I realize you prefer the political aspects of how these things evolve to the artistic side and that you have a wealth of experience with these things and should share those experiences, but I have to admit it doesn't really interst me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Typically, you can never answer any questions, and.....
you're whining again !

Have you ever been in the field, gotten your hands dirty on an architectual project, have you ever been involved in the planning process of an architectual project, have you ever dealt with the REALITY and variables of a single project ?

Shivas was bemoaning Rees's work at Medinah, yet not one shovel has been put in the ground.  And, Rees didn't approach Medinah, Medinah approached Rees.  I have on numerous occassions indicated it is the club's ultimate responsibility, how could you possible have missed that, or must I include it in every post for you ?

Stop whining all the time, and use the effort to try to answer questions, even if those answers make you look foolish, like
Charles Blair MacDonald's quote.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick

If the contractors you mentioned could have produced the "desired result" on the projects mentioned here, then why does their work look EXACTLY the same, whether the course involved is Riviera, Bethpage, Merion, or the latest CCFAD they're involved with??

Could you tell me that they even understand HOW to do handwork and meticulous detailing work?  WHY ARE NONE of their bunkers, ANYWHERE in the world, up to what we see and ENJOY at places like Applebrook, or as interesting as the pics on here of Barona (CB notwithstanding), or like anything I've ever seen from C&C?

Is it because they COULD do it but just don't want to??

I find that a bit preposterous.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Riviera's and Bethpage's bunkers were never INTENDED to look like AppleBrook's and you know it.

To say that Riviera's and Bethpage's bunkers should look like AppleBrook is sheer folly.

NGLA's bunkers look nothing like AppleBrook, does that make them inadequate.  Ditto, Garden City.

You're trying to infuse, or forcce your preference for a certain style on every course's bunkers.  Talk about "formulaic"

Bethpage is a BIG expansive golf course with a certain look.
You may prefer the look at AppleBrook, I like it myself, but that doesn't mean you export it, forcing it upon every other golf course.  When you get your copy of "Miracle on Breeze Hill" tell me what you think of those bunkers, and if the Applebrook look should be superimposed ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I never argued that Riviera's or Bethpage's bunkers should look like Applebrook, although it's fair to say that Merion's once did (prior to Macdonald & Sons/Fazio work).

Instead, I would hope that any restoration would capture the UNIQUE look and feel of their original design intent.  Riviera's should look like George Thomas, and Bethpage should look like Tillinghast, pure and simple.

As far as Garden City, I can't imagine how you would feel if said contractor were to come in for a "restoration", and build bunkers that looked exactly like Macdonald & Sons bunkers at Riviera, Merion, Bethpage, Condo Hills CCFAD, etc., etc., etc., instead of the wonderful Travis pots that are there now and have been for the last century.

My point is that everything they build looks EXACTLY THE SAME, irrespective of original architect, topography, placement, etc.  Only the one-dimensional shapes change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Are you telling me, that despite different architects, MacDonald & Co builds every bunker exactly the same ?

I have a hard time believing that they ignore the mandate of the club, and the specific directions of the architect.
If that were the case, they would be sued for failing to live up to their CONTRACTUAL obligations, and forced to pay damages, or correct the bunkers, two very expensive alternatives.  Surely they couldn't afford to stay in business.

This Darth Vader categorization of this firm seems comical.

Could you cite me examples of where their bunker work, on different courses is exactly the same ?  Start with Merion and Bethpage and add in the other courses as you go.

With respect to Garden City, let's suppose I was in charge of restoring the 12th hole to it's 1936 appearance, and MacDonald & Co was the subcontactor.  Do you seriously believe that the finished 12th hole bunkers wouldn't look exactly as I and you would want them to look ?  Exactly, or reasonably similar to the way they looked in 1936 ?

It has been my limited experience that if a contractor doesn't fulfill the terms and conditions of their contract, that dire legal and financial consequences almost always follow, with the firms reputation and ability to get future work seriously hampered.

Can you tell me exactly how MacDonald & Co didn't fulfill their contracts at Merion, Bethpage and other bunker jobs.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
No I have never gotten my hands dirty and I've not been invloved in actual planning processs of an architectural project. I believe I answered your questions regarding Macdonalds quote this morning on the 'Help' thread, you may have missed it.

I'm not sure where you come up with these ideas, that when some of us object to the look of certain alterations that is due to a failure to match some idealic look - the Applebrook look if you will. There have been numerous posts over the years pointing out the differences between bunkers/features designed by Tillinghast, MacKenzie, Travis, Ross, Alison, Raynor, Langford, Thomas, Flynn, Thompson, etc. A major part of the enjoyment (at least for me) of studying and dicussing golf architecture is all the unique and dictinct styles of these men - there is/was no one ideal style. That is why it is disapointing to some of us when an architect 'restores' the work of three different architects and the results come out very similar.

I'm sure you find the realities of a project extremely interesting and many others I'm sure find it interesting, but I have to admit I'm more interested in the architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I've never objected to someone's preference in STYLE.
I think differences in STYLE are terrific.  
I especially enjoy the sequential evolution of STYLES.

What I have objected to is when someone is criticized because their STYLE doesn't conform to the STYLE/S of preference on this site.

I have also objected to laying the blame solely on the architect or contractor.  Club's and club politics shape golf holes more than architects in some instances.

I think you would enjoy "Miracle on Breeze Hill" as it provides insight into all of the elements that go in to designing and building a golf course.  Give it a try.

[TEPaul]

Pat;

I don't know how the hell many times we're going to have to go over this subject to get you to understand even a small percentage of some realities.

I'm going to admit I really don't like talking about Merion's bunker project on here all the time--this is a small town golf-wise and many of the people on both sides of opinion on the Merion bunker project are friends and acquaintenances of mine and I really don't want to step on toes. Do you understand that?

But I do doubt the statements you made in that post when you asked me if I doubted your statements. Just let's leave PVGC's Short course out of this discussion because it had nothing to do with MacDonald & Co and the kind and style of bunker work they do.

And if I'm to answer if I doubt you could get MacDonald & Co. to do a bunker restoration just as you INTNENDED it to turn out, the first thing I'd have to know is how DID you INTEND it to turn out?

With Merion's bunkers would you have intended them to turn out as they did, would you have intended them to turn out how they looked in 1999, would you have intended them to turn out how they looked in 1930?

You're just going to have to answer that first. But if you're telling me that MacDonald & Co. could have gotten them to turn out they way they looked in 1999 or 1930, I just do not agree and have been basically telling you that for well over a year.

Why do I say that Pat? Because from everything that any of us have ever seen done by MacDonald & Co. leads us to believe they just don't build bunkers that look like that! I just can't see why that's hard for you to understand.

But I'm going to speculate why I think it's hard for you to understand anyway because at this point this discussion is getting frustrating as hell--I keep giving you the same answers, so do others, and you just keeping coming back with the same questions over and over again!

Either you just simply cannot see the differences and distinctions in the look of the bunkering that Merion had and what their bunkers evolved into compared to what MacDonald & Co's bunkers look like or you just have very little idea why that generic MacDonald look is different.

Our opinion is they look different because MacDonald & Co. does not do the handwork detail or maybe even the basic bunker surround formation work the same way some other architects and their people do them! MacDonald & Co obviously doesn't have anyone, doesn't employ anyone, who does that kind of work that produces that kind of look or that kind of bunker. So if you can just understand that how can it be so hard for you to understand what we're saying here?

If MacDonald & Co were doing Merion bunkers for YOU PAT, you can probably scream at them until you're blue in the face and how the hell are you going to get them to do that detailed hand-created look if that's not the way they build bunkers?

Your logic is no different to me than if you were telling us you could go down to a Ford factory and get the employees to build you a Mercedes just because you're in charge and you INTEND to have a Mercedes built!

And as for Hanse and Kittleman and why they changed to Fazio or even why they got MacDonald involved previous to Fazio, I'm not getting into that on here, except to say there are many other things involved in working relationships than the presentation and outcomes of products.

Timing certainly has a lot to do with it too. Merion's timelines did change because of the 2005 US Amateur after Hanse & Kittleman began the bunker restoration. So the timing needed to be sped up apparently. Hanse and Kittleman do a lot of their bunker work by hand, so how can you substantially speed that up? You really can't. I don't know if Coore & Crenshaw are faster with their hand work than Hanse but they basically do it the same way. They didn't take the job anyway and part of their reasons apparently were they liked the bunkers of Merion the way they were and would never have advised changing them in such a comprehensive bunker project, much less have done it!

So that was probably their advice if it even got that far. The real fact is some people in the club didn't like what Merion's bunkers had come to be and others just loved them for what they'd come to be. It's exactly like putting two people side by side and asking what they think of that bunker in front of them. One will say it's falling apart and the other will say it's beautiful and natural because it's taken 75 years to get that way and that's great natural, evolved look.

So I really don't know if they got what they INTENDED to get or not. Some people think so, some don't. But I'm pretty sure that none of those that like them now and didn't like them before and none of those that loved them before and don't like them now would say that what they look like now is the same as what they used to look like.

But as far as you Pat, or you're argument, I really don't know if you'd see the difference. Maybe you should come and see for yourself, because as far as I can tell you've been carrying on this debate for a good long time now and you never have seen them!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Do you object to a restoration not refecting the original or evolved style of the architect?

For example if Rees Jones is asked to restore a Tillinghast or Travis golf course should the result look like the work of Tillinghast and Travis or is it OK if we are left with a Rees look for both courses?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Of course MacDonald & Co don't build bunkers everywhere that look EXACTLY the same. The original bunkers of Merion, Rolling Green, Riviera, Bethpage, Aronomink etc had some extremely different styles to them. Ross bunkers don't look like Flynn bunkers that don't look like Thomas bunkers that don't look like Tillinghast bunkers etc, etc.

MacDonald & Co have done the bunker restorations on all these courses and what they did is a basic assimilation of each style and shape of each of those architects, particularly from the air if you compare them before and after. But on the ground that assimilation begins to fade, unfortunately, and the reason is generally the lack of hand worked detail on both surround formation and grassline to sand detail work.  

What is far more recognizable though, and unfortunately for all these courses, in my opinion, is the "construction style" of MacDonald & Co. It's almost impossible to miss! And so much of the unique and different bunkering styles and looks from classic course to classic course has been lost.

Some may not see it though, and maybe you're one of them. To some people a bunker is a bunker is a bunker. But to others, bunkers and their individual styles and distinctions and their uniquenesses were part of the architectural expression that distinguished architects and made their courses different and unique from each other.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you may be naive or inexperienced in the construction, contract and subcontractor area.

Comparing the entire retooling of an automotive plant to getting MacDonald & Co to build the bunkers the way I and the club intended them is another extreme example you've taken that just doesn't apply.

I don't know if you've ever hired contractors or sub-contractors on a project or golf course project, but if you haven't, you have to understand that there is a clear scope of the work, almost always reduced to a written contract, complete with attached specifications.  Finite plans for the work the sub-contractor has entered into.  It doesn't matter if it's grassing, irrigation, building of greens, cart paths, or bunkers, etc.,etc..  There are usually quality controls, or oversights put in place, whether it's a clerk of the works, project manager, construction manager, etc.,etc..  Ultimately, they are all responsible to the owner, or contract holder.

Deviations, without the written approval of work order changes just aren't permited.

If the club contracts for one product and a different product is produced, the club has legal and financial recourse.  
The contractor just doesn't walk away from the job, having produced a product different from that which he contracted to complete on time and on budget.

But, MacDonald & Co must have fulfilled their contract obligations to the satisfaction of Merion, otherwise, Merion would have sought recourse.  To my knowledge, no such action has been taken by Merion, am I correct ?

If I am correct, then Merion got what they contracted for,
it's that simple.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

In my personal opinion, yes, I would object if a true restoration was intended.

If a club told Rees to do a true restoration of their Tillinghast or Travis course and he deviated from that mandate I would object to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Exactly how does MacDonald & Co build bunkers that makes their work inferior to other companies that build bunkers ?

What is the responsibility of the club and the club's architect while these bunkers are being built ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Do you think that Rees's work at Hollywood succeeded in capturing Travis's original look and style? Or was the mandate simply improve the golf course even if you leave your leave your Rees Jones trademark look and style, restoring Travis is not important?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I challenge you to find traces of Rees's work at Hollywood.

Secondly, we've been over this before.  It was the membership that determined the nature and scope of the project, not Rees.  The membership never WANTED or asked for a Travis restoration.

You keep on living in this vacuum, thinking that only the original course and the project architect were involved, and that the the mission dictate from the club was to restore the course to its original form.  Nothing could be further from the truth at Hollywood.

Please, get the all the facts on Hollywood before you begin assailing and bashing Rees.  It only makes you look foolish.
Especially since you've never seen Hollywood pre and post Rees's work.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I didn't bash or assail anyone, thats why I asked the question. I understood that the club did not want the course restored to its original form, my question was in regards to the limited work that Rees did undertake. Did he attempt to recapture the Travis look or did he simply insert his own style? And did try to restore some of Travis's lost features or did he simply remodel the course according to his own design thoughts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If challenging you to tell the difference in the pre and post course work doesn't answer your question, I don't know what to tell you.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Post those two old black & white aerials and I'll show you the traces of Rees's work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

That's the most ridiculous post you could have made, it totally ignores seventy plus years of membership tinkering.

But, I forgot, you're an expert, you can tell from the aerials, which work the members did over those seventy years and which work Rees did.  Doesn't the CIA employ you to decipher and interpret their reconnaissance photos, especially of golf courses in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan ?  Or was that miniature golf courses in Hoboken ?

You just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Hollywood, yet you keep sniping at Rees and whining to me.

I'll be more than happy to discuss Hollywood with someone who has played the course pre and post Rees.

I believe it is a far better course as a result of the work Rees did there.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Can you post those two black & white aerials? I'll try show where the hand of Rees is evident and I'll try to be as specific as possible. Afterward if you wish you can mock me all you want, but I'm pretty confident that I can identify what is Rees and what is not -- and he was busy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Let's see      1999     AAA :)AAA
                  2001     AA     AA    BB

Can anyone tell the difference in the two lines above?
My three year old can perform that task.

But, play the golf course today, and tell me what Rees did or didn't do to the course, without any prior assistance from individuals or photos of what existed before your round.

That's the real test isn't it, your ability to discern what was altered, and what wasn't altered.

Then, we'll take a ride up to Baltusrol and re-test your keen skills.

I'll bet you anything you want to bet that you can't discern what Rees did and didn't do without prior outside assistance.

And if you fail the test, would you then admit that Rees did a good job, or will you continue to snipe at him ?

[Tom_Egan]

Pat --

You have a three year old?  What a mensch!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's fine if you think I'm naive and inexperienced, it really doesn't matter--think anyone is naive or inexperienced if they don't agree with you. Why don't you talk to some people in the business, or better yet why don't you go take a look at some MacDonald bunkers. Look at them anywhere--they're all over the place these days and then compare them to some photographs of the courses before the work.

I never did say they were inferior either, I said they just don't look the same as the great old bunkers on some of these classic courses and they don't because they are made primarily by machines. They look like bunkers on a bunch of modern courses, shape the surrounds that looked like the heads of manequins, lay on the sod and staple it down, bingo a MacDonald bunker!

You might like them--that's fine, to each his own. Maybe plenty of people at Merion like them too, some don't. That's about all that needs to be said on this subject--we just may have a difference of opinon on MacDonald bunkering or bunkering generally--so what?