TV and "the Open Doctor"

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Bernhardt,

I posted that phrase about myself months ago.

TEPaul,

You can't attack a firm, then hide behind confidentiality when pressed for supporting documentation or facts questioning your position.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

And who would "a firm" be?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I believe you would agree that Garden City's bunkers are pretty unique and special.  

Imagine that they needed repair to fix some drainage issues, and it was decided by the cub to rebuild every bunker on the course from scratch due to age, wear, and erosion.

Do you believe that it would be possible for a company who builds modern bunkers in a mechanized fashion to come in and reproduce them, or would it take meticulous handwork by restoration specialists who understand how to do that?  Would it really matter WHO was in charge of the project?

One thing I've definitely learned is that there aren't a lot of people out there who even know how to do hand creation of bunkers.  It's a complex, time-consuming undertaking, and the devil is in the details.  That's why the few specialists who do this type of work tend to be so revered on this site.  Simply put, their work looks wonderful, and stands out in contrast to so many other very pedestrian efforts.  We admire them for their work ethic, their respect for their work on the courses they clearly love, their undeniable artistry, and for the natural integration of their work with their surrounds.

On other posts, I've compared trying to recreate a great work of art with a ceiling roller, when it comes to what can be done by a purely mechanical approach.  That might be "good enough" for the vast majority of courses out there, especially new ones, but what Tom Paul and I and others have been trying to tell you is that it isn't good enough for the historic, classic courses under discussion, and it wouldn't be good enough for Garden City, either, no matter who was in charge of the project.

I hardly think that's attacking any firm;  it's simply stating a clear, identifiable, stark difference in talent and approach.

[Gib_Papazian]

Has anyone ever noticed that the mere mention of Rees Jones automatically guarantees an 80-plus long thread that eventually degenerates into an unsolvable Middle-East type argument?

I wonder if he has ever lurked here?

There is one thing everyone here ought to know though . . . . and I got this from an unimpeachable source.

Several years ago, there was a "Merion-type" movement at NGLA by some members who wanted "modernize the golf course." We all know that that means.

I'll give you one guess which prominent member in the golf world went to bat and put the absolute kabash on those miscreates.

Hint: It wasn't the guy who won the Open next door before "fixing" Doral.

Yep, now you got it! So in retrospect, we ought to be a trifle more gentle. That doesn't make me like his work any better, but his good sense saved George and I from having to lie in front of the tractors.

Tom MacWood: You like Victoria National eh? If you play your cards right, I bet I can hook you up with a member there  who wants to play the Scarlett Course . . . . . he's a bit of a mysterious enigma though. . . . . . perhaps a home & home?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

What you wrote there in your last post is crystal clear. Many of us have been saying that to Pat Mucci for how long now--a year or more?

That's not what he wants to hear--he either does not understand or does not really care about the actual detail of hand-working bunker surrounds vs the more common machine made variety and what the FACTS are about the differences between the two types of methods, which have been explained to him many times. Those are the facts in detail that are good enough for anyone to understand on a discussion group about golf architecture.

He wants to try to make the point that someone has to be "culpable" here because you can't blame an architect or a contractor. He wants to make the point that the club's mission statement was wrong or that the club members in power are to blame for giving the architect or contrator the wrong instructions or marching orders or something like that and if He'd been in charge that would not have happened.

And he certainly doesn't want us blaming the architect and contractor. I believe we keep telling him that no one necessarily has to be "blamed" on this website or by this website. But as a discussion group on architecture it is instructive to know that if handworked bunkers are what the architecture of a particular golf course calls for that you don't hire some one to do them that does not do them that way.

Either they wanted machine made bunkers and got them or they wanted a hand-made look (restoration) and failed to understand that's not the kind of bunkers or look that MacDonald & Co. do. It's probably not hard to fail to understand that on the part of a club particularly since a guy like Pat Mucci continues to fail to understand that apparently!

But he doesn't want to hear that or possibly can't see that. He's still under the impression that if you want a handworked look you can hire any architect and contractor and get that look if you just tell them and show them properly what you want.

It's a fairly elemental point to me and to you and to a lot of people but I doubt he's ever going to understand this.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Gib
Thats good to know. These guys always get criticized for what they do, and never get credit for what they don't do. I'm not sure what it says when people are thankful when you didn't get involved. I've never doubted the guys good intentions, but sometimes the plan and/or execution has been disapointing. (any idea when this occured)

You're right about bringing up the name of Rees on any topic, the ironic thing is three pages ago on this thread his name was brought up by me as a positive for Medinah. So I guess it doesn't matter if its positive or negative, just don't bring him up at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Mike Cirba,

I'm glad you brought up your example of GCGC.

FACT:

You should be aware that GCGC has been on a program of rebuilding their bunkers over the last few years and neither of you picked up any discernable difference in any of the old or new bunkers scattered throughout the property, other than perhaps the new sand.  Which would indicated that a good job was done by the contractor, or you need to see an eye doctor, or both.  

The club created a mandate for repair/renovation, or whatever you prefer to call it, of their bunkers.  
Yes, even the famous Travis bunker has been redone.  And, the Travis bunker turned out slightly different from the previous Travis bunker.  But, the club accepted that difference because of the maintainance and erosion problems associated with its predecessor.

The key is that the club's "mission statement" was to essentially duplicate what we had with some minor modifications for drainage, erosion or breakdown.

GCGC has and is getting "EXACTLY" what they want.
EXACTLY the work product that they directed be built.

Had a bunker product been produced that deviated from our intent or mission statement, it would have to have been redone.

Who is in charge, makes all the difference in the world.
That's why there are commemorative statues in parks of guys leading the charge on their stallion.

If the finished product is exactly what is desired, visually and functionally, does it make any difference in the method used to build it ?

Tell me the details of how MacDonald & Co built the Merion bunkers, and how their process would deviate from others ?

If I'm not mistaken, Pine valley got the bunkers they wanted on the 8th hole, new green, and the bunkers they wanted in duplicating 8 holes on the short course and 2 new holes on the short course, under the supervision of Fazio.

GCGC got the bunkers they wanted.

The facts surrounding Merion's bunker issue are still not known.  And, the issue is, where and how did the Merion project go astray ? (astray in whose eyes?)
My guess, without the facts is that I don't believe it was the sole responsibility of the contractor, as some have stated.
And that the club is ultimately at fault for a finished product that differs materially from what they wanted and directed.

TEPaul,

FACT:

Almost every bunker built today employs machinery !

Very few, if any bunkers are built soley by hand !

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I like your "mission statement", and I'm pleased to hear it was followed to a tee.  Garden City GC deserves it.

Was there an overseeing or consulting architect who you'd care to name if he is doing such commendable restoration work?

Were the contractors reporting to the architect or to the club, or both?  Would you care to name them, as well, for their solid work?

You say that all contractors use machinery in the creation of bunkers, and that is certainly true.  However, was labor-intensive handwork done to complete the detailed finishing on the GC bunkers?

Thanks for sharing the good news..

And no, I didn't miss it when I was there, simply because you could see in places where sod had been laid, or white sand not quite as intergrated in natural color as others.  

A good guest never points out "work in progress" to their host.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The consulting architect at GCGC is Tom Doak.

It is my understanding that the construction crew doing the work reported solely to the club, Ed Butler and Tom Poole.

You might be interested to know that the construction crew who rebuilt these precious Travis bunkers, was......
MacDonal... just kidding..... was a group of relative amateurs, the GCGC maintainance crew.

Now, if the GCGC maintainance crew, a crew with little or no previous, substantive experience can rebuild these bunkers successfully, one has to ask, how could MacDonald & Co build the Merion bunkers incorrectly, as some have alleged, and who supervised their work in building these bunkers for the club ?

Doak and Fazio were the consulting architects at GCGC and PV when successful bunker work was done.  The same Fazio was the consulting architect at Merion
If you and others feel the bunkers at Merion didn't turn out correctly, how did it go wrong, what exactly happened ?

Does their consulting architect suffer from that rare disease, bunkerschizofazio ?      
A disease that only Dr Katz, or excessive doses of C & C can cure ?

My point, and it has always been my point, is that there is so much information required before prudent conclusions can be
drawn, unless of course, you suffer from that rare disease known as Paulfactaphobia     A disease indigenous to the Philadelphia region, but known to be nefariously and unknowingly carried to locations throughout the world by a golf course architectural internet site.  

Dr Katz is working on a cure for this as well
His early theory is treatment through deprivation.
Deprivation of the mentioning of, alluding to, or any referencing, direct or indirect of the words Coore & Crenshaw,
or any project associated with Coore & Crenshaw.
The patient has resisted treatment so far, despite pleas from concerned friends that other cures/architects are alive and well in the world, and performing admirably.  He continues to be heard, constantly mumbling,
"C & C are the only architects for you and me"

Tom MacWood is studying photos of TEPaul pre and post his introduction to Coore & Crenshaw to try to evaluate the changes in his personality, trying to judge how Tom Paul thinks, based solely on his detailed photographic analysis.
For the purposes of his analysis, certain photos of Tom Paul have been deliberately excluded and confiscated.  
Those photos may be obtained in the magazines at the check out counter of your local supermarket.
Mac too may be suffering from a rare disease,
Reeseswoodenheadus.  The denial of credible work, despite never having seen it. Dr Katz's has kindly consented to offering all  of these individuals a group rate for billing purposes.
 
Mike Cirba,

For your information, good guests work on their chipping  
or at least buy their caddies Kevlar coveralls and helmets.
Not one caddy appreciated the coveralls with bullseyes you gave them.  Not even old eagle eye, who can still see the ball, but can't remember where it went, after your beaning.
 
                             

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Interesting point about the bunker work at GCGC and PV being done inhouse by crews with little or no previous experience. It seems like the most successful restorations are done inhouse by relatively inexperienced constructors. From what I understand the work at The Country Club was done in house. I don't think many would argue that the work done in house at Merion wasn't brilliant. And the work at Cypress Point I believe is in house.

I wonder if the reason for the success is because these people are inexperienced. They have no preconcieved ideas or repeatable method. They haven't built 1000's of bunkers the same extremely efficient way and aren't concerned with getting in and out and moving on to the next job. Their model is either other bunkers on the property or a photographic image that they are trying replicate. And if time consuming hand labor is the best method to get the final product, so be it. If they care about their vintage golf course, time is not an issue, don't rush it. If you have a wonderful old five star resturaunt you wouldn't want to call in fast food crew to prepare the meal - unless of course you're in a big hurry (or stupid).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think the determination of the contractor for the work,
in-house or outside firm, depends more on the scope of the project.

If a club elects to do all of their bunkers at one time, or in one season, the job usually goes to an outside contractor.
Another factor is the clubs location, the extent of a winter or summer season.

If the club elects to do a few holes at a time, over a period of years, it is not unusual for the in-house crew to do the work.

One of the key considerations on any in-house project  is:
will the project divert the focus of the crew away from their routine maintainance duties, compromising the golf course.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
If artistic success and protection of a vinatge design are the utlimate goal, would you recommend the in-house crew or an outside contractor?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You have an idealized vision, a romantic notion, that each golf course "project" exists to the exclusion of everything else.

If you have 350 or 400 members at a club, and your green crew is undertaking a project that strains, impairs and prevents them from performing their routine maintainance practices, such that the course suffers, you may get the project postponed or canceled.

Unfortunately, at member controlled clubs, all factors have to be weighed, and compromises made in order to attempt to accomplish the desired result, or something close to the desired result.

In addition, some projects that are done over a period of years sometimes result in a noticeable difference in the finished product.  

A club redoing greens over a three to six year period might end up with three to six sets of greens, with each set performing noticeably different from the other greens.  
Even if we assume the greens were constructed in your artistic, detailed manner, by in-house help, the results would probably be horrendous, resulting in three to six different sets of putting surfaces.  I wouldn't recommend that process, would you ?  

Let me also address another reality that you may not want to acknowledge.  At most clubs, each member has but one vote.
And, unfortunately, the approval of many projects boils down to the money issue.  If you felt the ideal method for a bunker re-construction project was with a hand-labor-crew, and their cost was $ 500,000 more than the next contractor who was ABC Bunker Builders, Inc., who had a reasonable resume,
which project methodology do you think the members are going to vote for ?

And.... you may be right, but the harsh reality of the cost to do it your way may be to much for the membership to tolerate.  Enter compromise !

Even GCGC, which prides itself on the golf course and tradition is not immune from this reality.  And....
the ongoing fight within the membership to preserve tradition and the architectual integrity of the golf course is NO EASY BATTLE.

P.S.

You can't dine at a five star restaurant at fast food prices.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Thank you for sharing your wonderful experitise and experience, but I already knew all that. My question was in regards to the actual execution of the work, if you were able to set up the optimum conditions (where time wasn't major factor and the small membership was acceptable to some incovenience), which method would you choose? All the behind the scenes realities are truly fascinating, but I'm trying focus on the architecture and the best way to insure the best results.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I think Tom MacWood makes an excellent point.  It DOES seem based on some limited examples both of you mentioned that the best, most loving, most respectful, and most responsive and responsible restorations of bunkers are done by the same people who take care of every inch of the course every day, with professional oversight by an architect who understands and respects the design heritage of the course.  It would seem to help that there are also clear lines of authority and responsibiity, both within the club to its employees and in the club to architect relationship.  

Yes, if a club is concerned with doing things in a rushed timeframe, it might become expedient to bring in the men and their machines, with their assembly line techniques and technologies and economies of scale, but one shouldn't expect that product to maintain the unique values and features the course might be noted for.  I think you'd agree that it would generally look like any other course's bunkers that the firm did in their usual efficient manner at any of the 50 or more concurrent projects they might be working on at any given time.  And  ultimately, at clubs with historic and wonderful architectural features, that's a short-sighted shame.  

Wouldn't it be a responsibility of the restoration architect to point this fact out to the membership?  Shouldn't the hired "expert" let the club know in no uncertain terms that you can't get the details correct in a rush job?

How long has the restoration project at Garden City been ongoing, and what is the scheduled completion date?

As far as architect, I think it's also very fundamentally important in any restoration effort to pick somebody who is going to supplant their own ego and desire to "leave their mark" with someone who has a true appreciation and understanding of classic design.  I must say that I think Garden City's selection of Doak would be very consistent with that approach.  Hell, the guy loves classic design so much that he's travelled all over the world just to give himself an understanding of what makes the great courses special.  I seriously doubt that he would have signed off on working at GCGC if he felt the construction crews couldn't carry out the restoration he thought was appropriate, even if they were "a group of relative amateurs".

I'm heartened to know that things are turning out so well with Garden City's restoration.  Now, if everyone involved would only agree to restore the 12th!

I was also pleased to hear that the caddies there survived my visit, but I understand the one poor fellow still goes into a case of the shakes everytime he sees a left-handed 60 degree wedge.  

Finally, I DO understand what you are saying about responsibility of the club to make sure things go as planned.  But, Patrick, we've already had the discussion about how the movers and shakers of any project tend to become personally and politically invested in making sure that a project is viewed as a "success", nevermind the architectural truth.  I don't think we need to revisit that.

Also, I have a tough time placing blame on anyone but the architect who is responsible, and who has been hired by the club to provide expert, professional advice and oversight.  I think it's understandable human nature at any club to think they are bringing in someone who knows more about the art than they do, especially if that person is the top man and most highly regarded by the general public in his field, and they sometimes tend to rely on that person to probably a greater extent than is sometimes in the best interest of the eventual result for the golf course architecture.  It has happened plenty of times in the past with RTJ Sr. and others (i.e. the 12th hole at Garden City) and is happening now with our big name designers.  Ego driven architecture is not confined to any one time period.  

If the architect isn't truly COMMITTED in his heart and mind to a true restoration, it ain't going to happen.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Maybe I had too good a time tonight but trying to understand what you were attempting to say about me (and possibly Coore & Crenshaw or my feeling about their architecture) is more confusing than anything you've said on here thus far!

Pat, you're definitely a man who has some kind of mission in mind but no real method, means or mode or expressing it clearly!

I was over playing Merion today-- played twice--in both singles and foursome (alternate shot). The golf course was just magnificent--really playing unbelieveably well--the "maintenance meld" was very high--and it looked so good--and the present and future "restoration" plans are very exciting. The new bunkers are actually another dimension from what they ever were before--and basically the way they are now is much more meaningful strategically!

For the time being I'm sticking with what I've always felt about the "surrounds" and that they should have been less machine made and more hand worked, and they still have that "puffy & uphosltered" look but they're getting better. As far as a bunker project that would have or could have "repaired" them, instead of "redoing" them, I guess I might still be hanging on to that idea, but only by a thread. Merion had some before and after photos displayed and some of the "befores" truly were a real mess!

Some of you might not like to hear me say this because you think you're purists and you think horrible things have been done to Merion, but if you still want to hang onto that perception, at least do me, yourselves and this site a favor and desist from calling the people who have been parties to this project evil and ego driven people.

They most definitely are not that. If they made some mistakes, then they did, but they don't really think they did (I don't believe) and if they did they just might admit how at some point but they do care very deeply about the golf course, there's no doubt of that.

I've never felt right about mentioning who they are before but most of you know anyway, so I'll say that through these 3-4 years of contentiousness and personality bashing, Wilson (Bill) Greenwood, the Merion Green Chairman, for a number of years has been a real standup guy (he certainly has been with me), who never got defensive, who still reads this website (and although he jokes about some of the contributors, as he should, he's interested in what they say) and truly cares very deeply about all things to do with Merion and the golf course.

And at dinner I sat next to John Capers who I've known for a lot of years but did not know until last night how much of a club historian he's been. He doesn't look that old to me so it's sort of scary how many decades he's been around all things to do with the club and been recording anyone and everything about the club and the course all those years.

For any club that's interested in any kind of restoration it sure is helpful to have someone who's recorded that much. For any club looking to restore, start interviewing those that go back the farthest the way he's been doing for decades--you'd be amazed what you can find out!

It's always been my hope that an atmosphere can be created on Golfclubatlas so that someday we might see a post on here with the name "Bill Greenwood--Merion" or "Mark Studer--Oakmont" or some of the other green chairman of the other really well known and admired classic courses around this country.

Would some of you like to see that happen or would you prefer to critique their golf courses without a word from them?

You tell me because I think this website would be so much stronger and more meaningful if we could get them on here. But like all good things that would take a certain attitude of understanding of all the things that go on in a golf club and a certain responsibility to truly want to foster a two way discussion! That's not to say that honest and maybe even blunt critique should not take place but what's the use of taking it to a level where we drive people who are good to talk with away?

I wonder sometmes if I should post these things on the Internet but I sure do love the architecture, as all of you do.....

[brad_miller]

Tom, that's one heck of a post, glad you added it, for GCA to reach above and beyond its current level these things that you touch on need to happen. Thank you.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Brad

I fully agree.

TomP

Superb and reality-based explanation of how this DG can "raise its game."  Let me add a few truisms.

1.  Constructive criticism
2.  Politeness
3.  Listening
4.  Open-mindedness

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Merion must be one hell of a golf course, wouldn't you think?  I can't imagine too many other courses that would draw such impassioned responses and heated debate for such a long time.

Merion has always been my favorite golf course in the world, at first for sentimental reasons, and later, as I studied it, for much more rationally defensible ones.  By any measure, it's a masterpiece.  If Merion is outmoded by technology, then golf is outmoded by technology as far as I'm concerned.  

I'm fortunate to work nearby, and on some days, I'll just grab something to eat in the car and go over just to make the drive through and around.  The course is inspirational in architectural conception and as living history.  

Yes, I've voiced many opinions on here related to the bunker project, and if there was passion in my words, it too came out of care, love, and concern for the golf course.  

But, never once did I write a single word that claimed any of the members or those leading the project internally were trying to do anything but the "right thing", as they saw it.  I've never named names, I've never questioned their love of Merion or their motivations.  I did speculate that perhaps corners were cut in the interest of time, to get the work done so the members could have their course back quickly, as well as have the work done well in advance of the 2005 Amateur, which I still think was probably the case.  

The primary thing I spoke to was the issue of how the architectural features (bunkers) were changed from how they had been previously, and in a way I could not see as emulating 1930 either, which had been the stated goal.

I think many of us who saw the work in person said the exact same thing.  Yet, I'm feeling somewhat defensive after reading your last post.

Yes, I did use the word "ego" in my last post, but I was not speaking of the club or it's leaders; I was speaking of ego-driven architecture.  To me, when a Tom Fazio plainly says that he does not study the work of his predecessors, and prefers to build courses in his own way, that indicates a certain degree of hubris and egotism.  

I don't know that this is a bad thing, neccessarily; it may even be a job requirement.  I don't think anyone would call Tom Doak a shrinking violet?.  The job of an architect...to imprint his creativity on 100s of God's green acres, is a rather ego-centric endeavor to begin with.

I just don't think that Tom Fazio has much respect for those who came before him, based on his public statements, primarily, so it's hard to swallow him actually doing "restoration" work of any kind without succumbing to the urge to leave his own mark.  I think the history of those "restoration efforts" have come out more as "revisions" than restorations.  

Still, I also never faulted the club for their decision to hire him.  After all, he's the acknoweldged top guy in this era, and Merion should not be faulted in the least for feeling that they were bringing in the "expert", "the best".  Why else would they hire him if they were not going to listen to his suggestions and rely on his artistic and construction knowledge?

But, back to this website...I'm sure along the way, in the heat of impassioned discussion, some of us (myself included) have said things that were either ill-considered, hyperbolic to make a strident point, or flat out wrong.  I would like to personally apologize to anyone who felt unfairly criticized or harmed by my personal comments on this, or any issue.

The last thing we should be doing here is creating such a tone of contention over any issue that we drive people away, simply because they feel they wouldn't get a fair hearing.

I've always been for expanding this website to any and all who share a love for golf courses and their architecture.  

For my part, moving forward, I'm going to try to do two things;

1) Not let myself get provoked into debates that ultimately achieve no good educational purposes, and that veer away from discussions of real architectural issues.  On those, I will try to keep an open, if challenging mind to opposing views.

2) Never say another word about the Merion bunker project on this site.  I've said all I can say, what's done is done, and I wish the club and golf course the very best going forward.  I'm heartened to hear that Tom is encouraged by the most recent work, and I value his opinion.  

Long Live Merion!  



 

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Who said Bill Greenwood was bad guy or Tom Fazio or any other persons whose actions have been questioned/criticized are bad guys. I understand there have been rare pot shots taken at these men and many others of every possible point of view, but the great majority of these pot shots have come from anonymous sources and no one gives an credence to anonymous posts.

Bill Greenwood sounds like a wonderful gentleman and we all know TFazio is very generous family man, but is that a reason to sit back and quitely accept questionable moves? I would love for these men, and others who have been criticized in the past, to participate and voice they're rational. If they have strong case it will no doubt win the day or at least be cause for thought. It is and has been an open foum, they could have voiced their views last year or this year or yesterday, but for whatever reason they haven't. Should we limit critical review because they have refused to express themselves for whatever reason, or is the goal to present a more friendly forum for their engagement? I have a feeling it will never be friendly enough for their engagement.

I do think this Merion discussion has been beaten like a dead horse (the work has already been done), but I also believe that the criticism has been well presented, thoughtful and has served a useful purpose. And hopefully courses in the future will learn from any mistakes that Merion made as a result.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

The real question, Tom, IMO, is--will WE learn from OUR "mistakes" if Merion turns out to evolve into something "better" than it even was before?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Evolution is precisely why Merion is held in such high esteem. I'm not aware of golf course in the world that has evolved more gracefully than Merion. Wholesale re-construction of her bunkers in a supposed attempt to replicate 1930 (as best that can be replecated using modern methods) is not evolution in my mind. In my mind evolution is a gradual and natural process.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

I was speaking in the future tense, but you chose to reply in the past........To each his or her own......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you knew the reality of the situation, the real life details on how a project actually gets done, why did you post an unrealistic or fantasy question ?  

If you were really trying to focus on the best way to achieve the best results, as you stated, you wouldn't create fantasy situations.. optimum conditions combined with unlimited time.  It just doesn't exist in the real world.

As the "guest" said, you're engaging in mental masturbation.

Mike Cirba,

Every project at GCGC has been put on hold this year, due to member dissastisfaction with conditions and conditioning.
The members felt that "projects" were interfering with maintainance practices.  Unfortunately, last year athracnose struck and created problems, compounding other problems.

If you think an architect can just walk in and make a club ignore the cost of a project, I can see why you would agree with Tom MacWood  

Was Fazio's ego supplanted at Pine Valley

With respect to the 12th at GCGC, do you feel that RTJ just happened to be driving by, stopped in for a chat, and changed the 12th hole.  Or, is it more likely, that within the club there was a desire to alter the hole.  How do you know that RTJ didn't give the club exactly what they wanted ?

Even now, resistance to restoring the 12th hole comes from more directions than you can imagine, yet... we all know it's the right thing to do architectually.....right ?

And..... you can't believe the excuses for not doing it.

TEPaul,

You are amazing !

You are the only guy I know who can do a series of 180's and not leave a cloud of dust or skid marks.

I entered this site amidst the bashing of Fazio, MacDonald & Co, Merion and others with respect to the bunker project.

I asked a lot of questions, and was particularly interested in the facts and the "process" that resulted in the work, stating on numerous occassions, that without this information, one couldn't make a prudent judgement.  You may recall that I asked what Merion's "mission statement" was, what mandate, or marching orders were given to the architect and contractor alike.

If you read my posts, I defended Fazio and MacDonald based on the fact that they were being bashed without benefit of anyone knowing the facts, or the process.

To date, no one has supplied this information.

Now you say, the bunkers are great, adding more strategy to the golf course.

QUESTION:

Is it possible that Merion got it RIGHT, and all the armchair architects and critics on this site got it wrong ??

Just a question, no agenda, no mission, just a question ?

P.S.  All that stuff about deprivation and C & C and Dr Katz,
        I was kidding..... wasn't I ?

[Huge (Puffy) Wilson]

Mr. Patrick Mucci,

Have you even seen the work done at Merion?  How about the others who you are debating with day after day...they've seen and played it, right?

'Nuff said.

Why don't you come down to Ardmore and see for yourself before commenting further?  Wouldn't that seem to be the fair thing to do than to continually put these guys on the spot in a public forum in front of their local friends and aquaintances?

Their criticisms of the work performed seem earnest enough, and they've seen and played it.  But, you're continually asking them to delve into personal and professional and private issues that have not a goddamn thing to do with architecture, and it's embarrassing already.