[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Thanks for the picture.
It would appear that it's taken from an elevation well below the current back tee, thus, it would appear to be a true short in those days.

It would be interesting to know how the internal contouring of the putting surface was configured..

I'm not so sure that I'd call the current hole a more compelling hole.
It's certainly longer and probably harder from the back tee, but, is it more distinctive ?

[TEPaul]

"It would be interesting to know how the internal contouring of the putting surface was configured.."


Patrick and SPDB:

It most certainly would be interesting to know how the internal contouring on that Piping Short was originally. When I first came to know that green maybe back in the 1950s I don't remember that there was that much about the internal contouring that was anywhere near as interesting or challenging as say NGLA's Short internal contouring.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, if any hole design in the world needs more rather than less total greenspace for its internal contouring it would be the Short!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was thinking about the lack of modern day shorts and then thought of the 17th at TPC.

Is that Pete Dye's tribute to "shorts" ?

[TEPaul]

"Is that Pete Dye's tribute to "shorts" ?"


Patrick:

As ab golf architectural historian you've always been a miserable failure and it appears you're getting even worse.

For starters the 17th at TPC was Alice's idea, not Pete's!

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

In 1985, while I was still working for Pete Dye on the renovation of Piping Rock, we cut away a significant part of the green at the Short hole at Pete's suggestion, and substantially deepened the bunker at the front of the green.  By that time the green was not ringed by bunkers per the original photo.  I saw the photo while we were working there, but it seemed impractical to suggest a square moat of sand around the green, particularly since the superintendent mocked the idea.  More importantly, this was 1985, and the work at Piping Rock was not intended to be a "restoration" -- no one had really done a restoration at that time.

Reversing what we did then would be awfully difficult now.  It would take a lot of fill, and it would be difficult to match up the grade to the old green.  And, more to the point, would it REALLY make the hole much better?  Does every single Macdonald course need to be restored?  Piping Rock's idea in 1985 was to take a Macdonald course and strengthen it for modern play ... that's not my personal cup of tea, but it's not a totally unpopular idea.

As for The Creek, when we worked on the course in the early 1990's, Gil Hanse and I restored most of the greenside bunkering.  We put in a narrow walkway at the front splitting the bunker in two there, but as I see from the aerial, they've grassed in the left side of the front bunker since then.  We did not have authorization from the club at that time to try and restore the green to our best guess of what it had been like (the contours have been messed with at some point, but we were told to leave them as is).  Unlike the Piping Rock hole, I agree with you about The Creek's, it's hardly compelling as it is today.

As for one affecting the other ... not much.  It would be hard for me to convince you how derelict a club like Piping Rock was in the mid-1980's, or how neglected The Creek had been prior to our work in 1991.  The greens were so thatchy we had to run a sod cutter over them TWICE to get down to the soil.  No one on Long Island took either course seriously at all, and the members didn't play them much, either.  The work we did may not have been perfect restoration -- which neither club asked for -- but they've certainly come a long way in the years since.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

In 1985, while I was still working for Pete Dye on the renovation of Piping Rock, we cut away a significant part of the green at the Short hole at Pete's suggestion, and substantially deepened the bunker at the front of the green.  By that time the green was not ringed by bunkers per the original photo. 

That's interesting.
I wonder if Jamie Slonis could post an "Historical Aerial" of Piping Rock dating back to 1931, as he did for Pine Valley.  That way we could see and analyze how the course was altered over time.

I saw the photo while we were working there, but it seemed impractical to suggest a square moat of sand around the green, particularly since the superintendent mocked the idea.  More importantly, this was 1985, and the work at Piping Rock was not intended to be a "restoration" -- no one had really done a restoration at that time.

That's also interesting.
To whom do you attribute the first attempt at a true or sympathetic restoration, and at what club ?

Reversing what we did then would be awfully difficult now.  It would take a lot of fill, and it would be difficult to match up the grade to the old green.  And, more to the point, would it REALLY make the hole much better? 

I don't know the answer to that, but, certainly there's a value in retaining a club's pedigree, legacy or original design intent when the architect is one as prominent as Macdonald.

I would ask you, how would you feel if someone altered the 5th hole at Pacific Dunes, and years later a discussion arose regarding the restoration of that hole, especially if the hole contained hints or trademarks associated with your work.

I do think there is value to a "pure bred"
Not that the mongrelized version can't play better, but, purity or a general conformance to purity seems to have a unique, valuable quality.

Does every single Macdonald course need to be restored? 


I'd answer yes to that question, citing my above comments, but, I'd add other reasons.
His body of work is rather limited, thus preservation of these limited resources is important, in my mind.
And, if someone answered, "no", isn't that the mentality that resulted in the disfiguration of an enormous amount of holes and courses in the U.S. ? 

There should be a value placed on his work and that value should encompass not altering it, even if it improved the hole, for as you know better than anyone else, once you start that process, once you topple the first domino, the course becomes open season for changes from every green committee, board and influential member.

If Van Gogh or another artist had a limited number of paintings, should any of them be "touched up" in order to improve them, IN THE EYES OF THE HOLDER, which, in this case is the club ?

The other reason I'd offer when opting to restore every CBM course, is that they possess a unique style, a "brand" if you will.   Many of his holes are easily recognizable.  However, once you subject them to the surgeon's scalpel, they begin to lose or completely lose their distinctive character.

The Country went through a phase that I'd call the "disposable" phase or philosophy.
Pens, lighters, marriages, razors and other items became disposable, thus they lost their value.
That philosophy extended to golf holes and courses.
Holes built by Ross, AWT, CBM, SR, CB and others became "disposable" as fad after fad took their toll.

So, YES, I'd like to see every Macdonald course restored because there aren't that many of them, and, for the other reasons cited above.

50 years from now, I won't be here, but, as you and I look down from that "fairway in the sky", I'll guarantee you that you'll turn and look at me and say, "can you believe what they're doing to my golf course, why can't they just leave it alone."  Or, "boy, I wish they'd restore that hole they butchered years ago."

I don't consider adding length or alternate tees as an alteration.

Piping Rock's idea in 1985 was to take a Macdonald course and strengthen it for modern play ... that's not my personal cup of tea, but it's not a totally unpopular idea.

Agreed.
I think that was one of the "Fads" that so many courses go through

As for The Creek, when we worked on the course in the early 1990's, Gil Hanse and I restored most of the greenside bunkering.  We put in a narrow walkway at the front splitting the bunker in two there, but as I see from the aerial, they've grassed in the left side of the front bunker since then.  We did not have authorization from the club at that time to try and restore the green to our best guess of what it had been like (the contours have been messed with at some point, but we were told to leave them as is).


This would be another great course to study and analyze vis a vis "historic aerials"

Unlike the Piping Rock hole, I agree with you about The Creek's, it's hardly compelling as it is today.

Especially when you consider the stretch of holes that preceeded it.

As for one affecting the other ... not much.  It would be hard for me to convince you how derelict a club like Piping Rock was in the mid-1980's, or how neglected The Creek had been prior to our work in 1991. 


That is shocking.
We seem to attribute infinite wisdom and curator status to clubs that possess these courses.
I think we also tend to attribute a heightened sense of value to the membership, especially at clubs with those special pedigrees.  So, it is surprising to learn that these clubs took their golf courses for granted, almost treating them as step-children when compared to the other facilities and services at the club.
Interesting stuff, thanks.

The greens were so thatchy we had to run a sod cutter over them TWICE to get down to the soil.  No one on Long Island took either course seriously at all, and the members didn't play them much, either.  The work we did may not have been perfect restoration -- which neither club asked for -- but they've certainly come a long way in the years since.

When do you think that clubs woke up from years of slumbering and recognized the inherent value in their golf courses ?

I know that Shinnecock, before the first modern Open, suffered from the same malaise and poor conditioning.

[TEPaul]

"I wonder if Jamie Slonis could post an "Historical Aerial" of Piping Rock dating back to 1931, as he did for Pine Valley.  That way we could see and analyze how the course was altered over time."


Patrick:

For Piping Rock's Short a 1931 aerial is not necessary as it is clear to see in that 1950 aerial Piping's Short was still very much surrounded by an unbroken bunker ring (other than two very narrow walkways at 7 and 9 on the clock), just as The Creek's Short (#17) was originally.

By the way, the bunkering of The Creek's Short was altered at some point between 1933 and 1938 (provided the dates on those aerials is correct).

Although I wasn't exactly looking at this kind of thing at the time (as early as the 1950s) I do not remember that Piping's Short was completely surrounded by an unbroken bunker ring (as shows up on the 1950 aerial), so that would indicate to me that it was changed at some point between the 1950s and when Dye/Doak worked on the course in 1985. That seems to be confirmed by Tom Doak's recollection that it was not surrounded by an unbroken bunker ring when they altered it in 1985.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I've never been good at the multiple-colors thing -- actually, I've never tried it -- so excuse me for addressing your comments at my own speed.

Last topic first -- Piping Rock and The Creek were woefully neglected in the 1970's.  A bunch of wealthy families belonged to them, but golf was not cool, and the members just didn't pay too much attention to the golf courses.  Not more than half the members could've even told you that C.B. Macdonald designed the course -- and this is a group of people whose fathers and grandfathers knew Macdonald socially!

That all started to change around 1980.  I personally attribute the reawakening of golf course architecture to three causes:

1.  Professional golfers getting deeply involved in the business, which brought mention of it to TV, c. 1980.

2.  The coming of marekting to golf courses and golf course developments.  The marketers quickly realized that all golf courses sounded alike, so using the architect's name was the best way to distinguish them, also c. 1980.

3.  Geoff Cornish and Ron Whitten's book, The Golf Course, published 1982, which allowed clubs to find out who had designed their own course.  Once the marketers had been successful turning a "Jones" or "Nicklaus" course into something special, the members of old-line clubs realized that, hey, someone good must have designed our course, too -- and thus the interest in Ross and Macdonald and others came back online.

The first work I know of that was close to a restoration was done by the superintendent of Shoreacres, Tom Rader, in the early 1980's.  The first architectural work I know of that was mostly restoration-oriented was my work at The Camargo Club, starting when Pete Dye sent me there in 1984.  [There may well be earlier examples, but "restoration" was never talked of as a goal in those days.]  Mr. Dye had advised them not to touch the course in the 1960's, when they made massive changes ... so they called him 20 years later when they realized they'd made a mistake.  [Pete told them he didn't want to go back and fix someone else's mess, but he sent me instead.]

[TEPaul]

"That's also interesting.
To whom do you attribute the first attempt at a true or sympathetic restoration, and at what club?"


Pat:

That certainly is an interesting question and one we have been trying to determine for the last several years----eg what was the FIRST so-called "architectural restoration project." At the moment, it seems uncertain and the only thing to do is to simply keep researching what golf course out there FIRST called for a restoration to originality or some former time in its course's evolution.

Tom Doak says Piping's 1985 project was not intended to be a restoration and it wasn't (I also know the guy from Piping who ran that project). At the moment, the earliest restoration I'm aware of might have been the Doak/Hanse project at The Creek Club in 1992.

But again, that's contingent on something else out there that preceded it which I'm not aware of at this point.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

That's interesting what you said about Shoreacres and Camargo in the early 1980s being basically some form of a restoration. I wasn't aware of those two. It certainly seems to me that whatever the first so-called restoration was (in America) it's fairly likely you were there at the beginning of this interesting architectural cycle!

On another point, I wouldn't exactly agree with you when you said golf wasn't cool in the 1970s (or 1960s or 1950s) at clubs like Piping and The Creek. It was very cool and a lot of people were very much into it. Those members in a comparative sense to other American clubs certainly had plenty of money but back then the vogue was what became known as "shabby chic." And I don't believe it's accurate today to call that modus and style "benign neglect." That was just the way they wanted their courses to be and to look. It was dedicately intended to be that way. It wasn't any different than the way that type of membership handled most all their clubs in those days. I know, I was there, and saw most all of them up and down the East Coast.

I can scarcely think of a single exception that way in those days. And again, it definitely wasn't because they didn't have the money, just that they liked that style and look. "Shabby Chic"---the term was used all the time back then and they were proud of it.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Prior to 1938 the green encircling bunker on The Creek's Short was broken up into six separate bunkers from about 2 to 10 on the clock. The entire bunker portion in the rear (10 t0 2) was removed as it still is today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you're correct about the "shaggy chic" maintainance practice.

I saw it at Shinnecock and Maidstone, so I'm sure Piping Rock and The Creek employed it as well.

But, I agree with Tom Doak on this, this was neglect, and not just benign neglect.

The members that populated those clubs probably had more travel experience than any other sector of the golfing population in the U.S.  

They had been to England, Scotland and Ireland.

One would be hard pressed to think that the abundant number of golfer's who experienced the links courses came back to America without recognizing the benefit of firm and fast.

You also have to go back beyond the 70's to the 40's, 50's and 60's when there were no automated sprinkler systems, when courses were almost universally fast and firm in the summer.

Fairways were tan/brown and the ball ran forever.

Enter sprinkler systems and the grass is green AND those in power NEGLECTED the golf course allowing "shabby chic" to take over.

I think it was a form of arrogance.

Those members were well traveled in the U.S. as well.
They knew the difference in conditions.
And, a good number of their members were exceptional golfers, competing in local, regional, national and international competitions.  They understood the need for proper conditioning, but, proper conditioning was not going to be the fare of the day.  Instead, neglect, be it benign or intended, became the conditioning standard.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

At The Creek, what went on with the course from probably the 1950s (or even the 1940s) into the early 1990s was a dedicated program to essentially turn the course into something that would be maintained as an "American links style" course. I underscore the word "maintained" here but it was something that was intended to be more with less. It is also fairly historically interesting that the man who very much set that dedicated goal at The Creek was none other than Joe Dye, perhaps the most powerful and influential man in American golf at that time.

[TEPaul]

"I saw it at Shinnecock and Maidstone, so I'm sure Piping Rock and The Creek employed it as well."


Patrick:

I would challenge anyone to show me a course with a membership of the type we're talking about here (that sort of so-called WASP elite who most certainly were not poor at that time) that did not do this very same thing in that era. I'm talking Piping, The Creek, Maidstone, NGLA, Shinnecock, Seminole, Gulf Stream, Fishers, Links, Myopia, Brookline etc, etc, etc.

I can't think of a single one back then with a membership like theirs that did not do the same thing, and right up and down the east coast if not all over America including the likes of Cypress Point et al. It did not mean they did not redesign but they really did like that "shabby chic" look and feel in their maintenance practices. And it wasn't some unintended "benign neglect" as you seem to suggest. That's the way they liked their courses back then and that's the way they intentionally maintained them.

Matter of fact, I will take it another explanatory step here in this interesting evolution in American golf. It was not that there were not courses out there that were beautifully maintained and immaculate at this very same time but to those types of people we're talking about here at that time from those clubs we are discussing, that kind of thing and that kind of immaculate maintenance was not just considered to be but actually referred to as "noveau riche."

I supposed they must have felt that kind of thing was calling attention to one's wealth and they definitely did not like that kind of thing at all. One thing none of them did back then is discuss money, certanily not one's own money or their friends money----that was considered rude and even gauche. Their explanation was "it's just not done" (amongst "us" apparently).

And I didn't look this up on the INTERNET somewhere either----I remember it and I remember hearing it extremely well and all the time back then.

Why that particular type of people became that way back then probably is a truly fascinating sociological study. I sure do have my own theory about it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I'm not buying the "shabby chic" ethic based on what I saw in the mid-1980's.

We both know that many of the members of those clubs got their money through inheritance, and they were great students of preservation of capital.  [In other words ... they were cheap.]  They would never have dreamed of spending the kind of money on golf course maintenance that we do today.  At the same time, they didn't like aerification -- either the cost of it or the disruption to play -- so some courses just stopped doing it, and they became incredibly thatchy.

The maintenance ethic of those clubs changed completely in the 1990's when new money started pouring in, and the new-money generation insisted they wanted the best of everything, regardless of cost.

The pendulum is probably swinging back in the other direction as we speak.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Joe Dey, who was with the USGA as Executive Director for about 34 years, from 1934 until 1968 was known to be frugal.

I believe that he was responsible for a good deal of the bunker removal at The Creek, primarily to reduce maintainance costs.

Hence, he knew better in terms of optimal playing conditions.

If he exercised his influence at The Creek, saving money on maintainance, vis a vis, "shaggy chic" would be right up his alley.

He was reputed to be a great guy and a guardian of the game, but, at the local level, he might have been misguided when it came to architecture and maintainance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Seminole didn't keep their golf course "shabby chic".

While some of the posh LI clubs might have, they didn't.

I think Tom Doak is correct.
They were cheap, wanted to keep costs down, hence, they let the conditioning suffer.

Remember, golf was now being televised, so viewers, members and guests were being given a glimpse of different courses and different playing conditions.  The days of pleading ignorance to agronomic practices were over.

It was a money issue and nothing more.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:
I'm not buying the "shabby chic" ethic based on what I saw in the mid-1980's."


TomD:

Oh, I think you will buy it when you understand all the reasons why it was not something they felt they had to do but something they wanted to do. They thought the "shabby" look the way they envisioned it really was "chic."

If you want to understand the emanation of it all in the world of the rich American WASP with what they thought was some kind of social class (which often revolved around what was known as the "Social Register") you wouldn't have to do much more than just walk into one of those English-style Manor houses on generally massive estates (either in GB or America) and look at their style inside. The best thing to do in their opinions was to have all their dogs lying all over their sofas and chairs, with some muddy shoes in the Mudroom et al.

I grew up with dog hair all over my clothes all the time. Eventually someone would clean it up but it sure wasn't those people who cleaned it up. 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Seminole didn't keep their golf course "shabby chic"."

Patrick:

They sure did. So did Gulf Stream. My father joined both of those places in the early 1960s when he moved down the coast and he was on their boards. And he was at Piping for about fifty years. I ought to know; I was at them all the time back in those decades. None of those courses' maintenance practices back then was anything like it is today----NOTHING!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Seminole didn't keep their golf course "shabby chic"."

Patrick:

They sure did. So did Gulf Stream.

No, they didn't

My father joined both of those places in the early 1960s when he moved down the coast and he was on their boards. And he was at Piping for about fifty years. I ought to know; I was at them all the time back in those decades.


I also played Seminole in the early 60's and it wasn't shabby.
It was comparable to other Florida clubs.

None of those courses' maintenance practices back then was anything like it is today----NOTHING!

That's NOT the issue.
No club had maintainance practices in the 60's that match today's.
What we're talking about is a comparitive analysis of the courses in the 60's, 70's and 80's with their contemporaries, their peers, not conditions at courses 30, 40 and 50 years removed.

Get with the program.

[JMEvensky]

TEPaul,are you saying these clubs maintained their golf courses "cheaply" out of reverse snobbery?Kind of "we could spend billions if we wanted,but we don't want to"?

I have very limited experience in these circles but I think you're right.

I think this attitude changed with the generation which came of age in the 70's and 80's.Flaunting money(earned or inherited) became less gauche.Maybe this all filtered down to the way they spent money on their golf courses.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,are you saying these clubs maintained their golf courses "cheaply" out of reverse snobbery?Kind of "we could spend billions if we wanted,but we don't want to"?"


Jeff:

You know I really don't know why just about ALL those kinds of people at those kinds of clubs back then did it that way, I just know they did. It never occured to me until now but all these years I never thought to ask a single one of them why it was that way---I just know it was because I grew up with it all and I knew hundreds and hundreds of those people.

That's just the way they were back then. You could even see it in the way they dressed or sometimes even in the kinds of cars they drove. The answer is they just liked it that way obviously.

"Reverse snobbery?" Hmmm, that's probably a pretty complicated term or concept for that kind of people back then. If there was or is any of that reverse snobbery in those clubs there's probably a lot more of it today then there was back then.

If I was asked to hazard a guess as to why they were generally that way back then I would say that kind of people I'm talking about in those clubs back then really didn't feel like they had to or needed to impress anyone.

[John Mayhugh]

As bad as it is to get rid of the island bunkering, softening the interior contours is criminal.  As George Bahto mentioned in Evangelist, I guess way too many green committees misunderstood the value of the hole. 

Hitting the green should be but half the battle. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

The hole had several neat features.

Steep banks directed the ball to deep bunkers in the event of a marginal shot.

Recoveries had a difficult time dealing with the internal donut or horseshoe.

And, approaches hit to the wrong side of the donut/horseshoe had difficult putts in store for them.

While the holes were short, birdies were hard to come by.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()