Tom MacWood,
Pat
I excluded both ACCC and Lake Merced for similar reasons....from what I understand neither was a canidate for restoration.
Tom, how do you draw the conclusion that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but Hollywood was
?
That's part of your problem.
You have no inside knowledge of what went on at Atlantic City other than what I and others posted, and you have no inside knowledge of what went on at Hollywood other then what has been posted, and yet, YOU CONCLUDE, that Atlantic City WASN'T a candidate for restoration, but Hollywood WAS.
HOW DO YOU COME TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS ?
THEY ARE FALSE AND CONFLICTING.
Bob Huntley tells you that MPCC wasn't a very good golf course, irrespective of who designed it, and that Rees created a better golf course that the members like more, YET, you claim that you, who has played it once, know better then the membership at MPCC and Bob Huntley, who plays the golf course 150 + times a year.
Tom, I understand your desire to restore rather than alter golf courses. But, if that's your desire, your platform, you can't draw the convenient conclusion that Atlantic City wasn't a candidate for restoration, but that Hollywood was, when that simply ISN'T TRUE.
You can't bash Rees at Hollywood and praise Doak at Atlantic City when they did essentially the same thing for each club's respective owners. In fact, in reviewing both projects,
Rees preserved far, far more than Doak, yet you give Doak a pass and constantly harangue Rees.
I can throw Baltusrol into the mix as well.
With respect to architects, be fair, be consistent, and apply your standards universally, not selectively, as you have done in the past, AND,
recognize that not all clubs embark on restorations, despite your feelings, and that the outcome of a project should be viewed in the context of the architects ability to meet its mission statement.
It is mostly the memberships that determine the fate of their courses, they are the custodians of their golf course.