[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
Based Engineers rugged topography why then do you applaud the new bunkers where none existed? And why are you not demanding that Engineer's original more penal bunkers restored?

Who said the original bunkers at Engineers were more penal?  You? Show us?

[T_MacWood]

There is no question at all, Tom, that you tend to totally glorify some of these old architects and some of their work to the extent that you must feel there is nothing they could've ever done that didn't work well for some reason, either back there or today.

Yes. And righfully so. Engineers and Strong should be glorified...which makes the direction taken more tragic. Get with the program.

Was he infallible? No. The '2 or 20' was made easier, if not there would've been some old timers still trying to finish it. And old Dev Emmet altered the 7th green, adding a new shelf, making it better I believe. I'm sure we can find fault in both NGLA and PV too, and they have been minor alteration over the years too...but if someone tried to do to them what was done here all hell would break loose.

I would have preferred no resotration to re-design. Re-establish the old routing, cut down trees and expand the fairways.

The changes that Frank Duane made to the routing in the 60s or 70's...a bad move...were made permanent by Davis by redesigning both the 3rd and 4th hole. In adddition 10 of the most spectacular greens ever contructed were recontoured (see Morrissett's 10 Great Architectural Sins and Doak's comments that he refused to bid on this project because he didn't want to touch those greens if you have any questions). There weren't many bunkers on the golf course, but those few were bold and unique...perhaps you can look for them when you get the archive up (hopefully sooner rather than later) because unfortunately you won't find them on the course today. That's one hell of Restoration Master Plan.

For the restoration potential of Engineers see Gil Hanse's featured interview. Your lectures about what a restoration should be and what it shouldn't be in the abstract are getting a little old...especially when were discussing a specific golf course and a specific architect that you have no knowledge of. You need to get up to speed on Strong and Engineers.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
See George Thomas's Golf Architecture in America for an example. You didn't answer the questions.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
See George Thomas's Golf Architecture in America for an example. You didn't answer the questions.

Tom - Show us here where you can document that the bunkers at Engineers were more penal in the past then they are today. You made that statement - PROVE IT.

[T_MacWood]

Did you look at Thomas's book? I'm still waiting for you answer about why you have two different standards for the restoration of Engineers and Yale.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom- I've read the book more then once.

Why don't you answer a question for once instead of shooting us questions and telling us your single minded redesign mantra.

Prove the old bunkers at Engineers were more penal then the current ones. I've done that at Yale.

Put up side by side aerials from three eras for Bethpage Black and show us the massive changes.

Find another golf course of your choice that looks more alike between the 1920's-30's to today tehn Bethpage Black using the appropriate aerials?

Come on Tom - Put up or stop the mantra of redesign

[TEPaul]

"You need to get up to speed on Strong and Engineers."

I'm sure that's true. As I said in post #47 I don't know much about Engineers or Strong despite growing up very near it.

But I'm not speaking about restorations in the abstract at all---I'm speaking about what I believe to be the best approach to restoration architecture, and if that differs from your approach to restoration architecture that's basically what we're discussing here, in my opinion.

God knows you and I differ about what was done at Aronimink and why and the fact remains you had less than complete knowledge and information on the historic architectural details and evolution of that course as well as the realities of the course and golf there today than I had or Prichard had but that didn't seem to stop you from offering your opinions and criticisms, particularly what you claimed had to have been Ross's position in how things were built and evolved there.

There is that and then again that fact that you don't even know the golf course----never having been there or laid eyes on it.

There's no question that really good architectural research is a necessity on good restoration projects but the simple fact that someone, such as yourself, even attempts to assert opinions about the place that you do without ever having even seen it is pretty much beyond belief.

Obviously you've never admitted that, you probably can't and never will but to anyone who's clear thinking about the realities of architecture and restoraton architecture there's no question they would see the fallacy in that and rightly question your the credibilty of your criticisms.

It seems what you're intent on doing on here is just finding historical minutae on golf courses and attempting to impress people with that alone.

Again, in my view really good architectural archival material is essential to start with but there's more to these projects than just that, Tom MacWood. But it appears clearer every day that you may never learn that rather obvious fact and obvious reality.

[TEPaul]

"Come on Tom - Put up or stop the mantra of redesign."

Geoffrey:

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm glad more people on here are beginning to ask this guy to put up or shut up and to question both some of the modus operandi of some of his criticisms of others as well as his credibilty, particularly regarding courses he hardly knows and in some cases has never seen. He has this sort of "holier than thou" attitude about some of these projects. I could sort of accept that if he had ever bothered to try to actually get involved in one from beginning to end. But obviously that wouldn't be fittin' for someone who only seems to care about preserving some ultra preservationist, ultra pure restoration image.

Have you ever noticed that most of the guys on here who tend to be the real ultra purists don't even belong to a golf club and seemingly never have? Isn't that interesting, and more than a little convenient?  

[T_MacWood]

I know deep down in your heart that you believe the work Rees did was not up to par nor up to the standard of good Tillinghast restorers...in fact you told me yourself. If you feel so strongly about clearing Rees and Bethpage's name....post the images yourself. We went through this excercise before.

For an example of Strong's bunkers at Engineers get off your duff walk over to your bookself and pull out the Thomas book. Its not that difficult. If you can't do that...one of these days I'm going to write an essay on Strong (with images) and you can see then.

There is difference between courses changing and evolving naturally and an inaccurate restoration or blatent redesign. Other courses look more similar from aerials: Newport, Chicago, NGLA, Cypress Point, Pine Needles, Merion, Somerset Hills, Valley, Myopia Hunt, Hyannisport, Springfield, Lawsonia. I'm sure there are more, perhaps not that many more, but there aren't many courses of Bethpage's architectural stature either, nor are there many courses given the resources Bethpage had for their restoration.

The multitude of omeba-like bunkers with long spider legs stands out like a sore thumb....that isn't Tillinghast.

By the way we are still waiting for you to explain your contradictory positions on Yale and Engineers

[Geoffrey Childs]

I know deep down in your heart that you believe the work Rees did was not up to par nor up to the standard of good Tillinghast restorers...in fact you told me yourself. If you feel so strongly about clearing Rees and Bethpage's name....post the images yourself. We went through this excercise before.

For an example of Strong's bunkers at Engineers get off your duff walk over to your bookself and pull out the Thomas book. Its not that difficult. If you can't do that...one of these days I'm going to write an essay on Strong (with images) and you can see then.

There is difference between courses changing and evolving naturally and an inaccurate restoration or blatent redesign. Other courses look more similar from aerials: Newport, Chicago, NGLA, Cypress Point, Pine Needles, Merion, Somerset Hills, Valley, Myopia Hunt, Hyannisport, Springfield, Lawsonia. I'm sure there are more, perhaps not that many more, but there aren't many courses of Bethpage's architectural stature either, nor are there many courses given the resources Bethpage had for their restoration.

The multitude of omeba-like bunkers with long spider legs stands out like a sore thumb....that isn't Tillinghast.

Tom

SHOW US the photos so that we can go through the same minutiae of detailed criticism as you.  I'm calling you out.  Lets see Newport for starters and then we can work through your list and criticize every cape and bay.

Show us the omeba-like bunkers at Bethpage in 2002 AND their counterparts in 1938 AND 1990. Yes I want people to see all three.

[T_MacWood]

"Come on Tom - Put up or stop the mantra of redesign."

Geoffrey:

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm glad more people on here are beginning to ask this guy to put up or shut up and to question both some of the modus operandi of some of his criticisms of others as well as his credibilty, particularly regarding courses he hardly knows and in some cases has never seen. He has this sort of "holier than thou" attitude about some of these projects. I could sort of accept that if he had ever bothered to try to actually get involved in one from beginning to end. But obviously that wouldn't be fittin' for someone who only seems to care about preserving some ultra preservationist, ultra pure restoration image.

Have you ever noticed that most of the guys on here who tend to be the real ultra purists don't even belong to a golf club and seemingly never have? Isn't that interesting, and more than a little convenient?  

I think I have provided more information...by way of historical images and essays then both of you put together. But since you are incapable of finding these images on your own...I'll see if I can scan a few and e-mail them to you.

[TEPaul]

"If you feel so strongly about clearing Rees and Bethpage's name....post the images yourself. We went through this excercise before."

Geoffrey:

Look at that. It's just one more in a long string of evasions of questions and another example of constant evasion in coming to grips with the real subject to do with restoration.

Tom MacWood, why would Geoffrey post comparative photos even if he could? Seems to me his point is to find out if you can---and on that point who can blame him? And it looks like you can't. Plus, and as usual, you just don't know the course even remotely as well as he does from both before and after.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Here are your omeba bunkers...just pan over a little to the right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=bethpage,+ny&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=40.749874,-73.445621&spn=0.007461,0.02105

I'm sorry I brought up Bethpage on thread devoted to Engineers...Bethpage has been beaten like a dead horse, no need to bring that subject up, besides Geoffrey blows a gasket evertime it does comes up. It is a major blind spot for him, which has led to unnatural appreciation for Rees Jones resotrations.

[TEPaul]

"I think I have provided more information...by way of hsitorical images and essays then both of you put together. but since you are incapable of finding these images on your own...Ill see if I can scan some of the images and e-mail them to you."

I have no doubt that is true.

And that remark is just another confirmation, in my opinion, of what Tom MacWood really cares about and thinks about---eg which is how to impress people with only his expertise on historical resarch, which it's becoming clear is his only expertise in golf architecture or even restoration architecture.

And I've said a number of times that that ability on your part is impressive. Unfortunately, that is not the sole requirement to understanding the realities of restoration architecture.

I used to think you just didn't care to get involved in the other necessary realities of restoration architecture but it just may be that it's not a matter of you not caring to get involved for some reason---it just may be the fact that you don't even know what we mean.

Maybe I wouldn't either if I'd not been willing to get involved in them in the first place.  

But the point here is, I think, that despite the vast importance of architectural researching, your crebiilty needs to be questioned on what else is required in these projects.

I think your credibility is being questioned more often on here and by more people now, not on researching but on what else these projects take to do and it seems that they are finding your credibility is beginning to be found wanting.

 

[Geoffrey Childs]

"If you feel so strongly about clearing Rees and Bethpage's name....post the images yourself. We went through this excercise before."

Geoffrey:

Look at that. It's just one more in a long string of evasions of questions and another example of constant evasion in coming to grips with the real subject to do with restoration.

Tom MacWood, why would Geoffrey post comparative photos even if he could? Seems to me his point is to find out if you can---and on that point who can blame him? And it looks like you can't. Plus, and as usual, you just don't know the course even remotely as well as he does from both before and after.

TEP

Exactly-  I'm not the one repeatedly calling Bethpage Black a redesign.  Tom MacWood has been doing that for years and years.  I think its his responsibility to prove that point and to show each of us who read this board exactly what he means by a redesign.

I even asked him to pick a golf course of HIS choice and show us how much closer to its original design of the 1920's or 1930's it is TODAY then Bethpage.  I don't think he will find one that we can't put through the same critical analysis that he uses so selectively.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
Here are your omeba bunkers...just pan over a little to the right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=bethpage,+ny&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=40.749874,-73.445621&spn=0.007461,0.02105

I'm sorry I brought up Bethpage on thread devoted to Engineers...Bethpage has been beaten like a dead horse, no need to bring that subject up, besides Geoffrey blows a gasket evertime it does comes up. It is a major blind spot for him, which has led to unnatural appreciation for Rees Jones resotrations.

Tom - that google map is nice- now cut and paste individual holes adjacent to a 1990 map and the 1938 map for comparison.  Show us. Lets do the same for Newport too.

Tom- You are the one who REPEATEDLY sounds the mantra of a REDESIGN.  It is your burdon of proof.  You are the one beating down Rees Jones - not me. Your blind spot is that you think you are always correct and will not let it pass - not one single time.  

I started a thread about how much I like the current Engineers CC course and enjoyed playing it and thought the work done and pointed out to us case by case was good.  YOU took the opportunity (without your name being mentioned at all) to take the discussion down the road of your choosing.

Why should those who disagree with you stay silent and allow you to smear anyone of your choosing?

[TEPaul]

"Why should those who disagree with you stay silent and allow you to smear anyone of your choosing?"

Keep at it Geoffrey:

As I recall from those past Engineers threads when Tripp Davis was participating on here about the project in a very helpful and accomodating way to all questions and participants that Tripp appeared to give some fine and logical explanations of some of the obstacles involved in doing a purer restoration project generally or perhaps the restoration or even preservation of some green contours.

As I recall, it appeared Tom MacWood, as per usual, was only trying to compete with Tripp Davis over who could be seen to come up with more historical minutae about the course probably from his usual source of old magazines. If you ask me that seems to be what Tom MacWood is into on here primarily on most all subjects to do with architecture, and it's beginning to show---eg become exposed.

His last line of defense always seems to be that he has produced more historical information on here or essays than any of us. That's very important, but unfortunately, that's not all it takes to really understand the realities of architectural restoration projects.

[Jason Blasberg]

For what it's worth Tom MacWood had me so upset last night that I deleted my original post which was likely over the top and was getting personal.  I very much enjoy intellectual discussion and appreciate differing views and never take it personally.  Tom MacWood, however, obviously has an agenda and he's unwilling to discuss anything logically.Therefore, I find it necessary to get a little personal.  

Tom, I've never in my life listened to more of a blow hard than you.  You have no skin in the game and all you do is besmirch the hard work of others.  You're entitled to your preferences and your strong opinons but express them as such, and not (as Tom Paul pointed out) as presumed righteousness with a "holier than thou attitude."  
 
Mr. MacWood, why don't you evaluate what is on the ground today and judge it on it's merits, which are considered very very strong by all that I've spoken to who understand GCA and that have played it.

Your broken record response of redesign is meaningless and your obsession with the past betrays your utter cluelessness of the present.  

I wish this Board would focus on the strenghts and weaknesses of GCA and not get into this banter.  Interestingly, Tom MacWood, not once have you made any judgment about the strengths or weaknesses of the Engineers of today (which is exactly what this thread was intended to discuss).  Your comments are confined to what it isn't instead of what it is and that speaks volumes about your prejudices.        

Jason

[Jason Blasberg]

Thought this post was also relevant to this thread as Tom MW referenced Ran's greatest GCA crimes in an earlier post:  :

Ran's point about Engineers and encouraging character and not the stimpmeter is a valid observation.  I know, however, that Ran would agree that the greens at Engineers today are loaded with character, even if they have changed a bit over time.  

Also, Mr. MacWood it's obvious why you posted this and I will say that Engineers is not in bad company "August, LACC, Bel-Air, Yale, GCGC, Oakland Hills, Hoylake, Pinehurst #2, Pebble Beach and the Medalist."  

Interestingly the great GCA crimes are all at world class tracts.  So, as a member of Engineers I thank you Mr. MacWood for highlighting this compliment.

[TEPaul]

"Your broken record response of redesign is meaningless and your obsession with the past betrays your utter cluelessness of the present."

Jason Baby, stop beating around the bush and just say it like it is.    

Seems to me this Tom MacWood would be a lifelong fan of Tripp Davis, if Tripp could've figured out some way of restoring every single atom of Engineers right back to the way Strong originally had it and then framed the place and took it into NYC and hung it in the Metropolitan Museum of Art----then told the entire membership to just go F...off about playing the place and if they wanted to look at it they'd have to go to the MET.    

[Michael Whitaker]

The sad thing about all this is that Tripp Davis, and others like him, don't post here anymore.

[Jason Blasberg]

The sad thing about all this is that Tripp Davis, and others like him, don't post here anymore.

I agree Mike  . . but I hope once we air this laundry we'll regain our legitimacy as a DISCUSSION board and hopefully encourage Tripp and others to again participate.

[Jason Blasberg]

Seems to me this Tom MacWood would be a lifelong fan of Tripp Davis, if Tripp could've figured out some way of restoring every single atom of Engineers right back to the way Strong originally had it and then framed the place and took it into NYC and hung it in the Metropolitan Museum of Art----then told the entire membership to just go F...off about playing the place and if they wanted to look at it they'd have to go to the MET.    

    (I'm belly laughing here!)

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Here are your omeba bunkers...just pan over a little to the right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=bethpage,+ny&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=40.749874,-73.445621&spn=0.007461,0.02105

I'm sorry I brought up Bethpage on thread devoted to Engineers...Bethpage has been beaten like a dead horse, no need to bring that subject up, besides Geoffrey blows a gasket evertime it does comes up. It is a major blind spot for him, which has led to unnatural appreciation for Rees Jones resotrations.

Tom - that google map is nice- now cut and paste individual holes adjacent to a 1990 map and the 1938 map for comparison.  Show us. Lets do the same for Newport too.

Tom- You are the one who REPEATEDLY sounds the mantra of a REDESIGN.  It is your burdon of proof.  You are the one beating down Rees Jones - not me. Your blind spot is that you think you are always correct and will not let it pass - not one single time.  

I started a thread about how much I like the current Engineers CC course and enjoyed playing it and thought the work done and pointed out to us case by case was good.  YOU took the opportunity (without your name being mentioned at all) to take the discussion down the road of your choosing.

Why should those who disagree with you stay silent and allow you to smear anyone of your choosing?

Geoffrey
It is a great golf course....and as I've said before I'm certain taking down trees and expanding fairways has made the golf course better. Yale was a great golf course even after Rulewich's sloppiness. Bethpage is a great golf course despite Rees's transgresssions. But they all could have and should have been better. You're right I took the opportunity to take this discussion down of the golf courses brilliant past....if you prefer not to know about Engineer's architectural history you should have moved on, no one forced you to post.

Geoffrey, TE, Jason & Michael
We will have to agree to disagree on what took place (or should have took place) at Engineers...and leave at that....its getting a little testy and personal. I think I'm in pretty company regarding Herbert Strong and in particular the potential of Engineers (Morrissett, Hanse & Doak), but then again maybe we're all obsessed with the past and utterly cluelessness of the present.

[Geoffrey Childs]

You're right I took the opportunity to take this discussion down of the golf courses brilliant past....if you prefer not to know about Engineer's architectural history you should have moved on, no one forced you to post.

Yikes Tom - You have it backwards my friend.  It is YOU who should have left MY topic alone and started your own if you wanted to discuss Engineers' past.  No one brought up your name or forced YOU to post here.

I think you need to retract that last statement.  Look at the initial post man

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()