Restoration target dates- good, bad or indifferent?

[GeoffreyC]

I thought that I would start a new discussion regarding classic course restorations and whether it was a good idea to target a specific date.  We’ve recently discussed Merion to death but we have in addition discussed both Yale GC and Garden City GC.  Each is a unique situation and each is certainly deserving of the best possible outcome given their place in the history of golf course architecture.

With regard to GCGC, Mike Cirba just posted (on another thread) a really excellent evaluation of how careful use of photographic evidence from 1936 could be used to make absolutely sure that the design intent is maintained.  As Mike says, very simple shifting back of fairways to previous mowing patterns can put back into play some wild bunkers off the tee and on second shots.  To me this is a no brainer as is the extensions of existing tees where possible but NOT changing the angles of attack.  There is no evolution to consider at GCGC as was the case with Merion.  The case is clear (in my mind) that the golf course will be improved with minimal intrusion.

The case of the 12th at GCGC is another matter.  The 12th currently sticks out like a sore thumb.  It is obviously different in character from the rest of this course in its bunkering and green.  What is signal it would send to other clubs if it were restored to its previous pre-1960 state!  Can this be done?  One needs only to look at the ground level photo just outside the locker room on the way to the practice green.  It’s an amazing photo that can absolutely used in conjunction with the 1936 aerial to fully restore the hole.  All the mounds and their heights, shapes and placement can be fairly accurately measured relative to the height of the flagstick.  It’s all there and I would love it if Tom Doak would as Phil Knight would say – Just Do It!

Now the case at Yale is another example with a different twist.  Yale GC is supposed to be run for the recreation of the students, faculty and alumni.  It too is a historic landmark course with a huge amount of photographic evidence from construction and post-construction.  A fantastic aerial from 1934 clearly documents the wild bunkering in particular.  Should Yale be restored to the 1934 state or should it be cleaned up “softened” and modernized for the recreational golfer and made more maintenance friendly?  I’ve heard stories from EXTREMELY well respected friends that Yale restored to 1934 would be “unplayable to most golfers” and no one would want to play a course like that and it would be very difficult to maintain  I think that’s total hogwash but that’s the view of some.  Fact is that Yale will be considerable more difficult if fully restored but they happily played it that way with equipment ill suited to the task for 70 years.  In the case of Yale, I believe that evolution WAS actually neglect.  Again, since the photographic evidence is so good, why not use the 1934 aerial and 1920’s construction photos as targets?

Isn’t each case, Merion, GCGC and Yale unique?

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

Yes, I agree the courses you mentioned and their evolutions are unique (from each other) and should be viewed and understood that way. There appear to even be some on this website who might fail to understand that and might advocate simply picking a year and going back to it as the only way to go.

From the sound of it that might just work with Yale but there are other courses that may have some real architectural interest and some valuable evolution that post-dated the year picked and would be wiped away by going full bore back to a particular year for a true and complete restoration. That to me would be sheer madness and tragedy!

As I believe Shackelford implied on another thread a course going through restoration should be encouraged to do as much research as possible and to come to fully understand the evolution of their course and then to actually make decisions based on sound architectural principles--even if that means compromises or whatever to total restoration of a particular year!

There does seem to be some even on here who advocate even sacrificing interesting and valid evolution and even sound architectural principles in the name of complete "true" and "pure" restoration. That to me might not be as bad as not appreciating or understanding an old gem and redesigning it out of existence but it is bad policy nontheless!

Research, research, research, combined with understanding architectural principles and making intelligent decisions in those contexts is the only way to go, in my opinion!

[GeoffreyC]

Tom- I agree completely with your analysis.

Acurate research clearly is the key for doing what's best for a given course.

Of course this is being typed from my office adjacent to my laboratory  

[Ed_Baker]

In my opinion several fundamental questions have to be answered and agreed upon by the people paying the bills before anything happens. The most basic being,"What are we ultimately trying to accomplish?"

What's wrong?
What's been lost?
When was it better and why?Was it a particular year that we can have adequate documentation for, or a particular "period"? Or was it better at different times for different reasons and we should incorporate all the "betters" in to NOW?
Can we agree on why it was better?
O.K. we agree.
What information do we need to fix it?
In many cases those questions are never even posed!

I'll use the illustration on the other thread of how subjective all of the above is.
And why Tom Paul is so right about the methodology if there is to be any chance of success.

Take a great course like Maidstone.
For purposes of discussion,Tom Paul and Kye Goalby are now members.Both knowledgable and influential.

Kye heads up the "forward thinking members committee", the new guys. Their battle cry is,"the bunkers have deteriorated and they have to be rebuilt!"

Tom Paul heads up "the traditionalist committee",the old guys. Their battle cry is,"the bunkers have evolved naturally,there is nothing wrong with them,leave them alone!"

Kye's group says,"they don't drain,there's not enough sand in them and they look like shit!Besides,half the time you can't tell if you are in one or in the rough,there is no definition"!

Tom Pauls group says," that's how golf is supposed to played,a bunker is a hazard,the player takes his chances if he enters one even if it is full of water,and they look natural,like their supposed too,shit is natural isn't it?" "Besides they have always been like that!"

Have they? Do we have pictures or commentary from the original architect?
Have the bunkers deteriorated or have they evolved? Were they better then or now?

Does Maidstone need a (choose one)

1. Sand and drainage tile project?
2. Complete bunker restoration project to a particular year or period,including putting bunkers back that may have been removed,and filling in any bunkers that may have been added?
3. Nothing

[TEPaul]

That's good stuff Ed, and the more of it the better. I like the Kye and Tom format example too. It would be a real joy and hoot to work from two different committees with a guy like Kye Goalby. I'm certain we could generate more research and info than any normal club would ever know what to do with!

The thing I've noticed about this kind of process is that if it isn't arranged and presented properly from the beginning, some really dumb ASSUMPTIONS are apt to get made by probably the wrong people and then the whole process goes reeling along on the wrong track--and once it does it's real hard to stop it and get it back on the right track!

[M.W._Burrows]

Geoffrey,
I agree with you that Yale has evolved, only it's due to ignorance and neglect.  It's true that Yale would be more challenging after a restoration, but it would be more fun as well.  

Yale is definitely in need of a restoration back to a certain date.  The third green is a perfect example.  Yes it's easier to put than the original but is it more fun?  Is it harder to hit into than the original?  

I think that a lot of very intelligent men sat on the original committee that hired Raynor and consulted MacDonald.  These men knew exactly what they wanted in terms of a golf course for Yale students and alumni and I believe Raynor delivered.  

Should Yale become fully restored the course could be maintained to fit the playing abilities of the students, staff, and alumni.  The greens could roll at an adequate pace, the fairways and rough could be cut at proper lengths, and there are ample tees for different course yardages.  Of course the golf course could be firmed and sped up for tourneys too!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could you give me some examples of classic courses that would be hurt or diminished by restorations, that includes the retaining of the original design principles

[TEPaul]

Pat;

I guess I might be able to come up with plenty of examples if I thought hard about it and also did plenty of research. There are actually some good examples on some of these recent threads on this broad subject--a few good examples from Shackelford,  particularly.

As for your question of the retaining of original design principles I would use the example mentioned on another thread about the restoration of a few bunkers on the fairway side of the creek in the drive area of #5 Merion.

Frankly, I really don't even know whether those little bunkers are original or not but I feel when you consider basic design principles those little bunkers are probably unnecessary--superfluous and maybe even diminishing to sublimely simple and classic design strategy.

I will cite you my feeling about how the hole would be with them and without them and you can choose what you think would be best in a design principle context.

Firstly, the lay of the land on #5 Merion is about as good and natural as it gets. You add the perfect orientation and placement of the creek on the left in the drive area combined with the very much right to left slope of the fairway towards the creek. Add to that the dramatically right to left slope of the green that filters towards the same creek on its left and you have a world class golf hole!

Now say the fairway on that hole is very wide and very firm and fast (as it should be). To get your ball down near the creek on the left is the play that is very much the correct one to hit your approach shot up into the dramatically right to left green and hold the ball on the green! You could play well away from the creek to the high right side of the fairway but then you have a much more difficult play from the right side to a green canting away from you and running your ball toward the greenside creek on the left.

So envision that drive area with a very firm sloping fairway filtering the ball toward the creek and nothing to stop the ball from filtering toward the creek. Now envision it with a few little bunkers that could only be there as a "safety catch" to prevent your  ball from getting into the far more penal creek.

What seems better to you in the context of basic design priniciple? To me the creek there by itself with no little bunkers to diminish its more penal risk effect is far better. I believe without the bunkers many if not most players would tend to play their tee shots well away from the creek but then have to pay the price by being out of angle to the slope of the green. Long hitters and guys like Tiger even from the new back tee might try to bomb their drives over the cutout of the creek and past it but that is an additional option that requires and extremely long and extremely accurate drive and one that pulled off would be richly rewarded.

The bunkers next to the creek apparently show up on a 1930 aerial but I still think they are features that are unnecessary and load up one side with architecture that really isn't needed because of the brilliance of the orientation and placement of the creek alone combined with the other great but simple stuff that is naturally going on from tee to green.

I think those bunkers actually diminish simple design principles whether they were original design or not. What do you think?

But don't misunderstand--I'm all for really good restorations of some of these classic courses that are in need of it. I'm simply cautioning that in doing a restoration to a particular target date that the club doesn't remove something (or add something) that came after that target date through evolution or even redesign that may have improved the golf course.

Probably the best example and the course I know best is my own. If, for instance, we decided to restore back to 1930 at Gulph Mills (1919 Ross) we would remove some excellent holes that Perry Maxwell redesigned later in the 1930s.

If a golf course was not aware of that fact or for some reason didn't appreciate the Maxwell holes they might take them out and go back to what they were originally with Ross's design.

It is important to be realistic with some of these classic designers and realize what didn't work and why and really look at the reasons they might have changed. We did the research on that very thoroughly and came to the same conclusion that the members did back in the 1930s. That was that a few of the Ross holes just weren't good and they were not working well for anyone. Maxwell fixed those problems and through the years the holes that were originally weak or not working well and were later redesigned by Maxwell have become some of the most respected on the course!

Some people seem to suggest that because it was Ross that nothing could possibly have been wrong! They tend to unnecessarily deify him to such an extent that he could do no wrong. That is not intelligent architectural analysis, in my opinion.

Others might say something like everything should go back to original Ross (despite Maxwell's good hole redesigns) just to keep the course "in character". I personally don't like that attitude either and think that a blanket attitude like that is very dangerous!

Another interesting example is another course I know extremely well--Gulf Stream G.C. in Delray Beach, Fla. #15 is a wonderful little delayed dogleg or delayed mini cape-hole that was one of Ross's favorite holes--so much so it was mentioned in his book. Quite a few members are aware of this and I have been also for many years. What I didn't know until this year is that Dick Wilson reoriented and redesigned the green on that hole! I was shocked to learn that fact since the hole with its present green is basically simple brilliance. So I looked up the original green drawing by Ross and sure enough the green and its entire orientation was much different and didn't appear anywhere near as interesting or strategic as it is now.

So those are a few good examples of courses and holes that I think would be diminished or hurt by restorations to something that existed before them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey,

If a course has been altered over the years,
I see nothing wrong with researching its architectual history, and selecting a prudent target date for a restoration.

What I'm amazed at are all the people on this site who have blasted courses and memberships for allowing them to be altered, who now say, well maybe restoration to a specific point in time isn't good.

As Warner Wolf would say, Come On, let's go to the video tape.

Does anybody not want to see Oak Hill, Yale and Inverness restored ??

The 12th hole at Garden City ?

Think of the wonderful opportunities that exist, how could you not want to be in charge of those restorations ??

You can't have it both ways.

[ForkaB]

Patrick

In answer to your question as to who would NOT want to restore, Yale, Inverness, Oak Hill and the 12th at Garden City, the answer seems obvious to me--the people who own those peieces of real estates, whether or not they are individuals, memberships or a Board of Turstees.

If the owners wanted to restore, they would do so, or be doing so.

It would seem to me that if we want to have these restorations, we should focus on understanding why these owners are happy with the status quo, and think about ways to change their minds, constructively, if we really want to get something done.

Can I ask you, respecfully?  You are obviously one of the more influential members at Garden City.  What is impeding your desire to restore the 12th hole?  Plesee feel free to refer to previous posts if I've missed this on other threads.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Restoration target dates-good, bad or indifferent?"

That's the question of this thread and I don't see that anyone is necessarily implying that they want it both ways--restoration at one place and no restoration at another.

At any particular course, again, you've just got to do the research if you pick a target date and determine what restoring to that date will be all about in this day and age and also to be damn sure that if you go back to that particular date you don't take out or destroy something that came after that date that may be valuable and worthwhile.

That's not really very hard to understand and is no more than a valid architectural analysis of the golf course and its evolution.

I also think it completely answers the question this topic posed.

[Matt_Ward]

Having just played Garden City with Pat a few days ago I agree that restoring the 12th back to its previous design is the way to go.

With that said I believe the fundamental questins to ask are straightforward ...

1). What is wrong with the existing hole(s)?

2). How will the proposed change be beneficial?

The existing 12th at GCGC does not fit in at all with the remainder of the course. Going back to the original intent would be the best solution. Why the delay? Only Pat and key leaders at GCGC know that answer.

As far as Yale is concerned I am completely baffled that an institution of such higher learning can respond like a drop out on the subject of improving the course. The $$ are present but the collective will and leadership of key players seems from my perspective to be lacking. A shame.

In my mind to focus on any given year is not necessarily the answer regarding restoration. There may be solutions that are not past oriented but are future based that would make good sense too.

In the final analysis it is important that whatever is done follows the dictum of Clifford Roberts about the changes at ANGC the major domo of the club responded, "We do not change Augusta ... we improve it." That should be the credo to follow in any restoration effort in my humble opinion.

[GeoffreyC]

Patrick- you ask "Does anybody not want to see Oak Hill, Yale and Inverness restored ??" - unfortunately for Yale the answer is yes-

There are individual(s) that think that Yale as of 1934 is outdated, obsolete, unplayable to the average player and would be a place that no one would want to play!!!!!   Lucky for the course, there is a VERY CAPABLE group that is raising the money to restore the course based on the 1934 aerial. I wish them all the best.

Matt- I totally agree about 12 at GCGC.
However, the statement "We do not change Augusta ... we improve it."  worries me greatly. Were Oak Hill and Inverness improved? The committees had better hire the right guy to do the improvement. Perry Maxwell's don't grow on trees.  

[Alexander Haig]

Rich Goodale,

I doubt that Pat Mucci will answer your question in for political reasons, but I had heard that some of the opposition to restoring the 12th at Garden City came from Tom Doak.

If the architect doesn't champion the idea, or has reservations about a restoration, what's the committee and membership to think ?

[ForkaB]

General "I am in Charge!" Haig

Do you not know what wrath Signore Mucci can direct at people who answer questions for other people?  All that combat experience of yours will do you no good if you have ruffled his feathers.

Is Mr. Doak a member at Garden City?  If not, what right does he have to tell the members what he feels, particularly if it is obviously, completely wrong?  If he is a member, (or even if he is not, come to think of it) then Mr. Mucci is wrong that nobody does not want to see the 12th hole restored--unless he considers Mr. Doak to be a nobody.

Do I make myself perfectly clear?

[T_MacWood]

Quoting Clifford Roberts on restoration thread? I wonder what Pol Pot had to say about over-population.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Nothing is impeding my desire to restore the 12th hole at GCGC to its 1936 form.

But, GCGC has four hundred (400) members.
Surely you don't expect unanimity.

There are those members and members of the green committee that oppose a "TRUE" restoration.

One individual thinks the hole is perfect the way it is.

Another individual doesn't want to spend the money.

Another individual stated that the last two holes GCGC restored/renovated had their greens turn out poorly, and that the same thing will happen at # 12.

Another member says he doesn't want to see the golf hole taken out of play during construction, leaving only seventeen (17) holes in play. (my response, build a sod green nearby so that when construction begins, the sod green can be used as the hole in play for a few weeks.)

Another member is against any changes to the golf course until the playing conditions improve.

Another member says the hole won't be ready for the Travis tournament held each May.

Another member doesn't want to do it because I do.

Rich, it's like sitting in a room and someone asking what's two (2) plus two (2) ?
You know the answer, everyone on this site knows the answer, but.... members of the committee have differing answers.  

If ever I have seen a perfect opportunity to correct an architectual blunder, and restore a truely great hole, this is it.

Yet, when I made the statement in a green committee meeting, that this "TRUE" restoration wouldn't just be great for GCGC, but for all of golf, another member stated, we don't care about golf, just golf at GCGC.

So the process isn't quite what you and the west coast zealot  , and others think it is at these historically significant clubs.

What we would do, because we know it's right, just isn't so easily accomplished, and it is frustrating.

I could tell you other horror stories, but I think you get the jist.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I think your anecdotal evidence provides more than enough proof of how difficult it is to work with a membership who may have other priorities than we do.

For the record, I believe that restoring the 12th at Yale (including the mounding "within" the green) would send a clear signal to the golfing world that classic architecture still has a fundamental and viable place in the game.  Garden City is a very special course, and just like recent tree clearing efforts at places like Oakmont have led to other prominent clubs doing the same, I believe that the recreation of GCGC's 12th would have other clubs looking seriously at what might have been lost through unwise revisions over the years.

All that being said, I recognize that you have your hands full if the membership and other committee members aren't fully supportive.  

Now I know why you often cite the benefits of a single, visionary, leader of a club who has a clear historical understanding, and a longevity that makes that person effective over a long period of time.

By the way, what is the agronomic issue with the greens at 5 & 14?  Isn't that just a matter of grow-in period and turf maturity, given the push up green style?  I'm hardly a superintendent, but it seems that the underlying sand base at GCGC is perfect for growing grass.

[ForkaB]

I get your gist and I think we are on the same wave length.  What I was trying to say was that while almost everybody on this site would probably prefer #12 (as an example) to be restored (I've never seen it, but I trust you and others who know the issue well), the fact is, as you enumerate, most people who have real influence in these matters (i.e. owners, members of committees) don't care or don't have a clue.  I've been there and got the t-shirt as well as the knife scars in my back at a much smaller and less prominent golf club, with issues of far less interest to the outside world than Garden City, and it was the most frustrating 2 years I have spent in my life.

Good luck!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The 5th and 14th greens were planted with a bent strain called southshore.  

The greens play and putt significantly different from the rest of the greens, including # 12.  I would imagine they also require different agronomic treatment, though I don't know if that is happening.
As the poa invades the green I think it will become more like the others.

My idea on # 12 is to roll up the putting green turf, label it, do the subsoil work, and return it to its relative position.  
Give it extra TLC, and perhaps the resulting putting surface will not be unlike the current one.  But, when a golf club has experienced relative failure at their two prior attempts, they get nervous, negative and reluctant to venture forth.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I thought you said some time ago that the club gave the "green light" for #12 to be restored. I know there was some question about exactly how, but I thought the project was "on go" from the club but the architect had some other ideas or another design or something.

Now, reading through your list above about where the "committee" stands, it seems like a total mess!

I feel your pain, my man, and I really truly mean that!

Why don't you get permission from the Committee to invite some of us GCAers to the next Committee meeting? It might work wonders and no strings attached. All you have to do is buy me about a dozen cabernets after the meeting--that's not too much to ask--is it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In 1998 Tom Doak had provided a rendering of revising, not restoring the 12th hole.

Last year I had convinced the committee that a true restoration was the way to go, save for the severe mounds in the green.  Based on that, Tom Doak provided a rendering for restoring the 12th hole, and all appeared well.

This May, Tom Doak provided a rendering that was a slight modification to his 1998 rendering, and that set off doubt, debate and a splintering of the committee.

So, we went from a positive, focused direction for a true restoration, to a bastardized redo of the existing hole that will bear no resemblence to the 1936 hole.

Had Tom Doak not re-inserted his original rendering, and strongly endorsed his restoration rendering, I think we would be on the right track today, but we're not.

You'll have to ask Tom about his about face.

Since you love Coore & Crenshaw, and always tout them, what do you think they would have done ?

If the 12th hole doesn't get restored to its 1936 form, this represents a collosal lost opportunity for GCGC and GOLF, and in my mind, calls into question Tom's thinking on this project.

Where was REES when I needed him  

But, GCGC remains a great golf course, and I intend to play golf and enjoy myself there, I'll just have to play # 12 blindfolded, or just skip it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alex and Rich,

Alex,

Opposition may be too strong a term, but then again, maybe it's not.

Rich,

When a club retains a consulting architect, and has used his services for a good number of years, his words carry tremendous weight,
and it doesn't matter if he is a member, or honorary member.  As the consulting architect he influences a great number of people.

If the GCGC green committee was composed of the people on this site, the project for a
"TRUE" restoration would now be underway.

As I stated earlier, only Tom Doak can speak for Tom Doak.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood: Loved your comment on Pol Pot!!!

My referense to Clifford Roberts was his statement as implied -- the opportunity to "improve" a course.

An argument can be made that during his lifetime the changes instituted at ANGC were clearly beneficial and most welcomed. Since the passing of Roberts the club has undergone additional changes (i.e. the changing of the 3rd hole by Nicklaus, the excess rear mounding at #13 by the Bear, the addition of the of the "first cut," the lengthening of #17 & #2, to name just a few items) that clearly have caused much concern on this site and in the golfing community.

Now, there are additional changes being carried out by Tom Fazio for the 02 Masters.
These elements are also being rightly scrutinized.

Geoffrey C:

You mention Inverness and Oak Hill and you are right. But what about the restoration efforts made at TCC, Bethpage Black, among others? It depends upon what is done, who's doing the work and how it meshes with the original design. Augusta, prior to the departure of Roberts, was doing well. Think of the things that have been done since then all for the purposes of "Tiger proofing" of the course.