Studying old photographs

[Joel_Stewart]

Over the past few months I have been collecting and studying old photographs of our golf course.  

First, it’s been a bit of a chore gathering the photos; I’ve gone to the library a few museums, the internet and our clubs history room.  If anyone has other ideas on obtaining photos I would be happy to hear.

When looking at these photos I’m noticing many things.  The shape and size of bunkers and the shape and size of greens.  Obviously the trees (or lack of) are noticeably different from the 40’s and 50’s.  Furthermore almost all of the old photos are in black and white which can actually be a positive since B&W can show more contour.  I’ve converted some of my photos that I took with a digital camera and converted them to B&W to compare.

I would be interested to know what others have experienced in examining old photos and what have you learned

[Carlos_Febres]

Joel-
During my caddie experience at Merion, I took the opportunity to review some aerials taken over the years, ranging from post-construction to the 1930 US Amateur to the 50's and compare them to the most recent revisions of today.  It is nothing short of amazing to see the original design and its evolution through a period of some 80 years.  When compared to the various golf eras, it is easy to see why changes were made, but to my knowledge, many of these photographs were used to make critical decisions in terms of restoring the golf course (with the exception of bunker depths, an issue of much debate at and around Merion).  Be careful of when the photos were taken, and their proximity to the time when the course was actually built.  The closer you get to the original design, the better off you'll be.  On of the most valuable things you'll see is the original green sizes and  contours- I feel that this is among the most critical issues, and should be one of the first items to be restored.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Carlos,
Boy are you entering into a harsh neighborhood here!:)

In truth, I think that when it comes to Merion, one has to look at the 80+ years of evolution that occured there and made the course so unique.

If you really feel that it need changing or restoring, please could you give me actual reasons why YOU think this. Please let me understand why the great huge masterful bunker, short right of #3 green had to be changed. It would be appreciated.

[TEPaul]

When studying old photos particularly aerials and particularly in the context of the evolution of the golf club be particularly sure that the date of the photo is correct or as accurate as you can determine it.

In projects such as restorations misdated photos have occasionally completely thrown off restoration decisions and unintended results have occured. Really good photographic (and textual) research is important. Always attempt to compare the two for a accurate timeline. Look everywhere, particularly off the site, if possible, to determine an accurate date of anything that can be seen which begins to create an accurate overall timeline. There was one photo (that may have been used and essential) that appears to have been significantly misdated on a significant club's restoration project.

The assumed date on the photo was possibly 10-12 years earlier than it actually was. The giveaway? The electric or telephone polls on the road! They were not installed until a number of years after the photo's date.

[Carlos_Febres]

Tommy-
I think you put up a valid argument when it comes to restoration.  It is clear that you feel that evolution is valid and should be left alone.  I question whether you would call an potentially overzealous greens chairman with a particular affection for tree placement "evolution."  This is not to say that it is the case at Merion, but I have seen it (at Manufacturer's) happen, and in my opinion, detrimental to the original design.  I think there is a distinction between restoration and re-design, and I think what is happening in many places is either the latter or a hybrid of the two.  Ultimately, the shots intended by the designer should be the shots re-created in a restoration project.  In some cases, this may or may not have been accidental on the designer's part, but nonetheless has resulted in a great hole.  If we try too hard (like the fairway bunker on 14), we get a crappy result.  For the record, I feel that 95% of the job done at Merion was stellar, and recaptured much of the original design.  

TEPaul,

Don't have much to say other than you are 100% right and we can only hope that designers are using as much care as you have described in your post.  

[TEPaul]

It became clear when Merion was about to enter into their bunker restoration project, and patently clear in retrospect, that poor Merion suffered from a wholly unique problem--a problem unlike almost any other club in the world could have when entering into a restoration project.

The problem was--it's Merion!

[Jim Sweeney]

An interesting and incendiary topic.

The most dramatic contrast I've ever seen between old course photos and today's reality has to be at Olympic. That penninsula was almost naked when Lakeside was built.

But something nags at me about old photos of treeless courses....don't you think that most of them were, before they were open fields, wooded land that was eventually cleared for farming? And that the land was chosen at least in part becase the clearing of trees had already been done?

So the question is, would those courses be more "natural" if they had been re-treed with native species (but not over-treed) when they were built?

[TEPaul]

Jim Sweeney:

That's a fine question about trees and what the site was before the architect got there or even before the farmer got there.

But I don't think one interested in architecture needs to delve back in a quest for some kind of naturalness in architecture all the way to some former God-like time.

Even an accepted style like the Parkland style was essentially a design created by man before golf architecture.

The thing that sometimes bothers me is even if a course was clearly designed by an architecture to be a Parkland style course, for instance, that some feel the need to either remove all the trees or tree the site to death.

More golfers need to understand that regarding trees a Pine Valley is as different from a Maidstone as it can be and was intented to be that way.

Some on here act like golf never really got out of the linksland. That might've been a sentiment to some 150 years ago but it shouldn't be anymore. Architecture has come a long way in both time and with a variety of sites to think that anymore.