What if every course were restored?

[jeffwarne]

let's say all "golden age" courses were restored to the the mythical peak of their architecture,and most modern courses not built by the Doaks, CC's,and other GCA faves were redone in classic,golden age architecture.
So now every town has 7-8 out of it's 10 courses cut from this mold-
Would we appreciate these courses,or would we seek out what would now be hidden gem architects like George Cobb and Robert Trent Jones(and Rees) for something different?

Would a short,idiosyncratic,course with golden age undulations be cool(and appreciated) if there 10 in every area.

The classic case of be careful what you wish for?

[Brent Hutto]

Well, among the golfers I know who do not frequent this web site the answer is clear.

Any course that is "short" may be enjoyed but it will not be respected by most good players. At best it could be considered as "It's an excellent course but...it's too short".

An awful lot of players do not like "idiosyncratic". My home course has one nine that ends on a short, downhill Par 3 with an extremely sloping green and a water hazard in front. You would not believe the number of people, members and guests, who otherwise like the course but think a round that ends on that kind of hole is a deal-killing factor (fortunately or not, that's the alternate nine not used for tournaments). As quirk goes, ending on a tricky Par 3 ain't very quirky.

As for "Golden Age undulations" I think that would be more of a mixed bag. Enough serious golfers I know have travelled to Scotland or Ireland that there would be some appreication of undulation to cancel out the know-nothings who would simply equate that with bad construction or maintenance.

[Jeff_Mingay]

The key is variety.

We need the Geo. Cobb and RTJ courses to appreciate the Golden Age classics. Moreover, different golfers have different tastes.

Variety is good.

[TEPaul]

What if every (Golden Age) course was restored?

Well, for staters, Tom MacWood would have a great deal more to complain about. At the very least he'd complain it was the wrong "high water mark" in his expert opinion, or some other equal nonsense.

But seriously, this is a great question---and one never asked---unbelievably. Personally, I believe in the "Big World" theory that vast differences in type, style, playabilities and other things is very necessary for the art of archiecture, for the game and those who want to play it. I may not like a lot of it but I think it's necessary.

[Andy Hughes]

The vast majority of golfers wouldn't care any more or less, as long as the tees, fairways and greens were in good shape

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't think the Philadelphia or Long Island regions are suffering from a preponderance of classic courses that have been kept relatively pristine.  

How boring to have to travel back and forth between the similar Shinnecock and National, or Aronimink, Huntingdon Valley, and Pine Valley.   I'd  much rather spend my time going between the more modern Lookaway and The ACE Club.

[jeffwarne]

It seems most got my point-
John Kavanaugh gets credit for inspiring this thread by noticing some GCAers don't seem to encourage architectural growth,but seem to cling to things freezing in one architectural era/style
Like it or not things go in cycles
Trent Jones needed a way to distinguish himself,
his courses were different at the time
As were Pete Dye's after that
Or Desmond Muirhead's(the world evidently wasn't ready for that much innovation)
As well as the current "golden age/minimalism"

That's why those horrifying American style courses go over so well in Ireland
Fortuneately it(golden age architecture) has always been my favorite style,so it would be a nice problem to have if every course went that way

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You should think twice about including Aronimink in that list. Didn't you know that classic course expert from Ohio although he's never even seen Aronimink has labeled both its restoration and its restoration architect, Ron Prichard, tragic failures?

[Sam Sikes]

Jeff,

Are you wondering if Doak will become the next Fazio?

And Coore the next Rees Jones.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

You should think twice about including Aronimink in that list. Didn't you know that classic course expert from Ohio although he's never even seen Aronimink has labeled both its restoration and its restoration architect, Ron Prichard, tragic failures?

Well, Tom, in some ways I'm just as bad.

You'll notice that I didn't mention Merion.  

[TEPaul]

Heh, Sam Sikes, Brian Silva who's got to have the best sense of humor of any golf architect who ever lived just told me that God just found a site that he (Brian) completely screwed up and Brian said you just can't believe how great God made it! Brian said he arrived as God was putting the finishing touches on it and all he could do is just stand there and watch in awe!

[TEPaul]

"Well, Tom, in some ways I'm just as bad.
You'll notice that I didn't mention Merion."

MikeC:

I did notice that but you're not bad at all that way. At least you've been to Ardmore and Merion!      

[jeffwarne]

Sam,

Not going to go there,too much respect for all parties,but these threads will be interesting to read in 20 years

[Philippe Binette]

You could start a business, selling the wood from the trees you'll cut.....

And make a lot of money out of it

[Sam Sikes]

I mean no disrespect to any of the parties, but I understand as well as anyone, that for golf course designer to keep the trade interesting they must continue to come up with new ideas.  I also understand that Doak has actually studied and written about more golf courses than anyone on the planet, which gives him unbounded clout IMOH.  And after reading that golf digest match play contest, I actually threw up in my own mouth when I realized the two parties, to remain anonymous, were as clueless about reality as they seemed to be in that article.  I promise I don't know squat about golf course design when it comes to actually doing it, but I do know how to recognise something special, and I promise I would have gotten 9 out of 10 on that questionnaire.  I guess I just assumed that the most powerful men in golf design would know those sorts of things.  Just from that little excerpt I inadvertantly strenghened my already raging disdain for more of those types of golf courses.  I will give the Faz credit for his ability to build visually stunning designs, sometimes they look like they will be good (I am certainly being a little harsh on the guys, I don't really dislike all of their golf courses), but 200 of them later, I just want some fun golf.  Every single hole doesn't have to be cut out of its own line of forest, or have a forest built around every single hole.  All par fours dont have to be between 360 and 480.  I want to see some holes on the edge of par, for real.  Options.  Good ole visceral golf experience that values imagination, and rewards a daring and effective use of occasional heightened confidence.  That is what fun in golf is all about.  I just don't understand how so much good land could be so ill-utilized, for such a long period of time without anyone saying anything.  Or is support for them just withering as  a result of too many projects. i.e. Selling Out!  So my question is, if Doak gets 200 courses in his portfolio in the next 30 years will he be held in the same regard as the contemporary dying giants.  Please lord, let this not be the case.  Please allow Doak and CandC to follow in the footsteps of their idols from the Golden Age.

AMEN!!  

[tonyt]

The vast majority of golfers wouldn't care any more or less, as long as the tees, fairways and greens were in good shape

This is true. The style of a golf course can be swallowed by the punter. If the promotion of the course promises "traditional" or "natural" or "links" or "rarely seen quirk" or any more modern concept, the mobs can run with the company line quite happily and agree to get into the right mode. As long as it is in good shape. Too many of the negative punters equate "traditional links" with unkempt undermaintenance rather than as a stylistic shortcoming.

[jeffwarne]

Sam,

agreed

One thing the current "nonroyal" architects(meaning they weren't born into the business) had to do was be good.The current breed of architects couldn't afford to squander properties or they wouldn't get another job.The resulting effort,research,attention to detail,and respect for the classic courses(not just lip service)has led to the great courses some are producing today-
There are also some pretty good sites being used today that economically didn't make as much sense before the great wealth accumulation of the 80's and 90's,but that's another topic