[George Pazin]

It's no secret that some of the greatest courses out there had the benefit of an architect who basically lived on site and tinkered with the course over many years, sometimes over decades - courses like #2, Oakmont, NGLA. On another thread, I speculated that this type of tinkering was more of the form of detail work than substantive change. By this, I mean tweaking bunker location, maybe lengthening occasionally, but not really making substantive changes to the basic core course, as defined by the initial routing.

Can anyone elaborate on this? As Ross, Fownes, Mac, whoever tinkered, did they substantively move greens, change tee angles, etc., or did they simply refine what they started with.

In Darwin's Golf Courses of the British Isles, there is an entertaining section on Woking and the changes that were made during the offseason to tweak this course from what sounded like a rather ordinary course to start to what became highly entertaing in its endform. Tom D relates this story and encourages the student of architecture to study this course. Did they make major changes - moving greensite, etc. - or did they tweak - maybe add or subtract a bunker, add or subtract a feature, etc.?

Anyone care to enlighten me as to the courses mentioned? Compare and contrast their evolution versus something like Crooked Stick, where, as I understand it, Pete has tweaked it quite a bit.

For our participating architects, do you have much desire to go back and do things differently if given the chance? Do you think you could "fix" your mistakes, or do you fear you might make things worse?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Far be it for me to comment on the work of master architects, but as a performance artist I can empathise with the view that, 'I've done my best so far, but I can always improve on it.'  

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I'd be interested in hearing from George Bahto with respect to who substantively altered the 12th green and its tee location at NGLA.

We know that the location of the 14th green was altered when the new clubhouse and road were constructed.

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Even if you are the most talented musician or composer (and no doubt you are)...wouldn't you be hesitent to rewrite a famous Beethoven, Mozart or Bach piece, and present yours as the new improved version that would perminantly replace the former work?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Whose version of "Unchained Melody" do you like best,
Al Hibler's or the Righteous Brothers ?  

And, whose songs do you prefer to sing along with ?

Mozart's, Beethoven, Bach or the Righteous Brothers ?

Do you prefer the "original" Shinnecock, or the current, altered version ?

The answer probably lies in the quality of the finished product versus the original.

But, in general, I'd agree that in my limited experience, most alterations haven't been favorable.

[wsmorrison]

Wilson and Flynn and then Flynn made substantial changes to Merion between 1912 and 1934.

Flynn made substantial changes at the Cascades between 1923 and his death in 1945.

The one course that has changed the most and most of the changes were by Flynn is Lancaster.  Man, that is a tough architectural evolution to trace.  But we did it!  He made changes from the 1920 design in 1924, 1927-1931, 1936 and 1941.  Flooding neccesitated some of the changes but he was a tinkerer.  Flynn was the consulting architect to Lancaster, Lehigh, Cascades, Seaview, Boca Raton and others his whole life.

[T_MacWood]

Patrick
Neither....is that a masterpiece?

My performance art is playing at NGLA or Cypress Point...of course my arangement might be a little diffferent than yours....mine probably a little off key.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tom, I didn't say I was the most talented interpreter of other people's music - I'm the most lamentable, a simple journeyman. I should hate to suggest that I were any sort of genius.  But, if you look at composers, they very frequently revised their own music.  They were great self-critics. How much did they destroy?  I suppose it didn't matter to them - it was only a piece of paper - to the rest of us it is 18 holes or a housing estate.

[T_MacWood]

"Do you prefer the "original" Shinnecock, or the current, altered version?"

I prefer the altered version...the previous version was never considered a masterpiece.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are we only to judge limited arrangements selected by you, or all arrangements.

I'd say that NGLA and Shinnecock are, wouldn't you ?

Yet both are altered from their original form.

Yet, both are great.

Is the current much better then the original ?
Probably not at NGLA,
Probably yes at Shinnecock.

You could throw the 10th and 16th in at ANGC as well.

It's foolish to make a blanket, rigid statement.
I think each situation has to be evaluated on it's unique, specific merits or demerits.

[T_MacWood]

In hindsight I think it was a mistake for Dye to improve Crooked Stick, not because I don't think an architect can improve his own work...Pinehurst #2, NGLA and Myopia were improved....but in that case I don't think he improved the golf course. I liked the original Crooked Stick better than the new one which is disjointed IMO, a miss match of his different styles. Of course he's probably not done reworking it, so who knows, ten years from now I may feel differently. I have the same opinion of Muirfield Village and its changes. Pete Dye wanted to tinker with The Golf Club as well (a design the same era as Crooked Stick)...I think anyone who loves that golf course is glad they resisted.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I have to say that, entering into these arguments as I occasionaly [and with trepidation] do, the bastardisations of our golf courses are nothing compared with the travesties carried out on the works of the great composers.

[Jeff Goldman]

Mark,

But folks don't have to suffer through the travesties of an awful performance for years or forever (although I do still cringe at my recollection of an abominable Long Day's Journey Into Night put on by the formerly illustrious Goodman Theatre of Chicago - almost as much for the rapturous reception it received from the audience as the awfulness of the production).  It appears that Pat will be suffering the 12th at Garden City for a while yet.  

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Do you think the 14th hole, the dogleg par 4 left, is better today, at it's origin, or somewhere in between ?

Jeff Goldman,

As unfortunate as the disfiguring of the 12th hole is, the more frustrating issue is the club's and the architect's failure to restore it.  Hopefully, both will see the light in 2005.
Time will tell.

[TEPaul]

If anyone on here really thinks an architect who designs a golf course and sticks with it for years on end altering and improving it such as Fownes, Wilson, Crump, Ross, Leeds, Macdonald et al is doing something wrong doesn't know a whole helluva lot about architecture, in my opinion.

Pat:

C.B. said himself he made lots of changes even to green sites. At least #2, #14 and #17 got moved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I can't imagine an architect, who remains active and with access, not tinkering on an ongoing basis.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I can't imagine an architect, who remains active and with access, not tinkering on an ongoing basis."

Pat:

I can't either, and I have no problem at all with that, either philosophically or actually. And if some do, I have to say I simply cannot understand their thinking or logic.

I don't know whether any on here actually do think that but it seems to me in the past some on here may've actually implied that once a course like some of those mentioned here, Myopia, PVGC, Pinehurst #2, Oakmont, Merion, NGLA opened for play that the original architect should've stopped and kept his hands off it because there'd be a possiblity he'd ruin it somehow.

How illogical is that? If the architects of those courses got them as far as they did in quality on opening day why would someone assume they'd ruin the course if they kept at it?

PVGC, is a good example. Crump tinkered wth the design for a few years before he died and the things he planned to do are pretty clear in the record that's left. It's the #1 course in the world and one could assume it couldn't be any better. I know what he wanted to do and if he'd lived another 5-10 years I think some of the holes of PVGC would be today even better than they are now. Although there is one thing he may've done to one hole I really do wonder about as far as making it not quite as good as it is now.

Mayor Ott loves that course just the way it is and when I tell him those things about Crump and what he planned to do had he lived he says if he'd been there in 1918 he would've shot Crump himself so he wouldn't tinker with the course anymore. And then he laughs, and so I know he's basically kidding as much as he loves the course the way it is. If Crump took that course that far to the day he died there's no reason at all to believe if he'd lived beyond Jan 1918 and continued to do what it's clear he planned to do that he would've ruined it somehow.

[George Pazin]

There are so many questions in these scenarios that I don't see how anyone could approach it on anything other than a case by case basis.

How do you know when to tinker?

How do you know when to stop?

If I could ask any of the architects referenced - Fownes, Crump, Dye, etc. - a question, I'd ask them why did they find it necessary to tinker? Did something not turn out as planned, or did they have a new idea they felt was better? Were they responding to crticism? Were they trying to make the course "harder"?

Tom P, do you have any information of why the members (or the green committee, or whomever chose to bring him in )chose to bring Maxwell in to work on Gulph Mills? It sounds as though most were happy with the changes he made. Was there any trepidation at bringing in someone to work on a course designed by such a highly regarded architect as Ross? By all accounts, it was the right decision. Do you know if Maxwell recommended anything that was rejected by the membership?

To any of our onboard architects, have you ever tinkered and regretted it? Do you wish you could tinker more?

[TEPaul]

"Tom P, do you have any information of why the members (or the green committee, or whomever chose to bring him in )chose to bring Maxwell in to work on Gulph Mills? It sounds as though most were happy with the changes he made. Was there any trepidation at bringing in someone to work on a course designed by such a highly regarded architect as Ross? By all accounts, it was the right decision. Do you know if Maxwell recommended anything that was rejected by the membership?"

GeorgeP:

Sure, I know all that. It's a long and very involved story. One thing I should point out to you though, is even though Ross was a well known architect changing something he did was not as remotely questioned back then as it is today. Back then if it wasn't working, if it wasn't passing the "test of time" they brought in someone to change it. Maybe they asked Ross and he couldn't come or didn't want to come or didn't want to change something he'd built so they got Maxwell. Why did they get Maxwell? Because he was here anyway. The way things were looked at and the way things were done back then were a whole lot different than today. I just can't stress that enough.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()