News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Are our classic courses in trouble??
« on: December 13, 2002, 05:31:27 PM »
Depending on whose numbers you believe, there is a 30% or more drop in new course construction projected over the next five years.  As a result, architects are flooding in to do "restoration" work (or so they call it) on existing golf courses.  I cringe at that thought as I recall a quote from one of the noted architects that Lehigh considered using for their restoration (thank goodness they did not choose him).  He said to our superitendent as he was escorted onto the property, "So who was it that designed this golf course"?  :'(  

Are our classic courses in trouble?    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2002, 05:51:41 PM »
yes. some of the guys that have done poor jobs on restorations/renovations have actually done some pretty good original work or so I hear...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2002, 06:20:25 PM »
With the drop in new course construction is it necessarily a given that architects will rush to do more restorations? (And is that always such a bad thing?)  What drives the restoration demand anyway? The architect? The courses? Something else? My guess is the the demand for that type of work remains somewhat consistent over time, and that the architects themselves aren't a major factor in stimulating that part of their business.

Even so, I think the overall mindset of today's architects, and their customers, will deterine how much the classics are in trouble. I think that as a group, I'll generalize and say that they are truer to the original design intents of the courses, and restoration climate is a more respectful these days
.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2002, 06:44:59 PM »
Mark,
Did you have to remind me???? The noted architect you cite was recently hired by my club to do a restoration. Name recognition by prospective members was the key factor in hiring him.

I'd be surprised if the drop is only 30%. My local area (DC/Baltimore) is completely saturated with new daily fee and semi-private courses so where are the architects who specialize in new course design going to find work? What troubles me is that the small firms that specialize in restorations may be squeezed as the larger, well-known, and well-advertised firms take over what was previously a niche market.

The clubs with top-tier classic courses are probably safe. The ones threatened are probably like mine - memberships unaware of their course's heritage and the special pleasure found in playing a well-designed and maintained classic course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

exports

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2002, 07:28:55 PM »
Won't more archies go abroad, like Mexico and Cuba for work, not by choice?

Or will there just be a flood of associates on the market?

I think there are a lot of clubs that would like to have work done but are slowed down by the archies old busy scheds.  A supply of archies could speed things up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2002, 08:45:24 PM »
No. Most clubs already have architects, are they going to fire their regular architects because Joe Profile is available. I don't think so.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2002, 09:11:43 PM »
Mark Fine,

Yes, but not for the reason you cite.

I believe it has more to do with the influx of new golfers into the game in the last ten years or so, and their lack of any historical connection to their golf courses.  The total lack of perspective with respect to classic architecture, its genesis, evolution and need for preservation.

In addition, the influence of TV has been overwhelmingly horrible, and the impressions they gleen from CCFAD, resort and vacation golf fuels the need to modernize, which results in the disfiguring of the golf course.

One can only hope that the print media continue to cover and praise restoration efforts.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_F

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2002, 11:06:39 PM »
Patrick,

How much of the "total lack of perspective" has to do with the fact that ( irregardless for the moment of whether they may be the type of person you'd want to spend four hours with over your sacred plot of ground), it is almost, if not, impossible, for the average keen golfer, newcomer or not, to play the architectural classics, in the USA at least?

And maybe if more people did...
 

Quote
Mark Fine,

Yes, but not for the reason you cite.

I believe it has more to do with the influx of new golfers into the game in the last ten years or so, and their lack of any historical connection to their golf courses.  The total lack of perspective with respect to classic architecture, its genesis, evolution and need for preservation.

In addition, the influence of TV has been overwhelmingly horrible, and the impressions they gleen from CCFAD, resort and vacation golf fuels the need to modernize, which results in the disfiguring of the golf course.

One can only hope that the print media continue to cover and praise restoration efforts.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2002, 04:04:51 AM »
I'd say considering that less than fifteen years ago the term "restoration" was hardly even heard of or done many of the classic courses can probably expect good things coming if they're considering restoration.

But just like we keep discussing and arguing on this site, some architects do restorations really well, some moderately well, and some not very well at all.

The point or question that seems to be made on here all the time is, "Who's fault is if the restoration is bad?"

Well, that's an interesting question of course but the fact remains that some architects do restorations very well, some moderately well, and some not very well at all!

Again, my point has been, if a membership is fully prepared for a really good restoration and they happen to pick the wrong architect for the restoration, they are really rolling the dice and will probably be very disappointed.

The important thing to do is to point out to any club that not all architects will do the same quality restoration just because the club asks them to do a good one. It's sometimes hard to know what some clubs want, sometimes even the clubs internally can't really figure out exactly what they want.

But still, if it's a really good restoration they want and are preparing for, they just have to understand that not all architects can or will do it.

The club just mentioned in the Mid-Atlantic is such a case. I think they understand this--and now it's just a matter of getting that across to the membership or whatever and getting an architect that has a proven track record in doing what hopefully they want to get done--a good restoration!

Just thinking you'll get a good restoration only if you tell any old architect exactly what to do is one of the biggest fallacies in architecture I'm aware of!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2002, 06:47:26 AM »
So it would appear that unless certain pitfalls are avoided, membership has it's costs.

 But look on the bright side. If enough surgeons scar enough classics, then it's likely those with what little taste is out there will be motivated to build newer and better. ;)

Which increases the amount of quality work, no?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2002, 09:26:09 AM »
Just a couple of quick items to mention.

Golf's growth is flat -- the game is not growing by any meaningful measure.

Second, the drop-off in course construction is ONLY just beginning to occur. Ads many know many projects that are coming on board in '02 and in '03 were actually seeded five or more years ago.

The fall-off rate will have major consequences in areas where there is a an oversaturatiuon of layouts. I just came back from an extensive visit to the Southwest and it's clear the Valley of the Sun is tapped out. Clearly, it will be interesting to see what players / courses remain in the loop of high interest, but given the economy the ability to create $150+ upscale layouts is numbered. The question becomes can courses that are left develop price points that keep trafic coming or do they simply collapse under the mountain of debt they have taken on.

Mark, regarding your post I believe there are clubs in the USA that are VERY aware and sensitive about what will happen at their facility. Just take the issue of tree growth -- many clubs are NOW aware that the addition of trees has really taken away the original architectural qualities. Golf Digest actually published a major story on this a short time ago and I do see some hope in that respective area. If architects do assist clubs in clearing away all the debris that is choking fairways then such work is long overdue.

If "classic courses" decide to make wholesale changes to their actual layouts then I think such decisions need to be carefully considered. Unfortunately, the issue usually is internal as certain courses are desiring to "strentghen" their course with added bunkers, increased yardage and revamped greens. I've seen this happen with plenty of courses and I believe if people want to know how to do the "right" thing they should see clear success stories with the work that's happened at Fenway and Plainfield, to name just two examples.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2002, 10:00:40 AM »
I just think this is something that has to be watched (not that anyone can do much about it).  I can see unsolicited bids coming at bargin basement prices to "revamp" or "update" golf courses just to keep these guys busy through the downturn.  

With all the buss of late regarding "restoration", the lack of new courses is going to draw in guys into this market that have no business doing such kind of work.  I get around as many of you do and I can see it coming  :(
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2002, 04:12:48 PM »
TEPaul,

How many clubs embarked upon and completed true, not interpretive restorations ?

And, How many clubs that embarked upon a restoration, sought to recapture the original design ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2002, 06:45:59 PM »
When haven't they been in trouble? There does seem to a growing recognintion of the special courses and designers a foot.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Mingay

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2002, 12:28:38 PM »
Tom MacWood makes a great point. Our classic courses have been in trouble for a long time!

Really though, I think they're in less danger today than in years past. Because more and more clubs have come to understand in recent years that restoration and preservation is a viable option today; perhaps even the best option. I know this wasn't the case even ten years ago.

The problem is, there are but a few golf architects working today with as much creativity, flair and daring as the masters of yesteryear. And it takes someone today with these qualities to properly restore a Ross, Raynor, Flynn, Tillinghast, Mackenzie, or Thompson course.

This is why we've recently seen outstanding restorative-based work carried out some places, mediocre work at others, and still horrible efforts here and there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2002, 01:44:45 PM »
Jeff,
That is my point exactly.  How many out there really can do this.  Many of these guys are sooo influencial, they may have clubs doing things they might not otherwise consider.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2002, 02:01:15 PM »
Mark --

Let me echo what Pat has said in the past.

If the braintrust (shall I say that?) decides to do something or nothing at their "classic course" the final result is their call.

I personally believe there's been significant movement in people being more aware of the encroachment of trees on many of the "classic" courses and as a conseuquence you DO SEE the leadership at a number of clubs being aware that having less trees is really more positive than continuing with all the clutter. There's also a desire to "restore" old bunkers and green dimensions.

Yes, architects may have more time on their hands and the call to make changes may be made by any number of people. However, the final authority rests with the people in charge at that respecive club. If they don't take the time to find out what they have and what truly shold be done then they deserve what eventually happens.

The folks at Plainfield, to name just one example, knew full well what they have and made sure ANYTHING that was done fit into the dynamics of what the club was originally intended.

If other clubs truly apply due diligence the urgency of your post will have less impact.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2002, 04:20:42 PM »
Pat:

Would you do me a favor and read at least one of my posts on the questions you're asking me?

What is a "TRUE and complete" restoration to you? Have clubs embarked on "interpretation" in restorations? Of course they have--so have architects! Did you bother to read any of Ron Prichard's feelings about that on the restoration of Aronimink? If he hadn't used some "interpretation" that particular restoration would have come out very oddly in some cases such as some fairway bunkering! But as he did it the restoration is reportedly a huge success with everyone who's seen it and played it.

And you ask how many of these recent restorations have captured the original design intent. Lots of them have, lots!

But, again, there are a ton of factors involved in many restorations and that has to be taken into account. It's just far too simplistic to say a "true and complete" restoration.

What would happen in that case with the restoration of Gulph Mills? Would that include removing about four of our Perry Maxwell redesigned holes of Ross's original holes and restoring them to the way Ross originally built them? I suppose you think it would! And, of course that would be completely nonsensical and tragic actually! The Maxwell holes are far better than those original Ross holes they replaced that didn't work well for our membership over about 15-20 years.

So why would we contemplate doing something like that? Because it would be a "true and complete" Ross restoration? Ridiculous!

No one can or should be as confining and limiting in restoration as you appear to be here--unless I'm misunderstanding you. So what is it you mean? There're many, many factors to consider in these things.

But some on here seem to want to deny that. It's almost as if they are saying or implying that an intelligent decision can never be made by anyone today except to put everything back exactly the way it once was!

That's not an intelligent approach to architecture, even classic restoration architecture, in my book!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bullthistle

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2002, 05:23:43 PM »
Mark,
I don't think so.

There is just so much more awareness of the golden age principles. I think the golf press has done a nice job of keeping the classic architectural values in front of those that have an interest.

Also, during the dark ages [1950-1985] enough damage was done. Most classic clubs are trying to fix all the damage done post WWII.

BT
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2002, 06:26:26 PM »
TEPaul,

So the barometer of success of any work, changes or restorations is if they "work well" for the membership.

That's the most dangerous restoration concept I've ever heard, and is the thinking that got every disfigured course in that condition in the first place.

Most of the changes to classic courses came about because the membership wanted something that "worked better or well" for them.

That's an awfully subjective criteria.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2002, 07:43:51 PM »
Patrick;

Is your last post serious? Well of course that's the barometer for success of any work, changes or restorations. What did you think the barometer was? What did you think any of the great architects were and are trying to do? What do you think restorers are trying to do, create something that doesn't work well for a membership? Something the memberhip does not enjoy?

Architecture is suppose to offer any membership challenge, excitement, interest, enjoyment and even pride in the work and architecture, holes and course. What do think it's suppose to do?

Why is it that great architecture becomes great architecture? Because it somehow manages to do those things better or so much better than architecture that doesn't do those things for memberships, and most certainly others, of course. What could be more obvious than that?

How in the world do you think architecture becomes respected, becomes famous and enduring and consequently becomes timeless and inured against change?

This is really fundamental Pat! How in the world at this point could you think otherwise and make such an odd statement?

Some of the best architects in history definitely made mistakes too! Did you think they didn't?

Gulph Mills, as an example, had at least 3-4 Ross holes that did not work well for the membership in the 1920s and 1930s. The membership and those that ran the golf course knew why--it's all there in their minutes, and they got a very good architect to do something about it and he did to a very large degree!

What delusion are you under on this subject Pat?  What barometer do you think indicates the success of any architectural work? Do you think simply because some architect that you think is famous or respected or should be did it is the barometer for success despite what a membership and others feel about it?

You're the one who keeps saying everyone should play golf courses many times in every conceivable situation and condition. After years of play if those things listed above--challenge, interest, excitement, enjoyment and the pride of a membership aren't happening don't you think that's a pretty clear barometer that they aren't successful?

After about 70 years of play those holes that did not work well at first that were redesigned have become some of the most enjoyable and respected holes on the golf course with both the membership and many others. Don't you think that means anything? Don't you think that means success in architecture?

The interesting thing is most members, before I wrote that design evolution booklet did not even know who built what. I call that the "ultimate blind taste test"! There is absolutely nothing more reliable.

And it's also interesting that the one who happened to do those holes was Perry Maxwell, an architect I happen to think now for many reasons may have been the best green builder who ever lived!

Of course what works well for a membership is the barometer of success of any work or architecture! Good architecture has an interesting way of doing that Pat! That's probably the main reason architecture becomes enduring, timeless and consequently unchanged--it works well for those that play it!

And you think that type of barometer is the most dangerous restoration concept you ever heard of, do you? I say if something didn't work well for a membership, then don't restore it! Why repeat a mistake? Do you think something should be restored simply because Donald Ross did it, even if it clearly didn't work well over lots of time for a membership?

THAT, might be one of the most dangerous restoration concepts I've ever heard of!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

ForkaB

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2002, 04:42:56 AM »
Tom

By saying, "Of course what works well for a membership is the barometer of success of any work or architecture!" you seem to be implying that anything is fair game, as long as the members like it.  By this criterion, virtually all the changes to classic courses over the past 100 years have been "successful," as the fact that changes were made assumes de facto acceptance by the membership, even at clubs run as benevolent dictatorships.

You know that I (almost) fully agree with that particular heresy, but I'm not sure that was what you were meaning to imply, or were you?

I certainly think you are right to cite the GMGC example to show that even the great, like Ross, make serious mistakes, and that those mistakes can be ameliorated--certainly if done under the care of someone like Maxwell, but perhaps even if done under the care of someone less prominent and/or revered.  Is this not so?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2002, 06:16:16 AM »
Rich:

You said:

"By this criterion, virtually all the changes to classic courses over the past 100 years have been "successful," as the fact that changes were made assumes de facto acceptance by the membership, even at clubs run as benevolent dictatorships."

I can't imagine why you'd say that!

Why would the fact that changes were made assume de facto acceptance by the membership? I can't imagine how many hundreds and thousands of changes made to golf courses over the years were not well accepted by memberships, and therefore were never successful, even if, they may have agreed to have them done!

My only point is that golf holes, golf architecture, has an interesting way of proving its worth, or not being able to prove its worth, and certainly over time, and lots of time! How can that fact not be generally obvious?

The fact is there were numerous changes made to GMGC over the decades (and obviously agreed to by the membership, in one way or another to have been able to get done) but they were definitely not successful with the membership over time! Many of them were never well liked and far from respected! That's what I would call "unsuccessful"!

Many changes to many holes never worked very well for them and were therefore not successful--they were never well liked or well respected as holes or architecture!

It just so happens that the changes made by Perry Maxwell did not fall into that category. Most all his changes have been extremely well respected and therefore have to be considered successful!! And isn't it just completely ironic and intersting that before 1999 when the design evolution booklet was written very few members knew who did what?

And that's one of the primary reasons the unsuccessful changes were selected by this committee to be restored back by Hanse as close to what they originally were as possible. The holes redesigned by Maxwell are being restored to the way Maxwell built them, not Ross! Hole #7 (the green-end) was the one exception to Maxwell's changes! It has not worked particularly well over the last 65 years!

How else can anyone reasonably look at anything to do with architecture? Time almost always tells the necessary tale.

Is Pat Mucci by the statement he made saying or implying that just because an original architect did something, anything, that it should remain and be accepted by the membership even if it's not working well for them, if they don't enjoy it, if it's not successful for them over time?

That's not realistic--it's not right! Any architecture will need to prove itself, it's worth, any architecture, and it will have to become successful as architecture with those who play it day in and day out no matter who originally designed and built it!

Of course, it's surely possible that architecture that memberships may have otherwise enjoyed has been changed when it shouldn't have been. That has also happened inumerable times, of course!

To prevent this from happening, necessary research needs to be done, education needs to be offered to memberhips concerning architecture, architectural prinicples, heritage etc, reasonableness needs to be created within clubs and memberships.

But often decisions are made, need to be made, and the idea is to make good ones, ones that will create or preserve architecture that is and will be successful among memberships.

Pat Mucci appears to be implying that good decisions, successful decisions, can never be made regarding changes to architecture by memberships!

I don't agree with that or believe it! As to whether a decision or change was good or bad, will always be known eventually--time and play will always supply the answer!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

ForkaB

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2002, 07:09:17 AM »
Thanks Tom

Maybe I should have said "de jure" rather than "de facto."  I dunno, as I'm not a lawyer and my Latin is a bit rusty these days.  All I was trying to say is that whatever a Dictator/President/Committee does to a golf course, the membership can always "vote" on any changes, either with their feet or by throwing the bastards out.  If they "vote" by staying, remaining silent, they are complicit and/or implicitly accepting any changes.

All you say about GMGC sounds sound, and I really wish you all the best.  Do what works, whether it be Ross, Maxwell, Hanse or even RTJ or Paul!  I suspect Mr. Mucci is pulling your (and others') chain a little bit on this thread.  I've not known him to take such a purist stance before.  Perhaps he is trying to point out its ultimate sterility through his hyperbole?  Woe forbid that he has gone over to the dark side, whichever side that may be..........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Are our classic courses in trouble??
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2002, 07:28:33 AM »
Rich:

Thanks to you too. You seem to understand what I'm trying to say here.

As for Pat's statement--maybe he just doesn't trust memberships to make good architectural decisions, even ones that they may ultimately be extremely accepting of long tern and happy with long term which would indicate success to me.

And I can certainly understand why Pat may say something like that! It's certainly true that whole memberships do things that we may not agree with although they may like what they've done for the remainder of time!

But none of us really have much right to blame them for doing otherwise--these courses are theirs, they pay the bills, and they have every right in the world to have what they will enjoy.

It's a little arrogant of any of us to say otherwise! And so the only avenue open to us is to try as best we can, or anyone can, to persuade them that just maybe they would enjoy something else even more! That's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, in my opinion! In little ways it seems to be happening more and more!

And that's why I think any vehicle, even Golfclubatlas, can help, even if in small ways. I do think this is happening more and more--ie education, persuasion and proper and better understanding of architecture and classic architecture amongst memberships and those that influence them and maintain and control things for them.

That's why I think classic courses are in less trouble now than they used to be.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »