Candidates for Restoration

[Kyle Harris]

In Tom Paul's memberships and master plans thread, a statement was attributed to Tom Doak, "Only 10% of courses should be restored."

What makes a course a candidate for a restoration?
What makes a course NOT a candidate for restoration?

Does this number stem from the realm of courses that CAN be restored?

Is it a matter of a modern interpretation of the plans not being carried out properly?

Is it that the course is fine the way it is?

I'd imagine it's all three depending on the case... what examples of each case exist?

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

One obvious and very frequent situation that would disqualify a course as a candidate is simply the fact that many of the courses built in the classic era lost or gained acreage over the years.

For instance, original parts of the Cobbs Creek course are no longer owned by the course.  Ditto for Torresdale-Frankford, although they're pretty close but the road ate a swath out of it back in the early 60s.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

I can certainly understand that, but would it still be worth restoring the holes that can be restored, even if some of the affected holes (16-18 at Torresdale, for example) cannot be restored? This of course is up to a membership ultimately.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

Call it a partial restoration, then.  Half a loaf is often better than none.  

Does one really think the general "membership" at most clubs is really so enlightened, or is it normally a situation where a small, committed minority (or person) ultimately affects positive change?

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
If the original course was a better design the what is there now, then the course is a "candidate for restoration".  However, that does not mean the course should be restored or even can be restored.  It just means it could be worthy.  Again the key for me is that "every" course should at least be studied as to what was once there before making changes.  If someone said that statement before me (good for them, I agree with it)  
Mark

[Kyle Harris]

As a corollary to the thread: Is there a place for museum piece courses that play exactly like they did in their heydey?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I was told that back when Ron did the master plan for Lehigh, 95% of the members did not know who William Flynn was or that he designed their golf course.  I can tell you for sure that there are many clubs out there today where you would find similar numbers (though I like to think that is slowly changing).  For example, you know that the members of Brookside in Pottstown didn't know who first designed their course.  You helped solve that delimma though I'm sure most still can't remember or even care.  
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
Probably not!  
Mark

[Tucker Davis]

Kyle,

I like the idea of "museam courses"

I have always wanted to build a course like one would in the early 19th century.  It would be super old school.  It would be part of a resort and you could only play with hickories and you had to wear a tie and knickers!!

I think that people would pay just to see what it was like.  I quess you could also allow the use of modern clubs.  But you could have clubs from all different eras availabe to play with!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,
I was told that back when Ron did the master plan for Lehigh, 95% of the members did not know who William Flynn was or that he designed their golf course.  I can tell you for sure that there are many clubs out there today where you would find similar numbers (though I like to think that is slowly changing).  For example, you know that the members of Brookside in Pottstown didn't know who first designed their course.  You helped solve that delimma though I'm sure most still can't remember or even care.  
Mark

Exactly, Mark...

My point is simply that the history of the world, at least in a free society, is largely determined not by majority will but by dedicated, committed minorities that out-work, out-learn, out-maneuver, and out-hustle the other guy.

At the time of the American Revolution, something like 15% of the colonists actually favored breaking with the motherland.  I think similar things are happening today with some very determined and focused political groups whose views might not be the majority view of the general populace, but who have been gaining a political majority in Washington because of their commitment and dedication to a cause.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark,

Your comments on what I call the "Who watches the watchers?" effect. If the entire compliment of GCA were to join or creat a club - the results would be disasterous. If we all joined, any change to the golf course would be bogged down in bureaucracy. It would seem that a lot of times the fact that a master plan or renovation/restoration happens in the first place is member apathy.

This, of course, can lead to some bad results as poor architectural agendas aren't scrutinized, either.. hence "who watches the watchers?"

I am perfectly content being in the 1% that does care - even if the majority of the other 99% wouldn't know the Devil's Asshole from a hole in the ground.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I like the idea of "museam courses"

I have always wanted to build a course like one would in the early 19th century.  It would be super old school.  It would be part of a resort and you could only play with hickories and you had to wear a tie and knickers!!

I think that people would pay just to see what it was like.  I quess you could also allow the use of modern clubs.  But you could have clubs from all different eras availabe to play with!!

Tucker,

My candidate for such a course is Penn State's White Course - which has nine (and ten greens) holes by Willie Park still able to be fully restored. The benefit here is that this stretch of holes would lose very little if played to the original yardages too as there is a blend of par 3s, par 4s and par 5s (one that was 550+ yards in 1922!) that make for an interesting stretch.

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,


   If you could narrow this down to one question that you really care about I would like to contribute. I think TF is an interesting case for discussion.

[Kyle Harris]

Sure Mike, do you mind the first two I asked about reasons for and against a restoration?

I'd imagine there are reasons for and against T/F being restored, as Mike alluded to.

[Ian Andrew]

In Tom Paul's memberships and master plans thread, a statement was attributed to Tom Doak, "Only 10% of courses should be restored."

What makes a course a candidate for a restoration?
Having the architectural merit and the desire within the club to embrace the club's arhitectural history
What makes a course NOT a candidate for restoration?
1. No information
2. Course does not have the architectural merit to be restored
3. Membership is not interested

Does this number stem from the realm of courses that CAN be restored?
Only a handful can truly be restored, the rest don't have the information required. Most historical courses have enough information to be partially restored or at least have certain architectural features understood and preserved

Is it a matter of a modern interpretation of the plans not being carried out properly?
Hardly, it is easier now than it was 20 years ago. The issues are mainly: lack of interest (that includes the architects), lack of information, and finally lack of ability (that can be from moneyy to the talent to accomplish the task)
Is it that the course is fine the way it is?
The best preserved courses are often one's without money. Many courses are fine left alone - but club's still routinely tweak these layouts in a belief that every change is an improvement.
I'd imagine it's all three depending on the case... what examples of each case exist?
Restoration takes a lot of effort - mainly in the research end - and to be frank many clubs don't want to pay for research. A lot of architects do the research as a hobby and then apply it into the work for which they get paid. Restoration only comes about when people care enough about the history - most don't - usually there are one or two people within a club who truly understand the club's place in history but they are usually very vocal about rallying others to protect the course from major change.

Restorations are a more recent phenomenon, the Golden Age architects and the modern architects bulldozed away a lot of golf architecture. Both groups were rarely respectful of what came before. We have entered the first generation where preservation is done by architects rather than almost all of it being done by Superintendents. The Superintendents probably should be given credit for this movement.

[mike_malone]

 I think "pedigree" is  the first requirement for restoration.

   Do you think enough people care about Park's work to consider any of his courses  worth restoring? I doubt it.

   Then the question is "Have we crossed that Rubicon of change or not ? ".


   The right pedigree plus a close proximity to the original design seem to be necessary.

   
  The opposite answers your second question---no pedigree and/or too far gone.

       What is interesting is how the pedigree list gets established.

   

[Kyle Harris]

Mayday,

I like the points about pedigree. It seemed that in the wake of the '99 US Open at Pinehurst every Donald Ross course went through some form of restoration. I'll probably ask one of the Rons whether or not they saw an increase in Ross restorations following that US Open or if my assertion is not founded in any basis.

Do enough people care about Willie Park? Probably not, however, that would be a small factor included with actually improving the course.

Ian Andrew,

Thanks for your insight. If no written documentation exists regarding a course, but there is significant evidence on the course of old features, does this, in your opinion, make a course any more or less restorable?

[Ian Andrew]

Thanks for your insight. If no written documentation exists regarding a course, but there is significant evidence on the course of old features, does this, in your opinion, make a course any more or less restorable?

Sorry my answer above is still a work in progress as I continue to revise it.

To me, the course is restorable because the features are still in the ground, you have alternatives such as probing, where you can try educate yourself to what was once there. I do think that it now becomes important to find one of the following: an aerial, a few photos, a working drawing, a written review in the eraly years of the course before proceeding. One or more of those will start to remove some of the shades of grey.

I do think if an architect is not sure, they should ask a club for time to learn. I asked Lookout Point for (and received) a full year to study Travis because I felt I did not know enough about his work to help them with their bunker renovation. It turned restorative once I understood what I was dealing with. Clubs need to undeerstand a year like this is noit a lost year.

In your example, finding the course seemingly intact, but the architectural history unsure. The best advice is to hang on for a year and go search anything they can find on the history. It can be found, if you are willing to look - and often to travel to a better resource complex like the National Archives, The USGA archives, to see a well known collector, or even using a facility such as GCA. I have lots of stuff from this site, particularly from Mr. MacWood.

Kyle, you might have to encourage the course in your example to stay as it is, rather than risk damaging it through decisions based on upon guess. Don't you think a lot of the links courses sort of fall into your example

[Mike_Young]

Tom Paul

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks for your insight. If no written documentation exists regarding a course, but there is significant evidence on the course of old features, does this, in your opinion, make a course any more or less restorable?

Sorry my answer above is still a work in progress as I continue to revise it.

To me, the course is restorable because the features are still in the ground, you have alternatives such as probing, where you can try educate yourself to what was once there. I do think that it now becomes important to find one of the following: an aerial, a few photos, a working drawing, a written review in the eraly years of the course before proceeding. One or more of those will start to remove some of the shades of grey.

I do think if an architect is not sure, they should ask a club for time to learn. I asked Lookout Point for (and received) a full year to study Travis because I felt I did not know enough about his work to help them with their bunker renovation. It turned restorative once I understood what I was dealing with. Clubs need to undeerstand a year like this is noit a lost year.

In your example, finding the course seemingly intact, but the architectural history unsure. The best advice is to hang on for a year and go search anything they can find on the history. It can be found, if you are willing to look - and often to travel to a better resource complex like the National Archives, The USGA archives, to see a well known collector, or even using a facility such as GCA. I have lots of stuff from this site, particularly from Mr. MacWood.

Kyle, you might have to encourage the course in your example to stay as it is, rather than risk damaging it through decisions based on upon guess.

Thanks again Ian for your candor. I don't particularly have any pull with Penn State, but the management seems keen on making changes to the courses that, to my eyes at least, seem ad hoc and ahistorical (I don't think Park built 4-5 foot tee platforms, for example), I'd see any potential role for me as keeping an ear on the historical side of things that do exist - no matter how vague - and as you alluded to... urging them to keep things as is until better research or evidence can be done.

Restoration work seems to require A LOT of PATIENCE.  

[Ian Andrew]

a lot of patience........I'm over 10 years in with a couple of my major restoration clients.

I'm wondering if I'll have the same patience 20 years from now.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I really doubt you will.  But it's because you will be busy with cool new courses and realize that it's a lot more fun to do your own thing, not to mention that it's easier answering to one client than to 300.

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

That was very kind.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I think "pedigree" is  the first requirement for restoration.

   Do you think enough people care about Park's work to consider any of his courses  worth restoring? I doubt it.

Mike;

  Good point, but let me ask you this; before Wayne and Tom got going with their work on Flynn, did many know or care about his name in relation to his golf courses?  

  Did Rolling Green care they were a Flynn club?  

  If Rolling Green didn't have yourself, or Wayne, or maybe a few others who read/studied/understood architecture, and appreciated architecture, then what?  

  Give him time.  Let him research Park's body of work, see more Park courses (like he and I are doing now) and bring it to Penn State.  Give him the chance to educate Penn State on Park and they can see how Willie Park golf architecture tests the player to a degree that Harrison and Garbin, or their own golf team, could not.  

 
 

[mike_malone]

  Doug,

   It may be because of Kyle's efforts that Park becomes more worthy of restoration efforts.  I wish him well. I just think  that at this point Park's lack of recognition is an impediment to restoration zeal.

     Flynn has been admired for his work at Rolling Green for a long time. But the depth of understanding of his work has waxed and waned . As long as there are a few who do the research the majority can be moved in the right direction. When playing the Flynn card no longer works then I would lose hope.