Original Architect's Intent ... Hogwash

[Jim_Coleman]

     I've been lucky enough to have been playing Teeth of the Dog for the past two months, arguably the greatest course ever designed by one of the greatest architects in history - Pete Dye.  You won't believe what they've done to his gem.  They've moved and recontoured the 18th green entirely and added a huge cross bunker and mounds of rough accross the left two thirds of the 18th fairway; they've totally recontoured the 10th green and modestly changed a few others; they've removed a key cross bunker while adding new bunkers and, God forbid, trees, to the right side of the fairway on #3; they've added 100 yards and a huge new bunker to #4; they've totally redisigned the greenside bunkers on over half the holes, turning large, flattish flashes of sand into potlike pits; they've added INTERNAL TREES to the left of a fairway bunker on #12 to cut off that route. And, of course, they've added lots more length to several holes. The course has been totally mutilated!
     If only Pete Dye could know what they've done to his gem, he'd roll over in his grave.  What?  Pete Dye's still alive?  What?  Pete Dye is the guy who instituted these major changes?  You betcha!  I may not like them all (I kinda like the old #10 green over the new one), but I'm sure it's an even better course now, and I'm REALLY sure that Mr. Dye thinks it's a better course.
     My point - please don't assess changes made to a "classic course" by arguing that the changes are inconsitant with the original architect's intent.  NOBODY know what Ross, or Flynn, or McKensie, or Tillie, or McDonald would do if they had the privilege of making changes to their courses today.  Assess the changes on whether they're good, period!  Don't tell me Flynn would have put a bunker there if he wanted one;  don't tell me McKensie would have put trees and rough there if he wanted them; don't tell me Ross would have put a tree there if he wanted one.  YOU DON'T KNOW, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU DO!!  
     Believe me, I'm watching one of the few (only?) courses where the original architect had a chance to go back 30 years later to make changes to an already great course.  Pete Dye has made substantial changes to his pride and joy.  I have no doubt that EVERY great archtect would do the same to EVERY COURSE he built, if he were given the same opportunity.

[George Pazin]

A lot of people think Pete Dye's work would be better if he didn't alter it.

Some have even said that's why The Golf Club is their favorite.

[Joe Hancock]

The issue is the fact that once the original architect is dead, no one really knows what changes are "better" as far as the unfortunately demised architect is concerned. Therefore, in the case of many old golf courses whos architect has gone on to meet his Maker, no action often is the best action.

But not always....

That's not being on the cemetarial fence, so to speak, is it?

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

I think there's a significant factor that you're overlooking, and that factor is the continuity that comes with the original designer versus the break in continuity that comes with an outsider.

Donald Ross tinkered with Pinehurst # 2 for about 26 years.
CBM did the same with NGLA and Pete Dye did the same with Crooked Stick.

It's one thing when the originator, the creator tinkers with a golf course, it's quite another when someone totally detached/removed from the originator/creator takes to altering the golf course.

Historically, most of the disfigurations of golf courses have occured due to the latter, not the former.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I think you are right in many cases. As a gca I can tell you I would substantially change many of my own courses if given a chance a decade later.  Its because golf changes, experience shows that some ideas weren't all that great to begin with, and lastly, because I have learned more and moved on to different ideas.  

Now, the problem with concept 3 above is that those ideas must be vetted against the test of time as well.

Pat,

RE: I think intent is secondary to the talent of the renovator.  I would modify your quote to read:

"It's one thing when the originator, the creator tinkers with a golf course, it's quite another when someone somewhat less talented than the originator/creator takes to altering the golf course.  

Historically, most of the disfigurations of golf courses have occured when clubs hire the closest, cheapest, or most agreeable gca, or worse yet, don't hire one at all, especially when there are some wild goals involved - like going after a major tournament or keeping up with the Jones rather than accepting the quality of the club as it exists........and as it has drawn your membership to date.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Too bad they couldn't knock down the condos on 10.
The left side of that hole - green included - was excellent - the right - not so good.
I barely remember the 18th green.
I liked the cross bunker on 3.
If the new bunkers you speak of are the variety that he's designed lately - Wintonbury - TPC New Orleans - I wouldn't like them there.

I like the old course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff & Jim,

If we wanted to get into sub-sets, we could add those alterations deemed to be predetermined by the membership, prior to the retention of an architect, or without consultation with the original architect.

I'm one of those who liked the mound in the middle of the 18th green at Pine Valley.  Crump put it there.
While he may have referenced a spine like feature as an alternative, someone other then Crump removed the mound, and in my opinion,diminished the value of the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  How about this:  the original architect can do anything he wants to his own golf course, but once he's dead, no one else can change it on the basis that it's the right thing to do.

Oh, wait, that would put some modern architects on the bread line.

There has been a lot of favor for restoration here in the past couple of years, but if those clubs (and sometimes their consulting architects) had not changed the original design years ago, there would be no need for any restoration.

[Jim_Coleman]

     I guess my point is, if you put a great old course in the hands of a great new architect, you'll get a better course.  It may not be within the "original architect's intent," but it WILL be better.
    Shivas, how do I know that EVERY architect would make changes 30 years later if he could?  Let me change that to every SANE architect.  Jeff Brauer's post to me is common sense.  Who can't do a better job in ANY endeavor with 30 years of experience and new technology to work and deal with.  Lawyers would write different briefs; doctors would perform different procedures; CEO's would make different decisions.
    Unless your view is that a golf course is a piece of art, rather than a place to play golf, I say try to make every course better, regardless of the architect's original intent.  EVERY architect would, if he could.
   

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim,
I understand your points...

How would a great architect make the 17th at TOC better?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff B.
I like Pat's words better.

Lets take the breather hole for example.
You designed the X hole at the Quarry to give the player a respit before the finale - you were creating a sense of rhythm.
If in 50 years someone finds hole X to be the weakest of the bunch - a better architect may try to improve the hole - thus destroying your rhythm.

Is the hole better - probably.
Is the course better - I wouldn't think so.

In the hands of an expert - intent is paramount.

Cheers

[Bob_Huntley]

Having seen a few less than desirable "renovations," I would be delighted if The Society of Golf Course Architects, if their is such an august body,  adopt a sort of Hippocratic oath. Something like...."We shall do no harm."

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

Jim Coleman said - "I guess my point is, if you put a great old course in the hands of a great new architect, you'll get a better course.  It may not be within the "original architect's intent," but it WILL be better".

Jim,
I would suggest getting out and seeing a few more "great old courses" that have been in the hands of "great new architects" and then make that statement.  Or maybe you should provide a list of who you consider "great new architects" and I hope you list enough to go around  

Yes some courses get better as they evolve, but unfortunately many do not.  Personally, I would be very hard pressed to "restore" a golf hole to the original design if it would be worse restored than what is there now.  The trick is determining what is better and what is worse.  Unfortunately, the answer to that dilemma varies greatly depending on who you ask for the answer.  

One more point to add - sometimes just getting a course back to something closer to the original design is a huge improvement over what has been done to it over the years.  This again goes back to that tough question about what is better and what is worse.  That question will always be there even 100 years from now.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I have just one simple question for you:  what difference does it make?

In other words, why is it different if the perpetrator of the changes is the same guy or not?  Isn't what's in the ground what's in the ground, regardless of who put it there?

Here's the difference.
There's usually only one creator, with a distinct vision of the golf course.

Now add dozens of architects, in sequential order to the process and what happens.   A quiltwork ?  A total destruction of the style, character and playing qualities of the golf course.

Equally as important, over time the golf course loses its distinctive character that which seperated it from everything else, making it common, because most of these redos are representative of the fad of the decade.

The other difference is that YOU ONLY view this process from a predetermined vantage point, that of a successful face lift.
But, history has shown us that most face lifts, especially repeated face lifts, have disfigured the golf course, not improved it.  Your retrospective perspective is monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.  You tell us the golf course is better, when the record clearly shows the opposite.

As Tom Doak pointed out, if all of these alterations were so successful, why are these clubs looking to undue them and restore themselves to the orginal work ?

The odds of preserving the architectural integrity of the original design are diminished when you remove yourself further and further from the original designer.

If I were an architect, one of my concerns would be that my work might someday be eradicated by a green committee or a series of facelifts.

I think most talented architects look to their designs as a legacy representing the quality of their body of work.

What you and others fail to understand is the repetitive, domino like effect that the first alteration usually triggers.

Few courses stop at one bite of the apple.
Hence the destruction of the original design is lost forever.[/color]

[Mike_Young]

This topic definitely has two sides that emerge..and I don't know how one decides who is a suitable architect today to fix the dead guy stuff of yesterday.....But Jeff Brauer had a very valid point when he suggested that architects get better with time (in most cases) which sort of negates the present fad of "restoration experts" that have not been involved in their own work handling the work of these dead guys.... JMO

[Mike_Young]

Pat:

I have just one simple question for you:  what difference does it make?

In other words, why is it different if the perpetrator of the changes is the same guy or not?  Isn't what's in the ground what's in the ground, regardless of who put it there?

Here's the difference.
There's usually only one creator, with a distinct vision of the golf course.

Now add dozens of architects, in sequential order to the process and what happens.   A quiltwork ?  A total distruction of the style, character and playing qualities of the golf course.

Equally as important, over time the golf course loses its distinctive character that which seperated it from everything else, making it common, because most of these redos are representative of the fad of the decade.

The other difference is that YOU ONLY view this process from a predetermined vantage point, that of a successful face lift.
But, history has shown us that most face lifts, especially repeated face lifts, have disfigured the golf course, not improved it.  Your retrospective perspective is monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.  You tell us the golf course is better, when the record clearly shows the opposite.

As Tom Doak pointed out, if all of these alterations were so successful, why are these clubs looking to undue them and restore themselves to the orginal work ?

The odds of preserving the architectural integrity of the original design are diminished when you remove yourself further and further from the original designer.

If I were an architect, one of my concerns would be that my work might someday be eradicated by a green committee or a series of facelifts.

I think most talented architects look to their designs as a legacy representing the quality of their body of work.

What you and others fail to understand is the repetitive, domino like effect that the first alteration usually triggers.

Few courses stop at one bite of the apple.
Hence the destruction of the original design is lost forever.[/color]

Pat,
This may be one of your best responses yet....IMHO

[Jim_Coleman]

    I'm not saying it's easy.  And I suppose there are probably  more failures than successes.  But is the solution not to try to improve the "classics?"  I think Augusta, Oakmont, Merion, etc. should get great credit for trying.  Yes, what they've done is controversial. Yes, some believe the courses have gotton worse as they "strayed from the original design."  So what?  I think if good architects don't improve the classics, they'll be irrellevant as golf courses, although fine examples of "what used to be."  And you know the best news of all.  If someone really screws it up, the problem can be fixed!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike & Jeff,

Improving a hole or an entire golf course presents a dilema.

It may be possible to improve a hole or a golf course.

But, once started, where does the process end ?

Why does the golf course have to be a lab rat to the membership ?

The underlying foundation of my beliefs is rooted in statistical analysis, vis a vis personal observations.

I've seen far more disfigurations then improvements.

That ratio makes me overly cautious.

When I first came on this site I had a long debate with that cretin of armchair architecture, TEPaul.  That debate centered on the vision or lack of vision of the man or men in charge of the alterations, in conjunction with an architect.

While I sided with the visionary member, TEPaul sided with the architect.  But, the truth is, it's the combination that produces great results.  I"ve seen clubs dictate changes, terrible changes, and I've seen architects make terrible changes.  With a visionary chairman and a talented architect I think positive results can occur, and in some cases, the result is to leave the golf course as it is, or with minor adjustments.

Remember, if the process doesn't come out perfect the first time, you can bet the golf course will suffer further alterations in the future, until years later it bears no resemblance to the originators vision and design integrity.

Since Shivas asked the question of me, I would ask him, and those of you who support the process of improvement,
how would you improve on NGLA, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, ANGC and Friar's Head ?

I'm sure you can improve certain holes, so I'd be anxious to hear how you'd do it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

It's naive of you to casually state that if the golf course is screwed up, it can be fixed.

It can't be fixed.
Not for a long, long time.

Ask yourself, what club that's just spent 3,000,000 to alter the golf course is going to admit that they wrecked it and besiege the members for another 3,000,000 to undo the damage ?

It doesn't happen that way.

It takes a generation, or many administrations removed to undo the damage, and, when that process is begun, who's to say that other factions in the club won't press for other changes ?

That's the worst possible reason that I've ever heard for trying to improve a golf hole or golf course.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Here is one example I've shown before of the evolution of a golf hole.  You tell me if it has gotten better or worse?  



These changes were made because someone believed they were making the course better.  They would not have done so if the felt otherwise.  One thing to remember is that without some extensive research, few would ever have known what was once there.  Did you?
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I've always felt that your exhibit was one of the most powerful methods for communicating the dangers of making changes, irrespective of the purpose.

[Dan Moore]

I never know where to come out on this.  I know I am very happy Harry Colt was given the opportunity to greatly improve upon Old Tom's whose routing which was an improvement on the prior routing at Royal County Down.   Courses are not museum pieces.  They are living organic things subject to change and evolution from season to season year to year.  Golfers change and evolve too.  Even without technology we are bigger and stronger generation to generation.  I wonder what the average height and weight of a golfer was in 1925?  

The bottom line is if the changes are for the better.  

Who is to decide?  

The architect as the original creative artist certainly.  The owner or members, its surely their property right.  Public opinion through the media (including the internet) can have an impact and raise awareness about the history, integrity and original intent.  

 

[Dan Moore]

Mark,

Wow.  If a picture was ever worth a thousand words...!!!

I am going to go listen to my old Miles Davis and John Coltrane LPs now knowing I will always be able to enjoy the original artists' intent in its full unaltered glory.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Dan:
    When you listen to those Coltrane and Davis records, make sure to get out your Victrola.  And don't you dare go out and buy the digitally enhanced version.  After all, there's no way you can get more enjoyment from your old "classics."
    Mark:
    Can you show me examples of good intentions gone bad?  Sure.  Does that mean one should never try to improve on a design?  Life would be pretty boring if run that way.
   I'll go back to what I said before.  A golf course is NOT a piece of art.  It's a place to play golf.  Golf has changed over time; so must golf courses.  If Pete Dye can change his course for the better 30 years later, why can't someone else undertake the job if Pete (or Flynn, or Tillie, etc.) aren't around to do the work?  The only answer I've heard to this question is: because the new architect will inevitably screw it up.  Sorry, I'm not that pessimistic, cynical, or self-rightious.   And believe me, I've been accused of all three.

[Phil_the_Author]

When Tilly made his tour of courses for the PGA from 1935 - 37, he visited hundreds of courses with the express aim of seeing how the course(s) could be improved.

He made recommendations that work be done on over 400 of them and, in many cases, recommended LOCAL architects for the work, men who didn't have a national reputation or were considered major forces within the architectural community.

In visiting one of his courses, he recognized the problems inherent in the original design and said that he had to take "a good portion of his own medicine..."

I think all architects recognize their works are imperfect and that these become clear as the course itself evolves through time.

Not all changes are necessary because of the technology of length... many are simply because it makes the hole better.