The fix is in ..... and it's a good one...... I think ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree...I think that the focus should be on PRESERVATION of classic courses, not "restoration" which while sometimes is used in a valid way that befits the definitition of the word, has also become a term which has been bastardized to mean virtually anything these days, down to wholesale redesign.

Mike,

The problem with your distinction is that it assumes that the golf course is intact.

If it's not intact, you can't and shouldn't necessarily PRESERVE it.

If it's already been altered, then RESTORATION can become appropriate.

In the context of the ratings, a course that's well preserved is its own reward, and a course that's been altered over the years and subsequently restored, should get points for that effort.

Not coincidentally, the Golfweek standards for Classic Course evaluation contains the following measure;

Integrity of Design - The extent to which the existing holes conform to the original design intent, or for those courses that have been renovated, extent to which the holes embody a character that is cohesive rather than fragmentary.

Mike, this assumes that the rater is intimately familiar with the architectural history of the club, which can be a problem, and not just for the rater, but, possibly the club as well.

I think the intent here is to PRESERVE what hasn't been changed already, and to create a standard for classic courses that have already been touched by a number of different folks through the years.

Agreed.

However, it may be that an alteration presents an improvement, and here's where we get into the subjective nature of Tom MacWood's declaration of searching for, discovering and restoring to the club's architectural high water mark.

Would you really want to restore # 10 and # 16 at ANGC ?

For instance, I'd imagine that courses like Oak Hill and Inverness lose points on the latter while a course like Prairie Dunes which was actually done by two separate architects 15 years apart still gains points for presenting a cohesive theme throughout.

I think both of the above examples you cited are interesting case studies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're joking.   To start, there is not one original bunker left on the golf course except for the 10th which is now just a monument to Mackenzie.  

Could you name one golf course where all of the original bunkers remain intact ?[/color]

As you know the green was moved back and to the left.  


Reread my post
Was that work done pre or post 1960 ?[/color]

I could go hole by hole but lack the time and really not interested in you arguing for the sake of arguing.
It's not a matter of arguing.
The substantive changes to ANGC took place pre 1960, not post 1960.[/color]

I agree with you that most classical courses have had some form of change although ANGC is by far the highest rated and most extreme in its changes over the last 40 years which seems to get a free pass on the Golfweek rankings.

Joel, the changes to ANGC post 1960 are minor.
Only in the last few years have they shrunk the fairways and planted trees and  lengthened the course for the pros, which I don't mind..  Prior to that, the golf course was fairly static from 1960 to 2000.[/color]