[T_MacWood]

Pinehurst #2 is often cited as an example of an architect tinkering and perfecting his own work. I don't think there is any doubt the course was at its architectural peak when Ross passed away. The NGLA is another example often given. But the recent restoration of the 13th brings to question if in fact the course was at its architectural peak when Macdonald stopped tinkering.

A couple of other examples: Crooked Stick and Muirfield Village. Pete Dye has continued to redesign CS and introduced a number of his latter architectural style to a golf course that was a close cousin to The Golf Club at its inception. From what I understand Dye volunteered to redesign TGC but they declined his offer. The question is is CS better today as compared to its early days?

I prefer the original MV to the course today, the bunkering at holes like 8, 12 and 13 was better IMO in the 70s. Of course some of the changes were necessitated by competitive/tournament issues, but I think in general the course had a more homogenous style in the early years, which I preferred.

Another somewhat related case is ANGC which went through some dramatic changes during the reign of Jones (and Roberts), although there is some debate as to whether he was co-designer or not, but I think architecturally the course was more interesting at the beginning.

Should the last form always be the best form or should each case be evaluated individually on its merits?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Of course this is such a fundamental question (and such a fundamentally difficult question to answer) and one we ask so often in one way or another in architeture, particularly restoration architecture.

To me it's sort of logical to go with the final product of an architect's work on a particular course. The reason it seems so is if he was able to basically do something good or great generally in the beginning and through time with the golf course then who are any of us to put value judgments on how the golf course should be above him? After-all he was the one who was responsible for it. It was always his product. If he altered things over time as Crump, Fownes, Wilson, Macdonald, Leeds, Ross, Dye, Jones etc did on various golf courses, then what makes us think we should second guess what he thought best? Obviously if he changed things himself he did so for what he thought were good reasons and in the direction of improvement.

On the other hand, if it is crystal clear over a period of time that something is definitely not working well or well enough or it's pretty obvious through massive consensus that a particular alteration either back to a former iteration or even to a new improvement then it seems there's no real reason to act so much the "purist" as to deny that. After-all golf courses are meant to be played and to play the best they can. That always was the entirely general precept and dictate of all good golf course architects.

The additional problem, of course, and always, seems to be both what Pat calls the "domino theory" as well as the ultra fundamental question of who is it that has the right or license to make these decisions or the best decision? In the past I'm afraid we know who apparently has that right, even if many of us don't like it. The latter problem or concern is the very reason so many of the restoration master plans have "flipside of the coin" wording and provisions to preserve into the future as much as possible what was just restored.

Clearly with recent restoration courses the desire to prevent the sometimes massive redesigning that took place previously and for so long from happening again is very strong.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Two recent examples of architects "perfecting" their own work are Pete Dye's Cypress Links, now known as Dye Preserve, and Jack Nicklaus' Loxahatchee, both  in Florida.

Here is Ron Whitten on these courses:

www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/dyepreserve_loxahatchee.html

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

Those are two examples of courses that no one, even the architects themselves, thought belonged on a list of their best work.  They're total redesigns.

Tom's example of Crooked Stick is something else altogether.  The original Crooked Stick was Pete Dye's open experiment with the styles of Macdonald, Ross, MacKenzie and Tillinghast; now there's a bunch of modern Pete Dye designed for John Daly in there.  There was one hole on the original course (#17) that Pete had always hated, and maybe he should have gone back and fixed that -- but he didn't need to blow up half the course, in my humble opinion.

[TEPaul]

It seems to me Tom MacWood's question isn't supposed to be one about whether or not any of us can have strong opinions about this kind of thing, it seems to be more about IF something really is GOING TO BE DONE, what should it be? And perhaps secondarily, who is it who should make these kinds of decisions?

In my opinion, both questions are vaguely unanswerable and probably the second one a little more than the first. Not to mention that every course generally has its own unique set of circumstances that always revolve around the club's membership somehow.

[TEPaul]

But perhaps Tom MacWood is trying to angle once again towards the suggestion or recommendation that some courses should be preserved regardless because they are such examples of golf architecture's highest art form, and that there should be some panel of experts to make that determination.

Again, in my opinion, that may be a nice and ideal thought but in reality it just isn't going to happen. I'd love it if it could, mind you, but there's no question in my mind it just won't happen. I just don't think the greatest golf courses and golf clubs are receptive to that kind of thing and I doubt they ever would be.

[wsmorrison]

Wilson and Flynn and later Flynn alone were perfecting Merion since day one in 1912 through the late 1930s.

Flynn returned nearly every year to the Cascades to work on improvements to the course from 1923 through at least 1935.

Flynn made significant changes to Philadelphia Country Club prior to the 1939 US Open, twelve years after the club first opened.

Flynn made some substanitive design changes at Marble Hall (now Green Valley) over the years.  He owned the place so they were clearly changes he wanted to make and not as a result of the club membership.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I will disagree with you on the second part of your point.

It's true that you will probably never be able to tell Pine Valley or Oakmont or Riviera what they should do.  They are the recognized, elite golf courses of the world, and they don't need your recognition.  They are more in love with championships, anyway.

However, I think there is or was a "second tier" of well-preserved older courses that might well have exchanged their autonomy in redesign (which they were never particularly motivated to exercise anyway) for a bit more recognition as historically important and well-preserved examples of Ross or Tillinghast.  Unfortunately, the message those courses have gotten is that they need to hire a restoration expert to spruce them up a bit for only a million or two.

I think, at the very least, it would be nice for someone to document where some of Donald Ross's work still exists, relatively untouched by modern hands.  Sure, it has evolved some over time -- but Mr. Ross probably anticipated that.

It doesn't bother me to see lost bunkers restored, I think that's a good thing.  It bothers me to see every other bunker rebuilt at the same time.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom (times three): When TP says "After all golf courses are meant to be played, and to be played the best they can."  I would ask for whom ?  If it is basically for the members, speed of play should be one of the major considerations.  How do you "perfect" your work with this in mind ?

[TEPaul]

"How do you "perfect" your work with this in mind ?"

Bill:

I'd say "perfecting" the course with speed of play in mind is more in the area of maintenance and "set-up" than architecture. Your Merion East is a good example of what I mean. Obviously the incredibly high, thick and penal rough you had a few years ago is one of the best examples. With that some groups will take much longer and from officiating you know what that can do to groups on the rest of the course---eg it's like the pebble in the pond effect, it slows the whole course down.

[T_MacWood]

TE
The point of thread is to see what others think of the 'last in' theory. I think it was you who said who are we to question what Macdonald wanted to do at the 13th at NGLA. I don't think it is that cut and dried, and each case should be analysed individually because there are examples like Crooked Stick. Another example would be Tilly in his latter PGA de-bunkering mode - I don't know too many architectural purists who would applaud the removal of Duffer's Headaches at either SFGC or Brook Hollow.

[BCrosby]

I think you have two different things at work here.

Architects revising their own work in anticipation of major tournaments is a very different thing from architects simply trying to "perfect" their courses.

Of the changs at ANGC sanctioned by Jones (a number of them weren't, btw) all were made with the Masters in mind. They wanted to strengthen the course against world class players in a major tournament. Those concerns were ramped up at ANGC because the course hosted a major every year. Even more importantly, until the early 50's the club survived only because of revenues from the tournament. So there was a ton of pressure to keep ANGC tournament tough.

I don't know much about Crooked Stick, but I wonder if Dye made his changes because of worries about how the course would hold up against pros in the PGA. Ditto for changes at MV.

But MacD's tinkering at HGLA, Crump's at PV  and Ross's at PII were something different. They weren't messin with their courses in anticipation of an onslaught of pros. They were tinkering more for purely architectural reasons (not that the distinction is always clear). They weren't trying simply to beef up their courses in preparation for major tournaments.

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

"TE
The point of thread is to see what others think of the 'last in' theory. I think it was you who said who are we to question what Macdonald wanted to do at the 13th at NGLA. I don't think it is that cut and dried, and each case should be analysed individually because there are examples like Crooked Stick. Another example would be Tilly in his latter PGA de-bunkering mode - I don't know too many architectural purists who would applaud the removal of Duffer's Headaches at either SFGC or Brook Hollow."

Tom MacWood:

If it can be determined what Macdonald did last on #13 I feel it is that cut and dried on that hole. Sure there's all kinds of other cases and they should be analyzed individually but the question always remains who makes the decision about what to do and how is the decision made? That's almost always the question and most every decision-maker feels his decision is the right one. I have a sense that the old "test of time" application is probably the right one because in the end it gets back to the basic precept and principle of all golf architects----eg make the course as enjoyable as possible for the most golfers. If someone wants to quibble with that, I'm not so sure I understand why.

[T_MacWood]

Bob
Yes. I think you are right that Dye's major changes were prior to the PGA, although I understand he has been tinkering with the course for a long time, before the PGA invitation and after the tournament.

Most of the changes to MV in last decade or so have been in response to the tournament...although the first changes in the early 80s were more aesthetic...including the bunkering at three of the four par-3s.

Ross's last major changes to #2 was prior to the PGA.

TE
As cut & dried as what Ross created on the ground at Aronimink?

Based upon your 'test of time' application I assume you would not be in favor of restoring the 12th at GCGC or the waste areas at Shinnecock.

[TEPaul]

"TE
As cut & dried as what Ross created on the ground at Aronimink?"

It was as cut and dried as what Ross drew for Aronimink and what was known about the bunkers when the decision was made. There still is no evidence those multi-set bunkers were what Ross intended to have on that course, and at the time no one knew if they were built originally no matter how much or how hard you think you can make it seem so with your rationalizations and "after the fact" comments.

The fact is to date I've only heard of perhaps 2-3 people who think those multi-set bunkers should have been done differently and none of them were involved at the time the decision had to be made. The other one or two are also "after the fact" opinions, like you.

Again, the bunkers were restored to Ross's own hand, and that's what the club wanted to be sure of. If you never let this go, Tom MacWood, either will I, and I will be sure to critiicze you for criticizing a decision you don't understand because you don't know enough about it. You weren't there----you've never been there. You're just an inconsequential "after the fact" carper with your own little agenda, as far as I'm concerned.

"Based upon your 'test of time' application I assume you would not be in favor of restoring the 12th at GCGC or the waste areas at Shinnecock."

The 12th at GCGC is a complex question and issue you obviously don't know much about either. I think the "test of time" factor should be considered--it certainly should be researched---and so should what the club and membership want to do about it now. Restoring that green the way it was is a complex issue of playability as well as maintenance.

I used to think those massive rolls were greenspace but apparrently they were not which would make it far easier to restore that hole to the way it once was. The club needs to be aware of the latter fact and I'm not certain they all are. If they become aware of that I think it would be very doable, and personally, I'd hope they would do it.

As far as restoring the waste areas of Shinnecock we made that suggestion very seriously, a couple of times, and to the people who could get it done. That includes the golf and green chairman and the super and his asst. According to all of them it would be a real maintenance nightmare but obviously you aren't aware of that either and probably wouldn't even care about something like that anyway---it's not your money, it's not your club. And this is just more examples of why I think your opinions and your criticisms about a number of things, generally after the fact, are a waste of time.

If you actually got involved in some of these things perhaps you would see the light and consider other necessary factors and ramifications those involved with these clubs have to consider but you don't get involved, and it shows.

[T_MacWood]

It was as cut and dried as what Ross drew for Aronimink and what was known about the bunkers when the decision was made. There still is no evidence those multi-set bunkers were what Ross intended to have on that course, and at the time no one knew if they were built originally no matter how much or how hard you think you can make it seem so with your rationalizations and "after the fact" comments.

TE
This image is pretty clear (cut & dried) too. We know as much about what Ross wanted at Aronimink as what Macdonald wanted at the 13th...what they ulitmately created on the ground, the rest is speculation. How do you rationalize your contradicting opinions?

When do you apply your 'test of time' guide and when do you ignore your 'test of time' guide?

[TEPaul]

"We know as much about what Ross wanted at Aronimink as what Macdonald wanted at the 13th..."

Tom MacWood:

Are you nuts? Do you really want to revisit this Aronimink thing all over again? It sure looks like you do to say that again.

If so, let me remind you that no one knew how that golf course was built bunker-wise when the decision of what to do with the bunkers had to be made. And some after the fact "Johnny come lately" like you sure as hell didn't know anything.

The actual evidence of the way those bunkers were originally built was found in the last year---and by me, I might add, not by you. Your speculation after the fact was just that---speculation---like anyone else. Maybe you think your speculation was better because it was yours but that's the way everyone back then felt about what they were speculating.

It just really pisses me off more and more that some totally "after the fact" jerk like you continues to criticize those who did their best to do what they thought was right and what was the truth. You just seem to have zero appreciation or understanding for that and for those people and the reason is so obvious to me and getting more so all the time---eg you're nothing more than a pompous myopic who just sits out there in your Ivory Tower and never gets involved in these projects and the decision making involved in them. The reason you do that is so obvious to me---eg you just can't stand to put yourself in a position where a mistake may be made.

It's just too bad you weren't involved in that project before a decision was made but the fact is you weren't. Consequently you should be a bit more understanding of what went on.

Would they have done something different if they had PROOF how those Aronimink bunkers were originally built? Maybe they would have, it's hard to say now, 4-5 years after the fact.

And you didn't produce the information how they were all really built originally. You didn't produce the proof---I did, and definitely not you, no matter how hard you ply your pathetic little efforts on here to convince anyone otherwise.

On that 13th hole at NGLA---was that bunker in there while Macdonald was alive and working on that golf course? Was that right side greenspace when he was alive and working on that golf course? Was there ever greenspace there? And if so, how do you think that can be proven? By looking at that model above? Are you kidding? When was the model done anyway? In the late 1920s right? Macdonald had another decade, at least, to go.

[TEPaul]

"How do you rationalize your contradicting opinions?"

What the hell are you talking about? Rationalize what?

"When do you apply your 'test of time' guide and when do you ignore your 'test of time' guide?"

What the hell are you talking about there? Are you asking what a "test of time" guide is?

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

If it can be determined what Macdonald did last on #13 I feel it is that cut and dried on that hole. Sure there's all kinds of other cases and they should be analyzed individually but the question always remains who makes the decision about what to do and how is the decision made? That's almost always the question and most every decision-maker feels his decision is the right one. I have a sense that the old "test of time" application is probably the right one because in the end it gets back to the basic precept and principle of all golf architects----eg make the course as enjoyable as possible for the most golfers. If someone wants to quibble with that, I'm not so sure I understand why.

TE
It appears you lean upon the 'test of time' application to rationalize one case (13-NGLA), but then ignore the 'test of time' application when you recommend the restoration of 12th at GCGC and the waste areas at Shinnecock.

Maybe I don't understand what your 'test of time' application is, but it appears you chose to apply it in some cases and not in others.

I'm still waiting for you to present documentation on when Macdonald revised the 13th (if he in fact he revised it) and what his rational may have been.

But let's assume he did change the hole in the late 20s...I don't see the difference between advocating that Ross's Aronimink course should be restored to its original multi-bunker scheme and adovcating the 13th should remain as Macdonald last revised it. All we know is what these men ulitimately left us on the ground...everything else is speculation. No?

Your views on these two project appears to be odds. Please explain yourself.

[TEPaul]

"Maybe I don't understand what your 'test of time' application is, but it appears you chose to apply it in some cases and not in others."

Maybe you don't. It's if it can be proven over time that something is just not working well then there is no real reason to keep it and if something was changed on an old course because it just wasn't working well over time there is no good reason to restore it. Why restore something if it can be proven it didn't work well in the first place? You might ask; How can that be proven? Well it can be proven through good and comprehensive reaserch---that's how.

You should see the minutes of GMGC through the 1920s and into the early 30s. There is no question at all a couple of the original Ross holes just weren't working well at all, there was no question of it, the subject came up again and again. Those holes failed the "test of time" over a period of 15-20 years and they were redesigned in the 1930s by Perry Maxwell.

Since the 1930s those Maxwell redesigned holes are some of the most respected on the golf course, and one or two of them as some of the most respected in the district. They've passed the "test of time" from numerous golfers over the last seven decades.

Do you now have some idea what the "test of time" is?

On a hole like #13 NGLA it seems to me has passed the "test of time" and furthermore I view NGLA's architecture as something of a special case in golf architecture (as apparently you do) because it is NGLA which is so significant in the evolution of golf architecture. As for how that hole was before Macdonald stopped working on the course, I'll try to put something about that on a post to follow.

As for the waste area bunkering of Shinnecock I believe I answered that one totally. Are you capable of reading properly? It sure wouldn't seen so because you seem to ask the same questions and make the same statements over and over and over again no matter what anyone says to you.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

As to how the 13th hole was at particular times when Macdonald was still alive and working on that course just review the discussion between George Bahto and myself between posts #27 and #41 on the "Re: NGLA's new "Eden" green".

According to George Bahto, Macdonald put that bunker in that was just removed on that hole whether or not the area it was in was green space. As far as I can tell no one is actually able to prove that right area ever was green space at any time, or that he ever wanted it that way.

Personally, I like that area as greenspace a little better and said so a long time ago but to actually make that transition on that hole I'd want to be very sure how it was at any time while Macdonald was alive and working on that golf course.

The reason I say that is that course was his most significant legacy and perhaps the most significant in American history and I'd pretty much want to defer to what it appeared he wanted to do on it, and not you, or me, or George Bahto or Pat Mucci. It's the club's decision and not ours anyway but I'd hope the club would just do the research and defer to Macdonald on what they found.

[TEPaul]

"But let's assume he did change the hole in the late 20s...I don't see the difference between advocating that Ross's Aronimink course should be restored to its original multi-bunker scheme and adovcating the 13th should remain as Macdonald last revised it. All we know is what these men ulitimately left us on the ground...everything else is speculation. No?

Your views on these two project appears to be odds. Please explain yourself."

Tom MacWood:

My views aren't at odds at all, and the fact that you still thinks so indicates to me that you just may be one of the densest people I've ever seen.

Ok, one more time. Do you understand what I mean about Macdonald and the 13th hole from the above post? To go over it one more time on the 13th at NGLA, I'd want to find out what Macdonald himself wanted there or had there last. Do you have any idea why I say that? Again, because he's C.B. Macdonald and if it can be determined what he wanted to do I feel that should be deferred to.

SIncerely hoping you can figure that much out, I would point out to you for about the 20th time that when the club, Prichard and even myself were struggling to figure out how the bunkers of Aronimink were orginally built NO ONE KNEW AT THAT POINT HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY BUILT!!!

Have you got that much, at least?

No one knew or could be sure at that time when a decision had to be made. So since it could not be proven the course was built with those multi-set bunkers everyone agreed that if they really wanted Ross which they did it was a surer thing to go with Ross's own bunker drawings.

Not only that but Ron had a tournament program from 1929 that showed a drawing of the golf course with bunkering that was virtually identical to Ross's drawings and nothing like the multi-set bunkers.

Furthermore, Jeffersonville, that Ron restored (with the multi-set bunkers, by the way) was believed to be McGovern's golf course and not Ross's. So the thinking was that McGovern, a significant member of Aronimink and the foreman may've changed the bunkers in the 1930s from the original Ross single bunkers from Ross's drawings.

That's what was known when the decision had to be made.

Obviously at that point NO ONE knew that the course had originally been built with those multi-set bunkers. Ron didn't know, the club didn't know, I didn't know and YOU SURE AS HELL DIDN"T KNOW.

At that point I bet you didn't even know Aronimink was being restored. You came into this about 2 years after the fact and after the bunkers were restored, and you had no proof of how the course was built bunker-wise at that point anyway.

Maybe you thought you did or even still think you did with that one photo of the 1st hole from the tee of the green about 425 yards away. We had that photo too and it didn't prove how the golf course was built as much as you want to make it look like it did.

No one really ever knew how the bunkers on that golf course were originally built until I found aerials of the course in the late 1920s. Again, I found those aerials last year 2-3 AFTER the project was completed.

Why didn't Ron have those aerials before the project? Because when he went to the Hagley looking for them they couldn't produce them. If he had those aerials BEFORE the decision had to be made on the bunkers, he very likely never would've even called me.

So, I hope you've finally figured out what happened at Aronimink.

If we could've had those late 1920s aerials that show that the multi-set bunkers were originally buil---- BEFORE the bunker restoration decision was made would the club have restored to them? Obviously they would have because then they would have correctly assumed Ross was likely aware of them and had approved them, and obviously no one would've assumed McGovern may've changed them in the 1930s. But no one had those aerials showing that. Again, I found them 2-3 years after the project was completed.

But again, NO ONE KNEW BEFORE the decision that was the way the course was originally built, least of all you who probably didn't even become aware of any of this until well after the project was done.

So, just like what I advocate about NGLA and Macdonald, Aronimink, Ron Prichard and me wanted to do what was really Donald Ross----that's all. That's all any of us were trying to do.

[T_MacWood]

"Maybe I don't understand what your 'test of time' application is, but it appears you chose to apply it in some cases and not in others."

Maybe you don't. It's if it can be proven over time that something is just not working well then there is no real reason to keep it and if something was changed on an old course because it just wasn't working well over time there is no good reason to restore it. Why restore something if it can be proven it didn't work well in the first place? You might ask; How can that be proven? Well it can be proven through good and comprehensive reaserch---that's how.

TE
That's what I thought you meant by 'test of time'. If that is the case why did you recommend the waste bunkers at Shinnecock be restored? They were removed because of maintenance issues and ultimately they ignored your recommendation for the same reason. Do you apply the 'test of time' selectively? The same with the 12th at GCGC and the reasons it was ultimately redesigned, in the past you've been in favor of its restoration, which would seem to ignore your test of time theory. Please explain.

Regarding Aronimink we all know the excuses (the fact that no one bothered or knew to look for old photos at Hagley or in old golf magazines, the alleged tournament program, the Jeffersonville confusion, etc) no need to repeat them over and over again.  We understand when you have incomplete information or wrong information its difficult. But my impression is that you fully support the decision anyway and would recommend or support that decision again even with the knowledge the course was originally built with multiple bunkers.  

Your positions are contradictory. If you are going to say the 13th should have been preserved as Macdonald left it, you should advocate the multi-bunker set because it was what Ross left us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pinehurst #2 is often cited as an example of an architect tinkering and perfecting his own work. I don't think there is any doubt the course was at its architectural peak when Ross passed away. The NGLA is another example often given. But the recent restoration of the 13th brings to question if in fact the course was at its architectural peak when Macdonald stopped tinkering.

A couple of other examples: Crooked Stick and Muirfield Village. Pete Dye has continued to redesign CS and introduced a number of his latter architectural style to a golf course that was a close cousin to The Golf Club at its inception. From what I understand Dye volunteered to redesign TGC but they declined his offer. The question is is CS better today as compared to its early days?

I prefer the original MV to the course today, the bunkering at holes like 8, 12 and 13 was better IMO in the 70s. Of course some of the changes were necessitated by competitive/tournament issues, but I think in general the course had a more homogenous style in the early years, which I preferred.

Another somewhat related case is ANGC which went through some dramatic changes during the reign of Jones (and Roberts), although there is some debate as to whether he was co-designer or not, but I think architecturally the course was more interesting at the beginning.

Should the last form always be the best form or should each case be evaluated individually on its merits?

Tom MacWood,

I think the flaw in your premise is the assumption that the architect's intellect, his design creativity, was at it's "high water mark" when he last visited the golf course.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I agree with you. I think each case should be evaluated on its own. I'm not in favor of the last in theory being followed across the board.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()