[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it financial ?

Is it taking the course out of play ?

Is it a resistance to change ?

Or, is it other reasons ?

Could the resistance to restoraton be rooted in philosophical and/or psychological reasons ?

If a club elects to restore their golf course doesn't it mean that they've permited a mongrel, or an inferior hole or holes to exist for far too long ?

Does it put the club and the leadership in a position of having to admit that the club and those previously involved made a big mistake when they altered and/or disfigured the holes in the first place ?

Are these the real impendiments that block or defer restorations ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

90% of the time an architect is called to interview as the consultant for a club, the reason they are interviewing is because the previous consultant or green committee built something bad enough that a change of direction is warranted.

In my experience, where there has been an egregious mistake, the club would prefer that we find other things to work on first, or address it as part of a bigger program -- so they don't have to go back to the membership just a year or two later for funds to rebuild the same green AGAIN.

Few people want to admit an error, even when it is staring them right in the face and they all know it.

[wsmorrison]

What is your take on the public vs private aspect of restorations?  Aren't public/resort courses overwhelmingly redesigned rather than restored?  If restorations are gaining momentum, isn't it almost entirely in the private sector?  Are restorations of public/resort courses as rare as I believe?

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Changes of any kind to resort and public courses are relatively rare, because they are a cash business and they don't want to give up the cash flow in the short term.  But, you are correct, if one of them DOES change their course it is usually an effort at "rebranding" because the course is not attracting enough play.  For every Pinehurst #2 there are a bunch of Pinehurst #4's.

[Ian Andrew]

The guy on the committee who was responsible for the previous change that you want to undue.

They see it as having to publicly admit they were wrong. It becomes an effort to try save face for them and still get what you want done.

[TEPaul]

It seems pretty ironic to me that there's a thread on here entitled "Re: The real impediment to restoration?" when 15-20 years ago the idea of restoration virtually did not exist but that in the last 15-20 years the restoration wave has become stronger and stronger each year and today has virtually exploded in popularity.

There seems to be a bizarre and on-going inclination on the part of a number of contributors to this website to constantly criticize the very things they seemed to theretofore or heretofore have hoped for.

It's very odd, indeed, and the only possible thing I can think of that might explain it would be the fact that a number of contributors on here are simply natural complainers, the basic idea being, if you are going to propose something it's essential to find somebody to blame first.  

[Tom_Doak]

Apart from the very personal reasons that Ian and I have mentioned, there are two other main points of resistance that I've seen:

1.  A feeling by some that "restoration" is a form of thinking in the past, and that a course should always be "moving forward" whether in harmony with the original design or not.  

2.  A concern that a restored course is going to be "easier" and therefore not as good.

To me the latter is more significant.  It nearly always comes up at clubs where we are restoring features, removing trees, etc.  My stock answer is that we're trying to make the course more interesting, and it may get harder on some holes and easier on others, but that overall I don't think the difficulty level will change -- but I am often pressed on the point.  It amazes me that so many members (many of whom don't break 80) are so caught up in this.  I believe it goes back to wanting their guests to be impressed by their course and thinking that difficulty is what it takes to impress the guest, but I've never been sure of that.

Still, I think most of you know that I am not a cheerleader of the restoration bandwagon, because there is a bunch of stuff being sold as restoration which is not worthy of the term.  I simply believe that any course looking at making changes should first look to what they have lost from the original design, before they start trying to come up with new ideas.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I wrote an open letter to Rees Jones on your latter point; I posted it in my blog a few months back.

http://sirputtsalot.blogspot.com/2005/11/logical-flaw-of-modern-architecture_26.html

Has a lack of true factual information (or at the very least, a starting point) ever been a hinderance to a restoration?

To me, it would seem (I hope) that the minute a club truly decides on a restoration they are acknowledging that all past mistakes can be wiped clean.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

The two points on that post of yours are really good and it seems every restoration project runs into that type of adversity right out of the box (although the most common general objection is always the "tree removal" issue). The first can be really virulent amongst a few but I find it far more uncommon than that second point you make.

Actually, the second point you make is far more complex in most all cases in restoration proposals or projects. By that I mean most all the better player contingent in any club thinks the course will be easier after and architectural restoration and for some reason most all the not good player contingent in the club fears the course will be harder for some reason.

I find the truth of it is that just about the entire "easier/harder" issue isn't in the restoration architecture anyway---it's almost entirely in the particular maintenance practices that follow the architectural restoration.

[Ted Curtis]

We play with oversized high-tech titanium drivers, souped-up golf balls and spend tees designed by computers, all to help make the golf ball go straighter, fly longer and spin tighter.

And we wonder why most golf courses are avoiding restoration to the "quaintness" of old...

[Jeff_Brauer]

.......A concern that a restored course is going to be "easier" and therefore not as good..........

..........My stock answer is that we're trying to make the course more interesting, and it may get harder on some holes and easier on others, but that overall I don't think the difficulty level will change........

 

Maybe your stock answer should be, "Pac Dunes, Rawls Course, no one has ever said Tom Doak makes courses too easy, sir!"

[Craig Disher]

Turning the discussion on its head, what are the conditions within a club that lead to restoration - or at least improvements that are consistent with the original design - rather than rebuilding features in a modern style? Is it essential to have a nucleus of influential golfers who are sympathetic to restoration ideas? A GM and superintendent who get it? A persuasive architect who can bring along a doubting membership?

The lure of the modern is pretty strong, especially if the club is more concerned about attracting new members than satisfying the current ones - both financially and from the standpoint of having a course that is fun and challenging.

TEP's last point about the maintenance practices is a good one. Locally the dry conditions have our course playing close to it's original design intent. Due to the firm greens it's more difficult even though it plays shorter. So for a while at least, strategy and position actually matter.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  You are right that many members fear the course may become much harder ... because they perceive that the good players dominate the committee, and that the good players only think about themselves.  At many clubs this is a valid observation.

Craig and Kyle:  Absolutely, another factor is the availability of good information about the original course.  One good, exciting-looking picture of a lost feature is worth its weight in gold.  It can and should get a club energized about the value of restoration, way more than a "persuasive" architect who can be perceived (perhaps correctly) as trying to create work for himself.

[TEPaul]

"Turning the discussion on its head, what are the conditions within a club that lead to restoration - or at least improvements that are consistent with the original design"

Craig:

I have yet to see a restoration project, and it seems like I've seen or been in some way involved in at least 50 or more of them, that was not inspired at first by name of the original architect of the course. Not one time have I seen a restoration or even an attempt at one that did not emanate from the original architect instead of just the golf course. Almost invariably it's ar renewed "pride" thing in the original architect.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom P:  You are right that many members fear the course may become much harder ... because they perceive that the good players dominate the committee, and that the good players only think about themselves.  At many clubs this is a valid observation.

Craig and Kyle:  Absolutely, another factor is the availability of good information about the original course.  One good, exciting-looking picture of a lost feature is worth its weight in gold.  It can and should get a club energized about the value of restoration, way more than a "persuasive" architect who can be perceived (perhaps correctly) as trying to create work for himself.

Tom,

I've been able to use similar means of comparison photography for my work with the White Course. Thanks to the generosity of the membership at Glen Ridge CC I was able to use the features that Ron Forse restored on that Park course to provide a side by side comparison with features on the White Course. While these weren't pictures of the White Course, they were quite effective.

[Mike McGuire]

"I have yet to see a restoration project, and it seems like I've seen or been in some way involved in at least 50 or more of them, that was not inspired at first by name of the original architect of the course. Not one time have I seen a restoration or even an attempt at one that did not emanate from the original architect instead of just the golf course. Almost invariably it's ar renewed "pride" thing in the original architect."

Tom -

We began last year using our 75th anniversary as a vehicle to educate our members on the history of our course. We had a hickory tournament on the day.

I'll bet less than 5% of our members knew who our original architect before we started. We have the original drawings as well as old aerials and photos of lost features.

This year we are having Heritage week and are renaming one of the dining rooms "The Langford Room"

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

Sounds like you and the leadership at WBCC are taking a neat approach to moving forward by looking back. I applaud the fact that you aren't trying to rebuild Rome in a day. Take your time and do it right once.

Joe

[Ian Andrew]

"Turning the discussion on its head, what are the conditions within a club that lead to restoration "

Craig,

Often the conversation in the clubhouse is about what parts of the course the members like and dislike. Many times members realize that the things they like are the original architect's work, whereas the things they hate are the renovations by a different architect or a member. What changed in the last 20 years was the idea of "we can put it back". Once they know of a few excellent examples, clubs began to see the idea of restoration as an option.

[ed_getka]

Interesting thread. What about Tom P's maintenance point? It seems like that would be a valid consideration, but is that the reality that you guys who do restorations are seeing?

Tom Paul,
   Can you give an example of a post-restoration maintenance issue and what was done about it?

Nobody has mentioned greenspeeds. How often does that become a consideration or sticking point in attempting a restoration?

What are the main issues surrounding bunker work typically?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Apart from the very personal reasons that Ian and I have mentioned, there are two other main points of resistance that I've seen:

1.  A feeling by some that "restoration" is a form of thinking in the past, and that a course should always be "moving forward" whether in harmony with the original design or not.

Tom Doak,

I couldn't agree more.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard, "do you want to drive a Ferrari or a Model T Ford ?  You have to modernize the golf course, not return it back to the "Dark Ages"  And, it's not a rare comment, it's prevalent thinking by many members.[/color]


2.  A concern that a restored course is going to be "easier" and therefore not as good.



I"ve also heard that comment on numerous occassions.
My response is to ask what happened to the handicaps of the members of other clubs that embarked upon a restoration.

But, the above two comments you listed are commonly used to oppose worthwhile restoration projects.[/color]

To me the latter is more significant.  It nearly always comes up at clubs where we are restoring features, removing trees, etc.  My stock answer is that we're trying to make the course more interesting, and it may get harder on some holes and easier on others, but that overall I don't think the difficulty level will change -- but I am often pressed on the point.  It amazes me that so many members (many of whom don't break 80) are so caught up in this.  I believe it goes back to wanting their guests to be impressed by their course and thinking that difficulty is what it takes to impress the guest, but I've never been sure of that.

Tom, I think many golfers, especially higher handicap golfers equate trees and/or tree lined fairways with difficulty.

I can see how that can happen, especially when a club like ANGC announces that they're planting trees and lining the fairways with trees in order to make the course more difficult.

And, many golfers take delight in promoting their golf course as a "difficult" golf course[/color]

Still, I think most of you know that I am not a cheerleader of the restoration bandwagon, because there is a bunch of stuff being sold as restoration which is not worthy of the term.  

Then it's not a restoration.
It's a project in sheep's clothing.

I think some club leaderships promote pseudo restorations in an attempt to "get out the vote"[/color]

I simply believe that any course looking at making changes should first look to what they have lost from the original design, before they start trying to come up with new ideas.


Sadly, many courses want to modernize, and/or keep up with the Jones's[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

We play with oversized high-tech titanium drivers, souped-up golf balls and spend tees designed by computers, all to help make the golf ball go straighter, fly longer and spin tighter.

And we wonder why most golf courses are avoiding restoration to the "quaintness" of old...

Ted,

I think many members don't want the "quaintness of old that you reference, they want the suped up Ferrari, failing to understand that that race never ends.

I don't mind a club lengthening holes, I do mind when disfigurations are allowed to remain intact, or are compounded by making them worse and/or systemic

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig and Kyle:  

Absolutely, another factor is the availability of good information about the original course.  

One good, exciting-looking picture of a lost feature is worth its weight in gold.  

It can and should get a club energized about the value of restoration, way more than a "persuasive" architect who can be perceived (perhaps correctly) as trying to create work for himself.[size=4x]

Tom Doak,

Would now be a good or bad time to bring up the 12th hole at GCGC ?
 [/color][/size]

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
Can you give an example of a post-restoration maintenance issue and what was done about it?"

Ed:

Sure. The primary post-restoration maintenance issue is to acheive more consistently frim and fast playability "through the green" and on the greens. We are in about our 3rd to 4th year of this transition and it's paying big dividends, I feel. It's not arbitrary, though, we have pretty much specifically defined the playability we are trying to achieve that way. I'd say we're about 75% of the way there

"Nobody has mentioned greenspeeds. How often does that become a consideration or sticking point in attempting a restoration?"

Green speed shouldn't be an issue. Green speed is green speed and generally speaking restorations involve green expansions which basically helps "pinnability" by increasing pinnable area. We weren't going to do anything about our greens other than expand them to original but after the project started our super recommended we regrass them for the first time in memory. His reason was so as not to constantly fight anthracnose. We really researched and debated on what strain to go to and eventually chose A-4 after being quite worried at first that strain might have to be maintained too fast for our slopes and contours. Our USGA agronomist Stan Zontek said it might be close but he thought A-4 was OK. I did some additional research on others who had gone before us with the A strains and they said they were OK and did NOT have to be maintained to fast. I remember it was Friars Head's Ken Bakst who convinced me that wasn't going to be a real issue.

Going to A-4 was one of the best decisions we made. That strain just loves dryness. Our speed is up about a foot from what they used to be but we're gonna cap them where they are now. Our dictum is our slopes and contours can't be touched in the name of speed.

"What are the main issues surrounding bunker work typically?"

In our restoration probably the main issue surrounding bunker restoration was cost. On Gil Hanse's restoration Master plan he recommended restoring most all Ross's old top shot bunkers which had all been removed in the 1940s. Perhaps 2/3 of them were graded out and the depressions of the remaining 1/3 are still there.

I wanted to see them all restored and so did the super. I'll never forget when the issue came up for discussion in the Master Plan committee. One of the significant members of the committee asked Gil how much it'd cost to restore those top shot bunkers and Gil said about $8,000 per bunker.

I think we were talking about a bit more than a dozen of them. That member said in no uncertain terms; "Forget That!". We tried to revisit the issue in a few of the ensuing meetings but we just couldn't get the support. I also recall a number of the committee objected to them for the same reason Wayne Stiles' recommended the removal of all of them in 1947--eg they'd only penalize the short hitting high handicapper.

With our bunkers we opted for a more grassed down look than we'd had on Gil's recommendation that was supported by the super. Projected maintenance costs and wash-out repair work were considerations.

One of the unforeseen problems with our bunkers is a fair number of members complain their balls get hung up on the grass faces. It's a pretty hot issue with some members but my sense is our response will only ever be---"that's golf."    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()