[Patrick_Mucci]

when he's asked to consult or undertake work at a "classic" or "Golden Age" golf course ?

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
It is according to how you define "golf architect".  The so-called restoration business is a cottage industry that is being driven by unknowing club committees.  Nothing is required for one to proclaim himself an expert regarding one dead guy today and another tomorrow.  And clubs eat that stuff up.  Especially if the dead guy fan club says this is the way to go.  However, I had always assumed that the primary responsibility that a golf architect would have is to first and formost design his own work ....I think that is what the dead guys would have expected....
Having said the above...I can't see that he would have anymore responsibility than the club that hired him.....JMO

[paul cowley]

Patrick....I would say a lot would depend on what level, or how much 'classic' exists in the course, and how much of it might or might not need fixing.....no strike that....because if I was asked to renovate Pebble Beach the first thing I would do is rebuild holes 9 thru 13 in reverse, so I'm probably not equipped to give an acceptable answer.

....so excuse me, I'll just go off to another thread, sorry to interrupt.

[corey miller]

Mike Young

Clubs "eat everything up" especially when prefaced by "your original guy was a master and I will restore the course so that it looks like he built it and would not seek to leave my mark".

The problem is the clubs themselves often have no clue what the original course looked like or what a "raynor" bunker looks like.  Nor do they know anything about what classic design principles were.

So it is imperative that the architect at least be honest.  It is my experience that it may be "easier" to get club backing if you don't attack contentious issues and only reinforce conventional wisdom.

At a club I am familiar with the club gave a esteemed restoration architect all the "problems" and "changes" they wanted and the architect wove them into a plan that "honored" the original designers thus making everyone happier.

But what of the architect that wanted to:

1. plant trees to "increase strategy"
2. build a berm on a redan to stop "poor tee shots" from rolling on the green
3. narrow fairways and grow rough higher
4. lenghten
5. force people to use air game as that is how game has developed.
6. make hazards/bunkers more visible
7. flatten greens to restore lost pin positions
8. build a few berms in fairways to stop "good" tee shots from rolling off fairway.
9. flatten small hills in front of two tees for visibility.
10. create more obnoxious green to tee walks because "no different to the one you already have"
11. Bring in fill to build a tee box 50ft high that blocks the most significant natural feature on the property.
12. build the bunkering right into the berm created by a misguided renovation "expert" years earlier.

And the club believes all this garbage. What do you do? Is the architect not culpable? He "won" the job, and everyone seems "happy" with the restored golf course they are about to get.

[T_MacWood]

It depends on the golf course. Not all 'classic' or 'golden age' courses are equal. I think one of their first responsibilites is to thoroughly research the course's history to determine if it is a design or was a design of special architectural merit. If that search comes back affirmative IMO they owe it to their client and to golf architecture to at the least try to preserve as much of the historic design as possible which could include restoration of lost fairway space, green space and removing intruding trees.

[Mike_Young]

It depends on the golf course. Not all 'classic' or 'golden age' courses are equal. I think one of their first responsibilites is to thoroughly research the course's history to determine if it is a design or was a design of special architectural merit. If that search comes back affirmative IMO they owe it to their client and to golf architecture to at the least try to preserve as much of the historic design as possible which could include restoration of lost fairway space, green space and removing intruding trees.

Tom,
Personally I would prefer your approach...but I think the architect that takes such job could inform the client and then should try to give the client what he desires  and it may differ from the exact path the architect wished to follow......JMO

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young

Clubs "eat everything up" especially when prefaced by "your original guy was a master and I will restore the course so that it looks like he built it and would not seek to leave my mark".

The problem is the clubs themselves often have no clue what the original course looked like or what a "raynor" bunker looks like.  Nor do they know anything about what classic design principles were.

So it is imperative that the architect at least be honest.  It is my experience that it may be "easier" to get club backing if you don't attack contentious issues and only reinforce conventional wisdom.

At a club I am familiar with the club gave a esteemed restoration architect all the "problems" and "changes" they wanted and the architect wove them into a plan that "honored" the original designers thus making everyone happier.

But what of the architect that wanted to:

1. plant trees to "increase strategy"
2. build a berm on a redan to stop "poor tee shots" from rolling on the green
3. narrow fairways and grow rough higher
4. lenghten
5. force people to use air game as that is how game has developed.
6. make hazards/bunkers more visible
7. flatten greens to restore lost pin positions
8. build a few berms in fairways to stop "good" tee shots from rolling off fairway.
9. flatten small hills in front of two tees for visibility.
10. create more obnoxious green to tee walks because "no different to the one you already have"
11. Bring in fill to build a tee box 50ft high that blocks the most significant natural feature on the property.
12. build the bunkering right into the berm created by a misguided renovation "expert" years earlier.

And the club believes all this garbage. What do you do? Is the architect not culpable? He "won" the job, and everyone seems "happy" with the restored golf course they are about to get.

Corey,
Do you blame the architect or the board.....he had his ideas and the club bought them.....while they may differ from yours or mine.....the free enterprise system works....the next guy might follow adifferent path......

[BCrosby]

I agree with T. MacW.

If it is a Golden Age course, the architect's first duty is learn the history, share those facts with the club and then, and only then, come to a consensus decision with the club about what to do.

Whatever is done, it ought to be done with full knowledge (to the extent possible) of the architectural evolution of the course.

Given the known historical facts, if the architect does not agree with the direction the club wants to take, he should either resign or accept that his reputation will bear the consequences.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

I agree with T. MacW.

If it is a Golden Age course, the architect's first duty is learn the history, share those facts with the club and then, and only then, come to a consensus decision with the club about what to do.

Whatever is done, it ought to be done with full knowledge (to the extent possible) of the architectural evolution of the course.

Bob

Bob,
I agree in theory but what if the owner says no......It is no different than when the Volvo dealer tried to talk you out of putting the 24inch wheels on your Volvo.....but you did....and the same for your "piss on chevy" decal in the back window....

[corey miller]

I blame both, a board for not becoming eduacted enough and the architect for being deceitful.

the problem is boards never become educated enough and thus are less likely to approve choices made by restoration guys that really do respect the original architects work.

It is a long process with many hazards.

But, a architect really should not make proposals and statements to a club that he would not be comfortable making in front of a ASGCA conference.  

[BCrosby]

Mike -

I added to my post:

"Given the known historical facts, if the architect does not agree with the direction the club wants to take, he should either resign or accept that his reputation will bear the consequences."

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

Tom MacWood,
I like your approach.  The problem is that researching the history of a golf course as you well know takes a lot of time and effort.  Many architects (and to some extent I don't blame them) don't care to spend the time to make this effort.  It you think about it, they are artists themselves so why should they bother researching someone elses artwork from long ago?   Read someone like Tom Fazio's book and you'll hear his explaination why.  

I know one prominent course that interviewed numerous high profile architects.  I was told there was a lot of hand waving of how to "improve" things and little if any regard to who the original architect was or how the course had evolved.  That approach can work well for some clubs but for others it can be a disaster.  

I believe every course at least deserves a look at what was originally designed and how it has evolved.  Clearly not all courses should be "restored" but they at least deserve this look (and the look for some courses might turn out to be much longer than for others).  That is part of the responsibility of any one chartered with making changes to a golf course - IMHO

[Mike_Young]

I blame both, a board for not becoming eduacted enough and the architect for being deceitful.

the problem is boards never become educated enough and thus are less likely to approve choices made by restoration guys that really do respect the original architects work.

It is a long process with many hazards.

But, a architect really should not make proposals and statements to a club that he would not be comfortable making in front of a ASGCA conference.  

Corey,
I am not saying that I agree with the changes that you noted in your original post.....BUT....that particular architect had his own vision which we may not agree with.....and that club hired him......
As to whther he was comfortable making those proposals and statements in front of an ASGCA committee...I don't know......I also don't know what authority or regulation a subjective organization would have over a club and it's desires......

[Mike_Young]

I believe every course at least deserves a look at what was originally designed and how it has evolved.  Clearly not all courses should be "restored" but they at least deserve this look (and the look for some courses might turn out to be much longer than for others).  That is part of the responsibility of any one chartered with making changes to a golf course - IMHO

Mark,
I agree. But as we know it doesn't always work that way.  
As we know with many clubs and in life "perception is reality" and the "expertise" conveyed is sometimes not there.....for every guy that presents a club the proposal that Corey speaks of above there is a so called "restoration expert" claiming to be a Ross expert today, Flynn tomorrow, Tillinghast the next day and Elvis on Saturdays.  I just can't but it.
Mike

[Scott Witter]

We have been here before...maybe in a different form and beat the daylights out if it.  Simple question, Responsible to whom? the club, hey they are ones making the decision first to hire the architect and then to agree or not agree with their plan, the dead guy, Tom Mac & Mark Fine cover this well and I personally would agree with their approach, but the reality is that not all true classics that are being worked on by architects have architects that care, or care to take the time as Mark says.  Are they responsible to history, heck, if we want to look at this way, why are not these great classics placed on the National Register of Historic Places, hell, all kinds of landmarks are so why not the priceless gems of the golden age or whatever age?  Maybe if this was done, we could take the edge of this cottage industry that Mike Y. refers to...I think he has a good point, and some point soon I believe, it is all going to come to a head.

This leads us to... are they responsible to themselves? can they sleep at night and feel good about their work and about going on to another club and tell them about what they did for so and so?  I couldn't, but then, I would never do it that way.

Who should the clubs listen to?  Should they listen, it is THEIR club right.  For that matter, a lot of clubs should be looked at more carefully.  Are they classics? no, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve the responsible respect by the architect to at least do some research and inform the club of their history, assuming they may not know, and give them options as opposed to using the opportunity to leave their mark.

Mark Fine says it accurately, "I believe every course at least deserves a look at what was originally designed and how it has evolved.  Clearly not all courses should be "restored" but they at least deserve this look (and the look for some courses might turn out to be much longer than for others).  That is part of the responsibility of any one chartered with making changes to a golf course"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young, et. al.,

Let's assume that the club and architect have done the research and that the macro architecture of the golf course is 90 % intact from the original designer.

What responsibility does a modern day architect have with respect to that golf course ?

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I know what you are saying and personally I would feel responsible to maintain the integrity of the design.....BUT if the club did not wish to do so then ......who knows....it is their club......
I would say that legally he would have ZERO responsibility.....JMO

[Scott Witter]

In this order, FRIST to themselfs.  I just couldn't do it and look someone in the club straight in the eye and say anything other than preservation and restorative thoughts without first being true to myself.  SECOND, to the course and the original architect and his work.  I believe something truly historic and valuable for historic reasons and for the value that comes from preserving something so significant is good for the game and for generations to come.  THIRD, to the club, not to be disrespectful in any way, but I don't think there too many clubs who deep down care as much as they should or who understand the significance of what they really have, and it will continue to go on as a never ending battle with future generations at that club the next time they feel improves are required.

[T_MacWood]

The problem is that researching the history of a golf course as you well know takes a lot of time and effort.  Many architects (and to some extent I don't blame them) don't care to spend the time to make this effort.  It you think about it, they are artists themselves so why should they bother researching someone elses artwork from long ago?   Read someone like Tom Fazio's book and you'll hear his explaination why.  

It does take some effort. That is a major problem and its not isolated to the Fazio's of the world a number of high profile restoration architects who are guilty as well.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it boils down to the Golden Rule ... do unto others as you would be done.

If an architect does not respect the work of those who have gone before him on a classic course, then he should not expect my grandson to treat his work kindly someday.

Then again, as Mike points out, a few "restoration" architects cannot apply that rule very well because they have no original work of their own which they want to see preserved.

[BCrosby]

The conundrum is this:

Making good decisions about changing a classic course requires having a good handle on the history of the course. That's true for both the architect and the club.

The problem is that usually neither the architect nor the club has the time, training or temperament to do the actual research, organizing and writing to do a good history.

So they don't do the history and, far too often, resort to just making stuff up.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

The conundrum is this:

Making good decisions about changing a classic course requires having a good handle on the history of the course. That's true for both the architect and the club.

The problem is that usually neither the architect nor the club has the time, training or temperament to do the actual research, organizing and writing to do a good history.

So they don't do the history and, far too often, resort to just making stuff up.

Bob,

As you know, I like medical analogies.

Is this the way a doctor and a patient would approach major surgery ? [/color]

[Mike_Young]

As for medical terms.....I think all of the professional people call their businesses "practices" for a reason.....but you do get better with more practice......supposedly

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Yes. On balance, I too would prefer that the surgeon standing over me with a scalpel had a complete and thorough grasp of the facts. But maybe that's just us.

Mike -

They are "professional" practices. That may suggest that you get better with practice, but along the way doctors and lawyers can also get sued for malpractice.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW. has some great, and succinct thoughts.

I disagree with most all of what I have read thus far.  Tom D. says, "...it boils down to the Golden Rule...do unto others as you would be done." That sounds good in a post, but it ignors the fact that golf courses are ever-changing parts of our environment. Maybe Tom D. means that one shoudl show restaint...and be nice. OK, but I say that whatever makes for fun and interesting golf is the best approach.

In 100 years when I look down on my projects I want to avoid the temptation to be thinking how nice and restrained some young man or woman is being — I would rather be throwing balls of fire under their arses to go a step further, to pull out all the stops and dare the status quo.

To recap: I think the only thing one needs to follow is that the golf should be fun and entertaining. If a classic era course has enough merit to warrant preservation, then it will prevail. If not, let it change...and, of course, for the better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()