[Tommy_Naccarato]

There is a lot of good stuff going in in our world of Golf, but there is also a lot of bad stuff too. for instance, I make note of the horrible changes to what I feel is one of golf's priceless gems--Riviera.

The Riv has been a great school for learning for me. It's not just a GREAT golf course, it's a EXCELLENT golf course. However, as time and the energies of life have changed her, after 75+years of magnificient evolution both good and bad, the course stands to be inconceivably altered. These alterations aren't so much for the good of the course, or the membership that trods the fairways daily, but more done under the guise of protecting par and dealing with equipment advances.  Ultimately it all deals with ego, and its usually where politics rear their ugly head.

My point is that some of the classic courses we deem great are worthy of preserving, regardless of their abilties to challenge the PGA Tour Pros game, let alone stroke the owner's or architect's delicate ego. Sadly, there are architects, very good architects who are doing the same.

Simply put, they are leaving their mark.

While some my not care one iota or another about these changes, I for one think we should care. Certain features of certain courses have rightly been changed overtime because it was neccessary. There isn't a classic architect I know of that could predict torrential rains and floods or earthquakes or hurricanes that could instantly render a classic into a once was. I know this from experience seeing my beloved home course --mind you a modern course--forever altered and changed by flash-flooding.

It's an evolution that one must learn from--nature. That nature which evolves from not only the growth of the trees and maturation of features throughout, but more the ability to maintain the artificial as well. The ability to keep it playing as close as it was originally thought. while changes and tweaks can only add to the essence of being able to gauge the interest, while keeping it up to date.

But artificially, there are other monsterous delipitating factors involved. Riviera is a perfect example--making these changes for a US Open that will never happen as long as the club is owned by a foreign source, as well as a prime target for a billion-dollar real esate deal. It's both political and personal.

But there are other clubs too--like Yale and Garden City Golf Club. They are American Icons.

Garden City Golf Club must be both protected and rejuvenated. this would mean reclaiming more of it's historical featrures, not creating new ones that make little sense other then to leave one's mark. There are many things about Garden City that need work, yet need protecting too. It, along with Yale has the possibility of being the ultimate Restoration Poster Child. The architecture is there and some of it isn't there. Some of it was removed needlessly and carelessly.  The 12th hole is a perfect example. Many here have constructively weighed-out the possibilities of what restoring important features of these great courses. Some of us have even spent an inordinate amount of time just to show one glimmer of proof that features on classic courses as such were wrongly removed, mostly all for personal or political reasons.

The 12th hole was a spectacular hole that was destroyed in the early 60's and its replacement is totally out of context with the rest of the golf course.  The hole is so repugnant that I refused to play it when I visited. It bothered me that much. It's hard to believe that this horrible hole has been allowed to survive for 40+ years. I don't think I can offer a better point or more perfect example: a case study for a restoration.
     
While Yale has more or less embarked upon a definitive plan for restoration. I don't understand what Garden City with all its emphasis on history and tradition is waiting for.
     
Riviera, Yale, Garden City and many other courses need to be restored to their architectural high points, and architects need to stop trying to alter them, for whatever the reasons, and focus on returning them to their rightful architecture.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

In your obvious passion you are confusing two very different things:  whether or not "great" golf courses should ever be changed, and specific changes which have been made to some courses you are particularly passionate about (e.g. Riviera, Garden City, Yale, etc.).

If courses which were considered great at a particulalr point in their time should never be changed, then we would today be having VERY different (and I would strongly argue, inferior) golfing experiences at places like Shinnecock, Dornoch, Lahinch, The Country Club, North Berwick, Gulph Mills, Muirfield, NGLA, and The New Course.

We've been over this before, many times on this forum, but I write this to pose an alternative point of view, for (hopefully) honest and thoughtful debate.

However, just to be provocative (Moi!?), what if Sand Hills started slipping down the rankings due to technology, bigger and better minimalist courses nearby, or whatever, and Mr. Youngscap were to call in Tom Doak to make a "better" course, perhaps even using some of the 82 holes that C&C found but didn't use?  Now Tom probably wouldn't do it, out of preforessional courtest, but let's assume that he did, and he made Sand Hills a "better" course?  Why should we care?

Is architectural purity the issue for us, or is it better and more more interesting golf?  If it's the former, we should all be playing Bridge of Allan when we get to Scotland, rather than the Old Course.......

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

"Better and more interesting golf" is always in the eye of the beholder.  For that reason, I believe there ought to be a few courses where we take the original architect's word as to what it means, and preserve that architect's opinion instead of another, later architect's (whose opinion might be clouded by the fact that he's hungry for work).  So, if Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw wanted to change a couple of holes at Sand Hills, that's their prerogative, but there is no way I would do it.  It's not just professional courtesy, it's respect for what they built.

If we don't take the original architect's ideas as the last word thirty years after the fact, what is the statute of limitations -- as soon as Titleist comes out with another ball?  Why don't we just let the course owner and the club members start tinkering around with all great courses from day one?  They are all sure they know how to improve the course!

[Jim Nugent]

Is it possible for architects to lay out contingency plans for courses?  e.g. ways now the courses can strengthen/lengthen/protect themselves, if future technology keeps marching forward?

[Dean Paolucci]

As a novice to the community, is this not a discussion on balance?  I would suspect that if a piece of work has spanned the test of time and the pundits have deemed it great then so be it.  Balance speaks to original design intent but does not ignore technology.  Scaling a hole to account for advances in technology is not neccessarily a bad idea.  Moving a tee back or a bunker forward to position a feature in the original context is valuable.  Further, is it not acceptable to take a feature from a particular architect's body of work and transplant it on a course with the same signature?  I would rather a restoration architect pick a feature from a Park course and relocated it than pull a good idea from a Ross course and impose it on the prior.  All and all, I am an advocate of restoration over renovation.

[T_MacWood]

Tommy
Well said.

Rich
The intelligent student of golf architecture understands that important designs are often the result of multiple designs and redesigns, just as the intelligent student of architecture understands that some significant designs are the result of an evolution: Taliesin, Notre Dame de Paris, Monticello, etc.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

I buy everything you said in that post---at least in theory.

Do you want to make it actually happen?

If you do and I know you do then you and others of like mind with you are just going to have to figure out a better way to get out there and into these clubs and persuade and convince the people responsible for them to make it happen and why.

Come on Tommy, be honest, is there any other way?

Can you do that? Can you try? How hard do you think you and others of like mind are going to have to try to do that?

Simply blaming people for various things clearly has a limited shelf life. I certainly think the best and most informed contributors to this website understand that full well by now.

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc- Your argument seems to only consider a small range of golfer's abilities and the challenge presented to them, on any specific course. Tommy's speaks to the course itself, regardless of the abilities of who plays on it.

If the equiptment manufacturers "out-think" the older designs, making them less of a challenge to the elite player, who should really care? So the sores go lower. The course will still be challenging and enjoyable to the many. But, it is the egos of those who still want their venue to be relevant to the modern elite golfer, that are doing the disfiguring. That still all boils down to ego and further proves what a destructive and divisive force, ego is.

Golf is more than a game played by rihc grown men. It has a spirituality which should help teach us all, about ourselves, and others. The grounds the sport is played across has become an ever changing artform, that provides that curriculum.  

Most of these Major seeking venues, are ignoring the lesson potential, and the artform is becoming lost. And is, IMO, at the crux of Tom's point.

Similar to cutting off ones nose, to spite one's face. Idn't it?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't beleive Tommy is blaming anyone in his post. He is simply trying to make a plea for common sense and architectural sensativity, that golf architects should stop leaving their mark of historic designs.

I don't think it is practical for Tommy to hop on a plane and address the membership of GCGC or Yale or Engineers. But I do agree with you there has to be a better or more effective way than what we are doing right now...maybe an organization made up of people interested in preserving and protecting these designs.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I don't think it's counterproductive to remind those who are responsible for golf courses and their architecture that it's more appropriate to preserve or restore original architecture rather than leaving one's personal fingerprints all over the architecture but I think it probably is counterproductive to remind those people that they only do it because they have big egos.

Basically, it just boils down to good old fashioned common sense, in my opinion, that if you want to get someone's attention and get them on your side enough to begin to convince them of something the best thing to do is not insult them first.  

I realize that it just may be some of you don't exactly see it that way or the reasons for that because you never really are dealing with these people face to face like some of the rest of us are and have to.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

When you say "there ought to be a few courses" which are, in effect sancrosanct, which ones are they?  Doak 8s, 9s and 10s?  Even if you limit the list to your 10's there are a few there which have been "tinkered with" by all sorts of people over a long period of time.  Should we restore them to what Tommy calls "their architectural high points."?  If so, when were these and who really knows what the course looked and played like then?  What do we do about the courses that are arguably better than when last touched by one of the great architects?  Restore them to a "lesser" state?  That's what you and Tommy seem to be arguing.  What is more important, preserving architectural integrity or enjoying and playing over a "better and more interesting" course?  As I've said before, as good as Sutherland's Dornoch of 1935 probably was, today's version is much better and more interesting.  Nobody has ever even tried to argue this point with me.  And that is not the only example supporting my point of view.....

Tom MacW

Now that I have read and understood your pithy comment I must now be a certified "intelligent student of golf architecture."  Thanks for the enlightenment and the battlefield promotion!

Adam

Whatever makes you think that my "argument seems to only consider a small range of golfer's abilities and the challenge presented to them."?  I said nothing of the sort, nor do I or have I ever believed that.  None of the rest of your points seem to be at all relevant to what I was trying to say, either, except in support of my position.  "Better and more interesting" deals with all of your bete noires.  I'm confused, Buckaroo.  Enlighten me!  As you can see above, I am amenable.

Cheers to all

Rich

[Adam Clayman]

Forgive me Rihc, I read more into your post than what you wrote. I must be reeling from all the Medinah threads. Please accept my appy poly lodges.

Just so it isnt a waste of bandwith

The only misnomer you made, was that Dick Younscap considers rankings when making decisions.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I know it's not entirely practical, but here is a potential solution:

What if every architect had three of their courses which were preserved in their original form?

If that could be accomplished think how much further ahead our knowledge of golf architecture might be!  We wouldn't have to rely on Tom MacWood or George Bahto or Chris Clouser to tell us what the masters' courses looked like back in the good old days ... they would still be with us.

For living and practicing architects it would be a most interesting exercise.  You can only name three you'd keep as they are ... do you nominate what you think are your best courses and prohibit the possibility of expansion if it might be needed down the road, or do you choose the three which you think have the least room for expansion later?  Of course, some architects such as Forrest R. would not nominate ANY of their courses because they know they're all going to evolve and because they are ego-less; and that too is up to the individual.

If we'd had this system in place from the beginning we would also know which courses Macdonald, Raynor, Thomas, Tillinghast, Travis and others considered their best work.

Interesting to note that Dornoch (and nearly all of the other examples you cited earlier, except for The National) would likely not have been chosen by their original architect as one of their top three ... nor am I sure that any of the subsequent architects would have chosen to preserve them later, in place of a third course of their own design.

[ForkaB]

Hmmmm.  Interesting, but fanciful, Tom....

I'll bite, though!

Could you in fact insert a clause into your contract with your clients to allow this?

Legally, I know that building architecture is now protected under copyright law, but is GCA?  Not that I can see.  In fact, do even golf course owners have anything but minimal copyright protection?  I do know that when Pebble Beach, Harbour Town and Pinehurst(?) sued Tour 18 some years back, only Harbour Town won, and only in regards to the lighthouse, not the hole design.

As for practicality, what owner in his or her right mind would give up rights to such a degree?  Maybe you should ask Mike Keiser if he wouldn't mind inserting a clause in his deed to the land under Pacific Dunes requiring him or any subsequent owner to call you or your heirs to get the AOK on any change to the course?

I do like the idea of getting Tom MacWood, Tommy Naccarato, Pat Mucci, Tom Paul, etc. involved in deciding which 3 courses should be selected to be preserved for the Old Dead Guys (unfortunately in absentia).  That would keep them out of mischief for a while......

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I've moved my thought to a separate post so that the three other Toms can argue here without my having to listen.

Could I insert such a clause in my contracts?  Nicklaus used to have a clause that he would take his name and licensing away from a course if they made any changes over the first five years ... I'm not sure if it was ever enforced anywhere.  Surely if I was a client I would object to signing that.

But if you limited it to only three courses ... designated later instead of at contract time ... I might well get the client to agree not to make any changes in return for being designated one of my "top 3".  

[George_Bahto]

Tom Doak:

....... from what I've gathered about Seth Raynor it sounded like he thought Camargo and Yale inland and Fishers Island along the water, would be the ones he thought were "his" better designs.

Camargo might surpise a few people about his thinking I think but you don't really "get" Camargo early on.

I think it was you who told me Camargo and Shoreacres may be the two best courses of his that might well be restored as originally built.

Interesting he never spoke (wrote) about Chicago re-do a lot.

[Tom_Doak]

GB:  I think that Camargo and The Valley Club are probably the two courses we have come closest to restoring -- they're up to like 98% or 99%.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
Lets bring up a hole for discussion: the 18th at Cypress Point Club.

It's commonly known, Jimmy Demeret called it the greatest 17 hole course in the world. Do you know why they changed this particular golf hole, eliminating bunkers and other key features? Now mind you the hole was one that suffered from the loss of it's dramatic closing tee shot when they didn't put the tee out on the rocks as originally planned. It was understandable why the hole suffered and I have heard once or twice that there was talk of actually putting the tee out there, as well as restoring the bunkers that would have made it much more dynamic.  That's the kind of "growth" or evolution one could understand because of what was originally intended and the hole suffered because of it.

But lets look at the way the hole evolved.

Not wanting to assign blame, but it is also common knowledge that a certain club president had many of the magnificent bunkers filled in on the hole, which frankly was a move that made the hole even less interesting--thus the reputation of being one shy of 18 GREAT holes. He preportedly did this because he didn't like the way the hole fit his golf game.

Does it make a difference? Well, for me, probably no, but I would hope that in all earnest that Clint Eastwood, instead of backing some ridiculous 18 hole course in the trees that could never hold a candle to the other courses on the Peninsula, could throw his political power and mite into something much better for the Sport, by taking the time to get that originally planned 18th tee at Cypress Point Club built, as well as restoring the magnificent bunkers that once existed there.

To me that's GREAT Restoration. some of it that was never even built!

I would have loved to have played Bridge of Allan, rough-edged bunkering and all. I'm sure with all of the gorse and other pertinent natural and man-made features, built more out of need by hand would be much more enjoyable then hitting out of the clean lines of Hell Bunker that bares no resemblence of it predecessor which earned itself the name because of the visions of Dante's Hell dancing around in Scotsmen's heads.

Tom Paul,
As Tom Mac points out, I'm not pointing blame on any particular person, more at the entire process of how most clubs and their green committees inherently act. You know exactly what I'm talking about from proof of your own experiences. My ascertations are mostly because of the lack of knowledge. You call it education, but I don't think green committees are the types that like to be educated. I think they want to do what they think is the best and proper thing to do at that particular point in time--even if it means hiring an architect to completely redesign their course.

• PIE: "Our greens are bad shape, we can only get them running @ 11 max, so we need 18 new USGA greens with the sub air system so we can show people how technically adept we are as a green committee, and because the health of the greens have been horrible for close to 80 years, even though we are a reknown classic course....."
  
  Suddenly that green committee is out to prove its worth because they only have less then 2 years in which to do it. The finger of blame comes out, points the direction of the superintendent or hack architect. "That guy ruined our golf course, even though he objected to the changes we asked him to make."
  

Yes, your right Tom, it's counterproductive, even though the green committee itself is exactly what started the counterproductivity off in the first place.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I don't know about the NLE bunkers on CPC 18, but if they took a chain saw to those trees that clog up the fairway, they'd be 85% of the way for making a fine golf hole.  Then, while they were at it, they could take the chain saw over to 17 and cut down every cypress except the one at the right corner of that fairway.  Put in a few bunkers left if they wanted to.  Then they're at 98% of a great course.  Finally cut down that hedge in front of the 1st tee (who cares if some tourist from Mullen takes one in the side mirror), and Bob's your Uncle, I'll never get a chance to play Cypress again!

Wonder what Dr. MacK would have thought of them there idears......

[Patrick_Mucci]

GB:  I think that Camargo and The Valley Club are probably the two courses we have come closest to restoring -- they're up to like 98% or 99%.

Tom Doak,

Restore GCGC to 98% to 99 % and you'll be a perfect 3 for 3.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I don't think it is practical for Tommy to hop on a plane and address the membership of GCGC or Yale or Engineers. But I do agree with you there has to be a better or more effective way than what we are doing right now...maybe an organization made up of people interested in preserving and protecting these designs."

Tom MacWood:

Are you really so arrogant or so naive as to think you can preserve any of these designs you are so concerned with without first going directly to those clubs and attempting to convince the memberships of those clubs that they should listen to what you think they should do with their courses?

Some of your statements in this vein are so dream-like and theoretical they've become a joke. Do they have any hooks out there where you live that can hang a golf course on a wall in a museum?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Tom MacWood, Tommy Naccarato, et. al.,

It's doubtful that any of the vast majority of golf courses that have been altered recently are going to see the error of their ways and undo what a current or recent administration has done.

On golf courses where the alteration is older, a good deal  depends upon member acceptance of the change AND/OR inertia.

Certainly the membership at GCGC doesn't embrace the current 12th hole, yet inertia has prevented it from being restored over the years

At other clubs, most CURRENT members are unaware that the golf course had been altered long before they arrived on the scene, and as such, they see no need, based on what they  perceive, to alter or realter the golf course.

It's a complex situation.

Hollywood was keenly aware of what the golf course once was, but, they felt that that golf course was far too difficult for their current membership, and as such, they rejected a pure or true restoration and embarked upon a compromise restoration with some new wrinkles.

Oak Hill is another course where the initial reaction by some members was anger and frustration, but, as generations of golfers have come and gone, the changes that angered many members, are now accepted as part of the "normal" golf course by new members.  

More and more clubs lose their historical connection and their architectural roots as time marches on.

How many members who were at GCGC in 1963, survive today to pass on to the next and future generations their recollections of the way the club used to be, architecturally, agronomically, traditionally and from the perspective of playability ?

How many 30 year olds joining a club today have a recollection or an interest in what happened 20, 40 or 60 years ago ?

The biggest influence for restorations can be prominent neighboring clubs that undertake the process.

The biggest impediment can be the influence of the PGA Tour as seen on TV.

[Bob_Huntley]

I was a member of Riviera and lived just above the back tee of the twelth hole. At the time, the first five years of the seventies, I could hit the ball pretty well and found the course to be an absolutely  beaut to play. I have not been back in over thirty years because I had heard of the desecration of what, to me, was a perfect gem.

I had as guests, some prominent pros and not one of them could find fault with it's degree of difficulty or challenge.

I hope to play it again soon and find out if Tommy N. is is being hyperbolic in his distaste for the changes so wrought.



Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, I can assure you Tom is not being hyperbolic.

In my ten minute conversation with Ben Crenshaw, he mentioned how Thomas, at Riviera, never built a feature against the flow of the property. When one stands on the current 8th and 17th tees, the dis-regard for this principle is not only jarring to the eye, it's sad in it's entirety

[TEPaul]

"The biggest influence for restorations can be prominent neighboring clubs that undertake the process."

Patrick:

That's true to some extent. Do you really want to get the attention of the membership of GCGC to the architectural history of the course? If you do then just write a complete design evolution report of the course. You have mine from my club. Just do the exact same thing for GCGC, text hole by hole, the architects, and a good stagger of photos. Get the club to publish it and send a copy to each member. Then just watch and see what happens next.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()