[TEPaul]

We sure do know in many ways are forefathers didn't preserve the architecture they grew up with that we now call "Golden Age" or "classic" that's the architecture most of us on here venerate today.

Should we preserve the architecture that was built in the latter half of the 20th century that we generally call "modern age" architecture?

And if not, why not?

Did our forefathers have any more respect for the "Golden Age" stuff they grew up with than we have for the "Modern Age" stuff we grew up with?

And if not, why not?  

[Peter Pallotta]

TE,
Boy, you're not fooling around with those questions: IMHO, they get right to the heart of many of the subjects discussed on this board  (e.g. restoration-preservation; the impact of technology-elasticity of features; strategic-penal-natural design philosophies; the definition of quality architecture; maintenance practices; the economics of the game etc)  

It seems to me that if we want to honour the spirit of our Golden Age forefathers, we'd first have to be pretty clear about what that spirit ACTUALLY was?  

The Golden Agers don't seem to have been TOO precious about their designs, i.e. they were tweaking and lengthening and learning and changing their courses all the time, sometimes out of sheer necessity. But I think they WERE seriously wedded to some basic, underlying philosophies about what the game of golf was all about, and about what the courses that game was played on were all about.

The trouble is, I don't know what those basic philosophies WERE -- so, in short, I can't answer your questions.

But I think that if we could truly know what was MOST important to our Golden Age forefathers, i.e. what they REALLY believed was the spirit of the game, not just in theory or in books but in actual practice, right on the ground, then we could and should try to preserve our modern courses -- and then we could proceed with some comfort knowing that we had the right principles to guide those attempts at preservation.

I didn't really answer your question; and I'm just working out my thoughts.

Peter


   

[Kirk Gill]

Well, sure, why not?

With any art there are creations that are immediately hailed as classic and that live up to that assessment over time. There are others that get a lot of initial love, and slip softly into obscurity, while some don't make much of a mark until long after their creators have gone the way of the dodo.

So gushing effusively over a modern design or bashing it and deeming it unworthy of preservation are both exercises in speculation, as far is posterity is concerned. At the same time, Peter is right in saying that the old-time archies don't seem to have seen their creations as static, and it seems inevitable that SOME changes are going to occur, but who are we to say, right now, which of the modern designs will stand the test of time? The only ones that definitely won't are the ones that get bulldozed and made into housing developments.

[ForkaB]

No way, Jose!

There isn't a single bit of modern architecture that could not be improved by enlightened fiddling, anymore than any of the "golden age" architecture.  It's in the dirt and in the history.

Ricardo

[Tom_Doak]

I still like my idea of nominating three courses by each golf architect which ought to be preserved.  (Disagreeing with Rich on the matter is just the icing on the cake.)

What three Trent Jones courses should be preserved?  What three Dick Wilson courses?  (The only one I've seen lately is Meadow Brook, which actually appeared to be very well preserved.)

[TEPaul]

OK, TomD, you are hereby requested to tell us all what three courses of your own (at this point) you would like preserved and why!

Can you imagine what it would be like if the old guys were told they really had to answer that question and they actually did answer it?

I'll tell you right now, from everything we know about the way he was, William Flynn would've categorically refused to answer that question. We once asked his daughter that question and she said he never would've answered something like that.

[Garland Bayley]

What about contractually having the architect back after 5 or more years and have him create a long range strategic plan for improvements/updates to the course? Make this a standard practice. It seems to me that most designers would think that most of their designs could be improved.

[BCrosby]

I like TD's idea, but three courses per architect is a lot of courses that will have to wear the straight jacket. Lots of clubs won't buy-in.

As a Plan B, keep detailed, 3-D computer iterations of modern courses of architectural distinction. Have the designer review the iteration to confirm that it was for him the optimal design. Or at least a rendering he finds acceptable.

Clubs that want to restore things in the future will have a definitive design to base things on. Or not. As they choose. But they will at least know whether or not they are "restoring" anything like what the original designer wanted.

Bob

[Kirk Gill]

As a Plan B, keep detailed, 3-D computer iterations of modern courses of architectural distinction. Have the designer review the iteration to confirm that it was for him the optimal design. Or at least a rendering he finds acceptable.

This is an excellent Idea. Of course, if Aronimink had been able to do that back in the day, one of my all-time favorite threads may never have happened. So, on second thought, let's just let the changes fly, and see how worked up about it we can get a few years down the road.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the cultures are different.

Today, we live in a disposable society.

Pens, razors, marriages and golf courses are all expendible, some by design.

The number of practicing architects was also smaller, and with diminished numbers comes notoriety and respect for the FEW experts in the field.

Today, everybody thinks they're an architect.

So, I think the perspectives were different.

In addition, it's too early to tell, and, we don't know where the "distance" issue will max out.

It's not that a course or a hole can't be improved, it's the likelihood of disfiguring of courses and holes borne of indescriminate and frequent attempts to improve them.

[Mike_Young]

I don't think we should be preserving any golf courses since they are living things that evolve.  I think we should be ahead of the issues arise as they evolve instead of behind the issues that evolve on all golf courses and handle them in that manner.  JMO

[Jerry Kluger]

Mike: It's interesting what you've said about evolving golf courses as I recently saw Justice Breyer and Scalia sit down before an audience and discuss their differences about the law.  The area of the law which they disagreed about the most was whether the constitution is an evolving document or should be strictly construed as it was originally written.

It can be argued that when golf courses evolve they lose the character and intent of the designer; some might say that is necessary because of the change in equipment, etc., while others might argue that the course loses much of what is good about it when it is allowed to evolve. I would suggest that the great designs of the first half of the century have withstood the test of time and if anything, they are better when they are brought back to their original designs.  

[JMorgan]

I politely disagree that the cultures are different (Golden Age vs. "Modern"; "Post-Modern" is probably a better adjective methinks), and I don't think you can generalize what is the gca norm in the US vs. how other countries regard the history of their courses.  Ours is more of a Jamesian pragmatism, where whatever exists is continually being revised by what will follow.  

In this regard, I do think it is important for us as golf course architects, hobbyists, etc. in the US to recognize and set apart those examples of great architecture if we expect others to take our enterprise as seriously as we take it ourselves.  

[Garland Bayley]

Set aside? I am interested in knowing what will be the Pinehurst #2 for Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye, etc.

[Mike_Young]

Mike: It's interesting what you've said about evolving golf courses as I recently saw Justice Breyer and Scalia sit down before an audience and discuss their differences about the law.  The area of the law which they disagreed about the most was whether the constitution is an evolving document or should be strictly construed as it was originally written.

It can be argued that when golf courses evolve they lose the character and intent of the designer; some might say that is necessary because of the change in equipment, etc., while others might argue that the course loses much of what is good about it when it is allowed to evolve. I would suggest that the great designs of the first half of the century have withstood the test of time and if anything, they are better when they are brought back to their original designs.  

Jerry,
I agree that many times what you describe in the second paragraph of your post happens.  And that is what I was trying to describe in my post by stating that we should be ahead of the process that allows those types of events to happen.  I think that the great courses that have withstood the test of time have done so in the format I described.  I also have some concern that most on this website would not enjoy most of the courses we consider great if they were played today in their original form.  
I think we are both after the same thing.
Mike

[JMorgan]

Set aside? I am interested in knowing what will be the Pinehurst #2 for Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye, etc.

Garland, please explain what you mean.

[Gary Slatter]

YES, the good ones are being preserved and like all living things they evolve, some are allowed to change and improve (Arnie thinks he's improved Bay Hill); some we try to keep as close to the original (Lucayan CC is a great Dick Wilson course, lovingly designed by Wilson and Joe Lee and CRAIG WOOD).  I think by getting Craig Wood involved (A US Open and Master's Champion) they created a course that would last forever (depending upon the whims and pocketbooks of future owners). By having a limited budget for 43 years the Lucayan has not been changed (too much).

I like Tom Doaks idea of listing the 3 best of each designer, TJ and DW.  I can only give my own opinion but I have played a lot of courses around the world and feel there are many gems from the "dark age of design" that I prefer over new copies of old masters.  The first painter of the Mona Lisa did a great job, the next hundred were copy cats.

My Christmas present to myself this year was to buy all of the new coffee table style books of golf around the world, old and new courses.  I see a lot of new courses that won't last as long as Cog Hill or Firestone.     some will become new classics, others look to be copies.  Every course deserves to be preserved, its someone's "dream course".

[Troy Alderson]

Mr. Paul,

I do not know if this was said already (I immediately responded without viewing the other responses), Greatness is usually not realized until decades after death.  Yes, some well known architects have great products already, but the general golfing public will usually not realize the architects greatness of the design until it is too late.  Today we cannot sit idle and must create change too often.  There is too much of "the grass is greener on the other side" in the industry for a layout to sit "preserved".  It's too bad isn't it.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

I don't think we should be preserving any golf courses since they are living things that evolve.  I think we should be ahead of the issues arise as they evolve instead of behind the issues that evolve on all golf courses and handle them in that manner.  JMO

Well put Mike, proactive maintenance instead of reactive.  We think alike.  Too bad golf management can't think that way and long term (for some anyways).  Proactive management is commonly thought of as lower cost in the long term also, so why is it that it appears not to happen?

Troy

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, please explain what you mean.

Donald Ross spent a lifetime refining and improving Pinehurst #2. I believe it is not possible to create the best possible course in the time allotted to a typical design and construction. Therefore, I would like to see what Tom Doak, for example, would do if he went back to Pacific Dunes every year to tweak it.

I understand that Pete Dye has actually done some of this perhaps at Crooked Stick and the Pete Dye Club and perhaps some others.

But probably none of the moderns have done it to the extent that Donald Ross did.

Come on guys, let some of the new big jobs go to young lions, and show us what you can really do with a lifetime of work at some of your better designs.

[JMorgan]

Garland, my understanding of the "modern" category to which Tom Paul refers in his topic question is post-WWII up to 1980 or thereabouts.   (I am all for the gca tinkering until the end result matches the vision, however, regardless of era.)

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks James,

I naturally extended the later half of the 20th century to 1999. Perhaps that is a bit more modern than Tom intended!

[TEPaul]

"Garland, my understanding of the "modern" category to which Tom Paul refers in his topic question is post-WWII up to 1980 or thereabouts."

Yes, I guess when I mentioned the "modern age" type architecture I was referring to the courses built after WW2.

But I should probably be careful in using the term "modern" since some of the Golden Age guys, particularly Tillinghast, referred to some architecture built around and just after WW1 in Amercia as "modern". Sometimes the use of the term "scientific" architecture was somewhat interchangeable with "modern" architecture back then obviously referring to what some felt was a new form of architecture.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: There are many who feel that most of the courses of the 1950s and 1960s were uninspired and it really wasn't until Pete Dye came along and was willing to take chances that modern golf course architecture bloomed.  Do you feel that is true and are you suggesting that some of those courses should not be preserved and need to evolve?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

The difficulty I have with your perspective is the destructive and indescriminate nature of the process to "improve".

Surely, certain architecture merits preservation rather than alteration.

The problem is that those who make the decision to alter may have agendas, lack vision and understanding.

My feeling is that far more holes/courses have been disfigured rather than improved, and due to that fact alone, I favor the retention of the status quo.

Golf clubs, like patients facing surgery, should seek second and third opinions from experts in the field.

And, if you look at the process of attempting to improve a hole, where does the concept, the idea to improve the hole come from ?  

Usually, from a self serving advocate, rather than from outside, independent consultants.  Thus, most alterations are a product of inbreeding, and the results are rightfully named in the majority of cases.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()