News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« on: January 23, 2002, 01:36:01 PM »
To me this has to be the all time toughest question out there.

People have stated that Bethpage Black lacks good greens & that NY missed out on a real opportunity to upgrade the course when it opted to not redo the greens.

On the flip side, everyone knows the consternation arising from changes to website favs such as Riviera, Merion, Augusta, etc.

Mr. Goodales suggests the powers that be at TOC made the renovation blunder of all times by choosing the right course over the left course.

Is it as simple as leaving it up to the archie? Cursory examination might lead one to believe this, but look at some prominent examples. Merion & Pinehurst were certainly improved as they grew up, while others have chastised Pete Dye for tinkering too much with Crooked Stick.

How do you answer the million dollar question -

When do you tweak, tinker, renovate, or even restore?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2002, 06:34:34 PM »
Geprge,

The "restore" part of the question may be the easiest part to answer.  In theory, One need only evaluate what was changed, and its effect on the integrity of the design in order to determine what to do.  Part of the problem is, who is "One"

Tweak, tinker, or renovate imply a departure from the original design, but don't qualify or quantify the changes, and if they preserve the original design integrity.

Each hole/course has to be looked at on an individual basis, and again the main question is, by who ?

Unfortunately, it is usually the membership at the time of the consideration, and we know how that process works or doesn't work in a variety of situations.

Based on what I've seen, I would say most courses would have been better off had they left everything as it originally existed, with the possible exception of tee lenght without changing the angle of attack dramatically.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2002, 07:18:17 PM »
There is no universally correct answer to this question and never will be.  

One might say on a public course - when play drops to the point that there is a noticable problem.

On a private course - when the membership begins to lose interest in the design.

Every answer is open to debate.  Look how many times The Old Course has been changed!  The game of golf is evolving and the playing fields must do so as well.  I struggle with that thought at times but unfortunately it's probably reality!  

Equipment has changed (or we'd all be playing with balls stuffed with feathers right)!  How do we argue that courses should be any different?  I love our classic courses as much as anybody but I wish I had an answer to these questions!

Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2002, 11:22:27 PM »
George,
 
One simple situation where it's OK to do one of these things-where there's a big problem with what exists, such as drainage or inability to keep grass on a green. Such was the case with my home course, where the par 3 7th green died every year due to lack of sun in the winter/ice accumulation (blocked by trees). The solution (Bill Coore)--move the green 35 yds to the right to be free from the tree shading. They could have eliminated the 100 year old trees, but this was a better result--the new green and greensite is superior on all accounts in my opinion.

All The Best,    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

TEPaul

Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2002, 01:28:16 AM »
This particular topic/thread, I've been looking at it for a day or so, and, Oh My God, it's so potential!!

This is probably the area of architecture I like best or am most concerned about--basically the CLASSIC ERA golf course that is so hard to deal with correctly sometimes and certainly when it's in the process of change! How do you manage that change or maintain it the way it was designed to be--should you even? Courses do evolve, but the TWO relatively DISTINCT eras of architecture struggle to coexist sometimes and meld together many times when it might be better not to!

Do you restore, Tweak, tinker, rennovate, redesign? Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably but in fact they aren't really interchangeable or shouldn't be. They're interchanged too often for reasons of perception, and are often used to sell a process which might be fundamentally wrong for the course and the membership!

George Pazin asks a great question here and Pat Mucci and particularly Mark Fine ask some of the really good tough follow-up questions that truly do define what a difficult and widespread problem this can be and how hard it might be to solve or even define!

Can a golf course or golf architecture find some kind of reasonable answer to this general question? I think it can! Maybe we can help to some extent!

Probably the best way is to define the various problems specifically and start to construct a basic PROCESS to ANSWER those questions!

I can't forget Tom Doak's remark about two years ago on here: "Some classic era courses really aren't worthy of restoration!". Pat Mucci asks "Who does it, what architect, who is the "ONE" in the club who monitors it"? Mark Fine asks just about all the fundametal questions which define the dilemna!

Doug Wright even cites one example solution that would seem counter to the way most on this site think--although the solution appeared to work and was done by an architect most here could not admire more for his sympathetic approach to classic architecture!

There are even some on this site who believe you should never touch a classic course at all--and sometimes even  admonish an original architect, at least in theory for not closing the book on a course's architecture and just leaving it be!! Somehow that can't be right!

Most clubs that start thinking about these things just need some direction in PROCESS, I think! They need to define the problems better, they might need far better "mission statements" as Pat likes to say. When they do what they want to do, or should do they should definitely call a spade a spade too! They should NOT call a redesign a restoration!!

They should also realize that many architects will do whatever a misguided membership (this way) wants to do and are willing to call it whatever it needs to be called JUST to make it sell!

Clubs that may be thinking restoration or any kind of change oftentimes think they're in a vacuum--that their problem is unique, that they have to figure it out all by themselves from scratch! This is so far from the truth!

They can easily find that some other course has done all this before them and done it well or done it poorly and made many mistakes that can be avoided if these clubs would just reach out to one another and others who've done it before them and collaborate!

Maybe Golfclubatlas can help in some way this way! By directing those who are looking for some answers, a little direction, maybe other clubs who are similar and who have been through it all. Maybe even some advice on the right type of architect! How common is the perception that all architects can do whatever you want them to, that they are almost interchangeable, in fact? Far too common!! Maybe this site should not wait and hope that clubs might come on here and discuss things. Maybe this site should start sending out some emails on this subject. I know it sounds presumptious but they can always ignore this site if they want to. But there will surely be others who won't!

This is a wonderful and extremely fundamental question and topic! I hope we can give it the careful consideration it deserves! Maybe, hopefully, even turn it into an intelligent PROCESS that can be followed by those looking for certain answers to certain problems!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2002, 11:05:04 PM »
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, even if it was a bit fewer than I had hoped. :-)

This question deserves much more examination.

Patrick, well stated - I agree that restoration may be the easiest in concept, though the practicalities of dealing with a membership make it much more difficult in practice. Still, with regard to tinkering or renovating (often 4 letter words here on GCA), I can't help but look at many examples where this was successful:

Pinehurst #2 & Ross's long history of refining; Merion's major changes shortly after inception; CBM's refinements at NGLA; the many contributors who had a hand in creating Rye; the many changes made by Sutherland at Dornoch... the list is certainly almost endless.

On the flip side, we are confronted with the changes at courses like Riviera, Augusta, Inverness, and Oak Hill, to name just a few (please excuse the fact that these involved some of the same individuals - I don't have the wide breadth of knowledge of some of our contributors & do not wish this thread to degenerate into the usual mudslinging...).

I have always believed that you live life & make decisions by doing background thinking & research (especially thinking thinking & more thinking), make decisions based on reasoning & with as much objectivity as possible, & then examine & re-examine & re-re-examine the results of your decisions to see what you can learn from the process.

I'd love to hear what some of our esteemed researchers, authors, architects, supers, hell, even JakaB, think about this topic!

A while ago we discussed having a "Hole of the Week" to analyze & dissect. Perhaps we could implement a Harvard case study approach to weekly discussions of successful & unsuccessful restorations/renovations/whatever - maybe this is what you have in mind, Tom Paul, when you suggest that clubs seek the advice of others who have attempted similar programs?  Maybe this is what Remodel University should really be all about! (Take that, Jeff Brauer:) - I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on all this!)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2002, 07:54:18 PM »
George,

You're right - this is the very toughest of questions.

Consider Ross's post WWII plans to strengthen Oakland Hills. I don't know how he was proposing to do so but I understand his drawings show the removal of several cross bunkers, realizing that the modern game had moved well past some of the cross bunkers from his original 1917 design (i.e. pros no longer played shots that just cleared these cross bunkers and then ran the remaining 30-60 yards onto the greens).

Ironically, if someone was to renovate Oakland Hills based on his original plan, they would restore the very cross bunkers that Ross himself realized in 1947 a) no longer challenged the better player and b) penalized only the hack.  :-/

A strict renovation makes for simpler decision-making as there is less to debate. Once you start interpreting what the original architect intended (especially given the complicating factors of what's happened to irrigation/the aerial game since so many of the great courses were built), you potentially open Pandora's box.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2007, 02:02:51 PM »
In a bit of boredom on a snow day, I was trolling around and found this thread.  For its fifth anniversary, I thought it should be bumped.

Seriously, the question raised is a great one, with numerous contexts in which it could be evaluated as it relates to Golden Era courses.


As it relates solely to non-PGA play:

As a prerequisite, I think there must be specific goal of the tinkering.  Do holes play unfairly, or perhaps silly, for all levels of player?  Are certain elements of the course simply impossible to maintain?  Given the passage of time, I suspect that if the prior conditions existed, they would have been modified by now.  And, in fact, many of these Golden Era course were modified soon after their opening by other architects to rectify problems such as those mentioned above.

When the passage of time requires a renovation, how true to one hold to the original intent of the architect?  And, if holding to that original intent, at what point is original deemed to occur?  At opening?  Alternatively, is it after the initial tinkering, say to a maximum of 5 years after opening?

Does one define the original intent of the architect as the strategy of the hole and the distances the player would face on each shot?

How does one reconcile the larger question of “ownership?”  Are these treasures that, although privately owned, have historic significance and changes would be against the public interest?  I dare say that would be a slippery slope if the answer were “yes.”
 
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2007, 02:24:33 PM »
One might also ask: tinker/renovate/redesign for whom? Advances in technology in the past few years has, in my view, brought one issue front and center, and that is this: there appears to be a diminishing number of classic-era courses capable of hosting a US Open because to do so, would require lengthening and altering to such a degree that it runs counter to the spirit/original intent of the course.

It's one reason I'm really awaiting the US Open this year at Oakmont, a course that -- yes, lengthened itself noticeably -- but also took a fairly radical step with its tree removal program to put the course back to its original state as Fownes envisioned it. But other courses are faced with a similar dilemma -- one reason I wonder whether Merion East will be reduced to a pitch-and-putt on many holes with the advances in technology sure to come between now and 2013.
(Although I'll note that Riveria seemed to hold up really well this year, due mainly to ideal weather conditions?)

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2007, 04:46:57 PM »
It is interesting to look back five years and see how you responded to a question.  This question from 2002 still remains as difficult as ever.

I do know that not long after this question was raised by George, Cherry Hills CC was contemplating this very same dilemma – What do we do to our golf course to entice the USGA to bring a U.S. Open back here.  In particular, they were aiming for the 2010 U.S. Open which would have celebrated the 50th anniversary of Arnold Palmer’s victory at Cherry Hills in 1960.  It’s a long story, but when I first went out there to meet with them about the design, my response was this – If you want to go after hosting the U.S. Open, you will almost definitely lose your William Flynn golf course and the history and heritage that goes with it.  Unless something is done with the ball (which still could happen) the USGA will want 8000+ yards (Cherry Hills is at altitude), the routing will likely need to change to accommodate this, acreage will need to be added, and holes reconfigured to accommodate their expectations of what they think needs to be done to challenge the best players in the world.  I told them that if that was the direction they wanted to go, then I was not interested in the project and was the wrong guy to help them move forward.  I told them candidly that I didn’t think they needed another architect as they already had one of the greatest there ever was in William Flynn.  If they wanted a golf course that was in the best of their membership for excitement and challenge yet could still test the far majority of all golfers, then I could help them restore their changed Flynn design.  

I knew from one trip around the property that the course had changed drastically from what was there in the past.  They ended up deciding to keep their course heritage and to develop a master plan that would restore the grandness of Flynn's original design.  Did they make the right decision?  I think so.  Is it the right decision for every club, definitely not.  But every club should at least take the time to understand what they have and how their course has evolved before bringing in the bulldozers.  That I know is definitely is the right thing to do.    

Interestingly, Jim Urbina and I had a long chat out in Anaheim two weeks ago about Cherry Hills.  He lives not far from the course.  His opinion was the same as mine – pursuing the Men's U.S. Open there would only destroy the integrity of the Flynn design.  We’re going to try to get together next time I’m out to the course and walk around.

Powell,
Understanding original design intent is very important.  But sometimes an even better question to address is this:

"Is what you once had a better more interesting design then what you have now?"  

Some courses improve over time, some don’t!    

Mark

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2007, 08:12:39 PM »


Good answer Mark.  Sadly, I am not sure how many designers would give a take it or leave it answer.  I have a lot of respect for the guys that try to educate the membership before they are hired.  

Would love to see a listing of the projects turned down by the restoration guys because of not being comfortable with the clubs mission.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2007, 08:49:48 PM »
I think most clubs tinker quite a bit.  Much of it has to do with drainage or water problems.  Most clubs that are forward looking will tinker with a bunker here or removal of a tree there.  They will move a tee of reshape some ground around a green of change landing areas.  It may not seem like mcu gets done each year but when you look back over the years the tinkering can add up to be a lot.

Another question is, "When should a club make drastic changes to a course?"  If most members had their way there would be very few changes because it generally means a new assessment.

Does regrassing the course count as a major change?
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark_F

Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2007, 09:00:23 PM »
Wouldn't Kingston Heath be the poster child for this debate?

Graeme Grant rebuilt several greens and extended the par five 12th for the better.

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2007, 09:57:04 PM »


"Is what you once had a better more interesting design then what you have now?"  

Some courses improve over time, some don’t!    

Mark


Agreed.  And the question of why renovate, or for whom, would seem to be paramount in deciding the scope of a renovation/redesign, or even in answering the question above.  More interesting for the regular players, more interesting to a broader set of players (such as adding more tee boxes), more interesting to the PGA because the course feels the need to host an event.  All are reasonable goals if shared by the membership.  Would make for some very interesting debate within the club if there is not agreement on the purpuse of the work.
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2007, 08:36:26 AM »
This is an excellent question, phrased differently than the usual restoration v. renovation debate.

"Tinkering" is an entirely different subject.  In truth it's practiced a lot, by superintendents and green committees and often by architects, too, and it has led to excellent improvements on many courses.

The potential problem with tinkering is that it can be an outright waste of money and a nuisance to the members, if the changes are not interesting ones.  Therefore, it works best at clubs where the superintendent or consulting architect has a very long-term relationship, or where the club is autocratic and run by a green chairman or dictator/president who actually has a good feel for architecture [perhaps one out of ten :) ].  Once you get to the point where things are being done and then undone by a subsequent member, that's awful.

I still believe there ought to be some courses that are exempt from tinkering, because the possibility of harm outweighs the possibility of improvement ... so sue me.

By the way, Powell, we no longer agree to take on any consulting work unless the club can give us a clear mission statement on what they want us to do, and we agree with it.  You'd be amazed how many clubs can't get that far because their goals conflict with one another.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 08:38:14 AM by Tom_Doak »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2007, 08:57:08 AM »
Why not have the club pay you to create the mission statement? That is something they may be able to agree on.


Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2007, 09:57:19 AM »

By the way, Powell, we no longer agree to take on any consulting work unless the club can give us a clear mission statement on what they want us to do, and we agree with it.  You'd be amazed how many clubs can't get that far because their goals conflict with one another.

That doesnt surprise me at all, and I hope you're not alone in this practice.  That realization that there is not a clear mandate of goals is probably the wake up call many course overseers need.
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2007, 11:25:09 AM »
Thanks for bumping this (I think it's the first time anyone has bumped a really old thread of mine - not sure what that says!), as this topic remains one of the most fascinating to me.

Hats off to Mark Fine and the club for doing the right thing re: Cherry Hills.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeff Doerr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2007, 08:41:22 PM »
I know that Bandon Dunes has seen a fair amount of tinkering. What has been tinkered with at Pacific or Trails?

I'll be there next weekend, so it is TOM - Top of Mind!!!
"And so," (concluded the Oldest Member), "you see that golf can be of
the greatest practical assistance to a man in Life's struggle.”

Adam Sherer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2007, 09:22:43 PM »
When is a golf course "finished"?

  - when the dozers are done?
  - when the seed is sewn?
  - when the architect is paid in full?
  - when the first member plays a full round?

After the years of Ross' tinkering at #2, is it finished right now? Could it use some work right now?

Was Riviera better in the 20s than it is now?

Will TPC Sawgrass be noticeably different / better this year after the recent work?

Is Sand Hills finished? Is Pac Dunes finsihed? Are they immune from tinkering? Are they "Sacred Cows"?

Is the OC a "Sacred Cow" as well? Did they not tinker with the OC for a thousand years? If the OC had not been tinkered with throughout its history would golf be a standardized 22-hole round?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 09:24:11 PM by Adam_Sherer »
"Spem successus alit"
 (success nourishes hope)
 
         - Ross clan motto

Adam Sherer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2007, 09:26:51 PM »
Answer to the question, "When is it okay to tinker/renovate?"

...When another year passes.
"Spem successus alit"
 (success nourishes hope)
 
         - Ross clan motto

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When is it okay to tinker/renovate?
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2007, 09:49:44 PM »
Adam,
All good questions.  Many don’t have easy answers.  As I said earlier, some courses improve over time, some don’t.  I still think it is important to understand how a course has evolved (after all the years of tinkering, varying maintenace practices, and basic aging, etc) before deciding what to do next.  Furthermore, you then need to assess if what you have now is better than what you had before.  Even those of us who are purists would only on very rare occasions (if ever) recommend “restoring” a hole that would be worse than what is there now.  Sometimes that is not obvious, and that is when a decision has to be made.
Mark