Restoration - A dilema ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I tend to favor a purist position with respect to restorations, and, I have a general distrust of modernizations, but, the 18th hole at Seminole made me wonder.

Is Seminole better off with the Dick Wilson version of the 18th hole, the current version, or are there those who would favor restoring Ross's original work ?

Ignore the practice range issue in considering the question.

My vote would be to preserve Dick Wilson's work, since the hole is a spectacular hole in its present form.

Isn't that the crux of most decisions ?

Whether or not the modified hole is better than the original ?

And, isn't that what also has led and continues to lead to so many disfigurations ?  The expectation that the reconfigured hole will be better than the original or old hole ?

Shouldn't clubs about to embark upon "modernizations" and/or restorations, whereby they're going to alter an original or existing hole, call in "consultants", for second and third opinions, just like a prudent patient, about to undergo serious surgery would do ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
This is one of the most important questions:

"Whether or not the modified hole is better than the original?"

Part of the problem as we all know, however, is that it can be a lot of work to figure out what was there in the first place and not everyone wants to take the time to do that".  I enjoy the research and discovery part, some don't.  To each his own, however, I would say if you aren't going to do the research - please leave the old classic courses to those who do.  Just my opinion.
Mark

[TEPaul]

One can pretty much see what Ross's original 18th hole (green and tee) was, particuarly if you have Ross's original Seminole plans. It isn't (wasn't) in the same ballpark as Dick Wilson's 18th green placement. To even consider restoring Ross's original 18th would be complete madness. For some purist to suggest such a thing both would and should totally destroy any credibility he ever had.

Furthermore, the only true rule of thumb to logically answer any question about the present 18th hole and green is does it or doesn't it work well in play, and if it doesn't, why not? The old test of time in play is perhaps the most reliable test of any hole and its architecture there can be. If one applies that test objectively the architect or whoever else did it becomes of much lesser importance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Extend your rationale to other courses and other holes, and what conclusions can you draw ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat, what often gets forgotten in restoration issues, is that most Golden Age courses were not designed to be played with today's high aerial game. That is why many times the "new" version of the hole is superior as it is geared more to the ball flights caused by the equipment used now.

What must be asked during any restoration is what was the architect envisioning as the manner of play on this hole? Were options built in for a ground game entrance into the green? How can some semblance of the original options be kept while stillmaking allowances for how we play today? Have the additions made over the years, whether by design or nature's evolution, created unplanned aspects to the hole that one would want to keep yet might never have been forseen by the course designer?

As an example of the last question, I saw two wonderful trees on the right side of fairway of the 18th hole of the Philadelphia Cricket Club the other day. They weren't original, but nature has it's way quite often and theyprovide an artistic feature which both beautifies and challenges the play of the hole.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Extend your rationale to other courses and other holes, and what conclusions can you draw?"

I don't think one can or should try to be general about this type of thing. Every hole has its own story. If you want to ask about specific holes that's fine.

[wsmorrison]

Whoa, Phil.  You were in Philadelphia and didn't call or try to stop by.  Shame on you.  Did you see the facsimiles of the Flynn drawings while you were at Cricket?

[Mike_Young]

One can pretty much see what Ross's original 18th hole (green and tee) was, particuarly if you have Ross's original Seminole plans. It isn't (wasn't) in the same ballpark as Dick Wilson's 18th green placement. To even consider restoring Ross's original 18th would be complete madness. For some purist to suggest such a thing both would and should totally destroy any credibility he ever had.

Furthermore, the only true rule of thumb to logically answer any question about the present 18th hole and green is does it or doesn't it work well in play, and if it doesn't, why not? The old test of time in play is perhaps the most reliable test of any hole and its architecture there can be. If one applies that test objectively the architect or whoever else did it becomes of much lesser importance.

Tom,
I tend to agree.....however, as much as I don't believe there is such a thing as a restoration, I do believe one should strive to maintain the intent of the architect as to the entire course and not just one hole....in order for a course to be the best it can be there are times when it needs to change from what it was originally and this was one of those times....for that reason alone I could never be a purist....And I think PM might agree.....

Mike

[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne,

I felt terrible about it, but a broken pulley on my car engine changed what I was hoping to be a nearly 10 day playing and research journey into 4 days of limited fun.

I was fascinated by the Cricket Club and the distintive differences between Tilly's & Flynn's work. It was like looking at a DaVinci next to a Michaelangelo. How can one choose? Best to enjoy both.

I'll email you later.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

I’m not sure I buy into the concept of “high water mark.” I do think restoration architects usually choose a date to restore to and then spend their efforts trying to get “most” of the course back to that date. In fact most “dates” present themselves without much debate. Whether due to information or circumstance, one day usually stands out from all others and selecting this date as a high water mark may make perfect sense.

But what if there are many dates to choose from? For example what was the high water mark at Merion for example? The 1930 US Open with Bobby Jones win? Ben Hogan? The Last US Open won by Davis Graham? Merion is the best example where one significant date seems too narrow-minded. While 1930 was a great date for golf, I struggle with that being “the” date for the course when you consider the work of the superintendent Joe Valentine and where the course evolved to during his tenure. To ignore that seems to myopic to me. Merion choose 1930, which was a logical date I guess, but I personally found there are a couple of holes where I wish they never went back to 1930 when they did the recent renovation.

So who should decide? Someone who is heavily involved in preservation and history of golf course architecture. They need someone who will place the history of the course and the importance of the architecture in its proper perspective. I think a club has to seek outside opinion and see if they all agree. They may need to do nothing until they are truly sure that they have made the correct decision.

Choosing one date is not always appropriate. Most clubs have many significant dates and many photographs that span a series of years. The information provides a series of snapshots to the evolution of the course. While one logical date may tie in with a significant moment at the club, there is also a chance that the architecture of the club was far superior before or after this date. The last Canadian Open at St. George’s brought significant changes and I would argue this was also the architectural “low” water mark for that club, but someone else may choose that date because of the historical significance of the Canadian Open. Choosing one date brings a danger.

Seminole was a great example where going back to “Ross” or an early date would be a "logical" choice for some but the 18th green relocated by Dick Wilson is a standout. Why lose good changes for purity or even to a date?

Can you be so sure about 1936 at Garden City when you have such a long and rich history to choose from at your course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I’m not sure I buy into the concept of “high water mark.” I do think restoration architects usually choose a date to restore to and then spend their efforts trying to get “most” of the course back to that date. In fact most “dates” present themselves without much debate. Whether due to information or circumstance, one day usually stands out from all others and selecting this date as a high water mark may make perfect sense.

Ian,

Tom MacWood coined the phrase, and I tend to agree with it in concept.

However, when put into practice it becomes far more difficult to determine.

And, in the ultimate, who makes the determination.

I would agree that the "date" concept has merit in a global sense.  Getting into feature and hole specifics can be dicey due to the evaluative nature of the process.[/color]

But what if there are many dates to choose from?
For example what was the high water mark at Merion for example? The 1930 US Open with Bobby Jones win? Ben Hogan? The Last US Open won by Davis Graham? Merion is the best example where one significant date seems too narrow-minded. While 1930 was a great date for golf, I struggle with that being “the” date for the course when you consider the work of the superintendent Joe Valentine and where the course evolved to during his tenure. To ignore that seems to myopic to me. Merion choose 1930, which was a logical date I guess, but I personally found there are a couple of holes where I wish they never went back to 1930 when they did the recent renovation.

You're never going to get a perfect solution, or pick the "perfect" date.  But, by picking a date, you've at least narrowed the choices to a select few.  As to which date is "ideal" for Merion, I couldn't provide any insight on that.

However, if Merion picks a date, and then modifies features such that they don't conform to that date, shouldn't Merion have very strong architectural reasoning as to why the modification should be made ?[/color]

So who should decide? Someone who is heavily involved in preservation and history of golf course architecture. They need someone who will place the history of the course and the importance of the architecture in its proper perspective. I think a club has to seek outside opinion and see if they all agree.

That's really the critical question because the decision maker will impact the architecture.

I've always thought that independent second and third opinions could serve a valid and valueable purpose.[/color]

They may need to do nothing until they are truly sure that they have made the correct decision.

Agreed[/color]

Choosing one date is not always appropriate. Most clubs have many significant dates and many photographs that span a series of years. The information provides a series of snapshots to the evolution of the course. While one logical date may tie in with a significant moment at the club, there is also a chance that the architecture of the club was far superior before or after this date.

You can only determine that if you have ample evidence with respect to what existed at each point in time.[/color]

The last Canadian Open at St. George’s brought significant changes and I would argue this was also the architectural “low” water mark for that club, but someone else may choose that date because of the historical significance of the Canadian Open. Choosing one date brings a danger.

I don't think you can put the event ahead of the architecture in the evaluative process, which seems to be what you've described.[/color]

Seminole was a great example where going back to “Ross” or an early date would be a "logical" choice for some but the 18th green relocated by Dick Wilson is a standout. Why lose good changes for purity or even to a date ?

I agree, and that's why I would favor a "global" date with architecturally driven modifications being permissable.[/color]

Can you be so sure about 1936 at Garden City when you have such a long and rich history to choose from at your course ?

Yes, I can.
To me it's the correct choice because 1936 produced an abundance of photographic evidence, aerial and ground level, amongst a void of evidence for almost all other periods.

Perhaps it was the 1936 U.S. Am that caused so much photographic evidence to be produced.

Absent substantive photographic evidence from other dates, I don't see how 1936 couldn't be chosen, simply by default.

When you combine the date with the historic event, it becomes the natural target date for restoration. [/color]