The Restoration Lemmings

[Forrest Richardson]

I have a confession. I am not (much) interested in restoring much of anything to an exactness of what it may have been originally. That does not mean that I would never do it or have never done it, just that it doesn't do much for me — or for that matter, it doesn't do much for golf courses in general in my opinion.

Rather, I am interested in improving on original work, and hopefully improving on whatever ebb and flow has occurred on the course since it was "original." And, I also find it interesting to occasionally leave some course evolutions in place — after all, they didn't "just happen" — they are always the result of nature, club decisions, greenkeepers or players. I feel too often older courses try and revert when many times there is good within what has changed — some good, but for certain not always all good.

Can someone provide examples of those we consider great (among the dead architects) in golf architecture being all that interested in restoration to an exactness of what came before? How prevalent was this? Was it prevalent at all?

Are we breeding a crop of Restoration Lemmings — those who are trying to follow in the exact footprints of a design...as if a golf course was some archeological find?

[wsmorrison]

I think you simplify the situation beyond a reasonable point.  

The classic era architects were making changes to courses that were less than thirty years old; in most cases much more recent.  A majority of the work was in response to enormous advances in technology and agronomy.  There was an absence of historical perspective at that time as the entire field was in a nascent stage.  Why should they have been respectful of their predecessors when most were obsoleted and of rather poor quality?

Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place.  They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road.  The result being that they began to think for the future.  There is enough writing that supports this that I doubt it is arguable.  These forward thinking architects designed better courses, for the most part more natural courses that weather the test of time better and cheaper.  The best designed in elasticity.

What would you do to improve Merion, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills, Maidstone, NGLA, Kittansett, Indian Creek, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley that is better than going back to the original or the final iteration of the original architect?  What about Cherry Hills?  What would you do to improve Flynn's design there?  I'm sure the intervening architects since Flynn meant well in their improvements.  They missed the mark by quite a large magnitude.

Are there some cases where improvements can be implemented?  Sure there are.  Not even the most forward thinkers could have imagined the extent of technology in turf grasses and maintenance equipment and practices.  Are there some courses that were not designed so very well and can be improved?  Of course.  Bobby Weed did such work at White Manor in suburban Philadelphia.  But not all work is improved and there are enough examples where it is not the case that generalizations aren't really called for.

Therefore, I take exception to your use of the term "Restoration Lemmings."  The architectural archeology of the courses I mentioned above and elsewhere are outstanding and have led to some outstanding restorations.  I don't see how you or others would improve upon that.  

It might just be a good thing that you are not interested in restoring much of anything to exactness since you feel the way you do.

[Forrest Richardson]

Those are good points, Wayne.

I figured the initial posts here would cite some of the cherished examples of American and British courses that "should not be touched." I agree in spirit, there are most certainly many courses that deserve portions to be carefully preserved — rarely the entire course, however.

At most of the courses that you noted, one is hard pressed to know exactly (across the several hundred acres) what was intended...exactly, and what was original...excatly. It is a guessing game based on research and presumption. That combination (research and guessing) does not produce exactness, it produces an opinion of exactness.

What percentage of American courses fall into the category you describe? Is it 10%? That's a lot. I think it is well less. Only a handful out of 18,000. You pick the number.

My opinion is that we are breeding a crop of designers who sometimes fail to put improvement above this pursuit of exactness. And with that exactness being inherently debatable, we have people simply following each other down a path that isn't always producing greatness.

Your last remark was sarcastic, but I can accept that. To show what a graet guy I am, I will still buy your book on Flynn when it comes out — maybe even two copies!
 

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

All I can say in response is that there were certain courses (St. Andrews, Pine Valley) which many of the Golden Age designers believed should not be altered over time, although I must admit I am taking that on inference, since I can't recall any of them even contemplating the possibility.

Dr. MacKenzie is the only one I am aware of who wrote about "permanent" architecture.

[wsmorrison]

My last remark was not meant to be sarcastic.  I wasn't trying to be harsh but realistic based upon your confession of not wanting to be involved in exact restorations.  I was just pointing out that there are a number of courses that are worthy of going back to original or original architect's final iteration.  

You make a very fair point that the number is relatively small. I don't know how many courses were built prior to WWII or the number that rise to a standard of exact restoration.  I just happen to see a pretty large percentage of whatever that segment is.  What can I say?  I have friends in high places  

As for the Flynn book.  I hope you won't have to wait too much longer.  Maybe the end of this year.  It is in 3-volumes.  I hope you will by one or more copies and appreciate your interest.

[TEPaul]

"Can someone provide examples of those we consider great (among the dead architects) in golf architecture being all that interested in restoration to an exactness of what came before? How prevalent was this? Was it prevalent at all?"

Forrest:

Essentially you can look long and hard throughout the history of golf and architecture and courses in almost all the decades of architecture's existence up until perhaps 1985 or so and I don't think you will find a single incident of a restoration mentality or even a restoration example for anything other than something that was destroyed by Nature.

Some of the older architects seemed to be fanatics about not having their work changed (particularly by club committees) but I don't think we can find a single example from those old dead guys whose courses and whose era we admire so much who would be opposed, at a moment's notice, to redesigning the work of any of their contempories if asked to by any club.

In a sense, this is this website's dirty little secret and frankly I view it as a concerted attempt at historic revisionism. It's not that I condone what those old dead guys did with the work of other architects back then but I sure as hell don't want to act like it never happened.

Frankly, the word and thought of dedicated "restoration" never even existed in architecture until about the last twenty years.

Not that it's not a good thing for architecture but one does need to be realistic about it.

If one can document why something involved in architecture totally failed to pass the test of time because it didn't work well and they still decide to precisely restore it anyway  makes absolutely no sense to me.

History can tell us a ton of logical and intelligent stuff if only we strive to be completely accurate about what really did happen historically.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Not all the architects back then were completely ruthless about changing others' work.  The one example that comes quickly to mind is Alison's letter to Shinnecock Hills to proceed with Flynn's plan as it was.

[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne, you stated, "Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place.  They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road..."

And yet that is what happened to almost every one of the greats. For example, significant changes were made to the Philadelphia Cricket Club's Flourtown course designed by Tilly just a handful of years later by Flynn.

Tilly reworked courses by a number of greats from his era in immediate years following the original creations. Most of the greats did and had it done to some of their works. In many cases they themselves did the "adjustments."

There were even some occasions where one great would recommend another (e.g. - Tilly recommending Flynn to a club whose name escapes me in the mid-30's) for renovation work.

So where I completely agree in principal where you state, "They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road.  The result being that they began to think for the future.  There is enough writing that supports this that I doubt it is arguable.  These forward thinking architects designed better courses, for the most part more natural courses that weather the test of time better and cheaper.  The best designed in elasticity..." The reality is that they all had their work redone, in some cases drastically. And on more occasions than they would admit this work was superior to the original or more applicable to how the game had evovled to that time.

So again, I also agree with Forrest when he states, "Rather, I am interested in improving on original work, and hopefully improving on whatever ebb and flow has occurred on the course since it was "original.""

Sometimes courses actually can be improved regardless of who designed it.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Forrest
I just got the job of supervising the remastering of Highway 61 Revisited (Bob Dylan 1965). It's a fantastic album but upon close inspection I have found quite a few elements that could be better. Some of the guitar is out of tune, with the technology available to me (that wasn't around in 1965) I can fix that. Desolation Row goes on far too long, I've managed to bring it down from 11  and 1/2 minutes to 6. I've tightened up a few fades and intros and the overall flow is much better. I'm sure Bob would approve wholeheartedly if he were still alive.

[Forrest Richardson]

Lloyd — I envy your job. I was in television for 5 years and after that worked in advertising. It took me to several studios and I always loved that work. (I was also a DJ briefly.   )

Michael — You presume that the "original intent" is always right? Or, that it is right for today's golfer? There may be a good reason to know the original intent, but to trash it completely for it may no longer be fun, exciting or appropriate. Maybe there is a better intent?

[wsmorrison]

Philip,

Some of the issues at Philadelphia Cricket (1928, 4 years after the club opened) were tweaking and improvements to about half of the hole details but another matter was the then long (180 yards) par 3 5th, now today's 8th.  It was just too hard for the average club golfer to carry the stream fronting the green so there were significant back-ups at the hole.

I disagree with you that MacKenzie, Flynn, Crump and Wilson meant to create a final product that was not to be messed with.  We haven't found any evidence that an outside architect did any work to Flynn's courses except for Perry Maxwell.  Maxwell came to Philadelphia Country Club in 1931 (Flynn was in Florida and Long Island working on the 2 Boca Raton courses and Shinnecock Hills) to redo some of the greens that were considered too difficult for the members (false fronts and kickers in the front that could both feed shots onto and away from greens) and may have been constructed improperly.  Maxwell too had trouble and Flynn fixed them and made changes to the course prior to the 1939 Open.  Otherwise, Flynn's courses were left alone.

Tillinghast recommended Flynn to do work at Flynn's own Philadelphia Country Club prior to the 1939 Open.  I think that was not a factor at all and may indicate that Tillinghast did not understand the architectural history of the course or overvalued his recommendations since Flynn was in constant communication with the green chairman for several years leading up to the 1939 tournament.

I agree with you and others that some courses can be improved.  It was my aim to demonstrate that others could not be.  I'd throw TOC, Dornoch, N. Berwick, Cruden Bay and a number of others outside the US in the group as well.

Lloyd,

Good one.  When are you going to visit?

[BCrosby]

Lloyd -

Is cutting Desolation Row in half is something BD would like? That's a massive change. Does BD now think the original length was a mistake? Who decided what should be cut?

Desolation Row is a great, great song - every stanza of it. Indeed, it's length is part of its message.

I'm not sure that "it sounds better to me" is the right measuring stick here. Ditto for out of tune guitars. Highway 61 is/was edgy if it was anything. One of its goals was the grate.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I'm not trying to imply that all those old architects were ruthless with the courses and architecture or their contemporaries only that they never seemed to hestitate to redesign them if they were asked to.

Good example and a most unusual one about Alison's letter to Shinnecock. Wayne and I can't figure out why exactly that happened but it was merely a request from the club to Alison to review Flynn's plan before the course went into construction and not necessarily an invitation from the club to Alison to get involved in any way in the project himself.

One of the reasons the club may've asked Alison for a second opinion is Shinnecock and particularly Lucien Tyng were playing around with which parcels to buy for the course from a few available alternatives at that time.

Flynn actually routed some holes as an alternative routing up into that residential area behind #12 green and #13 tee and to the right of #15. The other alternative was to buy the land that is today holes #10-#13.

But probably a better example of Alison not really wanting to screw around with another architect's course too much was the hole by hole review plan he offered to Pine Valley in 1921. Pine Valley didn't just hire Alison to do that review plan they actually made him a member of the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee that was charged with finishing off the course and putting it into decent condition three years after Crump's death.

[Derek_Duncan]

My opinion is that we are breeding a crop of designers who sometimes fail to put improvement above this pursuit of exactness. And with that exactness being inherently debatable, we have people simply following each other down a path that isn't always producing greatness.

Forrest,
Do you actually see evidence of this? I'm aware that pure restoration is a cottage industry in your business, but the cottage is pretty small (and pure restoration has been a useful tool in getting just enough work for those that live in it). But I speak to quite a lot of architects doing quite a lot of renovations, and most are improving and changing courses. In virtually all cases the drainage, irrigation and turf is modernized and improved, and usually there are design changes as well. At least from the evidence I've seen, pure restoration in "exact" form as you envision it is very rare and not heavily pursued. Are you noticing something different?

Bob,
I think Lloyd's tongue was planted in his cheek. I hope so anyway.

[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne, I am a bit confused. In what sense do you mean when you wrote that, "I disagree with you that MacKenzie, Flynn, Crump and Wilson meant to create a final product that was not to be messed with..."

It seems to contradict your earlier statement that, "Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place.  They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road..."

My point was that most, if not all, of the golden age greats did not view their or their peers designs as sacrosanct. They, themselves made changes to their own and other courses, in some cases such as at PCC to provide what they felt would be needed or desired improvements.

Therefor, with a view to restoring a course, as has been pointed out in many a thread by others far more learned than I (e.g. - Mr. Mucci) at what exact point should a course be restored to? If not to it's very beginnings, then the restorer is in effect stating that the original design needed improving.

There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

[BCrosby]

Bob,
I think Lloyd's tongue was planted in his cheek. I hope so anyway.

Duncan - Rereading his post, I think you are right. I've been had.

Bob

[wsmorrison]

Phil,

I certainly feel that MacKenzie, Flynn and I believe Behr wrote about permanent architecture.  

Flynn, Crump and Wilson all took a long range approach to working their own designs:  Merion, Pine Valley, Philadelphia Country, Cascades, Rolling Green, etc.  They all reworked their own courses.  What I meant was, when/if they felt the reworking complete, then they meant for that architecture to be more or less permanent.  That's why Flynn tied his architecture in using natural angles...for more permanence and ease of maintenance.  He wrote specifically about this.  That is why they incorporated elasticity, so that in the future, their courses had room to grow and less likely needed to be "fixed."

Consider Flynn's collection of courses.  Very little was reworked.  Sure, trees were planted and tees extended (planned for).  But very little had to be done, which is one reason why Flynn's courses stand the test of time; even the championship courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

Derek — Yes, I think there is a growing "industry". While it is still small, it is growing and "breeding" more and more of this doctrine to "restore".

[Peter Pallotta]

An excellent thread; thanks for the education, gents.

Here’s a snippet from an article dated February 1917, which seems to indicate – and I do mean “seems”, as I don’t want to draw any conclusions from one article alone – that designers already had back then a healthy regard for their work, and pretty clear views on most renovations:

“Many [architects] become so disgusted by the actions of the various greens committees that they become as communicative as a Little Neck clam when advice is asked of them. According to one of them, each succeeding greens committee merely fills up the holes dug by the preceding one and digs some more holes for future greens committees to fill up.”  

Peter

[Ron Kern]

Forrest
I just got the job of supervising the remastering of Highway 61 Revisited (Bob Dylan 1965). It's a fantastic album but upon close inspection I have found quite a few elements that could be better.

LMAO

Assuming that you have the original masters, using Pro Tools or some such software could you maybe get Al Kooper's B3 more on the beat on Like A Rolling Stone - it lags quite a bit here and there...

The great thing about the Highway 61 Revisited LP is that all of the original elements exist, unlike many courses designed and built in the golden age that have been tinkered with and altered over the course of time.

I thought the Super Audio CD remaster was the end all for a digital Hwy 61 Rev, but I can hardly wait for your remaster to hit the market.

I would draw your attention to Come Una Pietra Scalciata by Articolo 31 on the Masked and Anonymous Soundtrack if you would like to hear what a remodeled Like A Rolling Stone sounds like.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
I don't believe in restoration either.  I also believe that if some dead guy knew there now existed a segment of the business where people professed to know what these dead guys wanted and could rework their work...they would laugh....
There may be some very good "restoration style" projects out there..completed by "restoration experts" BUT.....I think the old dead guys would be much more comfortable with an architect that had plenty of experience with his own work before trying to "restore" the dead guy stuff....
IMHO I think if I was a club "restoring" a course..I would find a golf architect that had plenty of his own work on the ground and I would find a historian that was well versed in the particular dead guy and proceed.....Dead guy restoration is just pure marketing.....IMO

[Forrest Richardson]

And, it can be great marketing. And, like I said, I am not saying there is no benefit. Just that the time and place should be "right".

Mike — You and I will be unpopular for our stance. Thankfully this is all being done by remote control!  

[Mike_Young]

And, it can be great marketing. And, like I said, I am not saying there is no benefit. Just that the time and place should be "right".

Mike — You and I will be unpopular for our stance. Thankfully this is all being done by remote control!  

They don't scare me...I know Jack Bauer and where he is......

[Scott Witter]

Whether 'restoration' or not in a matter of substantial interpretation with many facets of styling, character, improvements, by those doing the work etc., and of where and when one chooses (date in time/history) to return to.

Forrest:  I think you make a good point from a hard line view, but who is to say that much of what is being done by those 'who do really care' (I'll get grieve from Mike Young on that one) isn't in fact an improvement?  It seems to me that it would be difficult to be everywhere to check up on all such work in order to make a determination if it is 'better' than the original.  Heck, I highly doubt the DRS know about all the Ross work going on.

Pure restoration has been hammered on this site and I have no desire to dig up those old bones, but nevertheless, would you rather see it left in its current state, continue to watch it get bastardized and torn apart by green committes and architects/designers who don't care about the original work or about actually making it better other than putting their own personal mark on it?

I get your point and it is valid, but this happens in many industries, so how can you, me and others who apparently seem to care in one way or another make it better?

I think Mike Young's approach has some merit, at least take the approach with a group of knowledgeable and experienced people--who also happen to care about the old stuff and who know how to improve conditions at the same time.  IMO, I would hope that by doing good work with your heart, mind and with skilled intentions all in the right place, one would capture more work.  If that is marketing, well then welcome to capitalism.  Isn't that what you, Mike, Jeff, Tom and so many others do when working on new builds?

"Just that the time and place should 'right'"  Could you explain or clarify further...not entirely sure what you mean?

[Forrest Richardson]

The right time and the right place refers to what may be called for at a particular a club. I just now spoke with a potential purchaser of a very well known club that has fallen into disrepair and is trashed as far as the original design and even intent. The right thing to do in my opinion is to partially restore the feel of what may have been threre, but not to attempt any sort of exactness or anal approach. It would be an awful expensive and worthless undertaking for this particular buyer.

Your question: "How can you, me and others who apparently seem to care in one way or another make it better?"  — Well, it is no diferent than any other design endeavor, you simply have to design it and get over the uncomfortableness of what others might say or think.