[Kalen Braley]

I think one aspect of this that is being over-looked so far is the human aspect.

Forrest, can you honestly say that it wouldn't bother you if several changes were made to a course you designed, only a few years after it opened, without you being invloved in the process?  If you can honestly answer that it wouldn't bother you, then I think is a really good question.

I can only speculate on this, but have my own experiences to draw upon. Most GCAs would want to be invloved in the changes being made to thier designed course and would likely resent someone being sent in to "fix" the "mistakes" that you made.

From the outside looking in, I would guess that most of the designers on this site, who really do put thier heart, might, mind, and soul into a project would naturally be protective of it.  After all, its a piece of art, not just a simple commodity.

My two cents.

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course it would bother me. And it has!

For the most part this discussion is about alive designers working on the work of dead designers. But, I suppose we can expand the topic to alive designers working on the work of still alive designers.

I have completely re-designed a Ted Robinson course and it does not bother me in the slightest. Times change. What Ted did in the 1970s no longer applies. The owner had changed several times. Jungles of growth have happened in/around the course. Does it bother Ted? Maybe a little, but I suspect that he found his joy in the design during and after the completed work. It simply is not the same place it once was.

[Scott Witter]

Forrest:

"I have completely re-designed a Ted Robinson course and it does not bother me in the slightest. Times change. What Ted did in the 1970s no longer applies. The owner had changed several times. Jungles of growth have happened in/around the course. Does it bother Ted? Maybe a little, but I suspect that he found his joy in the design during and after the completed work. It simply is not the same place it once was."

That is a mouth full and doesn't it essentially describe much of what we are talking about?

It didn't bother you, times did changed, the owner changed, trees grew and it is not what it once was...so true in all respects I'm sure and probably your work was the right thing to do and at the right time for that particular course and owner.

"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."

From your description, your assessment sounds like the 'right' way to approach this opportunity IMO.

"you simply have to design it and get over the uncomfortableness of what others might say or think."

Well this certainly does fit many such artistic/cultural circumstances and I suspect this is what many of the 'Restoration Lemmings' are thinking.  But IMO this is NOT what I would want them to think, this tells me that they probably don't care about actually making improvements, or about first protecting--preserving what they can, but rather more about making their own mark

So far, I see that your counterpart/coauthor has remained silent in this discussion...I would have thought by now that something in this thread would have raised the hair on the back of his neck

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark is a slow reader.

[Mike_Young]

"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? "

Scott,
No grief from me....not here to defend one that doesn't care....I guess another way I can explain is say.....club needs a dead guy redo.....and has two choices....one is a good architect that has been doing work on his own for 25 years and uses a historian familiar with the dead guy's work.....another is a guy that has read every book he can get on the dead guy....joined the dead guy fan club....keeps a dead guy bag tag on his clubs and convinced some club to allow him to redo 3 bunkers and enlarge a green on their dead guy course.....
Who should a club choose?
It may be they choose the dead guy dude and everything goes perfectly as planned.....NOW before someone freaks..this is all about experience...not a slam at work of proven sources......this is aimed at the spankers out there artificially expanding their 3 bunker track record into a 10 year restoration expert resume...
 BUT I do think the more experience one has whether redo or new the better percentage one has of a good product whether redo or new.....

[Kalen Braley]

Of course it would bother me. And it has!

For the most part this discussion is about alive designers working on the work of dead designers. But, I suppose we can expand the topic to alive designers working on the work of still alive designers.

I have completely re-designed a Ted Robinson course and it does not bother me in the slightest. Times change. What Ted did in the 1970s no longer applies. The owner had changed several times. Jungles of growth have happened in/around the course. Does it bother Ted? Maybe a little, but I suspect that he found his joy in the design during and after the completed work. It simply is not the same place it once was.

Forrest,

I did catch that this thread is mostly about the living updating what the dead have done, but I was trying to look at that from a slightly different angle.

While dead men don't talk, I would imagine it burns you just as much to think about your work being modified once you have passed away.  In that context, I see more of a blurry line between both the living and dead architects.  Anyways back to point, 80 years from now if one of your courses was being "spruced up" would you prefer it being restored to your exact intent?  Or if they imposed thier own intent on "how the course should be", would the thought of that bother you?

This is the fundamental problem with restoration/rejuvination/update or whatever else you want to call it.  Its very subjective and how one improves a piece of art is a tough task.  So for many on here I can see why their point of view is, "lets try to return this thing to as close as possible to the original thing", regardless of whether most considered it desirable or not.  Perhaps its a matter of showing the same regard for someone else work that you would hope the GCAs of the future will show for yours.  I don't really see this is a bad or stifling method of operation.

[Scott Witter]

"Mark is a slow reader."

That must have been a bitch during the manuscript review & editing for the book

Mike:  Naturally I was being rhetorical, but you could be right and this "another is a guy that has read every book he can get on the dead guy....joined the dead guy fan club....keeps a dead guy bag tag on his clubs and convinced some club to allow him to redo 3 bunkers and enlarge a green on their dead guy course....."  is where the marketing aspect comes more into play...sadly in some circumstances too

"experience one has whether redo or new the better percentage one has of a good product whether redo or new....."

No argument on this.  Correct, as as we know, many of the 'experts' simply don't and wouldn't know what to do in the field and mistakes or delays can be quite expensive.  The team approach sounds good IMO

[Forrest Richardson]

Kalen says..."I would imagine it burns you just as much to think about your work being modified once you have passed away..."

As Desmond Muirhead, "I don't give a rat's _____ what people think...and I sure as hell won't give a rat's _____ what they think when I'm dead."

Kalen — As long as my daughter gets the assignment, I won't care what she does.
 

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,

I'm not advocating that all classic era courses should be faithfully restored.  There was a lot of so-so designs and many that do not translate so well today given ball and implement technology and better athletes in the sport.  However, some courses and architects deserve, in my opinion to be restored or preserved.  You generalize a lemming problem, but how pervasive is it?  It seems to me that a number of architects (new construction and restoration) are redesigning old courses with some portion being restorations.  Like any endeavor, some are improved and some are not though much is spent.  I would say the number of exact restorations is so infinitesimally small that I wonder why you fret.  I can only name 3 restorations that clearly went back to the original intent.  They are because the clubs wanted it that way and there was enough archival evidence to do so.  One of these never existed on the ground, only on paper.  The overwhelming number of restorations are a mixture of restoration and remodeling.  Or do you disagree?

Rather than pointing fingers at "Restoration Lemmings," why don't you give us some specific examples of this trait that you so disparage?

Who is exactly restoring mediocrity at what expense and/or who is shortchanging improvements for pure restorations?

Please give me an example where you would improve something over the original.  What would you do at Shinnecock Hills or Cascades that would improve that course versus going back to the final Flynn product?  

What would you do at Cherry Hills, Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Aronimink, or other courses you are familiar with?  Some of us lemmings would like to know.

Do you recognize that there can be enough archival evidence to accurately restore as much as a club cares to back to the original architect?  If so, what would you do with such information?  Ignore it and create a Richardson in its place?  I really don't understand what you are getting at since all you are doing is calling people names without offering evidence of a growing issue.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen says..."I would imagine it burns you just as much to think about your work being modified once you have passed away..."

As Desmond Muirhead, "I don't give a rat's _____ what people think...and I sure as hell won't give a rat's _____ what they think when I'm dead."

Kalen — As long as my daughter gets the assignment, I won't care what she does.
 

LMFAO,

Classic come-backer Forrest.

So are you comparing yourself to Desmend Muirhead now?    I guess thats a good thing because if anyone was "cut from a different cloth" it was him..

I can't argue this one on principle alone, not to suggest that I actually have any, but just that one likely does exist out there for a situation such like this.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

You bring up an interesting dilema.

I think you have to look at the issue by looking at the individual holes involved from a historical perspective.

What caused the club to want to alter the hole and what was the result in comparison to the original or prior hole are critical questions.

ANGC might provide some insight

Perry Maxwell alters a few holes and they're deemed an improvement by some.  Robert Trent Jones alters a hole and it's deemed a disfiguration by others.

But, the real test is, is the altered hole the same, better or worse than the original or prior hole.

While I think that's the ultimate test, I tend to favor restoration as the default option, because I've seen so many disfigurations promoted as improvements or modernizations.

I also tend to favor leaving holes alone for the same reason.

There's no universal answer, it's feature and hole specific.

[TEPaul]

You've got some good points there Pat.

But you know what all this stuff really boils down to?

It all boils down to who gets to make the decisions on what to do.

If I make the decisions it's virtually guaranteed it will be an improvement and a raging success but if you get to make the decisions the chances are about 97% that it will be a bare-ass disfigurment and a virtual catastrophe somehow.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat — Yes, there is no universal answer. That, perhaps, is the primary point of this entire discussion. There simply is nothing that can be universally applied in most of golf architecture. Nor should there be.

Wayne, however, is intent on applying some sort of universal thought — at least I read some of his comments that way.

___

Wane needs some replies from me...

Wayne — I am not point fingers. I am stating an opinon. I find most anal approaches to restoration unfulfilling. It wastes time — the rule should be: MAKE THE GOLF FUN INTERSTING AND ENJOYABLE. If that calls for restoration, great. But to let the pursuit of history get in the way of the game...in most — not all — cases, that is bad in my view.

A lot of anal restoration approaches waste time. I hear about it, occasionally see it at "work" and I also read about it.

What would I do at Shinnecock Hills or Cascades that would improve that course versus going back to the final Flynn product? I have never considered this. When I finally get to those places I will let you know if anything strikes me. Very likely, those are courses that fit the bill of being fine the way they are. At least from what I see and read. (And, by the way, I doubt they are as Flynn left them. I am certain there have been changes, many good...and many bad.)

What would I do at Cherry Hills, Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Aronimink, or other courses?  Also, not fully considered by me. Since I get paid to design and share ideas, I probably won't have much more than a casual opinion, even if I do get some ideas!

Rarely — and I repeat: rarely — is there enough archival evidence to accurately restore as much as a club cares to back to the original architect. That is the rub here — you may think you have loads of evidence, but as one who works with golf courses every day, believe me, it really boils down to opinions, guesses, thoughts and conjecture.

I never ignore information. I use it. Yes, I am interested in creating new ideas, all-be-it often on the heels of other great work.

I am not calling anyone names. But, I am happy to lear that you consider yourself a lemming!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

You've got some good points there Pat.

But you know what all this stuff really boils down to?

It all boils down to who gets to make the decisions on what to do.

If I make the decisions it's virtually guaranteed it will be an improvement and a raging success but if you get to make the decisions the chances are about 97% that it will be a bare-ass disfigurment and a virtual catastrophe somehow.

TEPaul,

That's very funny.

Did I ever tell you that you live in an inverted universe ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

Since we agree on the concept or philosophy, I think that TEPaul's point is valid, as hard as that is to believe.

It comes down to whom is making the decisions.

Are they fact based, is there an agenda, has the proper research been done, is the decision maker knowledgeable and smart, are there additional influences, etc., etc..

AND, most importantly, is the assessment, in the party's heart of hearts, true ?

All too often, I've seen decisons that are committee driven.
One vote of 6 to 5 in favor of a specific alteration may have been the result of some inter-committee quid pro quo, for another vote.

But, the real, REAL problem is.

If a club makes a mistake and the product is inferior to the prior product, what club's leadership is going to admit their mistake, admit to wasting the club's money, and then tell the members that they're going to fix the disfiguration which will require another expense that will be charged to the members ?

I've found that it usually takes at least 20 years to undo a terrible mistake in most cases, and, that's why I like preservation of the status quo most of the time.

[Forrest Richardson]

It may take 20 years to undo a terrible mistake

OR

It may take 25 years for a new crop of people to realize it didn't matter in the first place, that the entire hole should be re-built.

OR

It may take 100 years for someone (let's call him 'Wayne') to ride in and find a long-lost drawing of the original mistake and spend years convincing a committee to re-build it exactly as it was changed originally.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Pat — Yes, there is no universal answer. That, perhaps, is the primary point of this entire discussion. There simply is nothing that can be universally applied in most of golf architecture. Nor should there be.

— the rule should be: MAKE THE GOLF FUN INTERSTING AND ENJOYABLE.

Sorry Forrest,
Just because you're directly addressing Pat doesn't mean you have access to the cake and eating it.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Re - Pine Needles.
From the Fought website, from his own trumpet, and obviously a dream project. But note the subjugation of ego. Admirable and rare IMHO.

"In 2004, John and his team completed a widely acclaimed restoration of Pine Needles Golf Club in Southern Pines, North Carolina, where the goal was to maintain the intent and integrity of the original Ross design from 1928, and restore the shot values that have been changed by today's technology. Moreover, John spent countless hours at the Tufts Archives in Pinehurst (N.C.), conducting exhaustive research on Ross and his timeless approach to designing a golf course. There, John compared aerial photography of Pine Needles over a 30-year span to determine how the course had evolved from its 1928 debut.

"My job was trying to figure out exactly what Mr. Ross was trying to do," says John, keenly aware that restoring a classic course requires an architect to resist imposing his own views. "I love his work so much, and I studied it so closely, that it wasn't a problem for me to try to think what he would have wanted to instill.""

[paul cowley]

If they restored Pebble Beach to within 10 years of its time of construction, I doubt they could get $150 per round today.

....but I also think they could probably get 25% more $$ than they do today if they did a sympathetic restoration of the course's form in the early 70's.....its high water mark .....much purer experience [non irrigated rough, cart trails versus wall to wall paths, the old #5 and the backdrop to #4, none of those BS structures and maintenance buildings in the old open space between 10, 11 and #12.....etc.

[wsmorrison]

"It may take 100 years for someone (let's call him 'Wayne') to ride in and find a long-lost drawing of the original mistake and spend years convincing a committee to re-build it exactly as it was changed originally."

Are you seriously debating an issue or fabricating scenarios to support a view that you have yet to produce any evidence for? Why use my name in such a scenario as if to implicate me as someone who rides in with a long-lost drawing to promote an original mistake?  You don't know anything about what I've done (with the help of other experts) to provide historical documentation to assist restoration efforts nor about the information I have on hand.  For that matter, I don't know anything you have done in golf architecture.  So maybe we don't have any basis to argue anything constructively.

"Wayne — I am not point fingers. I am stating an opinon."

You accuse people of being "Restoration Lemmings" but are not pointing fingers, simply stating an opinion.  Well, it may be semantics, but you clearly are disparaging people that engage in exact restorations even though you don't know the extent of the work nor are you familiar with the projects; either before or after.  What is that all about?

"I find most anal approaches to restoration unfulfilling. It wastes time — the rule should be: MAKE THE GOLF FUN INTERSTING AND ENJOYABLE. If that calls for restoration, great. But to let the pursuit of history get in the way of the game...in most — not all — cases, that is bad in my view."

Please give me one example where the "pursuit of history" got in the way of the game.  I already said that exact restorations are so rare that I don't see why you are making such a fuss.  It is much ado about very little.  Or is there an economic basis for your position?

"A lot of anal restoration approaches waste time. I hear about it, occasionally see it at "work" and I also read about it."

I have no idea what you mean about anal restorations.  I take it you think your process is universally superior.

"What would I do at Shinnecock Hills or Cascades that would improve that course versus going back to the final Flynn product? I have never considered this. When I finally get to those places I will let you know if anything strikes me. Very likely, those are courses that fit the bill of being fine the way they are."

What if faithful restorations (at least as much as possible) are a great improvement and yield interesting and fun golf?  Maybe you should take a careful look at examples of these before you condemn them and the waste of time (none of it your own) that it took to get to the work done.

"At least from what I see and read. (And, by the way, I doubt they are as Flynn left them. I am certain there have been changes, many good...and many bad.)"

There have been some changes at Cascades and Shinnecock, but remarkably few, especially at Shinnecock.  You should get to know the facts on these projects first, then you would know how much Flynn is left in them and not have a doubt.

"What would I do at Cherry Hills, Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Aronimink, or other courses?  Also, not fully considered by me. Since I get paid to design and share ideas, I probably won't have much more than a casual opinion, even if I do get some ideas!"

Then I will get by without your ideas.

"Rarely — and I repeat: rarely — is there enough archival evidence to accurately restore as much as a club cares to back to the original architect. That is the rub here — you may think you have loads of evidence, but as one who works with golf courses every day, believe me, it really boils down to opinions, guesses, thoughts and conjecture."

Even though I do not work with golf courses everyday, I will disagree with you.  The information isn't always available, but some architects' methods make it a lot easier than you seem to realize.  It can be more of a matter of how much resources and inconveniences a club/course is willing to go through, but it can and has been done.  If you knew the materials on hand, Flynn's methods and had a Craig Disher, Tom Paul and a host of other interested parties participate in a project (especially the clubs themselves), you might change your opinion.  Or not.  It is not of great consequence one way or the other.

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest,

Haven't we read that you and Mark are doing some restorative work?

Who's designs are you tinkering with?


What if your interpretation of improvement is off?

[Mike_Young]

Re - Pine Needles.
From the Fought website, from his own trumpet, and obviously a dream project. But note the subjugation of ego. Admirable and rare IMHO.

"In 2004, John and his team completed a widely acclaimed restoration of Pine Needles Golf Club in Southern Pines, North Carolina, where the goal was to maintain the intent and integrity of the original Ross design from 1928, and restore the shot values that have been changed by today's technology. Moreover, John spent countless hours at the Tufts Archives in Pinehurst (N.C.), conducting exhaustive research on Ross and his timeless approach to designing a golf course. There, John compared aerial photography of Pine Needles over a 30-year span to determine how the course had evolved from its 1928 debut.

"My job was trying to figure out exactly what Mr. Ross was trying to do," says John, keenly aware that restoring a classic course requires an architect to resist imposing his own views. "I love his work so much, and I studied it so closely, that it wasn't a problem for me to try to think what he would have wanted to instill.""

Lloyd,
That is a great way to put it......same thought process I would use...
BUT I don't consider that restoration.....do you?  
Mike

[Don_Mahaffey]

Oh for heavens’ sake ...just follow the money,
New golf is down; so restoration is the only way to keep busy for many.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

The concept of making the golf course more fun and interesting is probably responsible for the bulk of the disfigurations, especially if you add challenging to the list.

Fun and interesting often results in the dumbing down of courses.

How can you assume that the architect didn't design the golf course to be fun and interesting to begin with.

Fun and interesting are often words that camoflage the words, "more fair", and therein lies the danger.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd Cole,

The concept of making the golf course more fun and interesting is probably responsible for the bulk of the disfigurations, especially if you add challenging to the list.

Fun and interesting often results in the dumbing down of courses.

How can you assume that the architect didn't design the golf course to be fun and interesting to begin with.

Fun and interesting are often words that camoflage the words, "more fair", and therein lies the danger.

Pat,

You might want to have another look at my post.

Those are Forrest's words, not mine.

Note the boundaries of the quote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()