Why is Whitten So MAD?

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I agree with all of what you said above.  I don't think that moving bunkers around for long hitters really does much good at all, but it CAN destroy the continuity of the course and the tie-ins to existing features and the strategy and playability for the majority of the membership.

I don't think as much about slope as you do, but our goal seems to be the same -- to make it challenging for the good players without beating up the rest of the golfers.  Unfortunately many people equate "high slope" with difficulty and "low slope" with easy, which is not necessarily the case, but I've had several clients who were surprised / upset when what was obviously a challenging course was given a low slope rating.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a great thread.  I'm curious, though, as to whether or not there ARE courses that have been "restored" and are worse for it.  After reading the article, I wonder if Mr. Whitten hasn't set up something of a straw man in order to knock him over.

I've had the good fortune to play 3 Ross restorations before and after the work, and by three different GCA's.  All three were greatly improved, more enjoyable golf courses from the process.  The same appears obviously true in the case of Brunswick CC, pictured in another thread recently.  

So, again, are there courses that have gotten worse from "restoration", or is the article a vent by the author?

[Peter Pallotta]

A.G. - the good and basic question; I'd like to know that too.

Joe - you're right to mock my post. I have got to learn to edit myself better! The scary part: I haven't seen the Assisi movie in 20 years, but I can still dredge that bit out of some corner of my mind. It worries me to think what else must be hidden there

Peter

[Ryan Farrow]

Some very nice discussion about the heart of the article, thanks all for contributing.

My immediate reaction was something that Tom brought up. What is the point of moving back bunkers to account for todays game? It seems that Ron is overemphasizing the importance of challenging todays best and I just don't buy into that. Of course there are obvious points in his article that everyone agrees with but again I am reaching for some conversation into his true intentions for writing this article. It just feels like there is something funny going on in his mind and it would be great to figure out what it is and why.

[Ian Andrew]

"I laugh when clubs hire an expert to "restore" their grand old Donald Ross course, using original plans and old photos to make it play the way Ross had intended. "

"The best architects who specialize in Ross recoveries -- Brian Silva, Kris Spence (see page 36), Ron Prichard, Ron Forse and others -- know that. Old plans, old photos are merely a starting point, and these architects extrapolate what Ross might have done were he alive and building today."

Help me here - I would have assumed the four he named in the second paragraph were the people he was refering to in the first one - I must be missing something here?

...and that by no means is a knock on those four people either - I happen to like what they do - then again I believe in restoration even if others don't. The alternative - modernization - has turned out to be much worse.

[Jerry Kluger]

Whitten is making a very simple point: Some golf courses need to evolve in order to remain relevant and you cannot limit yourself to the original design simply for the sake of remaining true to the original architect.

I doubt that anyone would argue with the statement that maintenance issues can cause greens to change in size and contour over time as will bunker size and shape and this should be addressed in a restoration project.  Trees had been planted on many courses which needlessly played into the design concept of a hole and should be removed.  

However, we shouldn't scoff at work done at an older course simply because it varies from the original design.  But when that work is not in harmony with what was originally there, then I think it is a disservice to the original design/architect.

[Will E]

Ian-
My thoughts exactly!

Ron writes-
"I laugh when clubs hire an expert to "restore" their grand old Donald Ross course, using original plans and old photos to make it play the way Ross had intended. I want to ask: When you're done, are you going to play it with wooden shafts and Haskell balls? Will you mow the greens at half an inch so they'll putt at 5 on a Stimpmeter? Because if you're truly going to restore the course, that's what you ought to be doing. "

Can anyone name a course that has done this?

I'd agree that this article appears to be a shot at BK.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Come to think of it, it was a conference call between Pete and Alice Dye, Ron Whitten, our former Director of Golf, Tommy Cuthbert, and myself back in 2000 when Alice bent our ear for about 15 minutes about the difference between Restoration and Renovation and make the exact points that Ron made in his article.  Alice must have made a big impression on him...

[cary lichtenstein]

I have to agree with Whitten, Ross would have designed much differently today

[A.G._Crockett]

Come to think of it, it was a conference call between Pete and Alice Dye, Ron Whitten, our former Director of Golf, Tommy Cuthbert, and myself back in 2000 when Alice bent our ear for about 15 minutes about the difference between Restoration and Renovation and make the exact points that Ron made in his article.  Alice must have made a big impression on him...

Mike,
I understand this.  I just wonder where the "restorations" are that have made a course worse.  I think I would agree that a "renovation" properly done might be better, but there are many examples of that process making courses worse.  

I mean this as a serious question for learning/comparison purposes: Where are the examples of restorations that did that?  I'm not aware of them, and Whitten doesn't mention any.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom D -- "I'm sure the story you shared has nothing to do with any of this.  Ron doesn't put himself in the position of recommending architects for jobs because he knows he shouldn't do that. "


Didn't Ron just do this in print?...


"The best architects who specialize in Ross recoveries -- "

[George Pazin]

But none of this addresses the real reason for preservation of great courses, which is that once you open up the door to tinkering with the golf course to "restore Donald's intent", you are empowering a bunch of people who aren't as smart as Donald Ross to mess around to their hearts' content for all sorts of different motives.

I would agree with Jerry Lemons that Ross himself would design things differently today.

I would not trust anybody who thinks they're as good at making those decisions as Donald Ross was.

Probably the clearest and most concise reasoning to rebut all the folks out there who think everyone should tinker with their golf courses to preserve the "architect's intent", as though it is always so obvious.

Unfortunately, it goes against human nature, so few will heed these wise words.

[paul cowley]

AG.....I am not aware of that many restorations that have gone awry, but there is one that is near to me that I feel has been poorly classified as a renovation.
I feel it should instead be considered a redo.

Colt and Allison designed one of the original nines at Sea Island and it was fabulous.....one of my favorite nines anywhere.

When the Fazio team came in to renovate, they left very little to recognize....I doubt either of the original designers would know where the were if placed anywhere on the course.

This is not a slam of Fazios work by any means....I don't doubt that his marching orders were to create something to dazzle....and he did. Seaside is ranked in the top 100 of most lists.

I just don't think it should be classified as a renovation.

[George Pazin]

Ian-
My thoughts exactly!

Ron writes-
"I laugh when clubs hire an expert to "restore" their grand old Donald Ross course, using original plans and old photos to make it play the way Ross had intended. I want to ask: When you're done, are you going to play it with wooden shafts and Haskell balls? Will you mow the greens at half an inch so they'll putt at 5 on a Stimpmeter? Because if you're truly going to restore the course, that's what you ought to be doing. "

Can anyone name a course that has done this?

I'd agree that this article appears to be a shot at BK.

Shooter -

There's a course down in Virginia (or WV) called Oakhurst (or Oakhurst Links or something like that) that I think has done just that. I have a book somewhere in my downstairs office that is written about the discovery of the course and the "restoration" of it. Send me a message if you'd care to borrow it.

[Norbert P]

Ron writes-
"... When you're done, are you going to play it with wooden shafts and Haskell balls? Will you mow the greens at half an inch so they'll putt at 5 on a Stimpmeter? Because if you're truly going to restore the course, that's what you ought to be doing. "

Can anyone name a course that has done this?

Alfie Ward's Arbory Brae in Lanarkshire, Scotland (NLE   )  but you have to play with a gutta percha, not that newfangled Haskell ball.  And the 5 stimp is probably not achieved.

[Will E]

George,

I recall the course you reference.
If I'm not mistaken they used to host a hickory club event there.
Oakhurst is an exception, and is the only "true restoration" I can think of.

What concerns me is that this article could actually support the "modern" style changes that have destroyed so many of the courses that could benefit from a "sympathetic restoration".

Perhaps we're just hung up on words and meanings. I hope that was the focus that Ron Whitten was trying to illustrate here.

I'd hate for a member of Rancho Santa Fe to use this article for justification of what they've done to a wonderful classic course. Or for that matter, a member of Skokie to think they'd have been better off hiring Hurdzan and Fry to bulldoze their course and start over.

Disregard of classic course design frightens me. I'm afraid that there are many working architects today that don't share this fear.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG.....I am not aware of that many restorations that have gone awry, but there is one that is near to me that I feel has been poorly classified as a renovation.
I feel it should instead be considered a redo.

Colt and Allison designed one of the original nines at Sea Island and it was fabulous.....one of my favorite nines anywhere.

When the Fazio team came in to renovate, they left very little to recognize....I doubt either of the original designers would know where the were if placed anywhere on the course.

This is not a slam of Fazios work by any means....I don't doubt that his marching orders were to create something to dazzle....and he did. Seaside is ranked in the top 100 of most lists.

I just don't think it should be classified as a renovation.

Paul,
This is my question exactly.  When we know of so many "renovations" that have been at least questionable (Yale has been chronicled here in great, great detail over the years), where are the true "restorations" that have been bombs?  What courses is Whitten talking about?  

[Walt_Cutshall]

I have to agree with Whitten, Ross would have designed much differently today

Try explaining that to the membership of an old Donald Ross course.  

Our 1923 Donald Ross course has been tweaked and messed with over the years until it no longer is really a Ross design, IMO. Many of the original green complexes remain, thank goodness, and they are the best feature of the golf course. But many bunkers have been removed, trees allowed to erase original lines of play, and several greens rebuilt (ie destroyed). However, if you want to change anything on the course, there is a significant cry from some vocal elements of the club that "we shouldn't be messing with a Donald Ross design!"

Fortunately, we were able to hire Ron Forse to do a restoration/renovation plan that will enable much of the original design intent to be brought back. Some fairway bunkers will be reestablished in new locations, others will be brought back in their original location while tees are lengthened, and so on. In all, it is an exciting plan. After viewing the plan over time, I do think it brings back much of Ross' original design intent. Many of the shot values after renovation will, IMO, be similar to what golfers faced on the original design.

Obviously, Ross would design this course much differently today than he did in 1923. But he is not around, and no one here wishes to change the course so much that it would become someone else's design.

[Scott Witter]

Tom D.

"Most of the work being done is in my opinion "tinkering around" -- some of it good, some of it bad, all of it a matter of opinion.  My opinion is just that all that work costs money and if I were a member I might not think it was worth my money. "

Can you address the question...would you let the course simply fade away into the sunset with Mother Nature and maintentance beating it into the ground?  Don't you believe there is a case at some point in time to at least give even the great layouts a 'face lift'??

"But the work goes on, so I guess there are a lot of members of golf clubs around this country who disagree with me (or who are quite gullible).  Which is fine I guess, except when you are talking about the best courses in the world and then I don't think just anybody who talks a good game should be in there tinkering"

Yes, I do think there are plenty who disagree with you and just as many who are gullible...be that as it may, but in those cases who disagree, is it not possible to carefully and respectfully restore what should be restored--even you think this is worthwhile in certain cases, but you fail to define who would be qualified to do so, and renovate those features that have evolved beyond their original recognition.  I am not advocating moving anything, your point is well made regarding the right location for a bunker, etc., however, the landscape changes and eventually it needs a kind hand to gently enhance its original luster.

If I recall, you have done your share of 'tinkering' in your time as have I, and I suspect I we will continue to do, hopefully those we work for don't consider it tinkering and appreciate the many hours of time we dedicate to their clubs as Walt C. indicates.

"The alternative - modernization - has turned out to be much worse."

I agree with Ian here, but the restoration/renovation should be done by someone who really cares and understands as much what NOT to do and how THAT is often more valuable than updating something that should be left alone.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

As I said, I'm not sure I know how to answer your question.  

Oakmont has been there for 100 years.  How often has it had a "face lift" as you put it?  What qualifies as a face lift?  The greens have never really been rebuilt, except for #2, as far as I know.  The bunkers have been tinkered with according to the USGA's input with the approval of the membership.  They keep finding ways to make the greens faster and the rough thicker.  But it's still essentially the same course it was in the 1920's, I think.

I do agree with you there are some good candidates for restoration, and that the most important part of restoration is knowing what needs to be left alone.  That's the part that a lot of green committees and a lot of architects have sucked at over the years.  However, the fact that five respected architects could come in and suggest five different ways to "restore" a course suggests that it is not as black and white as any of them pretend it to be, and therefore the members ought to be a little bit skeptical about what they are buying into.

I just wonder if your premise is correct that all golf courses evolve to the point that they require architectural input, as opposed to regular maintenance and care.

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  You are correct, once you get past the desire, or 'need' to do something, what is...who defines what exactly is a face lift?  I couldn't agree more, but it was simply a choice of words, the best I had at the moment that could sound like treading lightly.

Green commitees..well that is a mouthful and a dangerous loaded gun and unfortunately, many architects fall prey to them as puppets to get work...so it goes.

"However, the fact that five respected architects could come in and suggest five different ways to "restore" a course suggests that it is not as black and white as any of them pretend it to be, and therefore the members ought to be a little bit skeptical about what they are buying into."

Good point, and it would make me as a member feel a bit nervous.  Heck, If I interviewed five well respected architects who were known for this type of work, I would expect at least some level of consistency in their approach..if not then leave it alone for the time being.

Your last point is also interesting.  No I don't believe every course 'needs' to have a architectural input..my apologies if I implied that, to the contrary and in our years practicing I have met many very qualified superintendents who I would rather have doing the work without an architect 'involved' as opposed to the standard architect services.

You would have to agree, however, that for as many great courses there are, there are many qualified superintendents caring for them who are not qualified, or even interested for that matter, to make minor adjustments 'face lift' improvements on them.  In that case someone needs to provide guidance...we all hope it is the right individual(s)  

[Paul_Turner]

I'll give an example.

Let's say that Dr. MacKenzie built one of his holes at The Valley Club with Bob Jones in mind.  He put a fairway bunker 250 yards from the tee which Jones would have to carry to get the best angle to play his approach directly into a slope on the front half of the green and get it up to the back tier.

And now Fred Couples hits it 40 yards over that bunker on the fly and is hitting an 8-iron into the green.

But MacKenzie's bunker is into a rise in the ground which exists in a certain spot.  He placed his tee and the green in relation to that rise.  Yes, it would be nice if there was room to build a tee 40 yards further back so Freddie can play the hole as Jones was supposed to -- although his second shot will still look a LOT different than Jones' approach -- but that room probably isn't there.

So what?  There are still a lot of members who will play the hole just as MacKenzie envisioned it for Jones if everything stays as it was.  Moving the bunker 40 yards downrange will destroy the relationship to the ground features, and Freddie could play short of it if he wanted and STILL reach the green no sweat, or even knock it in the bunker and hit an 8-iron out onto the green, so it has no meaning for him.

Tom

What do you think of moving bunkers further on when the terrain is basically flat?

[Mike_Young]

As TD says above...I think DR wold have anticipated much of the evolving of his course to be managed by the golf supt...I can't imagine he would have expected to have a Fan club and Ross experts making a business out of his courses.....BUT if he had a say....what would his qualifications be for the architect tinkering with his courses today.

[John_Cullum]

.....BUT if he had a say....what would his qualifications be for the architect tinkering with his courses today.

First would be a royalty payment

[David Stamm]

I think TD hits the nail on the head about this. Sure, it's logical to assume that Ross, Mack, Thomas, Tillie, Flynn etc would try and progress in their designs, but to assume that ANYBODY can take their designs and seamlessly interpret what they think those designers would've done is folly. I think the whole notion of renovation and restoration and the difference between the two is vital at the club level and educating the members what they are getting with each. I would be shocked if Whitten thought that courses like La Cumbre, Bel Air, Rancho Santa Fe, Oak Hill, Scioto, Inverness, Ojai etc. are a better course now than when they were first built. ALL of the men who came in after these designers had access to equipment and such that the GA's did not, and some how in every one of the instances the courses came out the worse for it. Now, there are instances where Mother Nature and such have had a hand in the evolution of some of these courses, but most of the "improvements" have been done by lesser designers than the originals.

[Tags:]

Tags: