[paul cowley]

More and more I have a hard time understanding what the restoration fuss is all about.

At least on this side of the pond its only been the last 20 years or so that courses had enough chronological years to be considered historic......most of the changes that came before then were more an attempt to "Modernize", and bring earlier courses into the current vogue of design.

Restoration of classic golf courses is no different than what occurs in other areas of design.

In Fine Arts many restoration experts are employed to bring back significant pieces to thier formal glories....but not by drawing over or re sculpting.

The same holds true for building architecture.....where its common to see a structure brought up to modern codes during a restoration, that many times include sympathetic additions and modernizations....and in both of these areas an expert is paid well for services rendered.

I don't see why it should be any different with classic courses.

I think much of the debate here gets lost in non specifics and generalities.

In the past 20 years, how many CLASSIC courses can we name where a restoration went really wrong?

[I capped classic for emphasis].



 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good morning, Paul! I hope you and Miss Dawn are doing well.

I agree that the problem with these discussions in generalities. In those general discussions, it appears that the difference is that some who call for restoration call for it to be restored without any changes, which would be building arcthitectural equivalent to making the sympathetic modern additions.

Perhaps its because golf is golf, and there is no need to convert the old train station to a day spa, office, or whatever in order to provide the economic basis to save the overall structure.  That opens up the debate as to whether the game has changed enough to warrant changing courses.

All I am really arguing for is case by case analysis rather than a headlong jump on either the restoration or total renovation bandwagon, at least for most courses.  I think everyone agrees in principle that our top courses should be kept pretty close to original versions, if possible.

I think its kind of a "sound bit/labeling" issue, kind of like a political debate.  While candidates spout off on how opposite his proposals are from the other guy/party on an issue (let say welfare spending) in reality, both parties support it, and their proposals probably only vary in a few percentage points of money or details.  But, the Democrats will accuse the Republicans of trying to end it, and the Republicans will accuse the Democrats of trying to expand it to the point of bankrupting the country, when in reality, its like .001% of the Federal budget either way.

So, you are right.  Its more of a perception issue here on golfclubatlas.com than it is a real life, life and death problem, at least IMHO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

As to how many restorations have gone wrong, probably not too many, although some of the faithful here would argue that any restoration by Jones, Fazio or any gca not in the favored few went horribly wrong (see the old Merion threads) when they hired those gca's.  In fact, they didn't, by most accounts outside of golf club atlas.  

I think the bigger question in the debate is how many modernizations have gone "wrong" and caused a course to become worse off than it was.  That one will never be answered, I guess, because who makes that call and how is it determined?  By the vocal minority calling for more restorations?  The members?  The press?  

Certainly, there are some, but I wonder if that publicity from a few (like the 1980 Inverness redo) becomes a clarion call, much like the diazon spill 50 years ago that environmentalists still bring up when claiming "all" golf courses pollute the environment.

Again, sound bites and labeling are the big issues!

[Sean_A]

JIm,

You said, "Darwin's theory of evolution does not say all movement is forward.  Along the way there are plenty of mis-steps, road bumps and dead-ends.  Progress, when it comes, results from random mutations. "

I agree and that's why I said "eventually."  Given the outside forces (like highway relocations, change in greens committees, etc.) at clubs, I think that replicates the randomness of nature.  Admittedly, few members want to wait 1000 years to get the course to the highest form, if they are paying dues now, so the "long view" of course evolution isn't truly apt in practicality as it is theory.

Sean,

Interesting that your take is on "unusal features" as I was thinking more of the "typical problems" facing courses as they age, like length, urban encroachment, need for more parking, other facilities, etc.  I tend to agree with the need to keep unusual features in a course. On my new designs, I have put in some unusual features for that purpose.

I wonder why so many people want to make their course more like others, rather than less like others.  

Again, I doubt clubs worry about the oveall diversity of courses in a region or world as much as giving their club a calling card that helps fill and maintain membership lists.  Apparently, they think a watered down version of Winged Foot, or a TPC seem like a better alternative than a course with some unusual holes that is unique.  

But none of the above necessarily contradicts my premise that doing what is best for the course is what should be done, given its present circumstances, even if judgements used are faulty sometimes.  

Perhaps the best case for restorations at mid portfolio clubs of a Ross or Tillie, etc. is that in case of a tie vote on what is best, we revert to the original plan intent.  That theory alone would drive restoration at most clubs, since many can't agree on anything!

Just some random pre coffee musings on a Sunday morning!

Jeff

It interesting that you think its interesting that my beef with some restoration is the homogenization of courses!

I am sure there are times when a club has aspirations and alterations are seen as necessary to complete the plan - see Hoylake's controversial alterations to 17.  I really question the "need" for many changes to courses.  That isn't to say that many courses shouldn't be altered, just that a certain number (I am not able to qualify that number, but it couldn't be that many courses) shouldn't be touched for whatever reason.  Some would say that Hoylake's 17th shouldn't have been changed just to get an Open or for so called safety reasons.  As it is - I am not convinced the hole needed to be changed, but I think the new hole is very good and the green is one of the best on the course.

I am sure that clubs don't worry about diversification of golf design.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is no doubt in my mind that we here on this site probably go overboard with trying to maintain the status quo.  However, you have to start somewhere.  Its not like we are being over-run with projects to restore courses to former glory - whatever yardstick is used to make that determination.

Of course what is best for a course should be done, but that brings us right back to square one!

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Certainly change for safety issues is a real tough question. While we can all agree that golfers should be able to be careful, one injury in a tight spot would cause many to rethink, and two would cause all to rethink, at least I think.

Do you find that thought interesting?

I agree that there ought to be some level of preservation of our golf design history.  I don't think I want any government involvment, as in using the historic register, but maybe.  Like you, I don't know what the magic number is.  Like Mike Young, I believe there are so few courses that are truly unchanged to warrant saving, and I don't think that a rebuilding restoration would be quite the same as saving true original work.  Again, in general, and each specific course must make its own decisions.

Taking my Dornoch Hills involvemet for example, as TD did.  Maxwell's original NGLA inspired fw plans were long gone, probably with maintenance reductions in the depression.  His greens were gone in 1956, probably because they required returfing, and club members figured they would soften those blasted contours at the same time.  Chris Clouser would know, but I am not sure there is enough photographic evidence to have redone them correctly if they wanted.  And, they didn't want to when they hired Nugent.

I recall discussing restoration with them, including the dramatic fw bunker on 10, but they were only interested in matching Nugent's work.  And, they barely had enough funds for the second nine holes, so going back to do three year old greens was not going to happen.  And, they didn't want Maxwell contours anyway, as they were tired of putting off the greens as they were.  Lastly, there were some circulation problems for carts that Maxwell couldn't envision that they wanted fixed, and the swamp in front of 17 green was a problem, even if originally designed in, so we added a pond.

I wonder if the club has restoration envy now, but even if they did, a small town club probably won't have the chance to do it over again, at least for a long, long time.  And, if they did, my pond would probably stay, and some of the original features probably would never find their way back - on the original plans, those huge fw bunkers would cost a lot to build and maintain, and the cost would likely be an issue again.

What outside agency could force a modest means club like DH to build something outside there (presumably) modest means?  Does historic preservation rule at all costs when its  your money being spent vs when you advocate it on golfclubatlas.com for others money to pay for?

I understand the general lament that a historic course is gone, but also the practical realities facing most clubs, similar to those in my specific example.  So, at DH, and most other places, it just is what it is, and a lot of factors go into the final (or should I say current) product.

Sometimes we lose sight of how much joy that course - in its many forms - gives its golfers, regardless of mixed pedigree.  Do we need a purebred show dog or can a mutt be just as good a companion?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Certainly change for safety issues is a real tough question. While we can all agree that golfers should be able to be careful, one injury in a tight spot would cause many to rethink, and two would cause all to rethink, at least I think.

Do you find that thought interesting?

I agree that there ought to be some level of preservation of our golf design history.  I don't think I want any government involvment, as in using the historic register, but maybe.  Like you, I don't know what the magic number is.  Like Mike Young, I believe there are so few courses that are truly unchanged to warrant saving, and I don't think that a rebuilding restoration would be quite the same as saving true original work.  Again, in general, and each specific course must make its own decisions.

Taking my Dornoch Hills involvemet for example, as TD did.  Maxwell's original NGLA inspired fw plans were long gone, probably with maintenance reductions in the depression.  His greens were gone in 1956, probably because they required returfing, and club members figured they would soften those blasted contours at the same time.  Chris Clouser would know, but I am not sure there is enough photographic evidence to have redone them correctly if they wanted.  And, they didn't want to when they hired Nugent.

I recall discussing restoration with them, including the dramatic fw bunker on 10, but they were only interested in matching Nugent's work.  And, they barely had enough funds for the second nine holes, so going back to do three year old greens was not going to happen.  And, they didn't want Maxwell contours anyway, as they were tired of putting off the greens as they were.  Lastly, there were some circulation problems for carts that Maxwell couldn't envision that they wanted fixed, and the swamp in front of 17 green was a problem, even if originally designed in, so we added a pond.

I wonder if the club has restoration envy now, but even if they did, a small town club probably won't have the chance to do it over again, at least for a long, long time.  And, if they did, my pond would probably stay, and some of the original features probably would never find their way back - on the original plans, those huge fw bunkers would cost a lot to build and maintain, and the cost would likely be an issue again.

What outside agency could force a modest means club like DH to build something outside there (presumably) modest means?  Does historic preservation rule at all costs when its  your money being spent vs when you advocate it on golfclubatlas.com for others money to pay for?

I understand the general lament that a historic course is gone, but also the practical realities facing most clubs, similar to those in my specific example.  So, at DH, and most other places, it just is what it is, and a lot of factors go into the final (or should I say current) product.

Sometimes we lose sight of how much joy that course - in its many forms - gives its golfers, regardless of mixed pedigree.  Do we need a purebred show dog or can a mutt be just as good a companion?

Going back to the 17th at Hoylake for example.  I am sure there were safety issues because the road was very close to the rear of the green.  However, that road was the significant feature of the hole!  I don't know if there were any easy solutions, but the decision was probably a no brainer once it became apparent that folks needed to get around an Open course and having stands might be useful.  Its really quite amazing the lengths Hoylake went to for that Open.  

I don't have any answers concerning what to save, who decides and how the these decisions are funded.  That doesn't mean having the discussion is fruitless.  I can envision there someday being a group which is founded to help clubs of certain pedigree, but perhaps not have the funding to keep their course as "it should be".

I don't think there is the disparity in quality of golf courses that others seem to think exist.  I haven't seen too many awful courses and probably not that many awesome courses.  So yes, I agree that in most cases, most golfers are very content with their golfing lot.  I may be unusual in that I am coming more to the point where that little bit of difference is becoming more and more important to me.  I would rather not play then to play somewhere that doesn't get me excited.  Of course, there are always exceptions and these usually revolve around free or very cheap golf!  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean

Again we agree. I rarely go play my club. I am more interested in seeing new courses, whether my game is up to it or not!  We gca enthusiasts lose sight of the fact that 90% of all rounds are played based on cost and location, with maintenance and service the next biggest factors.  Design ranks pretty low, and even then, a tough design that doesn't help golfers is more likely to be thought of as a candidate for renovation than an easy one, except at a select few places.

I wish I was more familiar with your example at Hoylake.  However, once we use a tournament course as an example, it takes it out of the useful category for so many other courses facing safety or other decisions, I think.

Don't feel bad about not having answers to those questions. I think the short version of my posts is that no one seems to.

[paul cowley]

"I think the bigger question in the debate is how many modernizations have gone "wrong" and caused a course to become worse off than it was.  That one will never be answered, I guess, because who makes that call and how is it determined?  By the vocal minority calling for more restorations?  The members?  The press?"

Jeff.....good afternoon!

I was trying to confine my comments to restoration.

Redos and major renovations are another topic...a topic that also gets churned here too much when debated theoretically....the discussion is much more interesting when it is about a specific course......like your points about DH. IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()