When will enthusiasts embrace change — and not make fun of it?

[Adam Clayman]

What examples are laughed at?

People easily accept change when the justification is "smart". As in the examples Mr. Macpherson gave.

Shouldn't "dumb" changes be laughed at?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest:

I understand that things change, but let me ask you something:  do you believe there is such a thing as a "better" design of a bunker?

If you do, then don't you think it's valid to try and preserve a really good one? 

And if you don't, then what drives you to be in this business at all?

I can read this in two ways.  The way TD means it and the way that says, yes, I believe in better bunker designs.  Therefore, there is no bunker out there that'c can't be improved, at least somewhat.

As to preserving a really good one, isn't the bunker on 10 at Augusta a good example of that?  It may be the prettiest bunker on the course.  Was it worth keeping even though it no longer affects play?  Would it be worth it anywhere other than the Masters course?

Surely, the context of the course (private when opened, muni now, etc.) had to be figured into the discussion.  As mentioned, I have been called to a few of my own decade or two old courses to review them as they have evolved and found out not all my great ideas worked over time. Not only that, they don't work now because of changes to the game and maintenance levels.

My reference to pushing a rock up the hill is the fact that many posters here (think Joel Stewart on this one! ) aren't all that objective either.  While we can always sit on the sidelines and tell other people what we think they ought to do, who is more likely to make a "good" decision - the ones with a stake in the project for now and the future or ones without a stake, but a strong nostalgic sentiment for days gone by?

[Rich Goodale]

Rich -

You missed my point. By 180 degrees.

I asked the question - what deference ought to be given to the work of great, historic architects?

If Forrest's view is that "all designs can be improved," I take it that his answer to my question would be "none."

That's an odd stance (at a number of levels) for a professional architect to take.

You, however, I forgive.

Bob

Bob

I'll grant you 179 degrees, but not a degree more.  Thanks for the forgiveness, but my deference quotient on this question is zero.  Respect, yes.  Deference, no.

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

The very nature of a golf course is that it will change or more precisely evolve as it is played. The weight of thousands playing the course will compact the soil. The Air, Wind, Sun and Rain will inevitably leave their mark requiring remedial works. Each course is different. Those created in the early days incorporated the spirit of the land, shaped by natural contours, with the soil nourished by sheep droppings over centuries and aired, and drained by worms.

The magic of golf is that no two courses are identical. They develop as they are used, some more so than others; hence my suggestion that the less well know but old Scottish courses should be tried.

The Old Course, although centuries old, has been changed. One just needs to look at the old maps from 1821 through to 1879, and late 1890’s to see the full extent. Bunkers modified, changed and added, whin, heather and rough grass removed to form wider fairways. Land was also reclaimed from the sea. Part of the First Fairway has that honour including the Bruce Embankment to the seaward side of the R&A Club House.  All changed, modified, improved, call it what you will.

The reality is that Golf Courses change. With modern use and in constant play they need to be maintained which will in its self, create change. After Old Tom retired some of those that followed killed the earth worms which in turn created small pools of water on the greens. Today we have more understanding regards maintenance, but add to the requirement of cart tracks (unless grass) and environmental issues such as water conservation then we may be looking at more intrusive change i.e. more artificial reservoirs or ponds close to each green.

However, change for change sake is not acceptable, but a small adjustment as and when necessary to continue the game in its traditional way, will get my approval. Technology is not a bad thing if controlled. I am keen to see clubs and ball reliability improved, but not to increase distance, just to see my ball travel an additional 10-15 yards further. Who am I kidding? It’s the club/ball that gives me the distance.

I do think that it is time the manufacturers showed some creativity. As for architects perhaps we expect too much creativity on peripheral items and not enough on the field of play.   

[Neal_Meagher]

The esteemed Mr. Brauer brings up a very interesting point regarding the "MacKenzie" bunker on No. 10 at ANGC.  It is attractive and perhaps that is the reason it was retained when the present green was built far beyond it by Maxwell in 1937, just a few years after the course opened.

This begs two questions:

1) Was the bunker retained because it was attractive and, thus, deemed unimprovable?

or

2) Was the bunker retained because it does, unlike Jeff's assertion, affect play still for the average member playing off the members tee?  I cannot answer that question as I have never played ANGC.

If the latter statement is not true, then Jeff has been talking to most of my clients who rue the suggestion of placing a bunker where it isn't "in play".  Is that not one of the best features of the revered links courses, that there are hazards in seemingly innocuous locations that do still come into play depending on the skill of player and condition of the weather?

[Mark_Fine]

As many of you know, I work with this Richardson guy on a number of projects.  He tends to come around (as long as I am carrying my trusty 4I to beat him into submission)    Actually Forrest and I have worked on several classic golf courses together and we have a lot of fun exchanging ideas and different points of view about historic designs.  While we both recognize that all courses change, we also know that not all change is for the better.  The key at least in my opinion, is to take the time to study what has changed before doing/proposing something radical. 

At Mira Vista G&CC (formerly Berkeley CC) in El Cerrito, CA, we both recognized that we were working on Robert Hunter’s one and only original design.  Extensive research was done to figure out what was there and how the course evolved over the years.  In the end, our Master Plan for improvement reflects and will restore the original design intent and philosophies of Hunter far more than what is there now.  At the same time, we have recognized and allotted for the many other demands and constraints that Hunter did not have to face back in 1920.  We like to think Hunter would be proud with our vision for his golf course, but more importantly, the membership there has embraced the proposed changes and now realizes that they are entrusted with a very special golf course. 

Neal,
The bunker on #10 at ANGC was retained because very soon it will be in play and force players on the tee to think about club selection so they don't drive into it 

[paul cowley]

Change in everything is inevitable.....its how we embrace and adapt to it, and by what means, measures and standards that is important.

Even fixed field sports adapt and evolve....baseball, football and basketball have enjoyed quite an evolution since their inception and golf is a much wilder cousin.

The Hell bunker of late is a disappointment....a little hellion at best.

[Tom_Doak]

Neal M:  To answer your question, that bunker on #10 at Augusta really isn't a factor for member play [except maybe for second shots of 80-year-old members].  They've preserved it because it's cool to look at and because it wasn't in the way of any proposed renovations.  If it were 200 yards off the tee, strangely enough, it would probably be long gone.

RJ:  I like your answer -- things are bound to change, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're supposed to change.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

I think we are all in the case by case camp.  We may disagree on the number of courses that should never change. Some would say less than 1% fall in that category where changes would be so minimal as to not be noticed.  Basically, its a conscious decision to create a museum piece.  Others would put it as high as the top 25% of every gca's courses.  I

 think I trend to single digit preservation percentages.  Think of it this way, if every course were a step back in time, would all the great ones that are a step back in time be so special?

But the way TD rephrased your question, I again have to say this is a deep topic by a guy with thin hair!  The more I think about it, in the mega mega picture, golf courses may just have to change and those that don't should be fairly limited.  It goes against the bigger trends everywhere else in life that the only constant is change.  So let it go and let the chips fall where they may!  Some will be better. Some will be worse. But, we will all have something to talk about.

[Mike Bowline]

It is interesting to read about an architect who, upon revisiting one of his designs from years ago, realizes that changes of some type causes him to realize the design could now be improved.

Said change could be technology rendering some design elements obsolete, or change forced on the course by well-intentioned remodelling, or most interestingly, change due to the architect having gained further design maturity and realizing it now could be made "better".

When a building architect designs a building, he does not expect to return years later and find the design intent changed by a new exterior color, or an ugly square footage addition made, or the atrium glass painted over because somebody didn't like the sunlight.

But because the golf course is a living, breathing assemblage of soil, grass, water, trees battered by the wind, rain, etc, it is bound to change. Not the mention the incessant pounding of feet, mowers, golf carts and sand splashed out of bunkers.

Are these changes for the better? Or should every attempt be made to obliterate the changes and return to the original design?

[Daryn_Soldan]

Jeff,

I was out with the Colbert Hills folks and some golf course management students today and the discussion centered on the course's bunker issues and current modifications. One of the memorable comments that was thrown out was " thank goodness Brauer's still alive so none of these bunkers have become too sacred yet." An interesting observation.

While its not all laughs, the truth is that the situation here at Colbert Hills is providing a valuable case study for my master's thesis that has evolved into a study of bunker maintenance and management and how it relates back to design and construction decisions. Obviously a major aspect of this is why and how changes are made as well as how to best address the changes that may not be a direct result of the hand of man. I hope to share the information with this group for thoughts and feedback as I delve further into the topic.

-Daryn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Daryn,

I jave trouble considering any bunkers of mine sacred but always wonder how the reaction would be if I slammed the hat and demanded that every single bunker stay as is, as some signature architects might.  In the end, i think economics win out nearly every time, but I could be wrong.

I look forward to seeing your updates.

[Ryan Farrow]

Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment





Are we talking about the natural changes a course experiences from time and mother nature or the changes made by architects over the years to the course?

I don't think we are, but if we are is it not up to the architect to account for change? Should it solely be up to the superintendent to maintain the integrity of every detail of every bunker?

I don't think it is and that is one of the benefits of the scruffy, natural looking bunker style. If a portion collapses will anyone really notice? Or better yet, will anyone care? That is not a luxury you have with grass faced and clean cut bunkers. On the other hand I don't think its acceptable for volcano bunkers to form over the years or for green contours to change because green side bunkers or poor topdressing practices.

As for the purposeful destruction of a golf course? Just make sure your building a better product than the one you just tore up, that can't be asking for too much.  Cough, Riviera.... cough.... cough....

[Sean_A]

At Mira Vista G&CC (formerly Berkeley CC) in El Cerrito, CA, we both recognized that we were working on Robert Hunter’s one and only original design.  Extensive research was done to figure out what was there and how the course evolved over the years.  In the end, our Master Plan for improvement reflects and will restore the original design intent and philosophies of Hunter far more than what is there now.  At the same time, we have recognized and allotted for the many other demands and constraints that Hunter did not have to face back in 1920.  We like to think Hunter would be proud with our vision for his golf course, but more importantly, the membership there has embraced the proposed changes and now realizes that they are entrusted with a very special golf course. 

Mark

You went around the block once or twice, but you eventually got there.  We often look at archies as if they should be some sort of servant to the ideas and archies of the past.  The reality is that archies have bosses and they aren't ODGs.  Furthermore, technology has changed so much that it can be very difficult to recreate design intent.  Often times people view this in a negative way, but I wonder how many 275 -325 yard par 4s are much better today because many more people can have a go at the green?  How much an archie can remodel, restore or whatever you want to call it is as much down to his BS as it is his work in the ground.  Some archies have cultivated the reverence angle better than others and some have cultivated  this angle so well that they can sell old ideas as a new product.  Its the ultimate in marketing: its new, its improved and its classic.   

I have always believed that some courses should be preserved as the original designer intended, but shit happens as it ultimately must.  These things will always go in fits and turns.  Its the nature of nature (which includes people).  We can argue about aesthetics til the cows come home, but its a trend sort of thing - and I say this as someone who is strongly influenced by the look of a course.  So much effort is put into the aesthetics of courses that I wonder if this isn't one of the main reasons for such bland, repeatable designs.  Much more time needs to be spent on the whys of design with one of the main aims being to create as much variety as is reasonable given any particular site. 

Ciao   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forrest,
Scott Macpherson makes a good point when he talks about the instability of a sand based (and I'd add wind blown) course vs. one built on clay soils.
'Change' would probably be more embraceable:
-if most of our courses here were sandy and windy;
-if it wasn't done just to make someone's job easier;
-if it wasn't conceived by a self absorbed board member;
-if it was done as a true improvement to the original.

Jeff,
You talked about going back to one of your courses after 20 or so years and seeing that not all of your 'great ideas' worked out. If the subsequent changes made to your work were of a nature where you could say of them "..that's what I meant to do!" then those changes fit seamlessly into the original and I don't think that's the type of change that bothers many people.

That still doesn't stop me from believing that there are some courses which should be preserved in a state that closely resembles their original intent due to their unique characteristics or historic significance. 



       

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I agree that a few courses ought to be kept as reasonably close to original design as possible, such as Hunters one design, as Mark Fine points out.  Or the 3-10 top courses of almost any sucessful designer.  But, I say that out of desire to see them and learn something from them. 

But perhaps the definitions of change should be addressed.  In our lifetime, perhaps the biggest single change to TOC (save new back tees for the Open) is the irrigation system and its affects on turf.  Granted, they don't use it a lot compared to the US but I note that all the Scottish courses seem to get a little greener every time I watch the Open.

Even NGLA - perhaps the best museum piece golf course in the USA - has changed in play due to better maintenance. Its not the same course CBM envisioned, is it?  And would he say its better? I think so, save the smoothly maintained bunkers, but its just a guess. 

Even if we preserve the exact location of bunkers, green contours, etc. so much else changes that a course changes anyway, whether we like it or not.  So, preserving some of the features but letting the game change doesn't truly replicate the play experience of days past. Its just a good approximation.

[Jeff Doerr]

As many of you know, I work with this Richardson guy on a number of projects.  He tends to come around (as long as I am carrying my trusty 4I to beat him into submission)    Actually Forrest and I have worked on several classic golf courses together and we have a lot of fun exchanging ideas and different points of view about historic designs.  While we both recognize that all courses change, we also know that not all change is for the better.  The key at least in my opinion, is to take the time to study what has changed before doing/proposing something radical. 

At Mira Vista G&CC (formerly Berkeley CC) in El Cerrito, CA, we both recognized that we were working on Robert Hunter’s one and only original design.  Extensive research was done to figure out what was there and how the course evolved over the years.  In the end, our Master Plan for improvement reflects and will restore the original design intent and philosophies of Hunter far more than what is there now.  At the same time, we have recognized and allotted for the many other demands and constraints that Hunter did not have to face back in 1920.  We like to think Hunter would be proud with our vision for his golf course, but more importantly, the membership there has embraced the proposed changes and now realizes that they are entrusted with a very special golf course. 

Neal,
The bunker on #10 at ANGC was retained because very soon it will be in play and force players on the tee to think about club selection so they don't drive into it 

Thanks Mark.

I think golf courses, while primarily a field for sport and competition, are also museum and art. As such, certain ones should be preserved as much as possible.

Then again, maybe a bunch of them need re-perfecting!

Seriously, the restoration movement is great when it recovers history that is important to the sport. Around here, we talk of the top 5% of courses. For the most part, change would be good for the other 95%.

[TEPaul]

"Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment?"


Forrest:

That is a wonderful question. In a real sense IT IS one of the most fundamental questions a site like this one with contributors like these on here can deal with. It is also one of the hardest questions to answer even for these kinds of enthusiasts.

My personal take on that question, for some years now, has been that just because all kinds of architectural changes took place on golf courses over the years at the hands of most all architects of any time SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN AS A REASON OR AN EXCUSE that it should necessarily continue in the future, particularly on some courses.

But that's just architects. What about maintenance practices and evolutionary changes in architecture without the input of architects?

We certainly know that maintenance practices CAN alter architecture massively over time.

I think a new wrinkle may develop as a logical "next step" in the "renaissance" we see in architecture that could be arguably called the "restoration era". I think that new wrinkle will be something I would term and have termed "Holding the Look."

We do know that is possible to do even if it may not have been thought of before in golf and architecture and maintenance programs and practices. Digital photography can certainly be a useful tool but the most useful tool of all will be to "hold the look" through applied maintenance practices for that very purpose and goal.

I think that shortly there will be a report coming out of the Midwest in precisely how to do this----eg "Holding the Look" or precluding the need for architectural projects of the frequency we have seen in the past and seem to be expecting in the future. The gist of it will be that it can be done through annual maintenance budgeting and annual maintenance department work.

If that were done comprehensively in golf and on golf courses would that effect the potential business of architects? Of course it would.  But how many architects have ever recommended some modus operandi that would preclude future business for them and their industry? It's a little like asking house painters to endorse a paint that will last for 150 years. 

But it is certainly possible for applied maintenance practices to "hold the look" of an era or style on architecture far more than has ever been done before or tried before or frankly even thought of before. For some courses really interested in architectural preservation, I think this will be the wave of the future----eg "Holding the Look" through annual budgeting and applied maintenance practices.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
When do you start "Holding the Look"?  Are you sure that really fits?  Some features such as bunkers and other hazards can look and function better as they age. 

[Kirk Gill]

GCA preservation is always going to be as much a mindset as a technique, so I like what Mr. Paul says regarding "holding the look," although obviously more than the "look" needs to be held. At the same time, many changes aren't necessarily all that visible in the short term, only when you make comparisons over a greater period of time.

And when you talk about changing something like a golf course, you have to ask "Are we changing forward, to something intended to be new and better, or are we changing back to something intended to be like things used to be, and presumably better than the current version?" Of all the changes that have been made to courses, most of the time weren't there  people in charge of the operation who, in good conscience, thought that they were improving things? And maybe they did, given the thoughts and impressions of their time. Then someone else comes along, with their own notions of better or worse, and do it all over again. Once that cat's out of the bag, to what degree can you honestly say that you're going back to the original? When a group of restoration experts finished their work on the Sistine Chapel (I know, I'm bringing THAT up again...), some hailed the result, some hated it, some thought it was a return to what Mike L. Angelo intended, others thought they turned his masterpiece into a bunch of cartoons. Who can know? What we do know is that the latest batch of restoration experts found and removed a bunch of previous restoration while they were working. Most done in good faith, to make things better, but the standard of the day. Despite all those efforts, change continued, and finally someone came along and changed it back to their best guess of what was there in the first place. Can a GCA do any more than that?

To embrace the changes imposed by time and by man and by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune takes the mind of a philosopher, and maybe making fun of change is somehow connected to the fact that we're uncomfortable with the notion of its inevitability............

[Forrest Richardson]

Bob — You asked, "How much deference ought to be given to the design ideas of an architect with an established reputation for excellence?

Certainly not "none"...I think it depends on what is at stake. Can there always be a better design? In my opinion, yes. But that does not mean that I would pursue a new design in every instance.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jim — You said, "Scott Macpherson makes a good point when he talks about the instability of a sand based (and I'd add wind blown) course vs. one built on clay soils...."

Yes. Understood. But, in a world where most golf course work (even sand-based) involves bulldozers, heavy lifting and lots (compared to the archaic days) of earthmoving, there is not a lot of difference between sand-based and soil-based in terms of "modern" change. I am not convinced that soil-based designs are truly much different in today's world, except of course for the nature of the course and environment.

While sand-based courses adjust at the hands of nature on a more rapid basis, the change at the hands of man is pretty much the same between course types.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
When do you start "Holding the Look"?  Are you sure that really fits?  Some features such as bunkers and other hazards can look and function better as they age. 


Come on Mark, you can't be serious! Most of the time, on this website, the modus is, instead of considering something and dealing with it rationally, the alternative is to just ask a question and keep the indecision going!   

When do you start holding the look? Are you sure it really fits? Those are the decisions people just have to make, Mark. If it's called "picking a time" or "picking a look" then just make the decision and do it and stick with it and hold that look through applied maintenance practices! 

Let's say bunkers look and function better with age, as you say? Then WHEN they get to that point then just DECIDE to hold that look. 

[paul cowley]

....holding the look?.....is more like holding ones head.

Any true designer out there is not at all concerned with holding anything.....much less trying to 'fix in time' their ideas and creations.

Its the opposite.

Its not about terra firma but the freedom to morph....versus gelling and calling it a life.

One should be nervous of any designer that tells you they have nailed it, and that it should never be changed.





 

[paul cowley]

Oh, and as long as I am still up....screw the idea of 'fixing in time' any changes to bunkers.....just look at the top five courses and all the evolutionary changes that have happened to them.

Sometimes this site reminds me of a bunch of stodgy old folks lamenting about all the change that has happened during their lives.....