Is this the main Dividing Line?

[Peter Pallotta]

On the thread about his new course in Cabos, Paul Cowley writes:"It is going to be very interesting to see how this course morphs over the years!"  Paul has written things like that before, i.e. that he believes golf courses do (and maybe even are meant to) change, and that he is comfortable and even excited by that prospect.

Is that the main line of division or debate in how we discuss golf course architecture?

What I mean is, is it the main difference between architects who think that golf courses (including their own) are living things that not only might but  in fact should change over the years and those architects who see golf courses (including the great ones of the past) almost like works of art that should as much as possible be preserved; between those who support or work on 'renovations' and those who support or work on 'restorations'; and between those who accept the ongoing lengthening of golf courses in the face of modern technology and those who call for a change/limit to equipment and a roll back of the ball so as to preserve a course's original integrity?

In other words, is what Paul suggesting really the main pivot and point of contention around which much of what we discuss here is being discussed? Or, am I making a mountain out of a mole hill (hee, hee)

Or, if this ramble it too unclear, just any comments/thoughts on Paul's statement would be good.

Peter       

[Brent Hutto]

I would think any architect with plenty of experience under his belt would be of the "courses are living things" point of view. In fact, the exact-preservationist point of view probably seems incompatible with reality from a working-architect's perspective.

You ought to ask Mike Young to bring it up in his next seance/roundtable...

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - do you think so? Maybe it is a matter a degrees, with the differences in degrees being quite important. That is, I was under the impression that someone like Paul might be talking about a greater degree and kind of change to his golf course (and welcoming it) and to ALL golf courses than many other architects might. But I grant that's just an impression...

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Brent is right to mention that MY guy. A point MY harps on is that many modern courses with all their filligree, exotic plants, sandy waste areas, wild contours and so forth are either maintenance disasters waiting to happen or they will evolve into very different looking courses over the decades.

There is something to that. The over-design of details carrries the buried assumption that the course will not evolve much. If you thought it would, why would you bother with all that detail work?

On the other hand, you'll not find many architect's who will actually admit anything like that. So I've always thought there is this push/pull going on under the surface. (MY's point reminds me of the Marxist-Leninists in college who wanted to stage political events that would reveal the inherent contradictions in modern political states. Think of MY as the Trotsky of gca. ) 

Bob



     

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - thanks. I was wondering why I'd grown so fond of Mike....

As always, you really do seem to get to the heart of it in a very clear way, i.e. we have a push-pull undercurrent that impacts/effects design decisions and design details...

Okay. So we have some principles/belief systems underlying or influencing the kind of golf course architecture we get, and what it costs to maintain that architecture.

I'm stuck. I don't know where I'm going with this. But it seems that how an architect really feels/thinks about this and where he actually falls on the dividing line may in fact be a main difference...

Peter   

[Bill_McBride]

If talking about renovation / restoration, isn't the dividing line between absolute restoration to say 1937 aerial photos (how do you know how deep the bunkers are?) and making the course play as well as possible while interpreting the architect's intentions?

This is why MY says things like, "I had a midnight visit from Donald Ross last night, and he said......."

Look at the evolution of many great courses, Oakmont and Pinehurst #2 being good examples.  The owner and/ or architect tweaked them for decades.  To what time would you restore them?

[RJ_Daley]

If there is a real dividing line between archies that look at their work from day one as something complete and unalterable and something that must fight evolution and those that look at the work as an ongoing and never ending evolution, then I think it lies in the archie's design firm character and demonstrated branding philosophy. 

I get the sense that the big top firms, Jack, Faz, Jones etc., particularly design within the framework of a turn key and perfect on day one creation with heavy emphasis on the marketing of R.E., and big membership subscriptions, etc.  In that mindset, I think they 'might' tend to look at the day one project as a complete work that nothing need be done because it is so intricate, complex in design and beutified ancillary to golf features. 

I think there are other archies with like minded developers that know the course will evolve.   They may plan on an opening day and years of evolution, as noted above, starting with a more minimalist field of play that will naturally be added to as the track matures, and nuances are found. 

Heck, wasn't that course in Philly somewhere designed by that amatuer and his committee of that exact understanding and mindset of getting the bones of the course open, then add to it as the game, play and usage evolves? 

I favor the modest, backbone of the course construction with the goal of adding efficiently and wisely as time goes on.  If the stucture of ground contours, drainage, and routing are sound, most any adjustments that are suggested by evolution of terrain or game or B&I tech will be positive.  If the structure is bad, the whole thing caves in relative to quality, as time goes by because too many bad ideas, or complicated structures need fixing.

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:

Well, since I am both a minimalist and a preservationist, I don't think your Dividing Line is too clear ... or else I am really good at straddling the line.

Every architect I know tries really hard to get things right the first time, including Paul I presume.  For what they pay us to do this work, we sure as hell ought to come reasonably close on the first go-round.

At the same time, most architects understand that EVERYTHING is subject to change.  Times change.  Fashion changes.  Owners change.  We change.  And Nature has a habit of trying to change things for us, although some styles are more conducive than others to allowing for that change.

[John Moore II]

Tom--How would a course like Pinehurst #2, a course you said was a 'perfect 10' (I don't suppose any course is perfect really) fits into this theory, at least the way you put it. The course that exists now is not what Ross designed the first time, Ross himself changed the routing around. And we have seen some of the evidence posted on this board about how the greens came to be as they are now. How does this fit in?
--Supposing you lived on the grounds and managed, say, Ballyneal, do you think you may make the same types of changes over the years? Certainly you make every effort to get things right the first time, but so did Ross, we must assume.

[Bill Brightly]

Interesting thread. This touches on a question that I am struggling with: What do you do with courses built in the late 1950's-early 60's that were built in what I call the RTJ-style? (Can we call these courses Young Dead Guy courses?)  Let's assume one of these courses is tired looking, the bunkers all need work, the sand is poor with rocks, they dont drain, etc. and your club knows work must be done and has the funds to do work.

Do you "restore" in the style on the 60's archie, or do you bring in one of the great "minimalists" that are doing such great work today and let them re-work the course?

Is bringing in a modern "minimalist" a good thing, or would it be as "wrong" as some of the work that was done in the 60's and 70's to Old Dead Guy courses?

[paul cowley]

....had glossed over this thread until now....thinking it was maybe an extention of the TEP WM/Tom MacDM Cronicles

A golf course should not be treated as a bonsai, or a museum piece.....but as biodynamic organism![see Rudolf Stiener et all].

And I really do try to get things right the first time.....but I'd move down a bar seat from the designer who told me he has just nailed something.
Experience tells me we would not have much in common, nor a fruitful conversation.
I'd prefer to drink alone and think about all the new stuff I do not know.

[John Moore II]

Interesting thread. This touches on a question that I am struggling with: What do you do with courses built in the late 1950's-early 60's that were built in what I call the RTJ-style? (Can we call these courses Young Dead Guy courses?)  Let's assume one of these courses is tired looking, the bunkers all need work, the sand is poor with rocks, they dont drain, etc. and your club knows work must be done and has the funds to do work.

Do you "restore" in the style on the 60's archie, or do you bring in one of the great "minimalists" that are doing such great work today and let them re-work the course?

Is bringing in a modern "minimalist" a good thing, or would it be as "wrong" as some of the work that was done in the 60's and 70's to Old Dead Guy courses?

Bill--That is a very interesting was to look at it. I would say you could get either type of architect to do the work. I don't think that one of the minimalist architects would go into Spyglass or Muirfield Village and exceptionally change the course based on what they think is correct. Now if the course is basically a poor course and a new owner wants to completely rework the image, that might be different. But overall, I don't think a minimalist would completely tear down what existed and change it to what they think is good.







(post 1000 )

[paul cowley]

.....actually a golf course is probably more a bonzai than its not.

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread. This touches on a question that I am struggling with: What do you do with courses built in the late 1950's-early 60's that were built in what I call the RTJ-style? (Can we call these courses Young Dead Guy courses?)  Let's assume one of these courses is tired looking, the bunkers all need work, the sand is poor with rocks, they dont drain, etc. and your club knows work must be done and has the funds to do work.

Do you "restore" in the style on the 60's archie, or do you bring in one of the great "minimalists" that are doing such great work today and let them re-work the course?

Is bringing in a modern "minimalist" a good thing, or would it be as "wrong" as some of the work that was done in the 60's and 70's to Old Dead Guy courses?

Bill--That is a very interesting was to look at it. I would say you could get either type of architect to do the work. I don't think that one of the minimalist architects would go into Spyglass or Muirfield Village and exceptionally change the course based on what they think is correct. Now if the course is basically a poor course and a new owner wants to completely rework the image, that might be different. But overall, I don't think a minimalist would completely tear down what existed and change it to what they think is good.

(post 1000 )

To restore or not restore Dark Age courses is a test of the purity of a restorationist. Do you restore a course whose style you don't like? Or do you restore only courses whose style you do like?

Seems to me you can't it both ways.

It's worth remembering that most GA courses that were lost to redos in the 50's and 60's were lost because people didn't like the style and they thought they could do something better.

Which is exactly the same thought process we go through now with some RTJ courses.

Tough issue.

Bob

 

 

[John Moore II]

Bob--that was what I was thinking and its why I used Spyglass as an example of RTJ. I think overall, RTJ did good work and his might be a little bit immune to excessive changes.  But I suppose it all depends on what the current greens committee wants. I guess with Sand Hills and Ballyneal being en vogue now, some courses may want a rework to that style.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, Paul - Steiner and biodynamics.

I think it was in the early 1910s and 20s that Steiner developed some of his ideas. The organic and vital life forces, and the turning back to our natural and healthy states (physically and spiritually and in how we grow food and teach our children) and away from rigid and formalized and mechanized approaches and understandings of the modern world.

I wonder if Steiner and Max Behr knew eachother. (I have no reason to think so, but no reason to think not -- it was certainly possible, as I'm almost sure Steiner travelled to the United States and maybe often, and maybe visited California).  I wonder if Behr was influenced by Steiner. But that's for anyother time, probably over a few drinks....

Peter 

[BCrosby]

Peter -

If they met, it's more likely that Behr influenced Steiner. I'll buy the next round.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Doak stated, "Every architect I know tries really hard to get things right the first time, including Paul I presume.  For what they pay us to do this work, we sure as hell ought to come reasonably close on the first go-round."

To me this hints at the "Main Dividing Line" which I feel is the evolution of the MEMBERSHIP!

Recently I examined a great golden age course that had undergone a complete renovation/restoration by one of the great architectural firms in the world (even recognized so by GCA standards).

In the Board of Governors notes just one month AFTER the multi-million dollar project was pronounced as finished, the new board president mentioned that he had sent a note to the membership asking if anyone had ideas for "CHANGES that they thought were necessary for the golf course."

A little over a year later the architect from above toured the course and "recommended a few MINOR changes."

Was that because of membership pressure to find some? Was it because he was not allowed to do what he had first wanted? (Completely unlikely as he had carte blanche). Was it because he missed some fine aspects that he should have noticed?

I am a believer that courses do evolve, but too many have this forced upon them by the membership's that control them... and usually not for the better.

[Dan Herrmann]

Don't most architects do some sort of renovation work too?   

Let's take Ross as an example... 

Half of Ross' courses are in the bottom half of his work.  That being said, if you were a member of a Ross course in the bottom half, wouldn't you want to improve it - to be true to Ross' design philosophies, but improve it?

[Pat Brockwell]

One thing all golf courses have in common, besides the 4.25" hole, is that they change.  Change is a universal constant.  Within change comes the happy surprise and the beguiling nuance that can surpass all of our attempts to create something outstanding.  Sad for the architect who rarely gets to play with the design once built.  As a keeper of the playing field I am able to allow time and the elements to show off their unique abilities to display brilliance, and exercise my discretion on what changes to allow, or not.  For me, it's another way to play the course.  I think the line is between evolution and entropy.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - fine post, and way to put it. I've asked this question before but not in those terms, i.e. were there architects in the past and/or those working today who are more comfortable with and indeed factor into their thoughts about design the forces of entropy or evolution?

Phil - thanks, you might be right.

Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

Kelly - thanks much for that post. I shouldn't have described the dividing line as a renovation-restoration debate, but I didn't have the right words to describe it until now, after these other posts. I guess what I'm asking is whether some architects past and present built "into the bones" of their courses the potential for change (and 'positive' change at that), and whether, if so, this could've been a conscious and philosophical choice.

Thanks again
Peter

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter - where does the "mea culpa" factor fit in?  When an architect knows he could have done something better on a given hole that he designed?

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter - where does the "mea culpa" factor fit in?  When an architect knows he could have done something better on a given hole that he designed?

Dan - I tried to leave that  factor out, on purpose. I assumed that like any other art-craft, much of the finished product can be explained by the fact the people make honest mistakes, that they are still on a learning curve, that sometimes they take short cuts or are flat-out lazy, and because some just don't have a great deal of talent. (Actually, now that you raise it, that "factor" might be a big one. ) But with the great courses and fine architects past and present, I was wondering more about the "choices" they make, the ones that might make some courses candidates for natural and beneficial evolution, and some not. 

Kelly - yes, and thanks again

Peter

[paul cowley]

Kelly - thanks much for that post. I shouldn't have described the dividing line as a renovation-restoration debate, but I didn't have the right words to describe it until now, after these other posts. I guess what I'm asking is whether some architects past and present built "into the bones" of their courses the potential for change (and 'positive' change at that), and whether, if so, this could've been a conscious and philosophical choice.

Thanks again
Peter

Peter....you have already surmised what side of the line I stand on.

It scares me that the idea of change is so fearful to many.....I guess the lack of change, or the ability to meter out its amount, creates a sense of security 

I'm much more fearful that things would have to stay the same, and equally scared of the group or persons in charge of overseeing the embalming and after "death".

We are talking about living, growing things.....and not just tissues and cells, but about developing  thoughts and ideas as well.

Personally I live, love, and learn from both the good and bad in all my waking and subconscious existence.
The only thing that would make me put a bullet in my brain is the idea or reality that things in the future would not change....for either the better or worse...I really don't care....its the fear of an unchanging sameness....like the weather being the same every day....it would be like a prison.

I think that most of those in this business that are fearful of change are those that suffer from larger than normal egos....or are among the less talented.