[Phil_the_Author]

Especially as one who has studied Tillinghast's designs and philosophies of designs intently for more than a decade, I find this discussion fascinating on a variety of levels.

First and foremost is the need for clear-cut definitions that without which misunderstandings take over. By "definitions" I am not meaning how we today understand the word or phrase but, rather, how the original designer would have defined it.

For example, Tom Doak, in refering to hs work at Camargo said, "Eventually, it dawned on me.  Both holes in question were slight doglegs, with the bunker on the inside..."

Now it seems to me that this statement also implies that  dogleg can have a bunker on the OUTSIDE of the turn in his definition of a dogleg and possibly one NOT on the insise. In other words, what seems to define the word "dogleg" for Tom, and I'm certain he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is a hole that turns or bends around a certain point changing it's original orientation.

Now this isn't a right or wrong point, but an example of how a different architect defined "dogleg" more specifically and in a different manner than what I am presuming Tom meant.

Tily defined a dogleg as follows - "A dog-leg hole provides some pronounced obstruction, which forms a corner in a twisted fairway from either side. If it be impossible to carry over this obstruction, but at the same time necessary to get beyond it in order to open up the next shot, we have a Dog-leg... If a similar Obstruction may be carried by a courageous shot, we have an Elbow." 

So in Tilly's mind the hole type is not simply defined by the fact that it bends and has an obstruction, but how the INSIDE OBSTRUCTION ONLY affetca the desired second shot.

That dcertainly seems different than Tom's definition and Tom is quite correct in defining a hole in his manner. But proper restoration of the hole clearly requires understanding not only of the original designer's construction intent but his philosophical one as well. For we look at what has been built with our own eyes and how our minds define what we see. Understanding the philosophy of what was behind the design is more important.

In my opinion then, an architect attempting to restore another's work to reflect his original intent for today's player and game needs to get inside the other's mind as much as the way his course was played.

[Carl Nichols]

Philip:
Did he define "obstruction"? Could it include mere rough?

[Jeff Goldman]

Isn't the easiest, and possibly the only, way to conform to the original architect's intent to restore as close as possible what was there in the first place?  It's the safest -- and as close as you can get to putting in what the architect put in.

Adam,

Do you think Tom D. was actually channeling Raynor's intent at Camargo when he found an excuse to not move the bunkers?  Do you think Raynor's intent was to challenge mid-high handicappers with those bunkers?  That's how they operate now,  but it's hard to think that he put them there for that reason.  Just as likely that the land was a good place to put bunkers, and whoever they were relevant for, they were relevant for.  By putting back what was there where it was there, you avoid as much as possible this sort of archeology (but see the Aronomink threads I guess). 

Once one starts to try to "do what the architect would do if he were here now" it's hard to stop, and that can probably justify a lot of new stuff.  If done, though, then the architect can proudly say, "_____ is smiling down from where he is, and would approve if he were here" (yeech).

[Carl Rogers]

What about the issue of maintaining 'shot values' as being true to the architect's intent?

I thought that the lengthening of ANGC was the response (or excuse) to preserve the 'shot values' and thus the intent of the architect(s).

If the intent of a restoration / re-modeling is to preserve shot values, then you rationalize moving tees, fairway bunkers and maybe greens ... and at some point it is not the same course anymore.

So maintaining 'shot values' may or may not be relevant to a restoration??

[Phil_the_Author]

Carl,

You asked if Tilly defined the term "obstruction" and asked further if it could include "mere rough?"

No, Tilly did not define "Obstruction" but the key term in his definition of "Dogleg" was his phrase "impossible to carry over this obstruction, but at the same time necessary to get beyond."

Note, that it would be impossible to carry over. A good example of this is the 12th hole on Bethpage Black. It's original tee in 1936 would have measured as long as 475 yards as a par 4. The left bunker juts out at an angle into the fairway and would have been near impossible to carry back then. Yet a good player would have been able to play to the fairway right of it and with good conditions pass it by thereby opening up the line for the second shot.

Today, with this same design definition, he would view this as an "Elbow" hole because the obstruction could be carried with a "courageous shot."

Back to "Obstruction." In the booklet in which Tilly defined these terms he gave several illustrations of actual holes he had designed. Whether they were "Dogleg," "Elbow" or "Cape" (A specific type of Elbow hole in his definitions) they all had Obstructions that were far more than "mere rough." These insluded, trees, water, bunkers and sandy waste areas.
 

[Carl Nichols]

But can't rough be impossible to carry (or courageous to carry) if the shot is long enough?

[Phil_the_Author]

Carl,

I don't disagree with you, it can be impossible to carry. That doesn't mean that Tilly considered it an "obstruction" in the sense that you or I might and define it as such. In fact, that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.

The question of this thread deal's with the original design architect's intent and not our view on what they put on the ground when it comes to a question of restoring it to their original intent.

[TEPaul]

Philip:

I've long been interested (and somewhat amused) by Tillinghast's definitional distinction on what he considered to be the difference between a dogleg hole and an elbow hole. It makes sense and we should keep in mind that distinction on Tillinghast's courses but I don't know that others or many others shared his definitional distinction or were even aware of it.

It seems to me that a number of architects and others may've always referred to what he described as an elbow hole to also be a dogleg.

[Steve Lang]

  elbow vs dogleg.. Depends on the meat attached

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You observed, "It seems to me that a number of architects and others may've always referred to what he described as an elbow hole to also be a dogleg."

I completely agree with that. This discussion though is about how a modern architect should take into account the original designing architect's "intent" when restoring or renovating an existing course.

As Tom Doak specifically gave an example of a dogleg, that is why I brought up Tilly's definition as being probably different from the way that Tom used it. In order for Tom to do a restoration of a Tilly hole or course based especially on his original intent then, he'd have to clearly understand what he meant when his design called for an inside bunker at the fairway turn. Instead of just thinking of it as a hazard to be avoided, he would have to answer for himself whether he believed the original one was meant to be carried by a "courageous shot"; if so it is an elbow if not it is a dogleg. This will make a large difference in how and where the hazard is placed in the restoration.

Another example can be found in the 12th hole at Winged Foot West. Tilly named it "Cape" after the style of hole he designed. Tilly DEFINED a Cape Hole as a "variation" of an Elbow hole where "a corner is formed close by the green itself..." Usually this would be through a "hillside or sandy waste" but in the case of #12 at WFW it was through the stand of trees on the left side of the fairway that a player had to either carry over or around if they want to reach the green in two shots.

The hole has been greatly lengthened to around 660 yards from it's original 487. Now that length prohibits almost every player from going at the green in two shots, yet it is quite clear that Tilly designed it to be a potentially reachable par-5. It no longer is, therefor the renovation of the hole doesn't match with the architect's "original intent."

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I have never used the term "elbow hole," and neither did most of the architects I'm familiar with.  My understanding of what Tillinghast meant by it is just one sub-category of the broader term "dogleg" which I use.

Tillinghast may have hoped that some of his dogleg holes would remain doglegs and not elbows, but that doesn't mean it's always possible to add length to preserve them as such.  And I wouldn't move the bunker on such a hole just because he called it a dogleg.

Do you really think that Tillinghast wasn't allowing for Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods to come along and carry some of the corners he thought were uncarryable?  And that those holes no longer work once someone can carry the corner?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I believe you really just made my point. "I have never used the term "elbow hole," and neither did most of the architects I'm familiar with.  My understanding of what Tillinghast meant by it is just one sub-category of the broader term "dogleg" which I use."

What I was trying to say wasn't that Tilly's definitions are sacrosanct or etched in stone in some way, but rather were peculiar to him. And that if one is to attempt a restoration of his work (used as an example here) according to his "original intent" then the more one know's about his philosophy the closer one may get to defining what that "intent" actually was!

Look at what you wrote. "I have never used the term..." and also "neither did most of the architects I'm familiar with..."

The point isn't what and how you or the other architects you are familiar with used the term but rather how Tilly used it. It would have been his original design and therefor his intent not yours or others.

That is where interpretation of what he or any other original designing architect enters the discussion. In fact you make this clear by then stating, "My understanding of what Tillinghast meant by it is just one sub-category of the broader term "dogleg" which I use..."

I completely agree with your "interpretation" and you cite a proper example in asking, "Do you really think that Tillinghast wasn't allowing for Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods to come along and carry some of the corners he thought were uncarryable?" Yet, at the same time, didn't he state that carrying the obstruction at the turn of the dogleg would be one that was "Impossible" to cary over? And didn't he then define the "Elbow" as a hole quite similar with the exception being that ONLY a "courageous shot" could carry it?

So it could very well be that he would think that onlay a single player or two would ever be able to carry it... That, too, is interpretation...
 

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Very good explanations of the definitional (and perhaps playable) distinctions Tillinghast made. If a restoration architect is doing a Tillinghast course at least he should probably be armed with that kind of awareness.

Restoration architect Keith Foster met with Wayne and me a while ago to talk about some of the things Flynn did on Tillinghast's Philadephia Cricket Club course. He may already know about that kind of Tillinghast definitional distinction but I'm going to pass it on to him anyway unless you want to do it.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Why did you call Keith a restoration Archie?

He's done original work, too.

[Sean_A]

I think restoration archies are on dodgy ground when/if they speak of architectural intent because ideas shift and people change their minds - including archies.  I know that if I hired a guy and he used the "archie intent" card I would cringe and ask for another tool.  Its fine to use evidence to recreate something, but beyond that I am relying on the educated instincts of the guy I hired to get it right.  I wouldn't want to hear something like "Tillie would have done this or that".  I would rather hear why the archie believes his ideas will blend with what exists or will exist.  I am hiring an expert course designer sympathetic with my goals, not an expert scholar in previous archies' works.  Well, thats my opinion and it could be wrong!

Ciao   

[Rich Goodale]

I think restoration archies are on dodgy ground when/if they speak of architectural intent because ideas shift and people change their minds - including archies.  I know that if I hired a guy and he used the "archie intent" card I would cringe and ask for another tool.  Its fine to use evidence to recreate something, but beyond that I am relying on the educated instincts of the guy I hired to get it right.  I wouldn't want to hear something like "Tillie would have done this or that".  I would rather hear why the archie believes his ideas will blend with what exists or will exist.  I am hiring an expert course designer sympathetic with my goals, not an expert scholar in previous archies' works.  Well, thats my opinion and it could be wrong!

Ciao   

Amen, Sean

This is my opinion too, and I am rarely wrong.....

Merry and Happy!

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Tom, Why did you call Keith a restoration Archie?
He's done original work, too."


Adam:

That's true but he says he's decided to give up new construction to dedicate himself strictly to restoration architecture.

[Bradley Anderson]

I would rather hear why the archie believes his ideas will blend with what exists or will exist.  I am hiring an expert course designer sympathetic with my goals, not an expert scholar in previous archies' works.  Well, thats my opinion and it could be wrong!

Ciao   

Sean I think you have made some really good points. But would you not agree that the expert scholar has a legitimate place in the process of restoration?

[Sean_A]

I would rather hear why the archie believes his ideas will blend with what exists or will exist.  I am hiring an expert course designer sympathetic with my goals, not an expert scholar in previous archies' works.  Well, thats my opinion and it could be wrong!

Ciao   

Sean I think you have made some really good points. But would you not agree that the expert scholar has a legitimate place in the process of restoration?

Bradley

Absolutely!  All I am saying is if I am hiring an archie, it is first and foremost for his architectural ability and how well we click in terms of the goals of the project.  I am far less interested in his conjecture of architectural intent - which isn't to say I am not interested in his experience with the subject matter.  Afterall, I have hired a guy I trust and I would expect him to use all available materials.  Therefore, I don't expect conjecture as much as a well reasoned justification for his plans.  When its all said and done, I am ultimately responsible for the outcome of the course so I had better be pleased.


Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()