[Tim Nugent]

Phillip - You speak with the "balance" that others do not.  Nothing is black or white in golf architecture.  Yet, all too often I get my hackels up when some kool-aide drinking climbs up on a pedestal to demonterate (sp?) someone or something.  All too often only broad, general statements are offered. 

Don't ask me to retore a Tillinghast course, I would need a year to do the research.  If fact, unless you had photos and old aerials, I have a had time with anyone who thinks they could "get inside his head".  Hell, I would have a hard time restoring my dad's work although I would have a pretty good idea what his thinking was - but that's because I've spent nearly 50 years with him.  I think clubs get what they deserve when the hire a bio-expert.  They would be better served to get a good architect and have him research their course and the architect during the period of the design.  But to expect a clone is folly.

Also, if you have any style of your own, it's hard not to bring that bias along for the ride.

Tom P. - well said, hope you didn't need forceps to get your tongue out of your cheek.  What do you think would happen if Mr. Hanse was called in to redo a Doak course or vice versa?  Civil War?

JME, while your wish sounds good, and I would love it if all clubs forebade any work being done to their courses without an architects review, I just don't see how your wish could be acccomplished.  There are over 200 members of the ASGCA and over 16,000 course just in the US.  We only meet once a yr for 4-5 days.  When would this task get done?  Who would do it?  Who would pay for it?  We all are busy trying to get our clients work done and find new work.
Plus, do you really think you could get 200 to agree on something as subjective as "Historically Significant".  What if we left some off the list?  Plus including someone might set off WWIII with-in the clubhouse.

Talk about Pandora's Box?

[TEPaul]

"What do you think would happen if Mr. Hanse was called in to redo a Doak course or vice versa?  Civil War?"


Tim:

I don't know; maybe. That is if he was formally called in to redo one of Tom's courses it might be Civil War, but I think whatever their issues were they have been put to rest now. But these things can die hard, you know.

One of the interesting coincidences of architecture is one of Gil's courses is directly across a lightly traveled country road from one of Doak's (and one where Hanse worked with him)----Stonewall. Later Gil did French Creek across the street and later still Doak did Stonewall North.

I don't know if it's true but there was word in the county that on one of Doak's visits to Stonewall North he sneaked across the street and ripped a bunch of the turf off the back of Gil's French Creek's 13th green and threw it in the bushes.

Last time I was at French Creek with Gil I was around the tee-end of #13 and Gil was up near the green and I saw him scoot across the street quickly and kick the everlasting shit outta one of Doak's bunkers on that hole on Stonewall North that parallels that lightly traveled country road.

So probably not Civil War; more like the occasional quick terrorist "hit and run" type action.

 

[Joel_Stewart]

Don't ask me to retore a Tillinghast course, I would need a year to do the research.  If fact, unless you had photos and old aerials, I have a had time with anyone who thinks they could "get inside his head". 

This is exactly why the ASGCA should certify architects as restoration specialists.  These are the guys who are willing to put in the time and effort to restore classic golf courses.

Certain clubs are swayed by architects who can talk and wine and dine them.  I know a guy who is a professional comedian and he talks about show/business being 80% business and 20% show.  Certain architects are great at business and terrible at the show part.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom - no s*#t? I find that hard to believe.  I didn't think TD's fingers were that strong .  Besides, Roundup is easier and he would be out-of-town w/an alibi by the time it turned yellow.  Seriously, I wasn't refer to the two of them but rather among the GCAers who drink the kool-aide. 

Joel, as ian andrew said - ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever.  How would you do it?  Even the guys who you would certify now never did a restoration until they did their first one.  Most just happened to work on a XYZ course, then parlayed that into being an"expert".  Then you would preclude anone else from ever entering the field.  Those in the field wouldn't take on assistants for fear they would become "expert" enough to vie for the limited amount of business.  Besides, this whole thing is just a passing fancy.  In a few years every Dead Architect course that wants to be restored will have been.  It's in vogue now (perhapos this crappy economy will be it's deathneal) but then what.  GCA has already determined that anything done after the war has no historical relevence,  so nothing there will be needing restoration.

[Ian Andrew]

Tom - no s*#t? I find that hard to believe.  I didn't think TD's fingers were that strong .  Besides, Roundup is easier and he would be out-of-town w/an alibi by the time it turned yellow.  Seriously, I wasn't refer to the two of them but rather among the GCAers who drink the kool-aide. 

Joel, as ian andrew said - ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever.  How would you do it?  Even the guys who you would certify now never did a restoration until they did their first one.  Most just happened to work on a XYZ course, then parlayed that into being an"expert".  Then you would preclude anone else from ever entering the field.  Those in the field wouldn't take on assistants for fear they would become "expert" enough to vie for the limited amount of business.  Besides, this whole thing is just a passing fancy.  In a few years every Dead Architect course that wants to be restored will have been.  It's in vogue now (perhapos this crappy economy will be it's deathneal) but then what.  GCA has already determined that anything done after the war has no historical relevence,  so nothing there will be needing restoration.

Tim,

Come down off the ledge - I'll give you a hug in Seattle

[Joel_Stewart]

I know it's not going to happen but at least some people are watching (and questioning) your fraternity.  I see a lot of problems with the club and almost all of it relates to the lack of knowledge and ethics by one of your past presidents.  Here is a guy that thinks he knows everything and can work on any course.  The problem he is a hack architect and has put a bad name on the rest of you that are doing good work or in Tims part, at least admits he doesn't work on classics.

[Michael Dugger]

From an artistic perspective, we can call a guy a "hack"

But if the grass grows and people play golf over it, I don't see any way "incompetance" can be proven.

And please don't get me wrong, fellas, I throw up in my mouth when I see most Rees Jones courses....but if someone is willing to pay him to design another uninspiring tract, more power to him.

There is no substitute for taste....

[Tom_Doak]

We've seen this same subject argued here before, but the two sides are getting more clearly defined for me.

On the one hand, there are a certain number of idol worshippers who believe that EVERY course designed by certain famous architects of the past should be restored, regardless of cost or present condition or member opinion.  That seems pretty crazy and extreme to me.

On the other hand are those (mostly architects!) who insist that nothing is perfect and anything could be improved and golf courses are living things and so, nothing is worth preserving.  It seems more and more clear to me that it's important for these architects to think that because it means they will always have potential work improving some course somewhere --whether it's their own or somebody else's.

I've been accused in past threads of showing my ego by thinking there ought to be some courses worth preserving, and aspiring to build some in that class.  I fully understand the arguments that nothing lasts forever; in fact I've had a crash course on that subject over the past year.  (Nobody is going to preserve High Pointe if it can't make money.)  But to recognize the impact of time and nature does not REQUIRE that one gives up the hope of building something that lasts, at least in most of its particulars.

I still feel as before, that the best things architect societies could do is to come up with a short list of courses which ought to be preserved as the best examples of that architect's work, and perhaps another short list of courses which it would be important to restore.  This would OF COURSE be non-binding on clubs, but making the list SHORT and making the clubs on it SPECIAL would be the key to making it significant.  And architects who were still alive could keep their own small list, for future generations to consider.

This might curtail the cottage industry of restoration for certain architects who live off $3 million projects restoring "B" courses to "B+" ... and deprive some ambitious green chairmen of "B" courses of their moment in the sun spending their fellow members' money.  But what do you expect from a dreamer like me?

[Adam_F_Collins]

"...making the list SHORT and making the clubs on it SPECIAL would be the key to making it significant..."

I've had discussions here in Canada about the value of preserving works of Stanley Thompson, so this subject interests me. I wonder Tom, if you could give us a better sense of what you might mean by 'short' and 'special'. So that we might get a better sense of what you're suggesting.


A

[TEPaul]

Adam Foster C:

Great to see a post from you on here again. I always thought you made some really thoughtful posts on GCA, LA and the entire philosophical approach and outlook with both.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated that, "We've seen this same subject argued here before, but the two sides are getting more clearly defined for me..."

I wonder, is that because despite what you look at you only see two possible sides and therefor one must be on one or the other?

I assume that, because your other group is mostly architects, you lump me in among that other "number of idol worshippers who believe that EVERY course designed by certain famous architects of the past should be restored, regardless of cost or present condition or member opinion.  That seems pretty crazy and extreme to me..."

Whether you do or not though, I believe that I am clearly in a third group. It is one populated by those that love the works done by the long-gone masters of the game who yet realize that they weren't perfect in their designs. That a number of the current masters may be every bit their equak yet likewise also aren't perfect in their designs. We also recognize that a golf course truly evolves through time, tinkering, nature, maintenance and any number of other things that can both improve upon and destroy the greatness of what was there.

In my case, my fascination with Tilly is the person behind the art; how his mind worked and what caused him to see the holes and courses he did on the land he looked at. Where some would pay untold amounts of money to gain a simple sketch on a napkin by Picasso, I would not. Likewise, I feel very free to recognize that time does pass over certain golf courses or holes in an unkindly manner and the changes to the game caused by technology can exact a price on these.

I once mentioned to you that, like it or not, you've become an historical figure due simply to the greatness of a number of your designs. Somewhere along the way golf architects, historians, players and maybe even a few "idol worshippers" will take to studying them with an eye to protecting and preserving what was placed there so that having the ability to play on an "original Doak" is there for them.

Golf is a game of history; by its nature it can't be helped. Protecting that history properly is important as is finding and providing means to allow it to happen.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - I don't know enough to agree or disagree with the particulars of your post, but I think I know this: that the way towards the very best kind of work in any art-craft is a combination of Ambition and Aspiration, two very different but potentially complementary qualities. Some (writers, musicians, cgas) have much of the former and little of the latter, and you can usually spot them by the size of their wallets; others have almost none of the former and a lot of the latter, and you most often spot them living in their parents' basements.  But when the two qualities come together, and if fate is even a little kind, then you get a career and a body of work that is exemplary.

Peter 

TE - yes, it's good to see Adam posting again.

[Forrest Richardson]

To the original question — no, there is really no way. The best, of course, is to let the system not hire them again.

Joel — You wrote: "What I am saying is the ASGCA has no system for evaluating such work."

Well, not quite. In the past few years ASGCA has taken a new policy to renovation work — restoration, rehabilitation, etc.  Folks such as Ron Forse will find that the ASGCA is very interested in counting his restoration work among qualifying courses, and I can assure you that much time will be spent asking him questions about his research, attention to detail and how he interpreted the original design.

There are loads of ASGCA members interested and passionate about the history of golf and restoration work. The reality is that a degree of interpretation is always at play, and therein lies the great debate and uncomfortableness that surrounds the whole idea of "rerstoration".

One of the first "restoration" projects I studied was The Valley Club, worked on by Tom D. I saw slides, heard from the Green Committee Chair and studied the original photos and map by MacKenzie. At best, it was a "faithful" restoration as bunkers were significantly altered to accommodate the now mature trees, course changes and a host of other factors. I liked the work, and it gave me appreciation for the fact that the golf architect is bringing his own ideas and expertise to the table — doing things the way MacKenzie would have done, but in every case not exactly as MacKenzie left them. That is rarely possible on any golf course because nature, club members and hundreds of other factors have all taken their toll — and not all of that can be ignored while still being responsible, efficient and sensitive.

[Chris Kane]

Commonweath and Kingswood, specifically, and the hysteria over Portsea.

Which holes?

[Scott Warren]

I'm off down the coast in a few minutes for a weekend's golf, Chris. Apologies, but I don't have time to play childish games with you.

[Shane Gurnett]

Sorry Scott, but Chris is quite correct in drawing attention to the fact that you are making derogatory statements about an architect whom you have seen none of his work, especially the examples that you choose to quote. This is poor form and is a black mark against your credibility here, even allowing for the fact that you are still very much a newbie and have much to learn. To quote Portsea at all is ludicrous considering Cashmore has not even started there.

In relation to his work at Commonwealth and Kingswood, I can however confirm, with the benefit of multiple games at each course,  that the Cashmore work there represents architectural vandalism of the highest order, which has of course resulted in him being shown the door at both clubs in favour of architects who have demonstrated at least some sympathetic understanding of the style of work at both courses. But you wouldn't know that because you have never been there so how can your opinion have any merit whatsoever?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil Y:  The "idol worshipper" I was thinking of when I made my last post was Mr. Mucci, who just last week posited that every single Macdonald course should be restored exactly as it was.  I've had enough conversations with you to know you are not that extreme. 

I don't have any real experience of working with the Tillinghast Society, but my experience with other similar societies is that over time, a few key members fancy themselves as power brokers and then morph from there to actually thinking THEY are qualified restoration experts ... in spite of no formal training in design or construction.  I hope that will not happen in your group.

Forrest:  I'm very curious how you characterized our work at The Valley Club -- a sympathetic restoration "at best" ?  How close would it have to be?  We took a bunch of old pictures and followed them as closely as we could.  We made no "judgment calls" to move a bunker or change a bunker based on our own opinion, as you implied ... though there were a handful of cases where we had to "wing it" in restoring a bunker because there was NO photo in the collection, just that old as-built drawing.  [On second thought, there was one bunker on #6 which I just didn't understand, as it appeared it would have blocked the view of another bunker right behind it, so I didn't put that one in.]  On our first go-around the committee opted not to restore a handful of the bunkers, seeing them as too penal, but when we redid the greens more recently we put those bunkers back as accurately as we could.  Perhaps you should have studied the course a bit more closely.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Its been a while since I have been to the Valley Club, but I thought you did a fine job on the bunkers, and yes, they can be penal  - I recall my playing partner getting into a few of them, especially behind the greens, and crying in anguish "I've got no shot! No shot at all!"  But, I suspect that is the way they always were. I could see the case of any club softening them, or not.

I made a point earlier on about your fans.  For SOME on this site, I suspect that you getting the bunkers 90% back to where they were would be a lot more acceptable than Fazio getting them back to 90% of where they were.  Somehow there is the presumption that some restore and others rape, even though Rees, Faz and a few others have certainly gotten bunkers as close as Renaisance Golf.

I recall the Faz/Merion threads where the pictures showed the general outlines being followed very closely, and then Tommy N chiming in that "yeah, but they don't have the 3D contours" which I couldn't judge from the photos, and wondered just how anyone knew what the 3D effects were from photos, old or new.

All of the above just goes to show that restoration is an emotional issue, often moreso for this site than the clubs that possess courses by older architects.  There are always some value judgements about how close it would have to be vs. what might work now, aren't there?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — I wrote "faithful", which I believe it was. You were faithful to the old photos and to MacKenzie's intentions. And, I thought it was a very good job.

As I have written here before — there is technically nothing in golf that is a "restoration" of exactness. Now, we may well have that ability long after all of us here on GCA are gone. Why? Because beginning in the 1990s extremely accurate as-built records (topographical mapping, photos, aerials and records) made their way into nearly all projects. This will allow future GCA-ers to pin-point, with great detail and precision, how a bunker, edge, green, etc. was completed on a defined date, place and time.

How boring.

[Derek Dirksen]

"A few years ago I was talking with Jack Nicklaus about some course he did and some features.  He said "he was only doing what the owner wanted".  I said, "you're Jack frigin Nicklaus and you can do what ever you want".  How is some owner going to tell the greatest golfer in history what is right or wrong?  He said it wasn't true.  Now I'm sure there are a few owners that are so hard headed or ego minded that they may try and push around Jack Nicklaus but I'm of the opinion architects have tremendous power based mostly on their knowledge and experience and can easily sway some unsuspecting green committee or board."

 
As hard as it may be for some of you to realize the owner/'s or club pays the architect's fee.  The owner/'s have the final say on a lot of issues.  I have been on quite a few jobs where the architect doesn't always get everything he wants!!!

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

I strongly believe that "historical, sympathetic and faithful" restorations are simply a way of creating a new area of work for "professional restoration archictects"

Even the dictionary does not distinguish the difference from the three categories of "restoration"

To start with, the drawing and photographs are not 3 dimensional, so it becomes a matter of interpetation what the severity of the angle on the face of the bunker was when "originally" constructed.
I have seen some bunkers "restored" with faces so steep that when a ball plugs into the steep face, the golfer can not even climb up the slope to hit the ball!

It also supposes that the bunker was constructed at the exact distance from the putting surface and at the same angle as shown on the drawing.
Anyone that has built a golf course knows that on site changes are made, and the course almost never is built exactly like the drawing.
Back then, "as built" drawings were not even thought of.

I personally rebuilt a green at a well respected and certified Stanley Thompson golf course
and during construction found the remains of the original green some 100 feet from the supposed original (as shown on the drawings) No one at the club had any knowledge that the green had been moved.

Where have all the square shaped green gone on these "originals"
They disappeared when power greens mowers came on the scene because it was too expensive to cut them square.

The original "golden age" greens were often as small as 3000 square feet, not large enough for power equipment and todays' amount of rounds played.

Very few aerial photographs exist of most of these courses within a short period of time after they were built. Great Britain might be the exception because of the wartime defense photography, but in Canada and the US few aerials exist from that time period, and if they did would not be accurate enough to locate a feature of the course very accurately. Certainly not as accurately as the restoration archictects profess.

The true "restoration" of the original construction can only take place if the golf course was constructed exactly as shown on the drawings i.e.- "blueprints and hand drawn sketches"

Even if all the photographs, sketches and blueprints were found and were accurate, who would want to "restore" a golf course with fairway bunkers located 200 to 220 yards from the tee, a course with one tee per hole "for the gentleman golfer" and with greens with so much slope that you could not find more than one hole location on the green, given today's green speeds.

I am all for "protecting" the old golf courses, but we have gone overboard.

[JC Urbina]

Forrest
I spent a lot of time at the Valley Club and I know what we restored. Altering bunkers because of mature trees was not one of the things we did.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I'll challenge your assertion that Tom Fazio or Rees Jones has done restoration work as accurate as some of the stuff we've done.  I've seen a lot of their work in that arena and I would say it's pretty easy to pick out what they've done.

Neither Mr. Fazio nor Mr. Jones BELIEVES that restoration is important, so to assume that they will do work with a great degree of accuracy seems pretty silly.  After that, their associate spends a day here and there on site, whereas my own associates (such as Mr. Urbina) pretty much live on site during these projects, and we do a lot of the shaping work ourselves.

And yes, there are always a bunch of value judgments that have to be made.

[Roger Wolfe]

Neither Mr. Fazio nor Mr. Jones BELIEVES that restoration is important, so to assume that they will do work with a great degree of accuracy seems pretty silly. 

There are a lot of good arguments to support Fazio and Jones belief that restoration is not important.  First of all, restoration is cheaper.  Second, if Ross and Tillinghast had a bulldozer or track hoe at their disposal...would they have designed the same way?

[Forrest Richardson]

Derek — This is why we need more women as golf architects.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()