[Ian Andrew]

Sometimes the best thing that ever happens to a golf course is nothing.

Yesterday a very good friend of mine handed me over a bunch of interesting articles about a top 100 course that I’ve played numerous times. In the back of the package was the recommendation of a previous architect for changing the golf course to gain length. He had recommended the removal of a short and spectacular par four – one which I have listed as one of the great short par fours that I know. The other is an incredibly tough long three which I consider probably the best par three on the course. If this isn’t the best two hole stretch on the course – then its pretty damned close. I can assure you knowing the terrain that the replacement holes would not have had half the character. It got me thinking what if…

Nearly ten years ago I got to see a plan for a different top 100 course. It involved the realignment of a series of holes done to gain enough room to relocate the clubhouse to a more central location – and thus give them a new clubhouse, returning nines, a convenient practice facility and some additional length. Not only did it involve relocation or loss of some spectacular holes but it would have involved the loss of one of the truly great clubhouses.

What if some of the famous layouts did not make the major changes like Inverness, Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, Augusta – would they have been be better for doing nothing? Or are many of these courses better for making the changes?

Is there other great example of clubs tuning down a major change and probably saving their legacy in the process?

[Adam Clayman]

Ian, It's probably to general a question to answer accurately.

Case by case, opinion by opinion basis.

I suspect if the ANGC had never been touched, our world would be a better place. 

[Forrest Richardson]

Ian, that sounds awful. But, as you say, thankful.

Of course, there can be a different perspective .... The mood following the October 1764 "plan" to convert the first holes to two at Pilmoor Links was very likely scoffed at ... but it did give us a decent building, and it changed the face of golf forever.

To answer your question, Mark Fine was asked by Cherry Hills to study added length (nearly 1,000 yards if it might be done.) A "what if" plan was prepared that thwarted many of the greatest holes and parts of Cherry Hills, but it did manage extra length. The club realized that Mark's original master plan concept was a much better approach and used the study to strengthen the case against length at all cost.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Somewhere in my files there is a plan which was drawn up in the 1950's to add thirty housing lots in the interior of Chicago Golf Club.  It wouldn't have changed any holes per se, but it would have destroyed the course.  Thankfully, their financial situation eased and they didn't have to proceed.

There is also a plan in the Shoreacres files to jazz up all the bunkers, which they fortunately tabled.

As to the four courses you asked about specifically, I think the one that would have benefitted most from being left alone was Oak Hill (East).  They mangled the best par-4 on the course, and didn't get any holes worth writing home about.  Inverness was a drastic change but they're managed to soften the clash over time; Oakland Hills and Augusta just keep on trying.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

I secured one of my earliest remodel projects by not moving a lot of holes around vs other proposals.  One gca proposed to move a series of fw about 20 yards each to attain a new nine and probably some length. I managed to add in the new holes without moving any, by means of simple crossover routing.  

I don't know how you would come up with a cost-benefit ratio, but it could probably be done by estimating costs, and applying a dollar per yard of length gained number to it.  For most courses, I suspect that would come to several tens or thousand dollars per yard!  And, as you say, there are some intrinsic values to consider that are hard to measure.  You could put in a cost for replacing any lost trees using as big a specimens as you could find, which would then reflect those costs, etc.

No matter how you measure it, the cost of extra length is often not worth it at all.  Especially since so many players like 6300 yards anyway and you adding tees either for the few top players and/or the egos of hte 6300 yard players wanting to have a few tees behind them so they can say they play a 7000 yard course.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian -

You know, what struck me most of all was this line: "In the back of the package was the recommendation of a previous architect for changing the golf course to gain length. He had recommended the removal of a short and spectacular par four – one which I have listed as one of the great short par fours that I know."

I've wondered this many, many times on this site - whenever anyone discusses/criticizes a particular architect's work or changes made to a beloved course. What I've wondered is: "How could a professional get it so wrong?"

See, I work under the assumption that -- while I might have different tastes than a given architect, and while he/she may be designing/renovating a courses for reasons that are beyond me (e.g. to host the pros) -- the architect, any architect, every working architect, understands his profession and understands the principles of golf course architecture far better than I ever will.

I know you don't "all go to the same school", and I understand that working architects have differing priorities/goals and underlying philosophies and aesthetics  -- but everyone knows the value of a "great, short par 4", don't they? I mean, isn't that the first thing they teach in design school - "Here, this is the 10th at Riviera"? 

Anyway, I'm rambling. I just don't understand how two working architects can see things in such diametrically different ways.

Peter   

[Michael Blake]

Is this a thread started by Canada's 22nd most influential golf figure?!

Congrats Ian.

[Mike_Young]

Ian -


I've wondered this many, many times on this site - whenever anyone discusses/criticizes a particular architect's work or changes made to a beloved course. What I've wondered is: "How could a professional get it so wrong?"

See, I work under the assumption that -- while I might have different tastes than a given architect, and while he/she may be designing/renovating a courses for reasons that are beyond me (e.g. to host the pros) -- the architect, any architect, every working architect, understands his profession and understands the principles of golf course architecture far better than I ever will.

I know you don't "all go to the same school", and I understand that working architects have differing priorities/goals and underlying philosophies and aesthetics  -- but everyone knows the value of a "great, short par 4", don't they? I mean, isn't that the first thing they teach in design school - "Here, this is the 10th at Riviera"? 

Anyway, I'm rambling. I just don't understand how two working architects can see things in such diametrically different ways.

Peter   

Peter,
I don't think you are wrong at all.  I think there are some guys that don't know the value of a short par 4.....BUT I also look at architecture a little different than many would....is it a profession or an art form? or both?  It is definitely not a profession that is large enough have a curriculum.   Believe it or not there are some guys that don't even play golf and yet "design" golf courses.  So your point is valid.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I don't know what hole Ian is referring to ... but I do know that in the 1960's, the head of the USGA Green Section, Bill Bengeyfield, consulting at Riviera, told them that they needed to blow up and redo the tenth hole in order to strengthen the course.  In writing.

Luckily, they didn't listen to him.  But, that just goes to show you that there is NO unanimous opinion on anything about golf course architecture, and that's why it's a shame it is so easy for clubs to make changes without really thinking much about it.

[Mike Hendren]

Ian, It's probably to general a question to answer accurately.

Case by case, opinion by opinion basis.

I suspect if the ANGC had never been touched, our world would be a better place. 

Adam,  would that not wipe out a significant amount of golf history?  The tournament would have assuredly been cancelled after participants starting breaking 60 on a regular basis.

Mike

[Niall C]

Ian,

When I read your post I imediately thought of the Eden course at St Andrews. Four Colt (MacKenzie ?) holes lost all for the sake of a driving range.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Ian, It's probably to general a question to answer accurately.

Case by case, opinion by opinion basis.

I suspect if the ANGC had never been touched, our world would be a better place. 

Adam,  would that not wipe out a significant amount of golf history?  The tournament would have assuredly been cancelled after participants starting breaking 60 on a regular basis.

Mike

Mike

Since we're speculating, while a lot of history would have been lost, and lot would have also been gained.  What if:

1.  The course was kept largely intact
2.  As a result, the Masters remained a prestige event, but increasingly quaint by the touring pros relative to the other venues they were playing.  3.  Eventually, the pros stopped coming, and by the mid-1950s, it was changed to an amateur event (possibly also including retired pos).  It became 3rd leg of the Amateur "Grand Slam."  The Crump Cup was added a few years later as the 4th leg, and both tournaments flourished, creating a much richer history of amateur golf than we have now.
4.  As a result, the Australian Open increasingly became recognised as the "4th" major when the concept of a professional "Grand Slam" began to be seriously considered.  The mid-February date of this event made it the 1st of the majors, and also eventually helped spawn a true "World" tour as events were created for the leading players in other non-US venues, both in the time leading up to and after the event.
5.  The earlier advent of the en masse participation of non-US players on the US Tour led to the PGA remaining as a match-play event
6.  As of June 1989, the leading Major winners were:
            Bobby Locke--15
            Jack Nicklaus--12
            Peter Thomson--10
            Tom Watson--9
7.  As of June 2009, the leading Major wiinners were:
            Tiger Woods--19
             Bobby Locke--15
             Gary Player--13
             Greg Norman and Jack Nicklaus (tied)--12
8.  Etc. etc. etc.

Rich
             Peter Thomson--10

[Philippe Binette]

One thing that struck me the most in Pete Dye's book was when Camargo call him so he could come over and modernize the course... Pete Dye show up, walk the property and told the club to leave the golf course alone.

That is great...


Another one, when I played Crystal Downs with Tom Doak, the professional (if I remember it well) asked Tom what he thought about adding some yardage to the course, nothing that would change the holes dramatically but 10 or 15 yards here and there...

Tom's answer was a question: How many rounds under par by the membership this year ?
Knowing Crystal Downs difficulty, the debate over adding some length ended right there.

[Tom_Doak]

Philippe:

Crystal Downs did build one new back tee, extending the 13th hole by about 30 yards.

I didn't know it was going to happen until 3-4 years ago, when I went out to play there with Ian Baker-Finch and the head pro, Fred Muller.  When we got to 13 I noticed the new tee and asked Fred about it, and he said a couple of the green committee insisted on it.  Of course, our threesome was not playing from it, and after we teed off I asked out loud if our group wasn't going to play it, who the heck would?

P.S.  Your first paragraph reminds me of my favorite renovation story, also courtesy of Mr. Dye, at White Bear Yacht Club.  The course has some very severe greens, and about 20 years ago they decided they had to do something about #14, and a member knows Mr. Dye so they ask him to stop in and visit.  He arrives, and the whole green committee goes out with him to look at #14 green.  He stands there for a couple of minutes looking at it, then says, "Man, I wish I could get my guys to build greens like that."  And they all drove back in, and left the green alone.

[Philippe Binette]

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when adding length to a course.

I was thinking while driving back to Montreal yesterday: what is the relevance of adding all the par numbers so it gives 70, 71 or 72 or whatever else.

I can understand the point of putting a par on each hole has a kind of description of the hole, but the par for the entire course has no relevance at all, same has the distance for the course... you play the par and yardage hole by hole, putting a total has really no influence on the game.

[George Pazin]

Ian, It's probably to general a question to answer accurately.

Case by case, opinion by opinion basis.

I suspect if the ANGC had never been touched, our world would be a better place. 

Adam,  would that not wipe out a significant amount of golf history?  The tournament would have assuredly been cancelled after participants starting breaking 60 on a regular basis.

Mike

Perhaps you should dig up the article someone posted a year or two ago about a Maryland sportswriter who teed it up with Steve Marino at his home muni.

 

[Ian Andrew]

Peter:

I don't know what hole Ian is referring to ... but I do know that in the 1960's, the head of the USGA Green Section, Bill Bengeyfield, consulting at Riviera, told them that they needed to blow up and redo the tenth hole in order to strengthen the course.  In writing.

Luckily, they didn't listen to him.  But, that just goes to show you that there is NO unanimous opinion on anything about golf course architecture, and that's why it's a shame it is so easy for clubs to make changes without really thinking much about it.

Tom,

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner but I’m only now able to get my jaw off the floor.

I worked with a very historic and very influential Canadian course for a couple of years - I continuously recommended that they do nothing - after two years I was told my services we're not needed. I agreed.

But unfortunately that meant they would eventually go find someone who proposed a major renovation this year.

[PCCraig]

Thank GOD that they didn't let Fuzzy Z. rip up the Ross Course at French Lick to build a new course. Those greens should be on the list of national historic places.

[Robert Thompson]

Peter:

I don't know what hole Ian is referring to ... but I do know that in the 1960's, the head of the USGA Green Section, Bill Bengeyfield, consulting at Riviera, told them that they needed to blow up and redo the tenth hole in order to strengthen the course.  In writing.

Luckily, they didn't listen to him.  But, that just goes to show you that there is NO unanimous opinion on anything about golf course architecture, and that's why it's a shame it is so easy for clubs to make changes without really thinking much about it.

Tom,

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner but I’m only now able to get my jaw off the floor.

I worked with a very historic and very influential Canadian course for a couple of years - I continuously recommended that they do nothing - after two years I was told my services we're not needed. I agreed.

But unfortunately that meant they would eventually go find someone who proposed a major renovation this year.

And that major renovation is going to result in moving a couple of the most historic greens in Canada.... on a course by Colt no less.

[Lyne Morrison]

My feeling is that the most effective Chairman of Greens is the one who can put stewardship of the course above his own game, needs or wants.

Lyne

[Paul_Turner]

Sometimes the best thing that ever happens to a golf course is nothing.

Yesterday a very good friend of mine handed me over a bunch of interesting articles about a top 100 course that I’ve played numerous times. In the back of the package was the recommendation of a previous architect for changing the golf course to gain length. He had recommended the removal of a short and spectacular par four – one which I have listed as one of the great short par fours that I know. The other is an incredibly tough long three which I consider probably the best par three on the course. If this isn’t the best two hole stretch on the course – then its pretty damned close. I can assure you knowing the terrain that the replacement holes would not have had half the character. It got me thinking what if…

Ian...I'll take a stab in the dark.. Hamilton 5 and 6? 

PS  Ernie Els and Co are now digging up Wentworth West's to USGA 'em.  Hope they don't make a hash of it.  The press quotes claim that it's all for getting more consistent putting surfaces...but my bet is they won't be able to stop themselves from making many unnecessary changes and a lot of the subtle breaks will be gone  (The greens looked great on TV two weeks ago)

[henrye]

RT.  I assume you're talking about Toronto?  Can you tell us which greens they are planning on moving and what other changes you have heard they may be making?  Ian, were you the consulting archie when they added the holding pond behind #10?

[Paul_Turner]

Peter:

I don't know what hole Ian is referring to ... but I do know that in the 1960's, the head of the USGA Green Section, Bill Bengeyfield, consulting at Riviera, told them that they needed to blow up and redo the tenth hole in order to strengthen the course.  In writing.

Luckily, they didn't listen to him.  But, that just goes to show you that there is NO unanimous opinion on anything about golf course architecture, and that's why it's a shame it is so easy for clubs to make changes without really thinking much about it.

Tom,

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner but I’m only now able to get my jaw off the floor.

I worked with a very historic and very influential Canadian course for a couple of years - I continuously recommended that they do nothing - after two years I was told my services we're not needed. I agreed.

But unfortunately that meant they would eventually go find someone who proposed a major renovation this year.

And that major renovation is going to result in moving a couple of the most historic greens in Canada.... on a course by Colt no less.

Robert

Are they really going to change Toronto!??

[Jeff_Mingay]

Toronto is being changed.

[Paul_Turner]

Jeff

But by how much?  Obviously the bunkers needed work, but moving greens is a different matter!  I even like the 2nd and 16th which I think aren't Colt/Alison.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()