Paul
There is nothing special about a world top 15. I threw the number out to suggest that there ain't many courses (and not by any means necessarily the top 15) in the world that could qualify for some sort of mythical preservation status - even in a dream world. I also fully understand that the folks who decide this sort of thing are the memberships.
Despite your pleading, there is nothing as simple in architecture as you make it out to be. You could very well be right that a few holes deserve to be reserved. In truth, I tend to side with you where change is concerned though I admit my motives are far more utilitarian than yours. The point I am making is that in the real world, there are very, very, very few holes which will be preserved because they are those holes. To actually make a case, you need to go much deeper than to just say they are Colt holes. What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's? For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered.
I don't think I am a contrarian, just realistic. No, I don't like to see good old courses torn apart, but mainly because I think its often a waste of money. Colt understood the strategic importance of the game as well anybody involved in golf so I think it highly unlikely that later folks will improve on his strategic elements, but architecture is about much more than strategy and often times these extraneous elements aren't revealed until a much later date. Furthermore, we often don't know what the original's archie's opinion is about later a element. It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today.
Ciao
[/quote]
Sean
Basically I'm skeptical that Toronto suddenly needs some major redesign work after 100 years of those holes playing just fine.
Of course there are lots of factors involved that determine whether the architecture is preserved, but still, good quality architecture has a better chance than mediocre or poor. People enjoy playing quality golf holes. And I'm much less pessimistic than you here...lots of golf holes are well preserved because of their quality, not just very.,very few.
As I've written in previous posts, it's not just that it's a Colt course (although obviously I'm biased here). It's the first top quality golf course in Canada (I'm told by Ian Andrew and others) and lead the way for other architects like Stanley Thompson. Longevity and tradition does matter, 1911 is pretty old in the scheme of GCA in America.
You wrote What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's? I thought the photos spoke for themselves but here goes ...the original holes that are going to be dug up: The 11th with no bunkers (you'd automatically like it) has a very attractive green perched on the hill below the clubhouse and it's the perfect foil to the 10th and 12th. The 10th is lumpy bumpy with lots of traps, the 12th works around a curved depression. For 11th Hawtree plans to move the green left and add bunkers in the hillside.
The 15th is the strongest par 4 on the back nine, tee shot is down over cool terrain, the green is on natural raise and is strongly pitched, greenside bunkers are deep in extreme. If this green site has to be brought closer, which I think it has to be, then it's just a weaker hole, I can't see an alternative green site that's nearly as good.
The 2nd is less interesting but I thought the green with its false front and fall away back left was nice.
You wrote: " For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered." Not to Canadian golf course architecture historians there aren't.
Your wrote: "It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today."I agree and I don't do this. Does Martin Hawtree? It's a good sales pitch.
How far does your pragmatism stretch? If you saw a JCB tearing up Beau Desert, would your first reaction be "shit this club is wasting a lot of money"
[/quote]
Paul
As I stated many times, I too am highly skeptical of supposed "necessary" changes and I suspect this could well be the case at Toronto. My challenge to you was to come up with a reasoned argument as to why Toronto shouldn't be altered without relying on "well, its a Colt course" and you made a good start. However, it isn't me you have to convince with your arguments, its the board at Toronto.
When I stated my thoughts about being presumptive that was with the idea of changing the architecture purely for architecture's sake. If there are other compelling reasons to alter a course, then of course, the club and archie have to make the best of a bad situation. However, that isn't to say that they are bound to slavishly copy what was there or other Colt design ideas because we don't know if Colt would have done that if he were in the same position.
Unless the club was improving drainage, tearing out trees or improving the bunkering, then yes, my first reaction would be the club is wasting money trying to improve on the design ideas at Beau Desert. That doesn't mean its perfect, but its easily good enough and its highly risky to entrust a board with re-design concepts.
Again, all my musings get back to one simple fact. Clubs are the stewards of their courses. It does nobody any favours to point at archies and level blame there unless they have lied are produced an inferior product. Not all archies see things the same way - and thank god they don't.
Ciao