News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #100 on: August 08, 2010, 12:27:44 PM »
Don M. — My question was whether (all of) Tom's suggestions were necessarily "right" for Askernish. I thought it was a good come-back from him to offer the converse — that "what if his suggestions were right?" I also think it's good discussion to weigh the effects of change to a project like Askernish against the benefit of getting more people to make the trek to play and stay.

This site is about frank discussion. I think all of us deserve to be challenged, and we all deserve thought provoking discussion to read — even when we don't chime in. You characterized that I am "going after" Tom D. and you connected a lot of dots to imply that my participation on this GCA thread is focused on trying to get an edge in business. Those are unnecessary and demeaning characterizations. I am not certain of your intent...was it a plea for me to keep quiet and stop asking questions or expressing opinions?

GCA is not a magazine article with the one-sided opinion of a single author — it's an interactive forum where opinion and discussion ebb and flow to the beat of our minds.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 12:29:39 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #101 on: August 08, 2010, 12:32:29 PM »
Melvyn — When you say "The Course is a Scottish course and therefore MUST be allowed to play that way..." please elaborate. Are you saying that the evolution itself should bounce along in a "Scottish" way, and not somehow be influenced by opinion not Scottish?
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #102 on: August 08, 2010, 12:50:23 PM »
Forrest,
Intent? My intent was to communicate that I found it odd for one architect to be critical of not only another being hired (to be fair to you I believe you felt no one should be hired, right?) but also critical of that architects ideas.
I'm all for frank discussion of WORK. Discussing what we like, don't like, styles....whatever I think that's great. Being critical because you think you know what someone might do? That's what surprised me. 

henrye

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #103 on: August 08, 2010, 12:53:24 PM »
Don.  I'm with Forrest on this one.  Not that I agree with what he is saying necessarily, but that he is free to provide his informed opinion.  It's interesting to hear the 2 opinions, and I get a sense that they're not too divergent.  It's just Tom has been asked to give his opinion for improvements to help solve the marketability dilemma the course seems to be facing, and he has.  Forrest disagrees.  I think the discussion is meaningful and I think we are fortunate to see it here.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #104 on: August 08, 2010, 01:30:10 PM »

Melvyn — When you say "The Course is a Scottish course and therefore MUST be allowed to play that way..." please elaborate. Are you saying that the evolution itself should bounce along in a "Scottish" way, and not somehow be influenced by opinion not Scottish?


First of all my apologies for some unknown reason I called you Richard, sorry Forrest must have been having a  ‘Senior Moment’.

Happy to elaborate. As the course is in Scotland, based upon the methods of Old Tom we should not suddenly have a super manicured course out on a wet windy island in the Atlantic – it would be so out of place, expensive to maintain and would not reflect its environment. It needs to be what it is, a course, a links course on natural links land built and designed to give the best challenge. Hopefully reflecting the original appeal of the game that has since been embraced worldwide. To attract golfers to play real raw golf at its very best on ‘Land Fit For Purpose’. A course akin to those of the 19th Century hopefully with the result of leaving the golfer with a yearning to return ASAP to continue the dual with the land and environment.

Melvyn

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #105 on: August 08, 2010, 05:55:53 PM »
Thus far my only question was whether Tom D's ideas could be wrong. I have not criticized his ideas. He and Mr. Keiser may be spot on with their observations and suggestions.

My comments about how Askernish best evolves are not aimed at anyone, it's just a viewpoint.

Here is some good food for thought: What has transpired at Askernish is a good story and some very interesting golf holes. All involved deserve credit with an emphasis going to the local bunch who has seen it through and stuck to their guns on an array of issues — least of which is the tenacity to fight the local opposition. Using the No. 16 green as an example, can anyone here call up such a bold example of a green in the last decade? While I think we have seen a lot of re-hash greens and interesting greens, I cannot think of many greens that could hold a candle to what we see at this particular green. (Warning: This is not a defense, but a point of thought...Is it too early to change the green at No. 16? Is it better left to the locals? Is it worthy of staying around? Will it drive players away? Or, will it attract players?)





« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 05:57:34 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #106 on: August 08, 2010, 07:07:34 PM »
I guess my question is why would folks think that changing a green or two is gonna bring in more business?  To me, this is a strange concept and like Forest seems to be saying, it risks eliminating some of what Askersnish is about.  I am thinking of a hole like Sea Headrig.  The green is totally wrong in a conventional sense, but that green makes the hole great.  Same could be said for North Berwick's Gate.  Make the green more coneventional and its just another hole.  My guess is that Doak's association with the place will bring in more business even if he does nothing.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #107 on: August 08, 2010, 08:31:37 PM »
This is a classic conundrum (preservation vs. usage) that has embattled organizations such as UNESCO, the British National Trust, the National Park Service in the USA, etc, for years.  Though I have not been there, Askernish sounds like quite a special place, deserving of some form of preservation.  However, drawing in crowds will undoubtedly change that experience. 

For example, by 1860, there were only a dozen or so people who visited what would become Yosemite National Park, due in part it's relative inaccessibility.  In contrast, over 3 million people visit the park annually these days, compromising watershed-wide environmental characteristics and incontrovertibly spoiling any real notion of "wilderness."  Or how about the Caves of Lascaux in France?  Due to overuse, by both tourists and serious scholars, the wall paintings have degraded to the degree where authorities have closed the caves, which seems to be the only real recourse for its preservation of this window into a two thousand year old past.

The opening of Askernish as a more accessible tourist destination, even with the noble intention of exposing interested golfers to such a unique playing experience, and providing a fair living to the town residents, may (and I will emphasize MAY) have the result of ultimately damaging the very thing that was supposed to be protected.  Suggestions by any architect may seem wonderful, but it is entirely possible that Askernish was never meant to be anything more than it is, or beyond that, that it might ultimately be destined to fade off into oblivion on its own accord, again.  Nothing is certain.  Really, though, I suspect that it is up to the local community to make those decisions to either bring in help or to do it themselves, and then time will tell what happens.
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #108 on: August 09, 2010, 09:06:11 AM »
Using the No. 16 green as an example, can anyone here call up such a bold example of a green in the last decade? While I think we have seen a lot of re-hash greens and interesting greens, I cannot think of many greens that could hold a candle to what we see at this particular green.


Forrest:

Don't be so modest.  Your pointy-bulkeaded green down in Mexico is easily just as bold as the 16th at Askernish.  If the locals asked my advice, I'd blow that one up, too ... but that is only my opinion.  ;)

The history of the 16th green is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.  It was one man's idea of what to build there, from my understanding.  I don't think anyone believes Old Tom really had it that way.  So, I'll agree that it's different and bold, but not that it belongs.

I do think this discussion has gone much too far into the specifics.  It is really up to the club what to do, and I'm sure Ralph Thompson has been reading this closely ... but as with the green committee at Merion, there comes a point where micromanagement by outsiders giving opinions is unwelcome.  And obviously, he won't be able to please everyone here, no matter what they decide to do.

The thing which surprises me most is how much you, Forrest, have changed your tune on this thread.  We've had several discussions over the years in which you and Jeff and other architects have opined that no golf course is perfect; that true restoration is a waste of time because golf courses constantly evolve; and that I'm basically an idiot for restoring old courses, and an egotist for thinking that some of my best work shouldn't be changed architecturally.  But now, when I suggest a few tiny bits of work to a great little course in an effort to make it more attractive to visitors, you think that the course is perfect and that everything should be left alone! 

I can't help thinking that your change of tune might have something to do with which side of the fence I'm on.  But, of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #109 on: August 11, 2010, 09:11:07 PM »
Blow it up???!!!  Please don't.   :(   I played there a few weeks ago and it was the only hole where I had an advantage, knowing just where to place my lame fade.

I think the essence of Askernish's uniqueness to other "restorations" is that it is clearly not a direct and uncontested recreation of anything Old Tom did — at least that I can tell — but it is a locally-spun story being written by people who have come together to get something done, and they are doign it with regard to Old Tom and the general land he once roamed and shaped.

These locals are storytellers. My question has to so with whether the greater body of golf design in the world should be directing that story.

Again — any number of opinions may turn out to be "right".  My opening question was "what if your suggestions [Tom] turned out to be wrong?" I do realize that non one could ever hope to sort that out, but I thought it a good discourse.

As for my take on restorations, I maintain that golf courses are supposed to change, and that the goal of returning them to a particular point in time is not always in the best interest of the owner, members, architect or golf. That does not mean that restoration are bad, just that (my feeling) is that they need to be looked at with a careful eye to a larger view than just picking a point in the calendar and saying, "Yes, this is how we want the course...to its condition as it was on February 7th, 1930...that is when it was perfect and absolutely correct." Obviously, no one can pinpoint that even with the best of aerials, nor can anyone say that subtle adjustments would not make for a better experience.

http://www.golfgroupltd.com/writings/thoughts_on_remodeling.html





— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #110 on: August 11, 2010, 10:30:21 PM »

As for my take on restorations, I maintain that golf courses are supposed to change, and that the goal of returning them to a particular point in time is not always in the best interest of the owner, members, architect or golf.

Good point Forrest, and it is not without precedent.  Urban Planner and former MIT Professor Kevin Lynch once wrote,

"The effect [of preserving a point in history] is powerful - it corresponds to our wish to arrest the past - but we cannot easily reproduce the circumstances that created it."

Indeed, times have changed.  As such, it may not always behoove us to act, by means of faithful restorations, as though they have not.
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2010, 04:43:40 AM »
Looking at those pictures, I don't get why people aren't flocking there.  It looks utterly fantastic!
Mac,

Sorry but I only just saw your question.  People don't flock to Askernish is that there are so many other fantastic golf courses in Scotland with great views, great golf, great atmosphere without having to drive for hours or fly to get there.  The competition is so great.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:56:03 AM by Brian Phillips »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2010, 04:54:04 AM »
Forrest,

You wrote:

Quote
I think the essence of Askernish's uniqueness to other "restorations" is that it is clearly not a direct and uncontested recreation of anything Old Tom did — at least that I can tell — but it is a locally-spun story being written by people who have come together to get something done, and they are doign it with regard to Old Tom and the general land he once roamed and shaped.

How is Tom Doak's involvement different from the long-term input by Martin Ebert and Gordon Irvine, who provided professional advice and opinions at Askernish during the process of rebuilding the course?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2010, 05:30:21 AM »

Scott

With all due respect I suggest you find out first what Gordon and Martin did and why. I do not think its down to Forrest to answer that question as he was not involved at the early stages.

Melvyn

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2010, 05:37:37 AM »
I spoke to Gordon at length about what he and Martin (they are also the consulting superintendent and architect at Deal) did during the rebuilding.

What I am asking Forrest is why he feels the involvement of Tom Doak is not best for Askernish when another architect (and a consultant superintendent whose amazing knowledge runs deep into matters architectural) has been giving advice throughout the revival of Askernish.

Forrest paints the project to this point as the passionate work of locals that he believes should be left to the locals and while there is undoubtedly a massive amount of that to credit, the fact is there has been professional input for a long time.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2010, 05:43:11 AM »

Scott

Of course there has been and we must remember Gordon involvement. He was the key that unlocked the door.

Melvyn

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2010, 03:26:35 PM »
Scott — The primary different is that their work came early and it helped articulate a vision that was mostly driven by locals. But, I am not blanketing their involvement or opinions one way or another. What I can say is that, from what I know, they were certainly a part of the "big idea" and getting things going.

Melvyn speaks the truth: Aside from what I was told that they did, and the report Martin put together with plans and rationale (which I read with great interest before visiting Askernish), I do not know more of the details of their contributions. Neither do I know the nitty-gritty details of Tom D. and his opinions.

My question to Tom D. was "What if..." and not, "You are wrong..." — My belief that the story at Askernish is best if it can remain as a locally-spun and written story would be directed at anyone from the "outside", not just Tom D. whom I admire and respect.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 03:30:27 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Tom D & Askernish
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2010, 04:30:27 PM »

Forrest

It would be great to hear Ralphs opinions and thoughts on the issued raised.

Melvyn

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back