Is history just repeating itself?

[Mark_Fine]

Seems any course that wants to host a major tournament these days needs to undergo a redesign of some kind.  But maybe this is just history repeating itself!  Wasn’t it back in 1927 that the USGA dictated that if Pebble Beach wanted to host the 1929 U.S. Amateur, it would have to undergo major design changes?  Pebble was a ten-year old course at the time.  What if the owners/membership at Pebble had not fallen prey to the need to host a major championship?  What if they were steadfast in preserving what they had?

Was the precedent for continuous change of our golf courses set for us long ago?  Who is to say when it should stop?

Tough questions with no easy or obvious answers that I can see.  You can envision Bandon and Pacific Dunes falling into the same situation as Torrey Pines North and South.  Only time will tell!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

This confusing thread was going for a record of hits without a single response - so I thought I'd step in. Are you trying to make a point, if so please explain the point you are trying to make?

Are you saying the circumstances with Pebble Beach and Torrey Pines were the same, and are their circumstances the same as Riviera, Merion and the most famous redo Oakland Hills? Do you know if they were all dictated by the USGA?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Sorry, maybe I put too much in one post.  My main point was the changes demanded by the USGA on Pebble Beach to host the Amateur.  How would we all have felt in 1927 when that was going on?  And has change like this set a precedent for what we are seeing now?

Is that any clearer?
Mark

[Craig Van Egmond]

I would think that most people felt that Pebble Beach got better after those changes. That would probably be the difference.

[TEPaul]

Pebble in 1927 wasn't much of a course that's for sure. But did that redesign or rebuilt set a precedent for today? Hardly!

The History of Open changes to golf courses is a very varied one and one that's pretty much covered the spectrum.

You should do a bit of research on your own course's architect, William Flynn, on this subject Mark. Flynn apparently did not believe in altering golf courses for the sake of Open or tournment siting. He even proposed that the USGA build some of their own courses to hold tournaments where they could feel free to do all the experimenting they felt like. He may have even had himself in mind to be the one to do that experimenting on those USGA courses.

But it seems to depend on who has run the USGA at any particular time. We do know that various architects made their reputations "preparing" courses for Opens and such--certainly RTJ, the Fazios and Rees Jones among others! We also know how a USGA leader such as Joe Dey felt about setting up Opens for a particular "playability", like narrowness and accuracy and what that may have done to the designs of some classic courses.

We've also heard stories (well documented) by a club such as Merion in the early 1980s who had planned to add a bunker to a particular hole and was warned by the USGA that if it tampered with a "classic design" the USGA would not hold the Open there.

So I don't think one can point to any particular precedent or for any one reason. If a course has undeniably great architecture and possibly a tradition and history of holding Opens, as many of America's classic courses do, presumably they shouldn't need redesign unless something has been mishandled like the distance explosion, which is sort of Geoff Shackelford's underlying point with the Riviera "restauration". The point is the USGA should get a grip on the real problem--excessive distance, and not hide the problem by taking it out on some otherwise classic and great architecture.

So there's obviously no real precedent involved just a lot of varying reasons throughout the years--some good reasons and some really bad reasons!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Good points.  Do you think Flynn would have supported changing Pebble Beach in 1927 or not?  Also, isn't there almost always debate whether a course is better or worse after changes are made?  And who should have the final say?  

As Craig points out, the Pebble changes may have been obvious ones, but that is not always the case!  Is The Balck for example better or worse?  I'll make my own judgement this spring when I see the course again but just from the picture of the 18th hole I have to wonder?  
Mark
 

  

[Geoff Shackelford]

Mark,
There are several fundamental differences between what is going on now at Riviera, and what happened at Pebble Beach circa 1927 that led to the Egan redo.

First, the Pebble work was carried out by a committee of three, Lapham, Hunter and Egan, working to make the architecture better and more attractive. Not to appease the par-protection mindset or add length to try covering up major flaws in equipment testing. Yes, the USGA back then did suggest the course needed work, but if you read Neil Hotelling's book, the USGA stayed out of doing the actual work and making specific suggestions. Nor did anyone try to call it a restoration back then. They called it what it was, a redo.

The Riviera work is moving forward because the club feels it has to address the "difficulty" and length of the course. Also, Riviera has never been noted as the old Pebble Beach was for having major "functional" problems with its design. Sure, some things could be different at Riviera, but it's been doing okay, and with its condition improved so much, the biggest question mark has been addressed. But post-USGA/Fazio, now, of course, the design has flaws that need correcting!

Second, the work at Pebble Beach was done after the 1929 US Amateur was secured.

The work at Riviera and Torrey is taking place without any gurantee of an Open. Which of course brings up the question, if the USGA feels so strongly that these courses need work for them to fairly consider their worthiness as an Open site, why don't they help cover the costs? This is why they deny that they make design suggestions or have preferred architects...they realize it's not the sign of an organization with much integrity. Even the wonderful NFL doesn't make people build the stadiums first before awarding teams.

So, contrary to you, I think the answers are pretty obvious. The USGA should get out of golf architecture, it should do something about its testing procedures, and it should select Open sites before asking people to invest millions in their course.
Geoff

[Mark_Fine]

Geoff,
I'm sure you're right about the USGA's involvement with Pebble Beach, but my understanding was that they "strongly suggested" changing the course to provide a better test of golf for the top players?  Wasn't that part of the deal to secure the Amateur?  

Anyway, maybe the changes at Pebble weren't a good example to get across my question.  Let me ask it this way - Is there any precedent out there from years past (many years past) that has influence or justification for what is being done to many of our courses today?
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Are you trying to say that since the USGA was involved in improving PB 75 years ago that we should be more accepting of the changes at Riviera, Merion and Oakmont today? What exactly is your point?

Did the USGA annualy suggest changes to courses following the 1929 Am? I'm not aware of it setting a precedent, the more famous example was the changes to Oakland Hills in the 50's. Tom Paul is correct that Pebble Beach wasn't much of a course and they had been attempting to upgrade the course before the USGA came in, ingaging Fowler and then MacKenzie. Oakland Hills set the precedent for butchering of well-respected courses - it had held two previous US Opens before undergoing the knife. So in answer to your original question, no PB was not the precedent.

[Geoff Shackelford]

According to Hotelling's book, Pebble played quite difficult in a 1926 pro event (five over won), but some of the greens were too goofy (#8). And of course, by then Pebble was looking primitive with the remaining "geometric" features compared other new courses.

Though I can see how this might be (mis)interpreted. In fact, maybe this is how the current wave of work at Riviera will be discussed fifty years from now, or maybe even today: "Fazio's staff found the look of Riviera primitive and beamed in a framing-friendly Bethpage style of bunkering, while taking a cue from the Tour 18 concept by adding Pinehurst-like green contours. They also nobly eliminated the course's strategy, a dreadful St. Andrews-derived component of the previous Riviera design that violated the golfers individual rights by forcing them to imagine or think, while also executing strokes at the same time. This is far different than today's player-friendly, hazard-free design, which preserves the integrity of par by relying on 10,000 yards of length, while still allowing all players, regardless of intelligence, to golf their ball free of worry or the dreaded possibility of having to consider multiple possibilities."  

[Mark_Fine]

I'm not stating a position guys, I'm just asking a question!  If past precedent shows that it is not sacrilegious to change classic golf courses (Oakland Hills being another example and the list could go on), guys like Fazio could be citing this and using it as justification to deface such wonderful properties as Riviera!  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
You believe that Oakland Hills is an example of an improvement?  How was it improved?

Maybe you are not starting a position, but the timing of your question is a bit odd considering all the consternation involving the work at Riviera. And now it is  followed by your thread speculating on what changes Flynn would envisioned for his own designs. Looks like a theme to me.

Wasn't Fynn warning that if something wasn't done, that the face of the game would be changed dramatically in a negative way. I speculate he would be shocked by what hasn't been done, he would then take a walk around the 'new' Merion and would immmediately drop dead again.

[Richard_Goodale]

TomMacW

Even with it's slightly funny looking bunkers, Merion is still a very, very great golf course, and I'm sure Flynn would be proud if he were to be reincarnated today as a Flymo or a Pro V1 or even a GCA.  My guess is that he would be just as bemused at the "white faces" of a few years ago as he would be of "toupees" of today, neither of which he designed or could have even intimated.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
You are obviously not familar with the famous old photos of Hogan at Merion in 1950 or Flynn's original vision of Shinnecock.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The bunkers of Merion that were there a few years ago Flynn didn't design you say? My understanding is Hugh Wilson did that golf course and the bunkers in collaboration with William Flynn. So if he didn't design those bunkers of a few years ago, who did?

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom MacW

Flynn died well before Hogan ever played Merion.

Tom P

Sure he crated the "bunkers", but did Flynn design the "white faces" or were they "created" by thousands of golfers splashing sand upwards in aspiration and frustration?

PS--please reply Tommy, so we can get you to that magic 1000th post before you travel down to God's waiting room.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Flynn died in 1945 at the age of 54. Do you think maybe the bunkers changed dramatically between his death and the Open five years later?

What do you make of Flynn's orignal vision for the bunkers at Shinnecock and Indian Creek?

Does anyone know where Flynn played his golf? From what I understand his office was in Ardmore.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Were you stumped by my question? I don't believe you answered them.

I was able to come up with his vision of Shinnecock and Indian Creek, by reviewing photos of both courses shortly after he completed construction. I really enjoy research and looking for evidence of an architect's style or traits - you should try it. You can also add Boca Raton to those reflecting a similar vision.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Sorry about repeating what you already knew about the date of Flynn's death. I was wondering if you were certain when he died, since you said he died well before Hogan played Merion. I geuss we had difference in opinion as to what 'well before' conveys.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

You never "stump" me, but you often confuse me.  Please refer to Monty Python and the "Confuse a Cat" sketch before replying.

Chers

R1

[Mike_Cirba]

Is it any wonder that we are left with "revisionist" history, and "remodels" calling themselves "restorations"?

For the record;

Rich refers to the "slightly funny looking bunkers" at Merion that were created by a 2nd level associate in the Fazio organization, and feels that William Flynn wouldn't have been too upset because he would not have recognized their predecessors; the famed "White Faces of Merion".

Hmmm...the "Slightly Funny Looking Bunkers of Merion" just doesn't have quite the same ring or dignity...

Nevertheless...

Here are a few interesting facts;

The white faces of Merion existed with sand flashed to the lip since at least the 1920's.  Ironically, they no longer do, as bluegrass plantings now form the face of the modern bunkers that are in their stead....perhaps the "bluegrass faces of Merion" might now be more apt.

The were not formed in that way by "thousands of golfers splashing sand upwards".  Yes, that created higher profiles over time in some particular bunkers like 8 & 13 fronting bunkers, but sand always was flashed to the lips....and is evident in all of the pictures from that time period.

If Rich's theory were correct, every single golf course built before 1960 or so would have Merion type bunkers through natural evolution.  They clearly don't....well..maybe now they do post-Fazio, but this "restoration stuff" gets confusing.

What's more, the name "White Faces of Merion" was attributed to one Mr. Chick Evans, after the 1916 U.S. Amateur.  It seems they were pretty special and unique even back then.

And yes...those same from 1924 and 1930 clearly show that many of the bunkers had love grass and other plantings even way back then when Billy Flynn was a young man.  For anyone who has not seen Fazio's work, all of those plantings and wild scrub look are GONE...TOTALLY cleaned out, in the name of fairness and "restoration".  

There is no doubt that Mr. Flynn would have felt the pride of authorship and recognized the bunkers of Merion two years ago.

I wouldn't want to take him around there today, however, especially given his legendary penchant for hard-drinking and fisticuffs.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You are making assumptions again!  I never said the changes at Oakland Hills were better or worse did I?  You were the one who pointed out the changes to the course in the first place.  

There is no hidden agenda here.  I do not like to see "classic" courses changed/altered any more than you do.  I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it all (if there is any) because it is widespread and has been going on for sometime!  

Another reason for the timing of this post and the one on Flynn is because I was just asked to serve on Lehigh's Long Range Planning Committee.  I know one of the discussion topics will be keeping the course as a monument to Flynn or ultimately trying to "update" it to true championship standards "what ever that means".  How do I argue against adding extra sets of tees for example (which could be done) to stretch out the yardage,...etc.  What would Flynn say given the current state of the game?  Any ammunition I can gather to keep it in its current state or even bring it back more to "original" playing standards would be useful!
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Is it any wonder that we are left with "revisionist" history, and "remodels" calling themselves "restorations"?

For the record;

Rich refers to the "slightly funny looking bunkers" at Merion that were created by a 2nd level associate in the Fazio organization, and feels that William Flynn wouldn't have been too upset because he would not have recognized their predecessors; the famed "White Faces of Merion".

Hmmm...the "Slightly Funny Looking Bunkers of Merion" just doesn't have quite the same ring or dignity...

Nevertheless...

Here are a few interesting facts;

The white faces of Merion existed with sand flashed to the lip since at least the 1920's.  Ironically, they no longer do, as bluegrass plantings now form the face of the modern bunkers that are in their stead....perhaps the "bluegrass faces of Merion" might now be more apt.

The were not formed in that way by "thousands of golfers splashing sand upwards".  Yes, that created higher profiles over time in some particular bunkers like 8 & 13 fronting bunkers, but sand always was flashed to the lips....and is evident in all of the pictures from that time period.

If Rich's theory were correct, every single golf course built before 1960 or so would have Merion type bunkers through natural evolution.  They clearly don't, never have, and never will because Merion's bunkers were built to model their natural British counterparts!!.......although, ironically many modern courses now inadvertedly have bunkers that look very much like the post-Fazio version of Merion's bunkers!  

But, who cares??  After all, this "restoration stuff" gets confusing.  Let's just call it that and move on....

The plain truth is, the name "White Faces of Merion" was attributed to one Mr. Chick Evans, after the 1916 U.S. Amateur.  It seems they were pretty special and VERY unique even way, way back then.

And yes...those same from 1924 and 1930 clearly show that many of the bunkers had love grass and other plantings even way back then when Billy Flynn was a young man.  For anyone who has not seen Fazio's work, all of those plantings and wild scrub look are GONE...TOTALLY cleaned out, in the name of fairness and "restoration".  

There is no doubt that Mr. Flynn would have felt the pride of authorship and recognized the bunkers of Merion two years ago.

I wouldn't want to take him around there today, however, especially given his legendary penchant for hard-drinking and fisticuffs.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
My mistake, I thought you were giving Oakland Hills as an example of why it is not sacrilegious to change classic golf courses. Perhaps I misread what you were saying. I think it is difficult to draw single conclusion and it is a mistake to generalize why these courses are altered. Each situation is slightly different, for exapmle it is difficult for me to compare what is done to a Merion or Riviera with Torey Pines.

Rich
Not one of Python's better skits. Are you saying you are a bored cat lying out on the lawn in need of extraordinary stimulation? I've always suspected the subject of golf architecture was less than stimulating for you.

Was the question confusing or were you confused because you weren't sure of the answer? Maybe if I reworded it. Based on what you know of Flynn's work at Shinnecock, Boca Raton and Indian Creek, and the look of Merion's famous bunkers up through the time of his death, why would Flynn be as 'bemeused' by the bunkers of a few years ago as he would be of today's?

If you were simply making a joke and didn't intend on your comments being taken seriously please disregard my question.

Mike
I'm with you on that theory. I've always had difficulty with that one, it has never made sence to me. Kind of like the theory that Pinehurst #2's elevated greens are result of years of top dressing - that is another hard one for me to swallow.

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike C

Sorry for my misinterpretation of what existed in the 1920's at Merion. I posted the same theory on another thread and a "Doyen", no less, tended to confirm what I said.  Sorry to hear that he and I were wrong.  You look damn good for somebody who was there in the flapper" age!

I saw many bunkers at Merion (9 comes immediately to mind) where the greenside contours had been degraded by years of golfing frustration ("splash up").  I know personally of other great courses where these sorts of degradation have been ameliorated, initially with some horror from members (such as myself) but ultimately with knowing smiles (such as it, "ah, that's the way this hole was meant to play!").  I also played Shinnecock a few days after Merion and I didn't see any "white faces" there.  Was auld Willie off his game or just into the sauce when he designed that (dare I say, greater) course?

Just wondering........

Rich