In renovation, should authenticity carry as much weight as progress?

[Joe Hancock]

Put more simply, more architects are now trying to mirror the look and feel of the Golden Age / the original course, the style.


Once that’s done, it gives more license to move in to full renovation mode because 90% of people think you are restoring by just returning the look and feel.

Has anyone ever actually restored a course to original turf heights and fairway/green contours?
Because some of the most interesting greens ever built are unplayable other than at super benign hole placements at current green speeds

This. No one wants to go back in time, conditioning-wise. A) It doesn’t appeal to our human nature of constantly trying to improve something, and B) It would give us too many other factors to blame our ineptitude. Oh, and C) There’s no money in doing less.....

[jeffwarne]

can we at least put the word "progress" in quotes in the thread title?
Cuz a bunch of tiers rather than tilt and slope ain't my idea of "progress", even if it is what keeps the ball on the "progressively conditioned" obligatory 12 + green.
but we can always fall back on architects's "intent" in our "restorations" as we walk alone and backwards to our next tee shot and hope our tee ball ends up in the first cut now required to keep the ball out of the primary rough on sloped fairways which once upon a time had a enough friction to allow a ball to stay in them and provided the challenge of uneven stances.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Put more simply, more architects are now trying to mirror the look and feel of the Golden Age / the original course, the style.


Once that’s done, it gives more license to move in to full renovation mode because 90% of people think you are restoring by just returning the look and feel.

Has anyone ever actually restored a course to original turf heights and fairway/green contours?
Because some of the most interesting greens ever built are unplayable other than at super benign hole placements at current green speeds

That’s not what I’m talking about. I mean that people are suckered by look and feel so an entirely new bunker scheme and different greens can be passed off as a restoration because it looks like the style of MacKenzie for example.

[Joe Hancock]

Put more simply, more architects are now trying to mirror the look and feel of the Golden Age / the original course, the style.


Once that’s done, it gives more license to move in to full renovation mode because 90% of people think you are restoring by just returning the look and feel.

Has anyone ever actually restored a course to original turf heights and fairway/green contours?
Because some of the most interesting greens ever built are unplayable other than at super benign hole placements at current green speeds

That’s not what I’m talking about. I mean that people are suckered by look and feel so an entirely new bunker scheme and different greens can be passed off as a restoration because it looks like the style of MacKenzie for example.

Everything is connected. A restoration of features per size, placement and design matter not when literally everything else has changed. It looks good on paper, but that’s about where the idea of restoration stops.


I suppose there is an argument that a proper restoration may be relevant some day if a golf maintenance/ playing equipment apocalypse happens, and we’re forced into reverting back to a simpler time. But, humans aren’t going to choose that. We like “progress”. (You’re welcome, JW)

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think we must be talking at cross-purposes, Joe.


I am simply talking about why restorations have more recently veered towards renovation as a follow-on to Ian’s post. I am not passing judgement on either direction.

[Bernie Bell]

deleted

[Jim_Coleman]

   I have seen what total fealty to original design looks like, and it is not very pretty.  Architects simply overlayed  vintage aerial photos and plans over modern aerial photos.  If a fairway bunker that is now say 250 yards off a tee was 190 yards off the tee 90 years ago, they proposed removing the new one and repositioning it to where it was.  This discretionless philosophy was applied on several holes, leaving the present day low handicapper with no challenge and the present day high handicapper with an unnecessary and silly challenge.  They also proposed to remove every single bunker that exists today but did not exist 90 years ago.  These are bunkers that have been added by highly regarded architects over the last 30 years, and which, in the minds of many, have greatly improved the aesthetics and challenge of course.
   Fortunately, the response of the membership to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly negative.  Yes, courses need to change over time to accommodate changes in the game, and a good architect is indispensable to accomplish this.  But the word "restoration" is too dangerous.  Renovation with an eye to the past is what is needed.  Sometimes a good renovation will undo changes that were improvidently made.  But a good renovation will also incorporate improvements made over time.  Making the course better should be the only goal of any project, not making it the same as it was.  Not all historical changes are bad.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for that, Jim.
An excellent post, and an eye-opener for me in its clarity and directness.
Peter

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thanks Peter. I feel quite strongly about this

[Mike_Young]

I am more convinced now than ever that sustainability of the golf course should carry more weight than authenticity, renovation, restoration or progress.  Maintenance is out of control....

[Bernie Bell]

“It’s more respectful to a dish to cook it and keep it alive than it is to insist on making it the exact same way it happened to be made a hundred years ago.  ‘Who cares if it’s authentic, so long as it tastes good?’ Mr. Ottolenghi remarked . . .  talking about the Irish stew affair.”
[/color][/size]
[/color]“Is using pancetta instead of guanciale really such a crime? The thing that gets missed by those who cling to the idea of authentic food is that when you change the context of the cooking, you change the meaning. In Amatrice, guanciale is used in pasta dishes because it is a normal, everyday item. Outside of Italy . . . ‘pork jowl is hard to get,’ and therefore it’s a reasonable choice—and true to the original spirit of the dish—to substitute something that’s easier to find.”[/size]
[/color][/size]
[/color]Excerpts from a recent WSJ article titled [/size][/color]“The Misguided Obsession With ‘Authentic’ Food - What should matter in cooking a dish isn’t whether it conforms to an original recipe but whether its innovations taste good”

[Jason Topp]

I have nothing to add but enjoyed Bernie's post


[quote author=Bernie Bell link=topic=47638.msg1619624#msg1619624 date=1573676656]


“It’s more respectful to a dish to cook it and keep it alive than it is to insist on making it the exact same way it happened to be made a hundred years ago.  ‘Who cares if it’s authentic, so long as it tastes good?’ Mr. Ottolenghi remarked . . .  talking about the Irish stew affair.”

“Is using pancetta instead of guanciale really such a crime? The thing that gets missed by those who cling to the idea of authentic food is that when you change the context of the cooking, you change the meaning. In Amatrice, guanciale is used in pasta dishes because it is a normal, everyday item. Outside of Italy . . . ‘pork jowl is hard to get,’ and therefore it’s a reasonable choice—and true to the original spirit of the dish—to substitute something that’s easier to find.”

Excerpts from a recent WSJ article titled “The Misguided Obsession With ‘Authentic’ Food - What should matter in cooking a dish isn’t whether it conforms to an original recipe but whether its innovations taste good”

[Bernie Bell]

Thanks.  I'll have to learn how to properly post some day.

[Kalen Braley]

Can't say i'm a fan of the recipe analogy.

Unlike a recipe, which you can always go back and tweak, or make again in its original form, or do something else a bit differently, this doesn't really translate to a golf course where the changes are somewhat permanent, once modified the original is technically lost, and you can only really have it one way. You also don't consume a golf course, you just get to interface it.  Seems a bit more like art-work or constructing a building....

P.S.  I don't know if was more restoration or renovation, but the pre and post changes to Pasatiempo was nothing short of spectacular.

[Bernie Bell]

Does the analogy work better for you if you think of it as restaurant and not recipe?  Restaurant like golf course or club needs to keep diners coming back, one way or another, as tourists or locals.  Shouldn't what matters at restaurant be whether the food is good, and not whether the presentation looks good on Instagram or whether it pleases snobby critics insisting on "authenticity"?  Wasn't it more fun to trail along with Bourdain in Parts Unknown than to read reviews of the latest $$$$ muckety restaurant in London or the Acela Corridor?

[Peter Flory]

Most golfers, even with modern equipment, hit the ball shorter than the top players did in the Golden Age.  And most hazards on the historical courses seem like they were positioned to challenge the better players of the day (and the shorter hazards to provide conquerable obstacles to the weaker players to give them some satisfaction of achievement). 

I guess that I like the idea of the 1906 French soup for a restoration.  In that scenario, the average golfer today can play the course in a similar way that the better players originally did from a distance standpoint. 

Some good players will find the course too easy.  But the rounds under par will probably still be less than 1% of all rounds played.   

[Mark_Fine]

ALL courses are "improved" with good intentions and in the name of "progress".  Unfortunately many of us beg to differ on what is or needs "improvement".  Furthermore, golf courses are living things, not static pieces of art.  They under constant change and evolution even without human intervention.  I remember a quote from the Greenskeeper at The Old Course when asked about how the course has evolved over the years.   He looked out at the links as the wind whipped sand across it and said, “The course is changing as we speak!”

I would argue only a small portion of all courses deserve to be "restored" but every course at least deserves a look before bringing in the back hoes and bulldozers and “renovating/redesigning” the golf course.  That takes some research and effort to determine what was originally there and not many architects or committees care to do that. 

I don’t argue with Jim about the focus of change should be on “improvement” but that is part of the heart of the challenge - what is "improvement"? 

There is a rumor that some noted architect thinks The Old Course at St. Andrews could be dramatically “improved” by a complete renovation.  I think that would freak most of us out.   


The industry will constantly go through cycles.  It is what keeps many of us busy

[mike_malone]

   I have seen what total fealty to original design looks like, and it is not very pretty.  Architects simply overlayed  vintage aerial photos and plans over modern aerial photos.  If a fairway bunker that is now say 250 yards off a tee was 190 yards off the tee 90 years ago, they proposed removing the new one and repositioning it to where it was.  This discretionless philosophy was applied on several holes, leaving the present day low handicapper with no challenge and the present day high handicapper with an unnecessary and silly challenge.  They also proposed to remove every single bunker that exists today but did not exist 90 years ago.  These are bunkers that have been added by highly regarded architects over the last 30 years, and which, in the minds of many, have greatly improved the aesthetics and challenge of course.
   Fortunately, the response of the membership to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly negative.  Yes, courses need to change over time to accommodate changes in the game, and a good architect is indispensable to accomplish this.  But the word "restoration" is too dangerous.  Renovation with an eye to the past is what is needed.  Sometimes a good renovation will undo changes that were improvidently made.  But a good renovation will also incorporate improvements made over time.  Making the course better should be the only goal of any project, not making it the same as it was.  Not all historical changes are bad.

Restoration is indeed a daunting task but if you have a great architect who built a great course and you have superb historical material you should be one of the few that goes for it.


Having the guiding light of a great architect for what is good is better than the interpretation of a contemporary architect.


Mr. Coleman is lucky to be a member of a club that can achieve this elusive goal. I suggest he relax and enjoy it.

[Jeff Schley]

Most golfers, even with modern equipment, hit the ball shorter than the top players did in the Golden Age.  And most hazards on the historical courses seem like they were positioned to challenge the better players of the day (and the shorter hazards to provide conquerable obstacles to the weaker players to give them some satisfaction of achievement). 

I guess that I like the idea of the 1906 French soup for a restoration.  In that scenario, the average golfer today can play the course in a similar way that the better players originally did from a distance standpoint. 

Some good players will find the course too easy.  But the rounds under par will probably still be less than 1% of all rounds played.   

Peter talking about restorations, I always think of the Lido simulated course you were developing when I see your name.  How is it going? Amazing the technology available, but also the hundreds of hours you have devoted to it.

[mike_malone]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.


  Imagine if the architect felt that the purpose of the fairway bunker was to provide a “ mode of play” rather than to be a “penalizer “. In that case it never needs to be moved.
It is true that as time goes by a lower quality player ends up there but they can’t cant reach the green from that distance anyway.


Great design is at the green where all end up and allows the tee shot a wide and random outcome. The golfer least affected by great design is the one who hits it in the middle of the fairway and the green.


It’s not progress to eliminate great design at the green by moving features to different places in the fairway.
Many great designers recognized the need for tee elasticity which certainly makes sense.


Constricting the playing area off the tee isn’t progress it’s just boring golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
I agree with you to some point but also beg to differ.  Great design is more than just the greensites.  Sometimes the journey is as important as the destination 
Mark

[corey miller]

Members of all these golden age courses prefer the wording "restoration" rather than "renovation".  I was involved in a "renovation" of an old course that had been modified (for a variety of reasons) many times over the years.  Indeed, even the first modification plan I saw (prior to the "restoration movement") was a total earth moving, tee lengthening, bunker flashing, green softening fiasco cloaked in the term "restoration".  The wording sounded great but the membership was incapable of understanding what it even meant.


The intellectual deception I participated in (in order to get the work done) was constantly using the term "restoration" rather than "renovation" as we had had too many of the latter but in the end it is a sales job.

I justify all this with my belief that we were "restoring a classic look" to a classic era course.....


I am also a believer that 95% of the work on classic courses could be preformed by a knowledgeable empowered Superintendent.


In the end, I (and most) just want a better course not a museum piece and rather than focus on many of the "playability"/"strategy" issues think the best way forward is to continue to have these internal strategic debates but also to always, at a minimum, attempt to make an old course look old because that is an improvement in virtually every instance.

[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Corey,
Superintendents are critical to a successful golf course "restoration or renovation", call it what you want, but I don't agree with you about your assessment.  Many would love every tree gone, every bunker to never need hand raking, every green able to be mown with a triplex, artificial turf on all the tees,...etc etc  Furthermore, I doubt many have the time or interest to do all the research necessary to understand the evolution of the course they are maintaining that was designed 50 years before they were born    In many ways I don't blame them as it is the toughest job in golf trying to placate members that don't really understand how challenging a job they have. 


The most successful projects require a good balance and a "team effort" that includes the superintendent.
Mark

[JMEvensky]

Mayday,
I agree with your to some point but also beg to differ.  Great design is more than just the greensites.  Sometimes the journey is as important as the destination 
Mark

Nice--wish there were a like button.

[mike_malone]

Mayday,
I agree with you to some point but also beg to differ.  Great design is more than just the greensites.  Sometimes the journey is as important as the destination 
Mark

Mark,


Maybe I should have said hazards that affect a few have the lowest value. Things that affect all on tee shots do have value such as angled hazards or trees forming a dogleg.


My intent is too say that allowing the recovery shot but giving it the most challenge is great architecture.


BTW we have a new arrangement with Huntingdon Valley, Lehigh, and Lancaster and my guys prefer Lehigh.