Creating architectural time lines for the Golden Age architects vis a vis

[Patrick_Mucci]

identifying courses, holes and greens that are untouched or almost untouched since opening day or the day they ceased fine tuning the course.

In another thread a question was asked about Donald Ross's evolving greens as his career progressed.

I cited Mountain Ridge, a 1929 Donald Ross that's virtually untouched in many areas.

It would be great to have a list of each architect's courses that represent his untouched work so that an analysis of his work, start to finish, could be created.

I wonder if the various societies have undertaken a similar project ?

We all know that many of these societies advocate for restoration, for the undoing of changes and the return of the original work.

On an architect by architect basis, I wonder how many of their originals or near originals remain.

Included in that category would be a course that underwent changes, but then reversed the changes vis a vis restoration.

CBM/SR/CB
AWT
Ross
Flynn

How many of their courses are almost untouched ?

I'd nominate Mountain Ridge for Ross.

[Kyle Harris]

At what point does standard maintenance or special maintenance requirements enter into this equation?

What is untouched? Do things like changes to irrigation, irrigation accidents and careless topdressing count? How can one be certain none of these things occured?

Perhaps the start could be original plans and working from there. As-builts even better, if they exist.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

I think most understand what "untouched" or "virtually untouched" connotes.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I think most understand what "untouched" or "virtually untouched" connotes.

I don't, and I'm doubting you do as well - since you're not answering a direct question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

I think most understand what "untouched" or "virtually untouched" connotes.

I don't, and I'm doubting you do as well - since you're not answering a direct question.

Kyle,

If you want to nit pick or start another thread on the definitions of "untouched" or "virtually untouched", as it applies to the architecture, be my guest.

You know what it means, unless you're totally obtuse or just want to be a pain in the ass.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I think most understand what "untouched" or "virtually untouched" connotes.

I don't, and I'm doubting you do as well - since you're not answering a direct question.

Kyle,

If you want to nit pick or start another thread on the definitioins of "untouched" or "virtually untouched", as it applies to the architecture, be my guest.

You know what it means, unless you're totally obtuse or just want to be a pain in the ass.

It's the latter moreso, I think.

I could probably effectively argue that a grassing change that significantly altered the speed of the greens at Mountain Ridge and negated several hole locations qualifies as being touched. How about a changed mowing line or grassing pattern? Have Mountain Ridge's fairways constantly maintained their width as designed by Donald Ross? I think the answer is that you just don't know, and neither do any of us for sure.

This premise is stretched for that reason. Simple things like day-to-day maintenance significantly alter golf courses, and it baffles me that many fail to see that or that golf courses are dynamic things. Until you quantify your requirements for touched/un-touched people are going to languish on this thread until you beat them over the head with more green ink.

[michael damico]

how about Teugega for another Ross?

[RSLivingston_III]

There is a good argument to be made for defining untouched.

A few of the important points have to be that the green sward and contouring are unchanged.
That the fairway routings are still there even if they have been narrowed by trees. (simple maintenance that would bring it back(?))
Any rerouting would be automatic rejection. As would any landform changes (moving dirt = bad)
An arguement could be made that bunkers that were simply top filled and grassed over (simple fix(?)) could be considered a low value diminishment.

OK, I started a definition.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

I think most understand what "untouched" or "virtually untouched" connotes.

I don't, and I'm doubting you do as well - since you're not answering a direct question.

Kyle,

If you want to nit pick or start another thread on the definitioins of "untouched" or "virtually untouched", as it applies to the architecture, be my guest.

You know what it means, unless you're totally obtuse or just want to be a pain in the ass.

It's the latter moreso, I think.

So do I

I could probably effectively argue that a grassing change that significantly altered the speed of the greens at Mountain Ridge and negated several hole locations qualifies as being touched.


You could argue that, but not successfully.

How about a changed mowing line or grassing pattern?
Have Mountain Ridge's fairways constantly maintained their width as designed by Donald Ross?
I think the answer is that you just don't know, and neither do any of us for sure.


How about a changed mowing line ?

Is it your unequivical position that a course doesn't retain its architectural design integrity if the mower operater deviates two inches from the original mowing line ?  six inches ?  A foot ?

Constant is irrelevant.  What's relevant is opening day and today.

As to fairway lines, MRCC knows where they were and what they are.

But you'd have to be an idiot to maintain that a course didn't retain its architectural design integrity because someone altered a mowing line unintentionally.

This premise is stretched for that reason. Simple things like day-to-day maintenance significantly alter golf courses, and it baffles me that many fail to see that or that golf courses are dynamic things.


But day to day maintainance practices don't alter the Macro architecture.
That a green has shrunk over the years due to mowing practices doesn't count as an intended architectural change and neither do changes in fairway mowing patterns.

Until you quantify your requirements for touched/un-touched people are going to languish on this thread until you beat them over the head with more green ink.

I think that you intended to divert, disrupt and destroy the thread for your own selfish purposes, so have at it.
If you don't understand the jist of the thread, you'd be unqualified to attend any future GCA.com get togethers that I'd host.
So, consider yourself persona non grata.

[Kyle Harris]

I mean, really, Pat? You're holding access to an event you set up over my head? How old are you? 6?

For starters, I believe all those things do matter. You don't - that's fine, that's what makes for a discussion. But guess what, many people think the way I do, and many people think the way you do.

I asked you what you meant, you chose to be an arrogant self-righteous jerk instead of simply providing a starting point for the discussion. I even offered that working from the original plans could provide for a starting point. I was interested in hearing what you had to say on the matter. You chose to say nothing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I mean, really, Pat? You're holding access to an event you set up over my head? How old are you? 6?

I'll be 6 next year.



For starters, I believe all those things do matter. You don't - that's fine, that's what makes for a discussion.
But guess what, many people think the way I do, and many people think the way you do.

Since I created and initiated the thread, I'm pretty sure I understood the context.
It wasn't about mowing lines, it was about physical properties and features and their retention and evolution.
By your definition, there's not a single course in the world that's the same as it was on opening day, or the day the architect ceased tinkering with it.

I asked you what you meant,


You knew what I meant.
But, you chose to nit pick in an attempt to disrupt, derail and divert the thread.
You even admitted that you were just being a pain in the ass, so don't plead ignorance regarding your motives.

you chose to be an arrogant self-righteous jerk instead of simply providing a starting point for the discussion.

I provided the starting point, opening day and/or the day the original architect ceased tinkering with the course.
But, you wanted to inject mowing lines that might have moved a foot or more over the years.

There's not a single Golden Age course in the world that's retained the same mowing line that they had on opening day.
And, you know that, so why nit pick ?  Why try to define what constitutes change ?  six inches ?  12 inches ?

You wanted to be a dick and you succeeded, now it's your turn to sit in the penalty box.

I even offered that working from the original plans could provide for a starting point. I was interested in hearing what you had to say on the matter.

What good would original plans be in the context of change as defined by your altered mowing lines ?
One week after the course opened, it would be deemed to have changed.

As to your offer, I clearly cited the starting point/s.  They needed no clarification.

The purpose of the thread was not to discover how mowing lines had changed in a week, a year, a decade or a century, but, to see how the architect's style, as represented in the features he crafted over time, might have evolved or changed.

This thread had NOTHING to do with how each and every course was maintained. or how the mowing patterns changed.
This thread was about features and style and their possible evolution.

But, you chose to ruin this thread by nit picking and being a self admitted pain in the ass,

 
You chose to say nothing.

Absent your nit picking and being a pain in the ass I wouldn't have to say anything.

[Alex Lagowitz]

Going back to the OP,
I would say that many courses have slightly changed over the years, but it is interesting to analyze the style of the course (boldness) and how this changed over time.  Another thing to consider, especially with Ross, was that many courses were designed by him and yet he never say any construction or completion.  This could mean that we could see designs that may not have been what the architect originally intended.  Another consideration is whether or not the architect was truly interested in designing the said course.  I can think of many examples where one course is top 100 in world and the other by the same architect is not even 100 in the state.  This could be result of bad maintenance over time, not ideal golfing land to begin with, or just a poor layout.
At Mountain Ridge, the greens, general bunkering, and layout remain very similar to how they were designed (or atleast from what I am told and have seen), but one must note whether bunkers have been added or removed, greens contracted or expanded, new tees added possibly creating different playing angles etc.
At Plainfield CC, another local Ross course, similarities can be drawn to MR.  What I see a PCC is a different boldness in the design, such as the dramatic 4th, 8th, 9th and so on.  Maybe the land dictated the design of the holes, maybe Ross felt bold when laying the course out, but one feels a little more gentle when playing MR versus Plainfield.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

You're bad at this. Really really bad.

You select one example of a few I've given and assume it's my categorical response.

How about firm and fast with irrigation? Care to address the green speed issue? Trees? Are you going to throw more strawmen at me like mowing lines for inches?

Furthermore, you added vague qualifiers such as "virtually untouched" and "almost untouched." I asked questions in Response #2 that you blew off in Response #3. I then decided to be a pain in the ass in Response #4 because of your self-aggrandizing BS in Response #3. My choice, yes. But your choice as well - please don't make yourself out to be this clairvoyant seer who saw my intentions from the beginning. You got caught in a rhetorical bind and took the ad hominem argument as your way out. This is all too common with you and a reason why people tend to avoid your threads.

As for your example at Mountain Ridge, the 1931 aerial on HistoricAerials.com suggests that fairway corridors are in many cases twice to three times as wide as in the current Google aerial (so likely 60+ feet difference, not inches) and that trees all over the golf course were not nearly intrusive. There also appears to be a pond added in front of a tee behind the current range tee. The current aerial also suggests that the Par 5 on the northern most portion of the property includes a narrow bit of fairway and a tree at the choke point that is not present in 1931. Furthermore, the bunkers of today seem to be of a smaller scale than those in the 1931 aerial.

Is it your position that the size of trees and the in some cases double width of the fairway is untouched? Are the green speeds of today as receptive to shots from the rough as they were in 1931 or 1928? With all these changes to my eye, I feel the question I originally posted in Response #2 is still valid to further the thread. I've cited some changes I see between an early aerial to Mountain Ridge and today.

I do not, at the time, have access to 1928 data, so please spare me the notion that 1928 is not 1931 and that in those three years the golf course changed significantly unless you care to present proof. I'll even host and post any pictures you have proving your point since I know you do not have that capability.

And yes, my definition would say that not a single course in the world is the same as it was on opening day or past architectural tinkering. I agree with Alice Dye in that regard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're bad at this. Really really bad.

Not really

You select one example of a few I've given and assume it's my categorical response.

How about firm and fast with irrigation?

Irrelevant to the architectural features

Care to address the green speed issue?

Irrelevant to the architectural features

 Trees?

Irrelevant to the archtiectural features

Are you going to throw more strawmen at me like mowing lines for inches?

That's no strawman, you brought up the moving of mowing lines, an absurdity, since the mowing lines changed the first week these courses were open.

Furthermore, you added vague qualifiers such as "virtually untouched" and "almost untouched."


They're not "vague qualifiers", they allow for reasonable flexibility rather than finite absolutes,
but, you wouldn't know that because you wanted to disrupt and demolish the thread from the begining.
You even admitted to that.

I asked questions in Response #2 that you blew off in Response #3. I then decided to be a pain in the ass in Response #4 because of your self-aggrandizing BS in Response #3. My choice, yes. But your choice as well - please don't make yourself out to be this clairvoyant seer who saw my intentions from the beginning. You got caught in a rhetorical bind and took the ad hominem argument as your way out. This is all too common with you and a reason why people tend to avoid your threads.

B.S.
This isn't the first time you attempted to derail a thread I initiated.
I knew from your first reply what you were up to.
You can deny it all you want, but I knew your intent, and you know that I know your intent.

As for your example at Mountain Ridge, the 1931 aerial on HistoricAerials.com suggests that fairway corridors are in many cases twice to three times as wide as in the current Google aerial (so likely 60+ feet difference, not inches)

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
The fairways are 60 yards wide in many DZ's.  They were never 120 to 180 yards wide as you allege.
Today's fairways are almost identical to the fairways in 1929, you just don't know how to interpret the 1931 aerial.
In addition, we have other aerials, as builts and plans from 1929 indicating the opposite of what you state.
When it comes to Mountain Ridge, your knowledge base is infinitesimal.

and that trees all over the golf course were not nearly intrusive.

Once again, that's irrelevant with respect to the architectural features, and, the

There also appears to be a pond added in front of a tee behind the current range tee.

That's a retention pond for the automated irrigation system that has nothing to do with the architecture.

The current aerial also suggests that the Par 5 on the northern most portion of the property includes a narrow bit of fairway and a tree at the choke point that is not present in 1931.

Furthermore, the bunkers of today seem to be of a smaller scale than those in the 1931 aerial.

Perhaps in your eyes

Is it your position that the size of trees and the in some cases double width of the fairway is untouched?

The size of the trees is irrelevant in terms of the architectural features and your allegation that the fairways are half their width is a statement borne of ignorance.


Are the green speeds of today as receptive to shots from the rough as they were in 1931 or 1928?

That's just another desperate grasp on your part, an irrelevant issue, one not germane to the architectural features.

With all these changes to my eye,

I think many of those changes you perceive, are in your mind, not in your eye.

I feel the question I originally posted in Response #2 is still valid to further the thread.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however, it's not one I share.
From the outset you chose to nit pick rather than engage in reasonable discussion.

I've cited some changes I see between an early aerial to Mountain Ridge and today.

You have to, it's the only way you can justify your attempt to derail the thread, which you've done.

I do not, at the time, have access to 1928 data, so please spare me the notion that 1928 is not 1931 and that in those three years the golf course changed significantly unless you care to present proof. I'll even host and post any pictures you have proving your point since I know you do not have that capability.

The 1929 versus 1931 data is irrelevant, as are many of your points.

And yes, my definition would say that not a single course in the world is the same as it was on opening day or past architectural tinkering. I agree with Alice Dye in that regard.

I was the one who indicated, that by your definition, no course was the EXACT same after opening day.
But, that wasn't the object of this thread.  I explained the object previously, but, you chose to be a pain in the ass and disrupt and destroy the thread.

That was solely your choice, you wanted to nit pick and be a pain in the ass.
OK, you succeeded, so don't complain about the consequences.