Historically Speaking

[Tony Ristola]

When an architect goes into an aged course, and totally nukes the old design, but the routing remains largely intact, is it shared design credit?

When it happens with fresh work, where the routing architect doesn't finish the job beyond routing, he doesn't receive credit, and there are scores of such examples... so... does the nukee get full credit for redesigning the strategies within the corridors? Doesn't it do a disservice to the original architect by having folks assume the course is his handwork?
 

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

If the original architect was still alive, I think you would just ask him whether he ought to share credit for the new course or not, as he would be in the best place to assess whether the course still relies heavily on his routing [not to mention whether he thinks the new work has made a mess of his original].

Often, though, the original architect is long dead, and in that case I don't think there is a good rule of thumb to decide the problem.  Really, it boils down to how many people you want to list for a given course.

[David_Elvins]

Tony:

If the original architect was still alive, I think you would just ask him whether he ought to share credit for the new course or not, as he would be in the best place to assess whether the course still relies heavily on his routing [not to mention whether he thinks the new work has made a mess of his original].

Often, though, the original architect is long dead, and in that case I don't think there is a good rule of thumb to decide the problem.  Really, it boils down to how many people you want to list for a given course.

Tom,

What was the process at Stonewall?  Is the first course a Fazio routing?

[Rich Goodale]

Are we talking about here about painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa or re-doing somebody's front lawn, or something in-between?

I can't think of a golf course in the world that might not benefit from a Ristola or a Doak having an intelligent look at what is there and then making some informed changes.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony:

If the original architect was still alive, I think you would just ask him whether he ought to share credit for the new course or not, as he would be in the best place to assess whether the course still relies heavily on his routing [not to mention whether he thinks the new work has made a mess of his original].

Often, though, the original architect is long dead, and in that case I don't think there is a good rule of thumb to decide the problem.  Really, it boils down to how many people you want to list for a given course.

I am thinking of a few courses where the architect is long gone and the courses have been blown up except for the general routing. Personally... I wouldn't have wanted the shared credit, and believe it is misleading for the clubs to promote the course as the passed on architect's handwork. Unfortunately for the clubs, the names carry some weight, and a divorce isn't in their interest... but they should have thought about that before allowing the courses to be vandalized. These courses are lost causes for restoration... unless they want to spend another million or more to undo what was done, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

The third such course I recently visited the "restoration" wasn't faithful, can be fixed for a modest sum and the routing is still intact. In this case I can see the shared credit...for a while... with the hope someone will come by and honestly put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and return sole proprietorship to the original architect.

David,
Funny... while writing this Stonewall did come to mind, as did other courses; Harbour Town, Secession, LACC North... but the courses I'm thinking about are in continental Europe.

[Tony Ristola]

Are we talking about here about painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa or re-doing somebody's front lawn, or something in-between?

I can't think of a golf course in the world that might not benefit from a Ristola or a Doak having an intelligent look at what is there and then making some informed changes.

Rich, One course in the lost cause category you have seen photos of... Frankfurt. Can anyone say it is Colt? Is it fair to Harry Colt, and is it good for people to think this is what his courses are about? There are other courses of historic value that have had similar happenings and when accepted it changes the perception of the architect's work. So... we are talking about a cubist going in and adding not just a mustache, but new apparel, and touching up the background. In the end, it's not recognizable as Leanoardo's Mona Lisa, but Picasso's Moaning Lisa.

Dealing with courses of historic value is a bugger, and you have to tread lightly and faithfully when you do tread because the club can lose it all. If they choose to lose it all out of ignorance or by plan... it shouldn't matter; there should be honest accounting. Though the routing is critical, how many people looking at golf courses (except for this group) look at the routing when referencing an architect's work? I'd say as many as can hit 300-yard drives repeatedly. That is where the design credit issue gets sticky. The club has abandoned their original architect... the only aspect they have difficulty changing is the routing... so it remains.

As an aside: I was listening to BBC 4 last evening and they had a great piece on medical studies. How research for new drugs often isn't published if the trial does not produce the intended result. How some trials are not known until they produce the intended result. For the public good this individual started a website for all trials to be posted so people know what is being done, being funded, and what the result is... good or poor. It isn't working as they had hoped, but I found one comment by the protagonist interesting... his aim was to "shame" companies and researchers into posting their results. Of course, in today's golf architecture it's not nice to do that (though it wasn't uncommon 100-years ago), and to further hamper matters, the best qualified to comment are not looked upon kindly for doing so publicly... so we have an environment of dry rot.

[Melvyn Morrow]

A design is…… is a design, is a design, is a design. If the way the course plays is changed then it has been modified and so justifies being defined as re-designed. Design is not solely limited to complete works, but plays a major part in modifying projects, land or buildings that are limited in their function or have become tired or simply well past the design of the equipment they were once designed around.

Routing is the heart of the design, its soul if you will, but it needs the hazards, the traps be they created by God or Man. It’s the combination of both that makes the course.

Whether the existing Designer lives or not is IMHO irrelevant, each modification should be noted and recorded and credit if credit is due be given to that design modification. However my biggest gripe is that today its can be nearly impossible to identify the real designers as it’s the age of the big names, no longer the names that actually undertake what many of us consider the design element of new or modified  courses. That is clearly down to the big Name Design Houses selling the name of the owner no the necessary the Designer. This I sincerely believe is a big mistake on behalf of the owners, as it waters down the importance of design and spreads the load or responsibility to a number of people.

In 50 or 100 years’ time the researchers of the 22nd Century will have more difficulty identifying who really designed this or that courses from the late 20th Century to the early 21st Century. We will have the old heads of today’s company to blame for not being forthright and open in defining the actual man/woman responsible. 

There are indeed excuses why he or she is not named as it suits the company headed by a single well know name to claim overall design rights, yet it will not help golf, its history, future golf history nuts and researchers alike.

Give credit where credit is due. But then that’s just my opinion.

Melvyn

[Rich Goodale]

Are we talking about here about painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa or re-doing somebody's front lawn, or something in-between?

I can't think of a golf course in the world that might not benefit from a Ristola or a Doak having an intelligent look at what is there and then making some informed changes.

Rich, One course in the lost cause category you have seen photos of... Frankfurt. Can anyone say it is Colt? Is it fair to Harry Colt, and is it good for people to think this is what his courses are about? There are other courses of historic value that have had similar happenings and when accepted it changes the perception of the architect's work. So... we are talking about a cubist going in and adding not just a mustache, but new apparel, and touching up the background. In the end, it's not recognizable as Leanoardo's Mona Lisa, but Picasso's Moaning Lisa.

Dealing with courses of historic value is a bugger, and you have to tread lightly and faithfully when you do tread because the club can lose it all. If they choose to lose it all out of ignorance or by plan... it shouldn't matter; there should be honest accounting. Though the routing is critical, how many people looking at golf courses (except for this group) look at the routing when referencing an architect's work? I'd say as many as can hit 300-yard drives repeatedly. That is where the design credit issue gets sticky. The club has abandoned their original architect... the only aspect they have difficulty changing is the routing... so it remains.

As an aside: I was listening to BBC 4 last evening and they had a great piece on medical studies. How research for new drugs often isn't published if the trial does not produce the intended result. How some trials are not known until they produce the intended result. For the public good this individual started a website for all trials to be posted so people know what is being done, being funded, and what the result is... good or poor. It isn't working as they had hoped, but I found one comment by the protagonist interesting... his aim was to "shame" companies and researchers into posting their results. Of course, in today's golf architecture it's not nice to do that (though it wasn't uncommon 100-years ago), and to further hamper matters, the best qualified to comment are not looked upon kindly for doing so publicly... so we have an environment of dry rot.

Thanks, Tony

Vis a vis Frankfurt, could not you or Tom or whoever else is qualified and interested "restore" the club to what Colt wanted it to be?  Or could you even restore/recreate something that was even "better" than (even if respecting) Colt's vision, particularly in the context of today's players, their equipment and their expectations?

I'm with you on medical (and other "scientific" studies) who think that strict privacy rather than open debate advances knowledge.  I can't see this as affecting GCA, however.  How we resolve our concerns won't kill or bankrupt anybody, as far as I can see.  But I see only what I have learned to look at, and that may be a tragic flaw.

rich

[Tony Ristola]

However my biggest gripe is that today its can be nearly impossible to identify the real designers as it’s the age of the big names, no longer the names that actually undertake what many of us consider the design element of new or modified  courses. That is clearly down to the big Name Design Houses selling the name of the owner no the necessary the Designer. This I sincerely believe is a big mistake on behalf of the owners, as it waters down the importance of design and spreads the load or responsibility to a number of people.

In 50 or 100 years’ time the researchers of the 22nd Century will have more difficulty identifying who really designed this or that courses from the late 20th Century to the early 21st Century. We will have the old heads of today’s company to blame for not being forthright and open in defining the actual man/woman responsible. 

In a game where honesty is the foundation, where our referees are there to interpret rules, not catch cheaters, where you call a shot on yourself if you accidentally move your ball and nobody sees it, I too lament the divorce between the game played and the business of architecture, and that the most egregious breaches are by those who are mandated to act professionally to protect the game.

There are scores of courses, hundreds where the real contributors are not known, and it would be most interesting to know the lineage of these courses to see threads of individuality and evolution of the designers, but as you noted, it is lost in a morass of celebrity worship with some of the culprits claiming they are giving back to the game!

Everything should be documented (easier done today), so it can be returned to its origins, as it often takes clubs a half century to figure out their best course and architect was the original.

The combination of routing and features makes credit allocation a challenge. I think an outright redesign on an intact routing is a redesign and requires the redesigner take responsibility for his deeds; he becomes the designer by default; the past architect a footnote. But it seems to be a case by case issue, as noted by the one club that was unfaithfully restored, but is still salvageable without breaking the bank. There I would list both to indicate much is still present, but has been altered by architect "X".

[Paul_Turner]

Tony


I think you were thinking of the West at Wentworth.  I think Colt/Morrison should still be top billed because the routing is intact.  The club is appears clueless about its history though, so I'm not sure if they even cared much about the changes.

Els was laughable all through the various phases of redesign...he kept repeating the same mantra that Colt would be pleased with the new work which started off fairly subtle but then got more and more extreme and he kept repeating that mantra.   I think it was partly to save face because he wasn't calling the shots (Caring was) and he wasn't all that happy with some of the worst stuff.

 It's a real mixed bag in GB&I and Europe, some clubs are becoming more interested in the design of their courses but now and again there's some shocking work.  

There are a lot of young architects graduating from the relatively new University GCA courses etc.  All are now looking for work in a weak market.  And this combined with a perceived need to change with technology....more changes than ever.

[Tony Ristola]

Hi Paul,
That (Wentworth West) is actually by coincidence, though I have voiced opinion about the work done there during the past couple years running up to the tournament. This has to do with some other projects and the scenario illustrated.

Are we talking about here about painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa or re-doing somebody's front lawn, or something in-between?

I can't think of a golf course in the world that might not benefit from a Ristola or a Doak having an intelligent look at what is there and then making some informed changes.

Rich, One course in the lost cause category you have seen photos of... Frankfurt. Can anyone say it is Colt? Is it fair to Harry Colt, and is it good for people to think this is what his courses are about? There are other courses of historic value that have had similar happenings and when accepted it changes the perception of the architect's work. So... we are talking about a cubist going in and adding not just a mustache, but new apparel, and touching up the background. In the end, it's not recognizable as Leanoardo's Mona Lisa, but Picasso's Moaning Lisa.

Dealing with courses of historic value is a bugger, and you have to tread lightly and faithfully when you do tread because the club can lose it all. If they choose to lose it all out of ignorance or by plan... it shouldn't matter; there should be honest accounting. Though the routing is critical, how many people looking at golf courses (except for this group) look at the routing when referencing an architect's work? I'd say as many as can hit 300-yard drives repeatedly. That is where the design credit issue gets sticky. The club has abandoned their original architect... the only aspect they have difficulty changing is the routing... so it remains.

As an aside: I was listening to BBC 4 last evening and they had a great piece on medical studies. How research for new drugs often isn't published if the trial does not produce the intended result. How some trials are not known until they produce the intended result. For the public good this individual started a website for all trials to be posted so people know what is being done, being funded, and what the result is... good or poor. It isn't working as they had hoped, but I found one comment by the protagonist interesting... his aim was to "shame" companies and researchers into posting their results. Of course, in today's golf architecture it's not nice to do that (though it wasn't uncommon 100-years ago), and to further hamper matters, the best qualified to comment are not looked upon kindly for doing so publicly... so we have an environment of dry rot.

Thanks, Tony

Vis a vis Frankfurt, could not you or Tom or whoever else is qualified and interested "restore" the club to what Colt wanted it to be?  Or could you even restore/recreate something that was even "better" than (even if respecting) Colt's vision, particularly in the context of today's players, their equipment and their expectations?

I'm with you on medical (and other "scientific" studies) who think that strict privacy rather than open debate advances knowledge.  I can't see this as affecting GCA, however.  How we resolve our concerns won't kill or bankrupt anybody, as far as I can see.  But I see only what I have learned to look at, and that may be a tragic flaw.

rich

It could be done at Frankfurt but the club is happy with what they have and I can't see them putting up with someone going in there again. When I visited the club they were most gracious... too bad someone wasn't invited to the party who would have passionately sold the club on embracing their most valuable asset.

I hope the club or someone mapped their greens, for at some point the club will go through this again, my bet is not for a few decades, and then they can put things right.

Long before the current redesign, Dr. von Limburger went in there as he had at Falkenstein and removed scores of bunkers; the guy was  a student of the Golden Age architects, and a minimalists minimalist. Though I really like what I saw in his plans for his courses, I question what he did at both Frankfurt & Falkenstein. I wouldn't have done what he'd done at those courses... but that's what makes life interesting. Yes, he made some improvements, especially the few rerouted holes at Falkenstein, but I question the removal of bunkers and his defense of them in an article he penned.  

Unless the course fails in some way I believe one should keep well enough alone, respect what was put in the ground before you. Then comes the question of keeping the course current for modern bombers if it is totally deficient in this regard. I think that can/must be answered without making it obvious and overbearing. In most cases the courses functioned well for 95+% of golfers.

The question for Frankfurt would be... what era course would you restore? I surely wouldn't want to go to Frankfurt and do my own thing, and I wouldn't want to have my name on any project of that kind except for an asterisk as restorer, even if I built a few new tees and and added or moved a few fairway bunkers.

The point about the medical trials was I found the protagonists use of the word "shame" interesting. GCA does that better than anyone at the moment, providing a good measure of informed opinion. This site is a gold mine for such clubs, but many don't know about it or understand their history until it's too late.

We here live in a bit of a bubble on GCA. The masses of clubs and those in charge of managing them lack a deep knowledge or respectand the respect that comes with it, and added to the challenge for many English is a foreign language; the books we cherish are rare and... in English. Because of this combination of forces, you have situations like Frankfurt.

[Paul_Turner]

Tony

My take with Frankfurter.  The course got "dumbed down" by Von Limberger and other factors (WW2) to such and extent that it became rather boring.  If you watch  the Shell match from the 1960s it doesn't look too interesting even back then.  So the club wants to revamp it but don't do any research into how it was originally and a local architect sells a project on the basis that he's played a lot of Colt courses and knows how to fix it.  Unfortunately the result was not good in my view and looks much like the work by the same crew at Bremen.

Since Frankfurter was redone,  old pics etc have come to light and it's a shame that these weren't available and considered at the time.

Re Falkenstein....I think Von Limberger probably strengthened holes 1-3 by taking in the new land.  Although I think he may have created a safety issue with the high tee shot on 3rd where players can bomb down on the 4th tee (I think they have netting in the trees).

He bodged it on the back 9 though.  Nobody really likes the 15th as far as I know.  And the 16th was far superior from the old tee and old bunkering.