The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Tom_Doak]

As Scott Macpherson notes in his post below regarding St. Andrews, the question of preservation of golf course architecture is rightly complicated.  I think Scott did a pretty good job of breaking it down in the quote below:


"This subject always raises, and rightly so, questions about equipment, but it is probably more helpful that they are put to one side so we don't muddy the waters. So is your question;

A) Is it right that The Old Course should be changed for the Open Championship? or
B) Should any changes ever be made to The Old Course ever again? or
C) Is it right that bunkers can be adjusted on The Old Course?
D) Should Greens contours be adjusted on The Old Course?
E) Something else...........etc etc

My answer to these questions changes depending on the slant.

I have little issue with the idea of adjusting bunkers based on the historical precedent established, but I react with much greater caution to the idea of adjusting the greens, green contours,  green approach or surrounds undulations etc. So, have a think about the single question you want to pose and then please let me tell you what camp I am in."


First, let's note that this argument does not just apply to The Old Course at St. Andrews ... it ought to apply with equal force to any course that we think of as a great piece of artwork.  We are talking about preserving the artwork here.  In other forms of art there would be little argument.  Technically, perhaps, The Louvre owns the Mona Lisa [or maybe it's only on loan, for all I know], but The Louvre can't just decide to change the expression on her face because it is no longer fashionable.

So, can we establish some ground rules for what it is about golf architecture that ought to be preserved?

To take Scott's points one at a time:

A)  The changing of golf courses for tournaments has a long history.  It is part of the slippery slope we find ourselves at the very bottom of today.

For years, the governing bodies have pretended that they don't require changes to golf courses as a condition of hosting a championship, that it is up to the clubs and their consulting architects what to do.  That's been a farce for quite a while now, but this year it's finally out in the open.

This summer the USGA decided to add a bunker on the 17th hole at The Olympic Club three weeks before the U.S. Open, which was totally the call of USGA Executive Director Mike Davis ... he didn't even pretend to ask the consulting architect's opinion for confirmation of his belief that the bunker needed to be installed.  Of course, the change was warranted in part by the fact that Davis had decided to change the length of the hole specifically for the U.S. Open, and that change didn't seem to be working out as he had thought.

And now this winter, the R & A has announced they are going to change The Old Course at St. Andrews.  They have proposed these changes under the guise of it being the architect's idea, but we can never know that for sure ... everyone involved seems afraid of disagreeing with Peter Dawson, so Martin Hawtree may be afraid to speak up, for fear of losing his coveted consulting gigs with other Open rota courses.  It has even been suggested that the town of St. Andrews, which actually owns the course, might be afraid to stand up for it because the R & A controls how often the Open will be played there, and hosting the Open is of significant economic interest to the town.

So do we believe that the governing bodies really know best for golf architecture?  Because it is clear that THEY do.

The question, really, is whether there shouldn't be at least a few golf courses where making a significant change takes something more than the whim of a green committee, OR the Championship Committee.


B)  Should any changes be made ever again?

Really, this argument is all about the question, what constitutes an architectural change?

We are all agreed that golf courses are living entities.  They have to be maintained, and yet those very maintenance practices, plus the weather, change the features of the course slowly over time.  Occasionally, the changes become so pronounced that it is only right for the feature in question to be rebuilt.  The simplest example is that bunkers erode, or revetments fail and need to be redone.  But when do these things pass across the threshold of golf architecture?  Scott tried to get to that in his next questions:


C)  Is it right that bunkers can be adjusted on The Old Course?

Adjusted how?  Certainly the revetted bunkers have to be rebuilt every few years, and it is up to the greenkeeping staff to do the job well.  Many of the bunkers have changed in character since I lived in St. Andrews thirty years ago ... some for the worse, in my opinion.  But that's just an opinion.

Moving the position of bunkers is a different matter.  Again, we all know that it's been common practice for the last 75 years for architects to move bunkers around to try and challenge particular golfers -- usually, but not always, justified as trying to "keep the course relevant for the best players of today".  The question is whether any courses should be above the fray -- because if any should, one would suppose that The Old Course would be among the first nominated.

Though history records that bunkers have been moved on The Old Course in past ages, no new bunker has been added and no bunker has been moved since 1920 -- and those changes were made after great debate among the members of the club, who included some of the leading minds on golf course design.  If a process like that had been followed for The Old Course, and all agreed, then I wouldn't have a problem with changing the position of some bunkers, even though personally I believe that the course should not be changed in that way.  But I haven't heard any evidence that such a process was followed.  Were past Open champions consulted?  Were outside architects consulted, or did the R & A just decide to make a change and find an architect who was willing to do the work? 

There will always be an architect willing to do the work on the grounds that he's "got to feed his family."  That can't be the standard for changing the best courses in the world.

[more to come]



 

[Tom_Doak]

D)  Should greens contours be adjusted on The Old Course?

To my knowledge, no one has deliberately adjusted greens contours [or through-the-green undulations] on The Old Course since Allan Robertson built the new 17th green in the 1800's, back before golf course architecture really existed at all.

That's not to say the contours haven't changed some over time.  Most links courses topdress frequently and fairly heavily [Old Tom Morris himself wrote the prescription:  "sand and more sand"], and the contours change gradually as the buildup continues over time.  It is likely that all of today's greens at St. Andrews are a foot or two higher than when Old Tom was putting on them.  But, again, these changes happen gradually and not deliberately, and in today's case nobody is talking about just trying to put them back to what they once were.

What they are talking about, on the 11th green, is flattening the green a bit to account for the increased green speeds of modern golf.  They would take a hole location for daily play that has never been altered by the hand of man, and alter it so that the pros could use it when the green is faster.  The same sort of work was carried out last summer on Merion's 12th and 15th greens, over the objections of some of the membership.  Is that crossing a boundary?  I would say yes, because opening up the greens for change paves the way for deliberate design changes, which we couldn't stop once we let the green be opened up; but others might disagree.

The changes proposed to some of the steeper knobs and contours on the course are most indicative of the direction being pursued at St. Andrews.  There is no pretending that those changes must be made to preserve the traditional design of the course against increased green speeds and other factors ... they have just decided to make some changes in their own estimation of "fairness".


E)  Something else ...

So, what should we be trying to decide here?  The key questions are:

1)  Is there some golf course architecture that ought to be preserved in its current state?

2)  If so, to what aspects of the course does preservation apply?
   a)  Routing
   b)  Bunker position
   c)  Green location
   d)  Greens contouring
   e)  Lengthening of course

3)  Who is to decide? 
   a)  Do we leave it up to the clubs, who sometimes fall under pressure from the organizations that host major tournaments? 
   b)  Do we leave it up to the consulting architect, knowing that clubs can always find someone weak to carry out whatever they want done?
   c)  Do we leave it up to the "[name architect] associations", knowing that many of them promote certain architects' work and have even taken consulting fees themselves for doing so?
   c)  Could there be a group of people within the golf business who would offer "preservation" status to courses of historic significance, with the caveat that such courses would defer any proposed changes to approval by the group?  And should not such changes require near-unanimous consensus?

The only thing I know for sure is that if The Old Course at St. Andrews is changed, the rest of them aren't even worth arguing about.  The ghosts of 100 years of golf architects have believed The Old Course to be above the fray, and they will be watching to see what their descendants do to preserve it.

[Bill_McBride]

1920?  I thought there was a history of changes to the Road Bunker, which doesn't seem to have been sacred.  I've seen various photos from shallow to deep.  Perhaps the horizontal shape and dimensions haven't changed. 

Is the perceived problem with the Eden green, as perceived by authorities who can make such changes as those suggested, that the slope makes pin placements?   Perhaps the answer is simple, slow down the greens!   

[Tom_Doak]

1920?  I thought there was a history of changes to the Road Bunker, which doesn't seem to have been sacred.  I've seen various photos from shallow to deep.  Perhaps the horizontal shape and dimensions haven't changed. 

Is the perceived problem with the Eden green, as perceived by authorities who can make such changes as those suggested, that the slope makes pin placements?   Perhaps the answer is simple, slow down the greens!   

Bill:

The Road bunker has BEEN THERE since 1920.  All the bunkers have been rebuilt multiple times, but no one has seen fit to move them around for 90 years, until now.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

Before you continue part 2, what part do you think "tourism" plays in this process?  As we get more sophisticated as a society, we learn more and more that many of the things we saw in our youth when on vacation with parents, was nothing more than a tourist trap.  It becomes harder and harder to see "real" history because it's harder to sell than the stylized version.  Do you think this phenomenon hampers the preservation of golf courses as well?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Before you continue part 2, what part do you think "tourism" plays in this process?  As we get more sophisticated as a society, we learn more and more that many of the things we saw in our youth when on vacation with parents, was nothing more than a tourist trap.  It becomes harder and harder to see "real" history because it's harder to sell than the stylized version.  Do you think this phenomenon hampers the preservation of golf courses as well?

Ben:

Not sure I understand your question.

If you mean real tourism, or the generation of guest fees, it's clear that many clubs (and possibly even the town of St. Andrews itself) will bend to the people who decide where to host championships, on the basis of not just being part of history, but cashing in on it afterwards.  The question is whether, if the clubs stood up and refused to make changes as a condition of hosting such events, would the governing bodies abandon their favorite historical venues and go elsewhere?  I think both sides are bluffing a bit here, but the governing bodies are the ones with the chips on their side of the table, so it's rare for others to call their bluff.

It sounded like you meant something else, though, and I didn't understand just where you were going with it.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

Yeah, I don't write real good.  

Here's a better version.  Do you think preserving golf architecture has gone the same way that we here in America preserved our own history?  That is to say, we preserved the most easily marketed version of it rather than what it actually was?  Every time I see one of our venerable old examples of "how it was then," I'm struck that they probably didn't have green green grass and stimps at 13 then either.  

I think we preserve stylized versions of back-in-the-day because it captures more attention, rather than what actually (probably boringly) was.  

[Jud_T]

Ben,

It's a valid point but I would posit that the Old Course, more than any other course, would do best to keep it's "real" past intact not only for historical and playing purposes, but for marketing purposes as well.  Golfers go to St. Andrews as if on a pilgrimage to Mecca for the historical significance and to play golf over the same ground as our forefathers, not because Tiger and Rory were held to even par in the Open.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Its all so esoteric that practically the only people qualified to answer your big questions are those failing to admit they don't have all the answers or even most of the answers.  How can one entrust any body or person to oversee this sort of stuff?  I know I wouldn't trust whoever the powers that be are.  Then there is the question of trying to weave modern sensibilities about the game onto the fabric of what was created, an old quilt that has been repaired and patched endless times. I know I have some strong opinions about this sort of stuff, but I hate to use "history" as the reason why simply because much of the time we don't really know history as well as we think or should.  I would also say that even the historical record is well cluttered with course alterations in support of better challenging the big boys - and this stretches back over 100 years at you guessed it, TOC.  

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I know this question is of great importance to you, but in order for me to even understand and grapple with it I have to frame the question in the simplest way I can: "Does a golf course's utilitarian aspect, i.e. the fact that it serves a purpose as a field of play, outweigh that course's inherent value as an historic example of/testament to the art and craft that is gca"?  If we answer "yes, it does", then it's hard for me to see how any one group -- architects or owners or the R&A etc -- can claim an undeniable right to dictate that purpose or determine whether the course is fulfilling that purpose. Since the alternative - that a course's value as an historic example of gca outweighs all other considerations - is an argument I assume few/no architects would be willing to make, I can't help but think that the way to address/challenge the proposed changes to The Old Course is to step outside that kind of big-picture/philosophical/moral debate all together. I do think that, in order to be effective, indeed, to carry any weight at all, the approach needs to be something akin to:  "Yes to the possibility of change and to a discussion about purpose, but no to this/that particular change". Not glamourous, hard slogging, fraught with disagreements of all kinds -- but in the end of at least some potential for meaningful impact. A meta-level debate about who gets to make decisions about purpose, I think, will lead nowhere.

Peter  

[Steve Burrows]

Tom,

Questions very similar to yours have been asked for some time concerning issues of cultural heritage (see the Athens Charter of 1931 as an early example).  Various organizations at the local level, e.g. historical societies, etc., and at the international level through such entities as UNESCO and ICOMOS, are constantly trying to come to some conclusion as to what heritage is conserved -- whether it be well known examples of building architecture or almost entirely unheard of examples of vernacular landscapes -- and who gets to make these decisions - whether it be archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, or the local residents.  Yet their conclusions are ultimately fraught with normative statements such as "should" and "ought" and seem only good up until the point when, as you note, the proposed site of conservation becomes a resource; that is, when the discourse turns to economics or politics (see The Expediency of Culture by George Yudice).  The removal of the Dresden Elbe Valley from the UNESCO World Heritage list is a prime example.  The 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas at the hand of Taliban further underscores the willingness of various (albeit radical) groups to defile a 1500 year old landscape for symbolic gain. 

My point is that if even other renowned, and likely more culturally significant, heritage sites are incapable of being protected, no given golf course -- not even the Old Course -- can hope to be immune from the intense pressures of modernization and globalization.  Note, however, that I am not saying that it isn't worth the battle.

[Jud_T]

I don't understand why classic golf courses can't apply for Landmark Tax Status just as historic building owners can.  Their property taxes would be frozen at the current level for perpetuity.  Any changes to the course would have to be approved by a Landmark Committee.  Of course they'd have to want to apply for this status.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom:

Here is the question:

What role do WE as enthusiasts have to play in this discussion?  Can we make a difference and if so, how?

I think YOU can play a role by taking your concerns public and to the media, but you have something at risk.  I have nothing at risk, or at least nothing of which I am aware, but am unsure what power I have to prevent tinkering with the Old Course.

I, and I suspect most of us here, agree with your position.  But discussing it here will not make a difference in the outcome.  So again, the question remains:

How can WE make a difference?  How can WE, as you say, appease the ghosts of golf past?

Bart

[Bill_McBride]

1920?  I thought there was a history of changes to the Road Bunker, which doesn't seem to have been sacred.  I've seen various photos from shallow to deep.  Perhaps the horizontal shape and dimensions haven't changed. 

Is the perceived problem with the Eden green, as perceived by authorities who can make such changes as those suggested, that the slope makes pin placements?   Perhaps the answer is simple, slow down the greens!   

Sorry, meant to say "limits" pin positions on the 1th green. 

[Kyle Harris]

Haven't bunkers been moved on The Old Course, in effect, by the continued construction of newer tees which made holes like 14 play longer?

With that being said, at what point is further lengthening of the course abandoned to these other modifications?

[Rob Rigg]

No better battleground has been presented to have the "nuclear" discussion about technology.

I think there is an opportunity to leverage social media to create a groundswell of support to prevent the changes to The Old Course and force a VERY serious dialogue about the state of the golf ball in the professional game.

However, the public outcry would need to be massive because, as discussed, a large percent of the population, and groups interested in the matter, will focus on the economic incentives of making changes instead of the historical importance of not making them.

Ironically, nothing would be better in terms of supporting not making changes than having 40 of the top 50 Professional Golfers in the World sign a petition that stated they opposed any changes to TOC because it is the Mecca of golf and a shrine that should not be altered for the good of the game.

Since that will, very likely, not happen, others need to rise up and speak for The Old Course.

I wonder if we are at a point where the discussion should not be about which changes should or should not be allowed, instead the discussion should be whether any further changes should be allowed. Obviously lengthening the course did not suffice for competition. But why would it - the defense of the course is mostly the weather and it is what it is - why is that so hard to accept?

Change a bunch of bunkers, change the green, get ready for the next Open at TOC, see a bunch of low scores, then add some tees, move some bunkers, change some greens, be disappointed again with scoring, rinse, repeat, forever and ruin a course that 99.9% of the population can enjoy on a daily basis just like golfers have for generations.

What a terrible sad frustrating short sighted tunnel visioned shame.

[Jason Topp]

Great topic.  If any course should be preserved completely it is the Old Course. 

To me the 11th green is the most interesting piece of this issue.

 On one hand it is  one of the most imitated holes in the world and the imitations have been criticized as inferior because the architects were not willing to be so bold with respect to slope.  To soften that green in particular seems a crime.

On the other hand - Macpherson's book shows that there are really only two pin positions (at least for tournament play) on the green and there have only been two positions for many years. 

Potential solutions are (1) keep things as is and accept two pin positions; (2) change the slopes to increase pinnable area; or (3) slow down the greens to increase pinnable area.

I think option 3 is the most interesting option.  Can you imagine professionals having to putt on those greens at a slow speed?  I think there would struggle more than they do now.  It would also send a great message about course maintenence and provide some cover for other courses to preserve existing contours.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to justify option 2.  The 11th has served as a terrific hole with two pin positions and I do not see why a change is needed.

I cannot imagine option 3 ever happening so to me the best alternative is to leave things as they are.

.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I want to give this topic the time it deserves so will do later... With regards to the current proposed changes to TOC, I made myself clear on the other thread but I want to address Tom / Scott's questions...

[Don_Mahaffey]

Faldo and Nicklaus are both Open Champions and architects and my guess is they would not be to keen on changing the green's surfaces at TOC. I hope Tom's "petition" reaches them and they have a chance to weigh in.

[Bradley Anderson]

For most golf courses nature provides the canvas and man provides the brush. But as a work of art The Old Course is unique in that nature provided most of the brush strokes, arguably more so than any other course of merit in the world.

Golf is the only game where nature has a hand in making the field of play. The Old Course should be left alone as a testimony and model of the game's unique place in sports. We need more golf courses like The Old Course.

The Ruling Bodies of Golf need to get control of equipment and leave the hallowed places of the game alone.

[Tom_Doak]

The Ruling Bodies of Golf need to get control of equipment and leave the hallowed places of the game alone.

I don't think we need to get this discussion wrapped up with the equipment discussion -- in fact, I think we really NEED to keep it separate.  There is no question that the two are linked, IN THE MINDS OF THE GOVERNING BODIES ... but they do not have to be linked here.  One can simply say The Old Course is worth preserving, and then see if the governing bodies are perverse enough to say it can't be, because they can't control the equipment issue.

I am not trying to use this development as evidence that the equipment rules need to be changed.  That's the governing bodies' problem.  The truth is that we've enabled them to avoid confrontation with the equipment companies for decades, by allowing them to change the fields of play instead.  If we could just make a stand that we aren't going to change the great courses to make up for their inaction, then maybe they would be more compelled to do something ... and if they don't, at least they wouldn't have ruined the great old courses in the process.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Yeah, I don't write real good.  

Here's a better version.  Do you think preserving golf architecture has gone the same way that we here in America preserved our own history?  That is to say, we preserved the most easily marketed version of it rather than what it actually was?  Every time I see one of our venerable old examples of "how it was then," I'm struck that they probably didn't have green green grass and stimps at 13 then either.  

I think we preserve stylized versions of back-in-the-day because it captures more attention, rather than what actually (probably boringly) was.  

Ben:

That is certainly true.  No course maintains the playing conditions they had fifty years ago, and most of the work that architects have called "restorations" in recent years have involved quite a few changes to the course to make it play tougher and fairer in the modern age, that are glossed over because they aren't really restorative.

However, Jud makes the same point I was going to make ... so far, St. Andrews and Prestwick have not gone in that direction ... nor had Merion, until recently.  And places which have been preserved for so long should remain so.

[Sean_A]

Now that is a sentiment I can get behind.  This is definitely a two-way street which far too many on this site fail to recognize.  Folks should replace "they" with "we" when talking about equipment change.

"I am not trying to use this development as evidence that the equipment rules need to be changed.  That's the governing bodies' problem.  The truth is that we've enabled them to avoid confrontation with the equipment companies for decades, by allowing them to change the fields of play instead.  If we could just make a stand that we aren't going to change the great courses to make up for their inaction, then maybe they would be more compelled to do something..."

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Its all so esoteric that practically the only people qualified to answer your big questions are those failing to admit they don't have all the answers or even most of the answers.  How can one entrust any body or person to oversee this sort of stuff?  I know I wouldn't trust whoever the powers that be are.  Then there is the question of trying to weave modern sensibilities about the game onto the fabric of what was created, an old quilt that has been repaired and patched endless times. I know I have some strong opinions about this sort of stuff, but I hate to use "history" as the reason why simply because much of the time we don't really know history as well as we think or should.  I would also say that even the historical record is well cluttered with course alterations in support of better challenging the big boys - and this stretches back over 100 years at you guessed it, TOC.  

Ciao

Sean:

I agree with you here.  The point of my argument is not to create a new body which will then recommend changes to historic courses.  My point is to make it much harder for the current rulers to direct changes to them on their own.  Should it not take someone more than Peter Dawson and Martin Hawtree and presumably a small R & A committee to decide that The Old Course needs to be changed?

Of course, clubs have power over themselves and we cannot force them to join this crusade.  However, we all know that most historic courses take great pride in that history, and if the right organization was conceived to honor and protect that history, there would be a lot  of pressure from within the memberships to be a part of it.  It would just be another "check and balance" against changing things willy-nilly.

Bob Crosby's post on the St. Andrews thread is about what I was thinking.  As he wrote:

"I think a useful way to think about such issues is in terms of burdens of proof. Before deciding to change a historically significant course, proponents of changes must overcome a presumption against changes. There might sometimes be good, convincing reasons to make changes. But the presumption, absent such clear and convincing reasons, is that historic courses should not be changed architecturally.

I can think of no course where that burden of proof is higher than The Old Course.

Note that different kinds of changes ought to have different burdens.  For example, stretching tees might have a lower burden. Recontouring greens and surrounds ought to have a prohibitively high burden if the course, like TOC, is important enough.

That hierarchy of burdens is largely driven by (a) the permanence of the proposed change (can it be easily undone after a tournament?) and (b) its effect on everyday play (new Open tees will not be played by punters).

That is, the closer the changes come to being structural, permanent changes that affect everyone, the higher the burden they must carry."

Certainly, too, the burden of proof would be different depending on whether the feature has been changed before.  My own approach to renovation and restoration work has been that if the feature is part of the original construction of the course by a famous architect, then it ought to stay, regardless of how much someone thinks it is in play or not today.  Even if the course was designed in the gutty-ball days when 180 yards was a good drive, there are still members today who hit the ball 180 yards, for whom the feature performs as it was intended.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Questions very similar to yours have been asked for some time concerning issues of cultural heritage (see the Athens Charter of 1931 as an early example).  Various organizations at the local level, e.g. historical societies, etc., and at the international level through such entities as UNESCO and ICOMOS, are constantly trying to come to some conclusion as to what heritage is conserved -- whether it be well known examples of building architecture or almost entirely unheard of examples of vernacular landscapes -- and who gets to make these decisions - whether it be archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, or the local residents.  Yet their conclusions are ultimately fraught with normative statements such as "should" and "ought" and seem only good up until the point when, as you note, the proposed site of conservation becomes a resource; that is, when the discourse turns to economics or politics (see The Expediency of Culture by George Yudice).  The removal of the Dresden Elbe Valley from the UNESCO World Heritage list is a prime example.  The 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas at the hand of Taliban further underscores the willingness of various (albeit radical) groups to defile a 1500 year old landscape for symbolic gain. 

My point is that if even other renowned, and likely more culturally significant, heritage sites are incapable of being protected, no given golf course -- not even the Old Course -- can hope to be immune from the intense pressures of modernization and globalization.  Note, however, that I am not saying that it isn't worth the battle.

Steve:

In fact, St. Andrews (the medieval burgh and the links themselves) was proposed to be considered for the list of pending World Heritage Sites 2-3 years ago, but did not make the cut.  I believe the R & A were in favor of that, but presumably only if the status didn't prevent them from changing things however they wanted to.