[John Kavanaugh]

Why are some changes to great courses considered more acceptable than others?  Of course DRO needed to be changed, so that's one big difference.  Are changes to improve the experience of high handicappers really that much more important than changes to challenge to best players in the world?

[Rick Shefchik]

John, if you don't get the idea that the world's oldest golf course has significance beyond its playability for various handicaps, there's no way to answer your question.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, if you don't get the idea that the world's oldest golf course has significance beyond its playability for various handicaps, there's no way to answer your question.

Please continue assuming that I don't. I just want to play golf.

[Alex Miller]

Why are some changes to great courses considered more acceptable than others?  Of course DRO needed to be changed, so that's one big difference.  Are changes to improve the experience of high handicappers really that much more important than changes to challenge to best players in the world?

High handicappers: 90% of golfers
Best players in the world: <1% of golfers

I'd say it's at least 90 times as important.

But I agree with Rick. While I may have answered the question, bringing TOC changes into the discussion is not comparing apples to apples. There are multiple threads which have volumes of text on why TOC is special and shouldn't really be touched to begin with, and presuming it should be viewed equally to Bandon Trails (a great course and my favorite at Bandon) misses so much of the debate that these past couple weeks have provided.

[Jason Thurman]

I'll ask the same question I've asked a million women. With regards to TOC, how much touching is ok?

[Kyle Henderson]

I'll ask the same question I've asked a million women. With regards to TOC, how much touching is ok?

Show me where on the doll and I could give you a more specific answer.

[Alex Miller]

I'll ask the same question I've asked a million women. With regards to TOC, how much touching is ok?

With regards to TOC I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but how can one resist?




We know TOC was tinkered with and formalized during its formative years, and even later on. Sure Bandon Trails and Dismal were designed more formally, but I'd say they are allowed some opportunity to undergo the same evolution. In 200 years maybe (hopefully) they could be considered untouchable (or nearly that) as well.

[Garland Bayley]

I'll ask the same question I've asked a million women. With regards to TOC, how much touching is ok?

How do you find time to post?

[Jud_T]

Who said Dismal Old is a great course?

[Bart Bradley]

John:

I used to think your posts although contrarian contained some real food for thought.

Bart

[Sven Nilsen]

John:

There's a line to be drawn somewhere, and the result is going to be a large group of courses on one side that are open game and a very small group (perhaps not more than two or three) on the other that are worthy of preservation.

But what you're asking is why should a line be drawn.

In the words of Alistair Mackenzie:  "I believe the real reason St. Andrews Old Course is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all, and since then it has been considered too sacred to touch.  What a pity it is that the natural advantages of many seaside courses have been neutralised by bad designing and construction work!"

[As an aside - I believe it was Mackenzie who had a theory about green construction that you should find the biggest idiot in the village and ask him to build a flat green, with the outcome being a collection of wonderful and random contours that would present the player with an endless number of conundrums.]

I read this as Mackenzie's thought that there are lessons to be learned at TOC about the use of natural contours (or at least contours that were created with no "inherent golf theory" in mind).  The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.  He suggests that when man touches the land in a way to try to dictate a course of play to the golfer, much of the interest of the game is lost.

Its a thought that perhaps is the anti-thesis of most golfers concepts of golf course architecture.

So if you view TOC as distinct for the reasons noted, and if you believe that the result should be kept intact as a lesson for those who come later, you have your answer.  These are assumptions, but I don't think they're assumption that are too hard to accept.

As for the rest of the short-list, there may be lessons to be learned for other reasons at other courses that are worthy of preservation, but I don't think Dismal River (from what I know) or Bandon Trails have that inherent value.  I'm happy to listen to arguments as to why they do.

Sven

[David_Elvins]

The line has as much to do with age than quality. 

Most great courses were tweaked in their first 10 years of life, no matter when they were built. 

[John Kavanaugh]

John:

I used to think your posts although contrarian contained some real food for thought.

Bart

Bart,

When even you start throwing mindless insults you must realize that it isn't me who has changed.

[Bart Bradley]

John:

Now that's better.

Bart

[Sven Nilsen]

Realized I didn't answer the second part of your question.

Once you've decided which side of the line the course falls on, the acceptability of any changes comes down to a study of the merits of the changes themselves.  I'd venture you'd accept any change to Dismal River Old that made the course, in your eyes, better.

As better can mean different things to different people, its up to the owners (or curators) of the course to define the purpose of the course, and to examine any proposed changes in that light.  Is it a club that is meant to be stern test for a distinct group of serious players, or is it a resort course that needs to be approachable for all levels of players?  Every course is different, and that purpose may change over time.

I'm not sure if I agree with David's statement regarding age.  There needs to be a reason to freeze the course at a certain point in time.

As for the OP, as you can tell, I thought there was plenty of meat on this bone.

Happy holidays,

Sven

[Don_Mahaffey]

John,
I forget who said it, and the exact quote, but one of the ODG said something like "every great hole was controversial at first". If they had the land at Bandon would Kaiser have allowed a hole like the 16th at Cypress Point? The retail golfer certainly struggles on a hole like that. 

100 years ago we weren't rating golf courses, I don't think you had 100s of golf experts running around pronouncing things good or bad, and I think they, like you,  just wanted to play golf. TOC had the benefit of age and the opportunity for golfers to learn how to get around her.

At Dismal Old you had the comparisons to Sand Hills and condemnation of the architect for not worshiping there each time he came to town. I think Sand Hills is great, but I think it was wise to build something different next door. I think if they had gotten the agronomy and course management right from the start, there would have been less criticism and fewer changes.

At Bandon, BT seems to be the course they keep tweaking in an attempt to get more positive reviews. I thought the original was pretty good, but also required a little more thoughtful  play then the other courses.
Had BT and DRO been built 100 years ago, or maybe even 25, I think the changes would have come slower and the courses would have had a chance to age.

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff in here guys.


From Sven...

I read this as Mackenzie's thought that there are lessons to be learned at TOC about the use of natural contours (or at least contours that were created with no "inherent golf theory" in mind).  The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.  He suggests that when man touches the land in a way to try to dictate a course of play to the golfer, much of the interest of the game is lost.

Its a thought that perhaps is the anti-thesis of most golfers concepts of golf course architecture.


Frankly, this alone is worth a read and re-read, in my far from humble opinion.  


From Don, quoting an ODG...

"every great hole was controversial at first"


Perhaps greatness is unique and people struggle to "get" it, especially if it is "unfair."

And to the point that golf courses need to season and mature (a concept embraced by the ODG's)...from David...


The line has as much to do with age than quality.  

Most great courses were tweaked in their first 10 years of life, no matter when they were built.  


I think we aren't patient enough nowadays to fully comprehend this concept.

[Sven Nilsen]

Don:

They might not have been rating courses in 1912, but it wasn't that far off.  In the 20's Joshua Crane came up with his method of determining the "ideal course" and St. Andrew's came in dead last in the ranking he came up with for the courses to which he applied his supposedly "objective" methods.

While the quote I noted above predates Crane's ranking, much of what was written in the 20's and 30's by Mackenzie and others was in direct response to Crane's theories.  As Rich Goodale pointed out in another thread (suggesting the two sides of the debate had more in common than many would like to think), they didn't really squabble over whether or not courses should be rated, but rather the fight seems to be over how you would define "ideal."  

Interestingly enough, I believe the quote you mention is also from Mackenzie, who made a comment that he always thought his best work was his most controversial, and was surprised when there was little controversy when Cypress was introduced to the world.

Sven

[Josh Tarble]

I'm not sure exactly where I fall when it comes to changes on TOC never having played, but I think an important aspect to consider is who the original architect is.  On the other two examples you provided, it was the original designer suggesting and implementing the changes. 

Perhaps they weren't satisfied with the way their ideas came out once the dust settled or just thought they could do better.  It's when a different architect starts changing around designs that I think changes are less acceptable.  At some point courses do need to be, for lack of a better word, 'preserved' so the original architects ideas and intentions can be played by future generations of golfers.

That's one of the most disappointing things to me, is when designs are altered, knowing I won't even have the option of playing the original course and seeing what made it great or not so great.

[Mac Plumart]

...no..."inherent golf theory" in mind....The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.

I'm thinking this is the Holy Grail of golf design.

[Jason Thurman]

I'll ask the same question I've asked a million women. With regards to TOC, how much touching is ok?

How do you find time to post?

I'm married now, which means I do a lot less touching these days.

The bunkers at The Old must be rebuilt every five years or so. Greens must be top dressed. Are we supposed to suspend disbelief and trust that the course doesn't change when those things happen? How can a course in constant flux for hundreds of years now be too sacred to touch?

 Or is evolution ok as long as it's unconscious?

None of this is rhetorical. I don't understand the impetus for these changes, but I also don't understand the outrage over them. I haven't played The Old (yet). Is it one of those things where you just had to be there?

[Sven Nilsen]

...no..."inherent golf theory" in mind....The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.

I'm thinking this is the Holy Grail of golf design.

Of course, there are boundaries as to what is usable land for golf, or at least creative ways to route a course to avoid the lines or areas that won't work.  Bandon Trails is one example of such a place.

[William_G]

...no..."inherent golf theory" in mind....The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.

I'm thinking this is the Holy Grail of golf design.

+1

I think C&C laid out #18 w/o much change to the land, but due to all the complaints, a change was needed.

Most golfers these days are not interested in a journey or a hunt, but a result or a kill.

[Sven Nilsen]

Grey:

How many times had you played Trails before you set the course record?  Curious if, on the round when you did, it felt like you had unlocked the puzzle.

Sven

[Carl Rogers]

High handicappers: 90% of golfers
Best players in the world: <1% of golfers
I'd say it's at least 90 times as important. ....
[/quote]
Isn't it a self evident fact that when looking at golf from the monetary-marketing-media perspective, the 99.5% is meaningless?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()