[Jeff_Stettner]

Pasatiempo thread got me thinking... Can one judge the quality of a restoration and/or renovation if one has not seen the course previously? I'm not questioning the ability to evaluate the overall course... just the quality of the changes.

[Ian Andrew]

It helps.

It's really hard without without knowing all the details of what was once there.

It's also tough to judge unless they see how the work itself was built.

[Tom_Doak]

I have never seen the point of a "Best Restoration" category of design awards, since few people really know the answers to any of the above questions.  One project is so different from another in terms of the scope of work, that they are silly to compare.

Every architect knows this, but most still prefer a chance at an award.

[JC Urbina]

Jeff,

I have watched the transformation of Pasatiempo for over 20 years.  I first visited this wonderful place back in 1993, I was on my way to Cypress Point.  Since my first visit I have had a front row seat during the entire restoration process of Pasatiempo.   If I had a vote, which I don't,  I would say that you would have to experience  a golf course more then once, maybe three or four times before you could fully understand the merits of its design.  I have said it before, I don't know how anyone could judge a golf course design in one single visit or one round of golf.  Many of the golf courses across the United States and the world for that matter are way more complicated then that.  They deserve more then just a quick look before talking about their design qualities in a few quips and quotes. 

If I may, one of the reasons this restoration project turned out so well was due in fact to Bob Beck, the clubs historian.  He provided me with every photo imaginable, it was easy to bring back the wonderful work that Alister Mackenzie  and Robert Hunter created on this hillside ion Santa Cruz.

Having recently visited Pasatiempo, I feel it is in good hands with Justin the Superintendent.

[Chris DeToro]

How are restorations rated for an awards?  Seems like it should be based on meeting expectations of whomever proposed the restoration thus making it difficult to compare

[Jeff_Stettner]

Thanks all for those thoughts.

I am in the wine business and I see a clear parallel between golf course analysis and wine appreciation. Wine, organic in nature, is ever changing, sometimes for the better while other times it's for the worse. Wine aficionados spend their whole drinking lives trying to time bottles, cracking a bottle at the moment when a wine will be its finest. I think one has to try a wine in its infancy and after it has aged to grasp both the process and the drinker's personal preferences to be able to zone in on these moments. In the same vein, I question whether one can laud or criticize a renovation/restoration without firsthand knowledge of what existed before. If one is seeing Pasatiempo for the first time today, is it fair to say that the renovation is great? Instead, should we say that the work is great? I know its semantics...

[Chris DeToro]

It's really tough to distinguish.  I'm only aware of Pasatiempo as of recent since I didn't play it pre-reno so I'm not sure what all of the changes were/are.  Having been through a restoration at my own club, the objective was to restore it closer to the original design and intentions of that design.  But I'm also fairly aware of the "restoration" of TPC Boston which was more of a do-over.  It may be more semantical, but there could be more to it as well

[Jim_Coleman]

   I nominate Philly Cricket for an award, and I haven't played the new version even once.  So there.

[Sean_A]

It helps.

It's really hard without without knowing all the details of what was once there.

It's also tough to judge unless they see how the work itself was built.

Isn't this the case when talking about new/original design as well?  I know it sounds awkward, but I do think there is a big difference in how good a design is compared how good a course is.  Some designs may be wonderful just to make a property work as good golf course.  And some designs just be okay or good and result in a great course.  So much about design is dependent on the land, project limitations and budget that its impossible for me or anyone to say an archie did a great or crap job without knowing details of the project.  On the other hand, we can talk all day about the quality of the playing experience and that is what most matters - no? 

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

It helps.

It's really hard without without knowing all the details of what was once there.

It's also tough to judge unless they see how the work itself was built.

Isn't this the case when talking about new/original design as well?  I know it sounds awkward, but I do think there is a big difference in how good a design is compared how good a course is.  Some designs may be wonderful just to make a property work as good golf course.  And some designs just be okay or good and result in a great course.  So much about design is dependent on the land, project limitations and budget that its impossible for me or anyone to say an archie did a great or crap job without knowing details of the project.  On the other hand, we can talk all day about the quality of the playing experience and that is what most matters - no? 

Ciao

Well said Sean.

Best to play golf rather than 'appraise the architect'.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, I'm with Sean.  As golf course snobs have tried to rate and evaluate over the last few decades, it gets to more and more points system, very complicated.

Whatever happened to the two point rating system - either you like the course or you don't?

[Tom_Doak]

It helps.

It's really hard without without knowing all the details of what was once there.

It's also tough to judge unless they see how the work itself was built.

Isn't this the case when talking about new/original design as well?  I know it sounds awkward, but I do think there is a big difference in how good a design is compared how good a course is.  Some designs may be wonderful just to make a property work as good golf course.  And some designs just be okay or good and result in a great course.  So much about design is dependent on the land, project limitations and budget that its impossible for me or anyone to say an archie did a great or crap job without knowing details of the project.  On the other hand, we can talk all day about the quality of the playing experience and that is what most matters - no? 

Ciao

Sean:

Yes, that's true, and that is why I don't think there should be "Best Restoration" awards at all.  Those courses are already ranked based on their overall quality along with every other course in the world.  Creating a separate category for renovations or restorations implies that you are commenting on the difference between "before" and "after", but many panelists don't really know what was done, and developers and architects are encouraged to exaggerate.

[Mark Bourgeois]

These problems go away with VORD:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32487.0.html

Sadly development funds have been scarce.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()