At what point does the personal accede to the collective?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter,

Just to throw it into the discussion, some of the most significant changes by the "collective" are conditioning. Fairway widths, trees, green speeds: it's like many memberships have put their designs on a combination of slimming and stimulant drugs.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - yes, indeed.

Imagine course X, designed by architect Y a few years ago to much acclaim and approval. Imagine someone, average golfer Z, who is not very familiar with gca playing that course 10 years from now. Over those years the routing has stayed completely in tact, but the "collective' has narrowed the fairways and grown in the rough/native grasses; put in new and longer back tees on several of the shorter par 4s; added directional fairway bunkers on a couple of the Par 5s to make them, in their eyes, more challenging; flattened some of the most interesting greens/green contours so as to allow for faster (and 'more challenging') green speeds; and have made sure to water the course regularly to keep it green and inviting.  

What might average golfer Z, asked to give his opinion on course X and architect Y, say after his round?  He might say, about course X, that it is a long and punishing test, and (although personally finding it vaguely monotonous, with all the Par 4s basically the same length) would in deference to his generous hosts praise its conditioning and quality, and compliment them on being able to putt those lightening fast greens. And about  architect Y, what might he say?  He might say that he thinks the architect designs for top-flight golfers, and that he is mostly about rewarding the player who can hit it both straight and a long way off the tee and who has the ability to hit his approach shots high, but at the same time is fond of presenting a fair test, with the course all out there in front of you.

Now, the collective has only made a series of very common and, in some senses, modest changes to the original design/intent. But do you think anyone who knows even a little about architect Y would ever remotely recognize him from that description? Course X will be attributed to architect Y for decades to come, and yet the personal, in a very real way, has been completely ushered out by the collective.

How often has that happened over the decades, and to how many golden age classics? Perhaps very often, and to many many of them -- and yet we seem unwilling to look at those once great examples of the work of those old great architects with the fresh and unbiased eyes of average golfer Z. Perhaps if we did -- if we actually noted that courses A, B and C have in almost nothing left of the original architect except for his name -- it might be a more fruitful starting point for discussions. 

Peter

[JMEvensky]

Peter, I'm a member of a club whose golf course you've described too closely for comfort.

The short answer-- when proposals are made to remove past member/Green Chair "improvements", a lot of people will say "we like the golf course as it is". Even when shown original plans, even when told tree plantings are the reason for poor turf, even when told the golf course will be more playable and cheaper to maintain, these members are adamantly opposed.

For whatever reason, they prefer the work of the collective.

My place isn't architecturally significant by any stretch. But it's a helluva lot less so in its current incarnation.

I think the answer is what Bob Crosby said--not everyone believes some opinions are more equal than others. Every dues paying member thinks his monthly check entitles him to a vote on the golf course--whether he knows anything or not.

[Mike_Young]

Tom -

You miss my point. Some people are better architects than other people. For that reason, their opinions should be given great deference. And the better the architect, the more the deference.

I'm surprised you would disagree with that.

Because if you do disagree, you have unilaterally disarmed yourself against views expressed by Brauer and others that if changes are made to a course, it must be for the best because, ... ummm, well ... because it happened.

Bob
    

Bob,

That's a pretty subtle way of telling me why you never listen to me

Once one accepts that all architecture is a matter of opinion, the wisdom of subsequent changes holds no more weight than the wisdom of the original design.  And at least the wisdom of the original design has "consistency" on its side.   I really like that statement just as it stands....

The problem I see today is the variety of "scales" used to weigh the opinion of the architect.   RE and marketing have rigged the scales of valued architectural opinion.  Read the RTJ book....he had this entire thing figured out a long time ago...

Think about us humans for a moment.  As a child we are known and remembered by our grandparents and parents and sometimes great grandparents.  But as a child we rarely remember great grandparents.  In other words the world only remembers us as a fundtioning individual for a short time.  All other memories are tales told by family scrapbooks or history.  I think golf courses are the same and the club histories are often revised.  This site has had a large impact on revisionist history of ODG courses and will for a long time to come.  The modern maintenance levels have had more to do with acceding to the collective than any one factor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That earned right of a good architect can be abused, of course. But the occurrence of abuses should not be a reason to abandon the special standing an architect has when giving advise.
 

At most of the clubs where I consult, the original architect still has higher standing than I do. 

Tom,

I'm not so sure of that.

If that was true, they'd never call you in in the first place.

Bob, et. al.,

Some advocate for change and changes are relatively easy to make.

But, the critical issue is, is it change for the better or just change for change's sake ?

As Tom referenced, one of the problems with making a change, is in the moment, many have no idea if the change will meet the ultimate test, the test of time.

I think some changes have been for the better.
The 18th at Seminole would be one that comes quickly to mind.
And that change has stood the test of time.
Ditto the 3rd hole.

At Oak Hill, I don't think the Fazio changes have passed the ultimate test, but, no one is undoing them.

Another example is the 12th at GCGC, a disfiguration of a great hole that stood for about 50 years.
Certainly, one could claim that the RTJ change stood the test of time.
Just because the club left it intact for 50 years didn't mean that it passed the test of time to the purists, architectural buffs and professionals.

The same could be said about the removal of Crump's mound in the 18th green.

The problem with many of these changes is that many to most golfers are completely unaware of them and think the hole/green/feature has always been there from the begining, so they're unaware of any comparitive analysis.  They're unaware that a better product may have preceeded the current version.

[Sean_A]

Mark - yes, indeed.

Imagine course X, designed by architect Y a few years ago to much acclaim and approval. Imagine someone, average golfer Z, who is not very familiar with gca playing that course 10 years from now. Over those years the routing has stayed completely in tact, but the "collective' has narrowed the fairways and grown in the rough/native grasses; put in new and longer back tees on several of the shorter par 4s; added directional fairway bunkers on a couple of the Par 5s to make them, in their eyes, more challenging; flattened some of the most interesting greens/green contours so as to allow for faster (and 'more challenging') green speeds; and have made sure to water the course regularly to keep it green and inviting.  

What might average golfer Z, asked to give his opinion on course X and architect Y, say after his round?  He might say, about course X, that it is a long and punishing test, and (although personally finding it vaguely monotonous, with all the Par 4s basically the same length) would in deference to his generous hosts praise its conditioning and quality, and compliment them on being able to putt those lightening fast greens. And about  architect Y, what might he say?  He might say that he thinks the architect designs for top-flight golfers, and that he is mostly about rewarding the player who can hit it both straight and a long way off the tee and who has the ability to hit his approach shots high, but at the same time is fond of presenting a fair test, with the course all out there in front of you.

Now, the collective has only made a series of very common and, in some senses, modest changes to the original design/intent. But do you think anyone who knows even a little about architect Y would ever remotely recognize him from that description? Course X will be attributed to architect Y for decades to come, and yet the personal, in a very real way, has been completely ushered out by the collective.

How often has that happened over the decades, and to how many golden age classics? Perhaps very often, and to many many of them -- and yet we seem unwilling to look at those once great examples of the work of those old great architects with the fresh and unbiased eyes of average golfer Z. Perhaps if we did -- if we actually noted that courses A, B and C have in almost nothing left of the original architect except for his name -- it might be a more fruitful starting point for discussions. 

Peter

Pietro

Each course is an island.  I happen to think the essence of a great design almost always remains despite later alterations.  It is this essence that observant people pick up when talking about renovation.  The really clever folks can "see" and "know" the essence while most like me have to "imagine" the essence with guesswork.  This is one of the critical differences between the best archies and the not so best archies.  In my camp, despite Tom's protestations, I hire the archie because of his philosophy (honed with many years of experience) which underpins his opinions.  In this way I fully understand Bob's position.  However, I still think what someone like me does is look for archies who have similar opinons to mine and then recognize them as great  so I can see where Tom is coming from as well.  For sure architecture is a never ending cycle of change because its the nature of people and nature to change things. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - good post, and you might be right and I might agree with you. If we think of a course's essence as being made manifest mostly through the visuals/aesthetics, then I would agree with you. But I think the reality is that the rubber hits the road -- essence wise -- with playability, i.e. the experience one has hitting shots, and choosing what shots to hit, and being able to recover from mis-hits. In the example I gave, which I think is plausible and even timely, you might well be able to look over the whole site and say, 'Yes, this course looks like the work of architect Y'. But after actually playing the 18 holes, would you still be able to honestly say 'Yes, the essence of this course if clearly a reflection of architect Y's philosophy and value system'?  

Peter

PS - Jeff, good post too; appropriate and, like Pat's, informed about club culture. I've tried not to demonize club member decisions, partly because I don't know about that world and partly because I too, if I were a club member, might likely believe that my dues entitle me to shape the golf course. But mainly because I'm asking more about the fluidity (and gains and losses) of essence and attribution than the mechanics of that process.

[JMEvensky]

But mainly because I'm asking more about the fluidity (and gains and losses) of essence and attribution than the mechanics of that process.

I think the fluidity is a big part of the problem--frequently golf courses are subjected to death by a thousand cuts,which makes it even harder to "fix" things.

[Jud_T]

IMHO the problem often comes when committees and members look at problems in isolation instead of holistically-  i.e. the par 4 13th is too easy for the big hitters, so lets add some distance and throw in some cross bunkers- instead of thinking about the flow of the routing, difficulty of surrounding holes, and aesthetic/stylistic considerations of the course as a whole.  It's an 18 hole experience, not a series of 18 individual challenges.  And yes, one can usually still sense the original spirit of the place but that doesn't mean having Bridget Bardot with a black eye and a couple of teeth missing is in the best interests of all the members past, present and future, not to mention treating the original design intent with respect.

[Sean_A]

Sean - good post, and you might be right and I might agree with you. If we think of a course's essence as being made manifest mostly through the visuals/aesthetics, then I would agree with you. But I think the reality is that the rubber hits the road -- essence wise -- with playability, i.e. the experience one has hitting shots, and choosing what shots to hit, and being able to recover from mis-hits. In the example I gave, which I think is plausible and even timely, you might well be able to look over the whole site and say, 'Yes, this course looks like the work of architect Y'. But after actually playing the 18 holes, would you still be able to honestly say 'Yes, the essence of this course if clearly a reflection of architect Y's philosophy and value system'?  

Peter

Pietro

No, I would rarely be able to identify if the essence of this course if clearly a reflection of architect Y's philosophy and value system with much confidence.  As I say, I have to guess at things.  But experienced archies who dig (literally) and research should be much better at identifying an archie's philosophy, whereas I am stuck in the outer reaches of stating the obvious.  I think I can do okay at identifying aspects of certain archies' work, but I wouldn't do so well at translating what is in the ground into a philosophical approach.  All that said, I am not sure being able to identify a philosophy is critical.  I think identifying the intent (while still a slippery sope) is more important and more apt in terms of restoration.

Ciao