[Peter Pallotta]

In other words, is there (and if so, what is) the point of no return?

When does a classic private course cease altogether to belong to and reflect the architect's original vision and instead (and for all intents and purposes forever-more) belong to and reflect the wishes of the membership? 

If that classic course has been renovated over the years (both in design and maintenance practices), when does the "personal" bow out -- or have to be ushered out -- in deference to the "collective"?

We attribute thousands of golden age courses to this great architect or to that great architect, but is that just nostalgia and respect and fondness (and perhaps a little bit of marketing) on our part?

When an old architect's personal/original vision and design has clearly been superseded by the wishes and changes (generation after generation) of the collective/golfers/members who play that design, where is there room or justification for such architectural attribution?

Peter

 

[JESII]

Peter,

Good thread topic. One which I've discussed within the context of other threads but never as the purpose of a conversation. I hope it generates interest among a broad array of our participants.

Personally, I think this transition happens on the day the architect receives their final payment...unfortunately!

Will look to expand later, with more time.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

It's a good question.  For those of us who design new courses, the changeover happens either:

a)  the day the course is open, or
b)  the day the client decides he doesn't want our input anymore.

That's why we try to maintain good relationships with our clients.  Obviously, that relationship doesn't continue once we're long gone, but if a club's membership pays homage to who their original designer was -- as so many do today -- then they ought to pay some attention to the intent of his design.

I am sure Jeff Brauer will be here shortly to remind me that if evolution has caused features on a course to change over time, who am I to say that Dr. MacKenzie was smarter than evolution?  But I tend to disagree with that point of view, because I have seen SO MANY examples of clubs that made changes not because of "reasoned evolution", but because of the petty personalities of club presidents and green chairmen, or because of the salesmanship of a subsequent designer.  

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.

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:

It seems that you are asking a couple of different questions.  I answered the last one:

"When an old architect's personal/original vision and design has clearly been superseded by the wishes and changes (generation after generation) of the collective/golfers/members who play that design, where is there room or justification for such architectural attribution?"

It would have to be determined on a case by case basis, but in general the line in the sand is just before the point where there are no longer any recognizable features from the original architects work, including the routing, bunkering, green contours, etc.

Even Joan Rivers still has the bulk of her original parts.

Sven

[Jud_T]

Even Joan Rivers still has the bulk of her original parts.

Sven,

Interesting analogy.  I saw her a couple years ago at a small club in NYC and she KILLED.  The relevant point is when a course ceases to lose it's original essence or soul.  This is what the revisionists who, for example, dismiss changes at TOC as only so much inevitable dirt-moving fail to appreciate.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I didn't get to all of your questions, either.

One partial answer is that the "personal" nature of designs is a relatively recent, and American, phenomenon [and, yes, it's got something to do with marketing].  In Britain there is much less talk of the original designer's intent ... partly because their most storied courses had to evolve considerably in the early years, and it's impossible to identify who really "designed" them ... and partly because they aren't so interested in marketing their courses to outsiders [but that is changing in recent years].

[Sven Nilsen]

Even Joan Rivers still has the bulk of her original parts.

Sven,

Interesting analogy.  I saw her a couple years ago at a small club in NYC and she KILLED.  The relevant point is when a course ceases to lose it's original essence or soul.  This is what the revisionists who, for example, dismiss changes at TOC as only so much inevitable dirt-moving fail to appreciate.

Jud:

Is there still not some of that soul just in walking the shepherd's crook that comprises TOC?  Do you not see MacKenzie's genius in the routing of Augusta National?

My point is that it would be very hard to completely obliterate the essence.

The bigger mistake is when clubs cling to the legacy of one name, to the detriment of others.  To use an example, Skokie is almost as much Langford as it is Ross (if not more), yet the majority of the members will only cite one name.

Sven

[Jud_T]

Even Joan Rivers still has the bulk of her original parts.

Sven,

Interesting analogy.  I saw her a couple years ago at a small club in NYC and she KILLED.  The relevant point is when a course ceases to lose it's original essence or soul.  This is what the revisionists who, for example, dismiss changes at TOC as only so much inevitable dirt-moving fail to appreciate.

Jud:

Is there still not some of that soul just in walking the shepherd's crook that comprises TOC?  Do you not see MacKenzie's genius in the routing of Augusta National?

My point is that it would be very hard to completely obliterate the essence.

The bigger mistake is when clubs cling to the legacy of one name, to the detriment of others.  To use an example, Skokie is almost as much Langford as it is Ross (if not more), yet the majority of the members will only cite one name.

Sven

Well yes if you don't my your world-class grandma getting raped on the way home from her book club one night;  Yeah, she's still granny, but somehow she's lost a bit of the twinkle in her eye.

As for Skokie, it is more Langford IMO;  members will always glom onto the biggest name for attribution, regardless of their contribution.

[RJ_Daley]

It is a fine couple of questions, but there can be understood to have a wide array and degree of answers from the more purist absolute of saying the course looses the personal as soon as a committee or board begin the oversight of maintenance and grounds and make any change (which may happen pretty soon after the archie leaves it behiind).  Or, it can be very vague with many changes in maintenance, from mowing and cultural habits to changes in turf species and shapes and technique of maintaining bunkers.  

In my mind, it can remain a personal identity if it is and has always been a source of club or ownership pride that so-and-so archie designed the golf course, and if he or a specific construction entity are also part of the provenance cited to identify the course by quality of design and desirablilty or popularity of playing the archies finished product.  I think a golf course can and most any architec will acknowledge must undergo change, evolution, or tweaking.  All archies know the effect of time, erosion from drainage or wind, hot or wet and varied weather conditions, funds or economy to maintain, and of course ever changing B&I techology will beckon those in charge to respond and make that wide array and degree of changes.  Obviously, some changes would not be with approval or support from the original archie.

But take a course like Crooked Stick or Pinehurst #2, or others where the original archie himself has undertaken many changes.  Do you say that archie took the personal from his own version of early years and youth?  Would you say by means of identification, it is a Donald Ross the younger, or an older Donald Ross design?  

When a successor archie comes around and changes the routing, changes the bunker placements, changes the slopes and grades in FWs and greens, to any extent, either a single hole, part of the course or all of it, I think the credit or blame has to be stated when the course is referred to as a specific architects product.  The course should be referred to as a Donald Ross original, but or also a Ron Prichert (insert appropriate name) remodel of x y or z aspect of what was altered.  

I think the GCA.com group generally do right and are more diligent to speak of various significant courses by known architects, and often when speaking of the course qualities, note (if known by the GCA poster) other archies or committees input that notably changed that original archies work and vision.  

But, when the collective and oversight of a particular golf course/club starts fudging the truth and stating a course is designed by someone with name prestige but they as a collective have changed it away from what the archie would claim as his, then that is deception in advertising or fraud in prestige, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

Your question represents the "tug of war" that exists between an individual, the architect, who forges a tactical challenge that favors no particular game, and the whims and wishes of a divided membership that individually view the tactical challenge from the self centered perspective of their own game.

You quickly learn that there is no "collective", at private clubs, merely separate factions comprised of like minded individuals that promote their agenda, with the faction in power generally getting their way.

The second thing you learn is that once off the property, the architect essentially loses his voice, whereas the factions within the membership constantly express theirs.

We live in a disposable society.
Our Razors, pens, pencils, hypodermics, etc., etc are all discarded rather quickly
Architectural values should be enduring, not subject to whims and fads or the selfish wishes of biased golfers looking to bend the course to their game.

For over a dozen years on this site I've objected to renovation/alteration based upon the "domino" theory, that once a faction is allowed to alter the course to suit their game, the course becomes open season to all other factions to alter it once they ascend to power.

It's a problem that seems to be more prevalent with the "me" generation.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The other issue to consider is that renovations could actually reverse this collectivization process and try to return a course to the original architect's intent, especially when the renovating GCA tries to make changes back to what the course looked like in the Golden Era.

I would like to think that is what Ian Andrew and Gil Hanse did when they renovated Scarboro and tried to incorporate some of TIllinghast's ideas, including fairway bunkers that were on drawings for an irrigation plan but which never seemed to exist on the actual course.

And I think that Ian does similar returning to the original design when working on Stanley Thompson's courses as he has done substantial research into Thompson and his courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The bigger mistake is when clubs cling to the legacy of one name, to the detriment of others.  To use an example, Skokie is almost as much Langford as it is Ross (if not more), yet the majority of the members will only cite one name.

Well, that's a symptom of the times.  Sleepy Hollow "restored" their course to make the Tillinghast holes look more like Macdonald and Raynor's.  Skokie hired a "Ross restoration expert" to pump up the Ross.  Few clubs today are comfortable having their course seen as a mongrel.

[BCrosby]

TD says: "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 disagree. All architecture may be a matter of opinion, but some opinions matter more than others. The best architects, in the past and now, are the best because their opinions are the best.

The design of a golf course is not about democracy. Not everyone is entitled to an equal vote.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

TD says: "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 disagree. All architecture may be a matter of opinion, but some opinions matter more than others. The best architects, in the past and now, are the best because their opinions are the best.

The design of a golf course is not about democracy. Not everyone is entitled to an equal vote.

Bob:

I certainly didn't say it was a democracy.  You can ask just about anyone who's ever worked for me [or anyone I've ever worked for] about that.

But resting your case on "the best architects" having the best opinions is a bit tricky.  Nobody's infallible.

I think the difference between the typical member and the typical architect is that the architect is trying to think about EVERYONE's enjoyment of the golf holes, whereas the member is generally thinking about only his own.  You could extend that to say that the "best" architects are able to think even longer-term than the typical architect, but it's really only possible to identify that difference in hindsight.  In the short term, it's posturing ... which some architects are also very good at.  

Indeed, one of the biggest reasons for the trend toward "restoration" is that most architects have an easier time of it if they get the members to try and debate a dead guy whose credentials are stronger than their own.

[Matthew Petersen]

Peter,

Your question represents the "tug of war" that exists between an individual, the architect, who forges a tactical challenge that favors no particular game, and the whims and wishes of a divided membership that individually view the tactical challenge from the self centered perspective of their own game.

You quickly learn that there is no "collective", at private clubs, merely separate factions comprised of like minded individuals that promote their agenda, with the faction in power generally getting their way.

The second thing you learn is that once off the property, the architect essentially loses his voice, whereas the factions within the membership constantly express theirs.

We live in a disposable society.
Our Razors, pens, pencils, hypodermics, etc., etc are all discarded rather quickly
Architectural values should be enduring, not subject to whims and fads or the selfish wishes of biased golfers looking to bend the course to their game.

For over a dozen years on this site I've objected to renovation/alteration based upon the "domino" theory, that once a faction is allowed to alter the course to suit their game, the course becomes open season to all other factions to alter it once they ascend to power.

It's a problem that seems to be more prevalent with the "me" generation.

Pat,

First of all, what's the "me" generation? A quick Google suggests everything from "Baby Boomers" to "Gen Xers" to "millennials." Maybe to you it' all of the above.

I agree with your domino theory. But it seems like courses have been being altered from the way their original selves forever. Is it really any worse now than it was when Tillie was going around filling in bunkers or RTJ was toughening up courses for Opens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TD says: "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 disagree. All architecture may be a matter of opinion, but some opinions matter more than others.
The best architects, in the past and now, are the best because their opinions are the best.

Bob,

I think it goes further than that.
I think the best are the best because, not just their opinions, but their products integrate with the golfer far more favorably than others.

If the "proof is in the pudding/tasting" it's the quality of their work, the product of their intellectual insight into architecture and their creativity that makes their work so precious.

Membership opinions/criticisms tend to be micro in nature.
The architect's responsibility incorporates the micro within the macro crafting of the hole design as it integrates within the overall routing.

When's the last time you ever heard a member complain about the "routing" ?
Usually it's a specific feature or collection of features.

It's architectural nitpicking, sometimes akin to disliking the mole on Cindy Crawford's face.
Sure, some may find it unattractive if they focus on that feature to the exclusion of all others.
But, in totality, Cindy is gorgeous, with that feature merely an insignificant blemish when considering the entire "product"


The design of a golf course is not about democracy. Not everyone is entitled to an equal vote.

I view it a little differently, when it comes to architecture, I say, not everyone is entitled to vote.  

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, gents - you've all made this a very good thread. I'll think about your posts and have follow-up questions when I have a bit more time. For now, I'd just say this:

I used to think that if, despite decades of changes, the original routing was basically in tact, then the attribution was and should be given to the original architect, i.e. the router -- and that in this sense the "personal" had withstood the onslaught of the "collective" (or as Pat points out, of the most powerful "faction").

But as I've seen examples over the years where it seems clear to me that the architect's essential vision -- and the course's essential essence -- has been substantially altered even when the routing stayed in tact, I have started to question the validity (or maybe I should say "value") of much of those kinds of attributions.  

Yes, a Ross or Tillinghast or Langford or Colt or Mackenzie or Macdonald may have routed a given golf course; but would anyone suggest that this routing act/process is ALL that defines a "Ross" or "Mackenzie" or "Colt" course? Wouldn't we say that their personal architectural values and principles and goals were made manifest much more broadly than that?

What is the "essence" of a great golf course? Who better can understand (and in fact create) that essence than the architect?

And if that essence is diluted or wiped clean by the collective, what is left of the architect?


  

[BCrosby]

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
    

[Matthew Petersen]

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 that if changes have happened to a course, it must be for the best because, ... ummm, well ... because it happened.

Bob
    

My impression is that Tom understands and agrees with you ... but also understand that there are plenty of people in the world who think that the "better architect" is Fazio.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

I am not worried that over time the cream will come to the top in the world of gca. As is the case in other human endeavors.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

Matt -

I am not worried that over time the cream will come to the top in the world of gca. As is the case in other human endeavors.

Bob

This just in from America's Dairyland.... Bob, if the milk or the course design is homogenized, the cream can't separate and come to the top! 

[Tom_Doak]

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:

I am not missing your point.  I just think it's asinine for an architect to stand on his reputation as meaning more than someone else's opinion.  It's worked for Rees Jones ... but whose side of the argument gains from that?

I was one of those young architects [actually, one of the first, I think] who started talking about restoration years ago and using MacKenzie's or Tillinghast's opinion as a shield against members' opinions.  It was easier than debating them on the merits, since everyone tends to believe their own idea has a lot of merit.  Lately, though, I have worked on a few courses where I would prefer to be free to express an idea that the original architect didn't come up with.

In the end, time is the ultimate arbiter ... but I look at the "time" element differently than Jeff Brauer.  Just because a course has been changed doesn't mean the current version has stood the test of time; I hold the renovators to the same standard.  If MacKenzie placed a bunker eighty years ago, and they changed it two years after it was built, that's one thing.  If a green chairman moved the bunker last year, THAT change has yet to stand the test of time; MacKenzie's bunker placement still outweighs the green chairman's by a long way.  I have fixed plenty of idiotic changes to classic courses in recent years, precisely because it didn't take the club long to admit that the last guy had made a mistake.

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter,
Related point of view...  One of the best things about being at a club that's only been open for 11 years is that no significant changes are made without the input of the architect's firm.    Makes life SO much simpler and you end up with a wonderful product.

[BCrosby]

But Tom, isn't one of the benefits that accrue to someone with a well earned reputation (like you, to pick a name at random ), is that your opinions ought to given more weight than mine (to pick another name at random )? And if that means banging heads with a local green chair, why isn't that as it should be? They hold the purse and don't have to ultimately agree with you. But they should be made understand where you are coming from. Dumb happens. Uninformed happens.

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.

Bob 

[Tom_Doak]

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. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()