When is a course finished?

[Tommy Williamsen]

The quick response is never. I've played fifteen different courses this spring. Ten of them have had significant work done in the past five years, one of them is planning work and the other four would like to do some things but don't have the money. Is it just the nature of the business that tinkering happens throughout the life of the course or does there come a time when clubs just say, "We have the course where we want it." We all bemoan what's been done to classic courses in the fifties, sixties, and seventies: planting trees, adding runway tees, etc. I realize that greens need to be regrassed from time to time, length can be added here and there, and bunkers need constant care, but when can we say, "Enough already."

[Tom_Doak]

GREAT question.


As you say, it's human nature to want to tinker with courses over time.  Few designers are immune from this, either ... I seem to be in the minority that I "trust the process" by which the course was created, and would generally prefer not to go back and make changes years later, with a different mind-set and different crew.


I've always said that the worst part of championship golf is that Augusta National, the USGA and the R & A's tinkering with championship courses sends the message to the masses that such measures are necessary, when it's just the opposite.  All of those championship courses would have produced a compelling event without such tinkering ... though the winning score might have been 3-5 shots lower.


The cynic in me says that there is so much tinkering being done these days because there are so many architects and shapers still trying to make a living, with a lot fewer new courses being built.  Yes, the clubs have asked for their help, but it's much too rare for architects to tell their clients the course is fine just the way it is.

[Matt_Cohn]

A course that is finished might not be finished 25 years later, when bunker and green shapes have changed, trees have grown, etc.


It's like asking when a banana is finished. Is it finished when it's big and yellow? No, that's just when it's best...but it's not finished. Same, I'd say, with golf courses.

[Carl Rogers]

.... when the $ runs out.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Never

[Peter Pallotta]

I've often wondered about this, Tommy. I put the question to myself this way:

When is an architect going back and tinkering a sign that he cares deeply about the golf course, and when it it a sign that he made a mistake(s) the first time around?

or

Setting aside the costs involved, why is it an admirable practice when an architect takes a lot of time during the design&construction process to decide on his approach, and the subject of criticism when an architect takes a lot of time after the construction process to refine/redefine that approach?

or

If you had to lay money on it, would you bet that any given course being tinkered with will turn out better or worse?   

[Tom_Doak]

 
Setting aside the costs involved, why is it an admirable practice when an architect takes a lot of time during the design&construction process to decide on his approach, and the subject of criticism when an architect takes a lot of time after the construction process to refine/redefine that approach?

It costs 3x - 5x as much to go back later, strip all the sod, and re-shape a feature than it does to do it right in the dirt the first time.  And that's not counting the disruption to golfers.  I guess you can "set aside" those costs if you want to, but most clients wouldn't want to.

[Peter Pallotta]

T - I'm a big proponent of taking the time to get it right in the first place. I think much of the work we see today (across the board - films, books, music) is more about the "deal" than the "details". But the question remains: if, for whatever reason(s), an architect thinks that the course he designed and built could be better, shouldn't he want to give making it better a try?
P

[Tom_Doak]

T - I'm a big proponent of taking the time to get it right in the first place. I think much of the work we see today (across the board - films, books, music) is more about the "deal" than the "details". But the question remains: if, for whatever reason(s), an architect thinks that the course he designed and built could be better, shouldn't he want to give making it better a try?
P

It's a good question, and I feel like the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It depends on the reason(s).


My two "no"s are


1)  Many years later when the architect's style has changed, I think it's a shame for him to go back and convert much of his older work to the same style.  The older work stands out because it WAS different.


2)  Some tinkering is plainly motivated from sheer boredom and lack of work for the crew ... or by clients who want to do "something" to generate free publicity.  But who's going to call a big name architect on it?

[JMEvensky]

2)  Some tinkering is plainly motivated from sheer boredom and lack of work for the crew ... or by clients who want to do "something" to generate free publicity.  But who's going to call a big name architect on it?

Ever called a club and said you'd like to come back and change something? Maybe you didn't have the budget or time originally or thought of a better way to do something after the fact.

[Tom_Doak]

Ever called a club and said you'd like to come back and change something? Maybe you didn't have the budget or time originally or thought of a better way to do something after the fact.

There's a green at St. Emilion that I've told them I'd like to rebuild ... it just doesn't seem to have enough area on it for hole locations to be functional.  But they're not keen on taking it out of play to fix it; I'm sure we will get to it eventually.


I've considered the same sort of thing at Black Forest in Michigan, but eventually decided that once you started down that road on that course, there would be no good place to stop.


I've changed two other greens at the request of clients -- the 1st at Stone Eagle, and the 16th at Sebonack [which we moved to a new location].  I thought the greens worked ok as they were, but I acceded to the request.


Generally, though, I don't second-guess the work we produce "in the moment".  Sure, we could do any of our greens differently, but I'd be hard-pressed to insist that it was better afterward, especially enough to merit the cost and the hassle.  As long as the green is functional, I don't see the need for a change.