So who do you call?

[Mark_Fine]

On a different thread Tom Doak said he thinks that for someone to think they can improve the work of another architect is arrogant. 

Last I checked there are over 30,000 golf courses around the world.  A huge percentage of them have been designed by architects who are no longer with us. Unfortunately golf courses are not static pieces of art.  They naturally change and need constant maintenance and management as they age.  Furthermore, the course’s owners often change, the superintendents who care for them change, the golfers who play them change as does the game itself.  So who do you call to keep tabs on their evolution if the architect who designed them is no longer with us?

[Tom_Doak]

This was the actual quote:

The real arrogance is thinking you could improve on the work of a great architect.

So, there were two key words in there you left out.  One is "great", and the other is "you".  Please be more careful in quoting me in future posts.


As to your post above, you place the onus of the course being changed on owners, superintendents, golfers and "the game itself," by which I presume you mean the equipment.

The agent of change you're missing is consulting architects who think they are going to do better.

Our restoration work at places like Bel Air and Hollywood [to name two] was much tougher because other architects had gone in there and done significant construction work, that we had to un-do.  That's a LOT more difficult than fixing bunkers whose lips have built up over the years, or that have moved closer to the green due to constant edging.

Yes, I understand that most golf courses do not have the pedigree of Bel Air and Hollywood.  And yes, golf courses do naturally change and evolve, much like our own bodies.  But most of us can get along just fine without talking to a surgeon, and a lot of golf courses would be just fine without surgery, too.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I thought “you” was meant to be any of the thousands of people who make changes to existing golf courses and “great” is a very subjective term.  Can you please list all the “great” architects so we all know who they are vs the not so great ones?   


You know exactly what I am getting at.  There are thousands of golf courses that exist where the original architect has passed away.  What do you propose be done about those?  Furthermore most of the courses (especially the old ones) have already been changed countless times (some for the better and some for the worse). It is just the way it is and will likely always be. 


I don’t argue too much with your original quote but the reality is better to have someone work on a course that at least has some respect for the original design vs someone who has none!  There are many out there who could care less who the original architect was and maybe that is your point.  But like it or not courses do evolve not always for the better and they often need attention/change. 


You and I worked on several of the same courses over the years.  Cherry Hills would likely be a Tom Fazio or Rees Jones new redesign if I hadn’t spent almost four years working with that club to help them understand just how good their original design was (that had been dramatically changed over the years).  Oyster Harbors had changed dramatically as well and it took a lot of study and research to show the current membership how it had evolved. 


You know very well courses are going to get tinkered with because once the architect leaves it is not really his or her responsibility to maintain the course.  And there is a myriad of reasons why courses might need change anyway.  The list is endless. 


Most things that don’t change or evolve die.  Golf courses are no different.  Look at the grand lady of all - The Old Course at St. Andrews.  How much has that course changed from its origin 


Mark

[Ian Andrew]

"Great architects" is a subjective and personal list for all of us. Further complicating things is not every work by a revered architect is great. What you then do with that property becomes a choice.

I'm actively restoring some work of Robert Trent Jones. This is not something I thought I'd ever do. But some places are important to the game and we owe that to golf. I'm at Midvale because its his first course (and quite interesting) and Crag Burn (because its unusual for his work, he was on site himself and one of the best I've seen). I'm not drawn to his work and have turned down other opportunities. But I do like these two specific examples where he definitely did the work himself.

I believe some examples of famous architects should be preserved even if they are not on the top of our personal list of great architects.

[Tom_Doak]

"Great architects" is a subjective and personal list for all of us. Further complicating things is not every work by a revered architect is great. What you then do with that property becomes a choice.

I'm actively restoring some work of Robert Trent Jones. This is not something I thought I'd ever do. But some places are important to the game and we owe that to golf. I'm at Midvale because its his first course (and quite interesting) and Crag Burn (because its unusual for his work, he was on site himself and one of the best I've seen). I'm not drawn to his work and have turned down other opportunities. But I do like these two specific examples where he definitely did the work himself.

I believe some examples of famous architects should be preserved even if they are not on the top of our personal list of great architects.

Ian:


I agree with you on that.  I think that most courses would be better off if the original vision was preserved.  Tinkering with the original design tends to mess up consistency and balance, whereas "improvement" is all subjective anyway.

[Peter Pallotta]

The irony is that for most of us a 6300 yard long course with fairway bunkers at 240 yards and greens/green surrounds that on occasion gently suggest a draw or a fade or a punched low running shot is all the golf course we really need to provide us with all the fun we want and all the interest/challenges we can handle.

In other words, whether the course is a Ross of a RT Jones, leaving it alone/essentially unchanged will have it serving the demands of the 'game' (and of the average golfer's game/skill set) as well today as it did 50 or 80 years ago.

Which is to say: if one wanted to make the case that there is value in honouring/preserving an old course and its original design simply for the sake of honouring & preserving it, one wouldn't in truth have to contend with the notion that such a course was 'outdated'. 

That term, I think, has more to do with what new-member-hungry clubs want and what some architects are happy to provide them than it does with either the architecture or a course's essential (and continued) utility and effectiveness as a field of play. 
Peter

[Thomas Dai]

The irony is that for most of us a 6300 yard long course with fairway bunkers at 240 yards and greens/green surrounds that on occasion gently suggest a draw or a fade or a punched low running shot is all the golf course we really need to provide us with all the fun we want and all the interest/challenges we can handle.

The irony is that for most of us a 6300 5300 yard long course with fairway bunkers at 240 200 yards and greens/green surrounds that on occasion gently suggest a draw or a fade or a punched low running shot is all the golf course we really need to provide us with all the fun we want and all the interest/challenges we can handle.”

For the vast majority I’d suggest the amended numbers above are more appropriate (although some folks ego and vanity might not permit them to admit it!). However, there are others at both the top end and bottom end of playing ability, skill and physical strength who hit the ball either a lot further or a lot less but this can be dealt with if the ball and equipment issue is handled appropriately.

Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Thomas -
you may well be right, I don't know.
My point was that a golden age or 50s course, from what was back then 'the tips', will play for most of us with new equipment in about the same way it did for those of our golf ancestors who chose to play the course from the back tees with the equipment (and expectations) of their day.
Which is to say: in terms of 'playability', I'm not sure there are all that many courses that need to be renovated in the first place. Taking that as the starting point leads to a much different discussion.
P

[Bernie Bell]

To Peter's point, if the owner wants change primarily for utility and effectiveness as a field of play, that is one thing, but if the owner needs/wants change for national attention, isn't that another thing points in a different direction?  In my line of work, some say "no Fortune 100 general counsel ever got fired for hiring [name brand BigLaw firm]."  I wonder if the same isn't true of golf clubs that are protective/desirous of perceived status.

[Tom_Doak]

To Peter's point, if the owner wants change primarily for utility and effectiveness as a field of play, that is one thing, but if the owner needs/wants change for national attention, isn't that another thing points in a different direction?  In my line of work, some say "no Fortune 100 general counsel ever got fired for hiring [name brand BigLaw firm]."  I wonder if the same isn't true of golf clubs that are protective/desirous of perceived status.

It is just as true of golf clubs, and that is where the rankings have sometimes had a negative influence on great golf courses.  Some of the work that's done is very good, some of it is a step backwards, and a majority of it is probably just a waste of money in terms of improving the club's ranking, but they do it anyway because they think they have to keep up their ranking.

[Mark_Fine]

As we all know, there are so many things that have lead to golf courses being changed. The introduction of automatic irrigation for example had a HUGE impact on golf courses. The single line irrigation down the center of fairways was one of the biggest factors in why classic golf courses lost their width.  It then lead to excessive tree planting programs and I can go on and on. 


Trying to keep up with your neighbor will also always push clubs to change/improve their clubs/courses to keep them relevant. As pointed out above sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.


These days there are fewer and fewer new courses being built and the larger architecture firms need to keep their staff busy so they end up pursing more restoration/renovation projects then they used to.  Many have no interest in spending months on end digging through the historic golf literature section at The Golf House in NJ or searching the National Archives for early aerials or flying to Pinehurst to study old drawings in the Turfs Museum.  It takes too much time and too much effort and very few bother to do it.  It is no wonder courses change the way they do.  Few things are sacred anymore.  Even Top 10 courses are having their greens rebuilt.  What message does that send to lesser clubs? 

[Ian Andrew]

Many have no interest in spending months on end digging through the historic golf literature section at The Golf House in NJ or searching the National Archives for early aerials or flying to Pinehurst to study old drawings in the Turfs Museum.  It takes too much time and too much effort and very few bother to do it.

Mark,

I think it's far easier to do research today than it was even just 10 years ago. Just about every periodical is now on line and most have been made searchable. That helps with finding ground level photos. Most aerials have become easier to find through University, City, State and National Archives. It's rare to run into a roadblock with so much going on line. I'm really grateful that it has.

[Bernie Bell]

"Even Top 10 courses are having their greens rebuilt.  What message does that send to lesser clubs?"

Some of the lesser folk will be quite pleased that they don't have to suffer the added expense and inconvenience of their status-chasing betters.

[Mark_Fine]

Ian,
I agree with you that it is easier than it was but it is still time consuming.  As you well know because you are one of the guys that does take the time, many clubs (if you are lucky) have boxes of old club information lying around but very little is usually organized.  I remember spending endless hours in the Oyster Harbors Clubhouse going through all kinds of old photos, letters, pamphlets,… trying to dig up all we could on the history of the golf course.  Brad Klein teamed up with me on that one and together we found a lot of information outside the club that surprised the membership about Ross's work on the course and how it evolved.   


At Lawrenceville School Club in NJ, I welcomed the talents of this site to help find info on the evolution of that golf course.  I spent days myself in the school's library searching for anything I could find about the origins of their historic 9-hole course.  There were at least a half dozen or more GCAers here who did a phenomenal job helping the process and all were cited for their contributions in my plan/report.  It is still a lot of work these days and by no means easy.  Out at Mira Vista G&CC in El Cerrito, CA, Forrest and I spent months searching for history on that Hunter/Watson design and it wasn’t until an intern that we had hired turned up some incredible photos and information at the Berkley library that we knew what the original bunkers looked like when the course was first built.  They were invaluable to the project during construction.


Not many out there want to take the time to do this kind of searching even though it is less difficult than it used to be.


Bernie,
You are correct but it does make it difficult for some of us who certainly have no interest in rebuilding greens if we absolutely don’t have to.  I remember when Cypress was considering doing this because of a severe nematoda problem.  My heart sank when I heard this.  Thank goodness they didn’t have to do so.

[V. Kmetz]

This discussion breeds the further question for me:


Can/Has a "fair" "average" "plain" "ignored" or "utiliitarian" course ever be/been elevated to greatness/notoriety by a reno-storation or significant addendum?


I'm sure perspective/p.r. bs matters because while some would say that has happened many times, I would likely disagree that, say... Winged Foot East or Sleepy Hollow became great or entered the canon because of the modern work... such courses were admired/listed/respected before "you" (I'm punning on Mark's omission of Tom's verbatim statement) showed up.  I think they are both well improved, stunning perhaps, but there was a lot of greatness there.


Perhaps I'm just sour that few working architects of name appeal never show up/are never called to the lesser, middlin' courses... to make something shabby delightful and elicit the virtues a plain place might have...


That to me is one massive sign of GCA talent...that one can work on a Doak 8+ or on a course once on a few Top lists and produce happiness is not unexpected... but raising a Doak 3 to a Doak 7 by dint of one's work would seem to be the more compelling renovation/restoration.

[Ben Stephens]

Tom,


Would you say that Augusta of 2020 is a better version of the 1934 course from all aspects of its design? There have been some well known architects that have worked on it since Mackenzie such as Perry Maxwell, Robert Trent Jones and more lately Tom Fazio - one wonders who will be the next one on the block. Its design has evolved mainly to suit the current standard of the top players on this planet which has been the case since 1934.


Bearing in mind certain designs evolve over time and for some courses it is better and others not. Bel Air is not the exact copy which George Thomas started out with likewise for LA North. They are probably both better now design wise, more suited for the modern golfer also with much improved sub surface structure, irrigation, quality of surfaces and maintenance equipment.


We probably have better understanding how a golf course functions structurally and playability wise than the past great architects partially thanks to them and other new innovations over the last 100 years. Golf Course Design has evolved a lot over the last century.


As a designer we always question other designers where they are coming from and whether there is a better design option or not. There is also the matter of taste - not one person has the same view and they have their own vision of what the ideal design should be for them.


As Pete Dye was your mentor - I have not seen one of your course designs in the Pete Dye mould I suspect you have disagreed with Pete at times and think you can do a 'better design' or a design that is more to your taste. Pete would probably have designed Pacific Dunes completely different to you likewise myself and other architects plus amateur armchair designers.


Variety is the spice of life.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for the clarification Peter. I now better understand your reasoning.
That's a terrific question VK about lessor or middling courses being elevated to greatness/notoriety. I'm curious if there are any examples let alone ones that aren't due to an outside influence or a technological development?
atb

[Bernie Bell]

"That's a terrific question VK about lessor or middling courses being elevated to greatness/notoriety. I'm curious if there are any examples"
Lester George renovated a 1959 Gordon course in Ocean City MD.  I don't know how either the before or the after would rank on a Doak scale, or if the new course is "great," but it's certainly one of my favorites.  LG also renovated two 1960s era Ed Ault courses in Virginia, CC of Petersburg and Salisbury CC.  I don't know more than that about them, but I'm curious.

[Steve Lapper]

I have a first hand experience in refuting some parts of this argument.


In 2011 we decided to hire Jim Urbina to renovate/restore/repair what was then Dellwood CC in New City, NY. Originally an 18 hole estate course for Adolph Zukor designed by AW Tillinghast, the course had been significantly altered by William Mitchell and then RTJ Sr and others. While the original Tilly routing was preserved, bunkering style and placement, along with shrunken greens and misplaced tees. In short, we needed not only a "surgeon," but one capable of cutting out the toxicity and replace it with holes that would adequately reflect, yet provide a modern interpretation, of Tilly's architectural philosophy. Jim Urbina, along with talented shapers like Jeff Stein, and the passionate assistance of Brian Chapin provided just that.


Dellwood CC was never better than a bottom tier, financially unstable also-ran in the design-rich Met section. It was closer to most people's last choice, hardly a more than a footnote in the NY-CT_NJ golf scene. We renamed the club to Paramount CC ( honoring our founder's professional accomplishment) and never looked back.


At no time did we ever think we are a Top 100, 150, 200 US course, nor did we ever expect to crack the Top 25-30 of the Met Section. We still don't (care). Jim, Brian, et.al. had zero arrogance about trying to improve on Tilly's original work. Instead, it was our job to provide the membership with a fun and interesting 18 holes, modernize the design, and leave it better than we found it...in that order. Those were, and are, our only goals.


I'm biased, but I'd say we succeeded on our goals as well as successfully elevated a middling (generous) course to some notoriety, and did so in the backyard of what I think is the deepest rota of wonderful designs found on this planet. We recognize how strong some of our regional neighbors are, yet we are constantly told how much fun and how challenging Paramount is. Those kind of words and the facial reactions of our members and guests make it all worthwhile....proving just how vital it was to bring together a great "surgical" team.

[Tom_Doak]

This discussion breeds the further question for me:

Can/Has a "fair" "average" "plain" "ignored" or "utiliitarian" course ever be/been elevated to greatness/notoriety by a reno-storation or significant addendum?

Well, just in the top ten courses in the world, you've got Shinnecock Hills - completely redesigned by Flynn in 1931 from the older course - and Royal Melbourne (West), where Dr. MacKenzie added six new holes and adapted the rest of an unremarkable course with a Royal title.


Further down in the top 50, certainly Lahinch and the Cal Club count as redesigns that greatly elevated a prior course, and you could make the case that places like Royal Dornoch [six new holes in 1947] or SFGC [Tillinghast took over someone else's early routing] count, too.


So, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility to do as you say.  But, if you are really to succeed in turning a Doak 3 into a Doak 7, the previous architect must have done a pretty poor routing.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


My responses in blue, below.

Would you say that Augusta of 2020 is a better version of the 1934 course from all aspects of its design?
   I have no real opinion on that.  It is what it is.


Bearing in mind certain designs evolve over time and for some courses it is better and others not. Bel Air is not the exact copy which George Thomas started out with I can't say it's a perfect copy, but we tried our best  likewise for LA North. They are probably both better now design wise, more suited for the modern golfer also with much improved sub surface structure, irrigation, quality of surfaces and maintenance equipment.


We probably have better understanding how a golf course functions structurally and playability wise than the past great architects partially thanks to them and other new innovations over the last 100 years. Golf Course Design has evolved a lot over the last century.  Yes, that's Tom Fazio's view, everything new is better.  There's no doubt I have learned from all that's gone before me, but that doesn't mean you or I are better than George Thomas.


As Pete Dye was your mentor - I have not seen one of your course designs in the Pete Dye mould I suspect you have disagreed with Pete at times and think you can do a 'better design' or a design that is more to your taste.
   One thing Mr. Dye gave me was the idea that I had to have my own ideas if I wanted to succeed, and I shouldn't copy him or anyone else.  He had his own thing, and I don't think there is any way I could do his thing as well as he did.  I'm sure he would have done Pacific Dunes differently, but so what?  Different is different, which isn't necessarily better or worse. 



Variety is the spice of life.
   Yes, it is.  I would encourage you to go out and do something different, as Mr. Dye encouraged me to do.  Just don't do it over the bones of someone else's good work.  Starting from scratch is the real test of ability, redesign is a distant second.

[SL_Solow]

Late to the party as usual and I certainly can't bring insight into the creative process that the professionals have brought to this thread. Nevertheless, I can't help but noting that this discussion is something of a corollary to a long running discussion found in numerous threads which have sought the answer to the question, " how many courses are worth preserving?".  It has been almost universally agreed that most courses do not have the design significance that warrants pure preservation for its own sake.  But this thread seems to ask a related, somewhat more subtle question.  It considers the degree to which many courses, notwithstanding their lack of iconic status, can be improved and how should renovation architects approach the process?  Embedded in that question is the issue of cost/benefit in the process and the related need to find work when fewer new courses are being built.


This issue resonates with me when I relate it to the manner in which classic courses in the Chicago area were modified (some would say disfigured) largely in the 70's and 80's.  In an effort to "modernize" courses, clubs placed their trust in a group of architects who seemed to have little or no respect for the work of their predecessors, many of whom ranked among the best of any time.  Coupled with indiscriminate tree planting, this work set back the level of architecture in Chicago significantly.  On the brighter side, it created work for architects to come back and "fix" the mistakes although many of the courses lacked original plans and were unwilling or unable to undertake the type of research referenced in this discussion.  The quality of these restorative or corrective efforts varies as almost all work in this art form varies, giving rise to discussion groups like this one.


Accordingly, I am sympathetic to those who caution against making changes on the theory that advancements in our science and understanding will necessarily improve the work.  Science has undoubtedly improved our ability to control conditions but in the end, judgment, creativity and good taste trump the science.  Long ago we learned to discount the old maxim that, " every day in every way, we are getting better".  In modifying golf courses, I prefer the less literary caution, "look before you leap".

[Tim_Weiman]

This discussion breeds the further question for me:


Can/Has a "fair" "average" "plain" "ignored" or "utiliitarian" course ever be/been elevated to greatness/notoriety by a reno-storation or significant addendum?


I'm sure perspective/p.r. bs matters because while some would say that has happened many times, I would likely disagree that, say... Winged Foot East or Sleepy Hollow became great or entered the canon because of the modern work... such courses were admired/listed/respected before "you" (I'm punning on Mark's omission of Tom's verbatim statement) showed up.  I think they are both well improved, stunning perhaps, but there was a lot of greatness there.


Perhaps I'm just sour that few working architects of name appeal never show up/are never called to the lesser, middlin' courses... to make something shabby delightful and elicit the virtues a plain place might have...


That to me is one massive sign of GCA talent...that one can work on a Doak 8+ or on a course once on a few Top lists and produce happiness is not unexpected... but raising a Doak 3 to a Doak 7 by dint of one's work would seem to be the more compelling renovation/restoration.

One recent exception is Tom Doak at Memorial Park in Houston. Memorial is a people friendly environment, but the property and course wasn’t much before Tom was called.

[V. Kmetz]

This discussion breeds the further question for me:

Can/Has a "fair" "average" "plain" "ignored" or "utiliitarian" course ever be/been elevated to greatness/notoriety by a reno-storation or significant addendum?

Well, just in the top ten courses in the world, you've got Shinnecock Hills - completely redesigned by Flynn in 1931 from the older course - and Royal Melbourne (West), where Dr. MacKenzie added six new holes and adapted the rest of an unremarkable course with a Royal title.

Further down in the top 50, certainly Lahinch and the Cal Club count as redesigns that greatly elevated a prior course, and you could make the case that places like Royal Dornoch [six new holes in 1947] or SFGC [Tillinghast took over someone else's early routing] count, too.

So, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility to do as you say.  But, if you are really to succeed in turning a Doak 3 into a Doak 7, the previous architect must have done a pretty poor routing.

You referenced some projects from more than 70-80 years ago, whereas I was thinking of the current reno-storation work which has been voluminous...


A case in point (and I'm mindful of IA's position/respect due) is a course such as Knollwood... I think Ian did as fine a job as could ever be, but nothing could change the fact that holes 2, 7, 13 are horrible sites for a golf hole and #s 1 & 12 are hemmed in by the property... the course is an arduous walk for a benign yardage and two challenging, even beautiful holes (8 and 18) often produce pretty sour results.


I guess I'm truly asking that if the routing is original and greens (or their bones) still extant original... what can the rearrangement of fairway lines, and hazard/bunker deployment really do?

[Tom_Doak]

You referenced some projects from more than 70-80 years ago, whereas I was thinking of the current reno-storation work which has been voluminous...

A case in point (and I'm mindful of IA's position/respect due) is a course such as Knollwood... I think Ian did as fine a job as could ever be, but nothing could change the fact that holes 2, 7, 13 are horrible sites for a golf hole and #s 1 & 12 are hemmed in by the property... the course is an arduous walk for a benign yardage and two challenging, even beautiful holes (8 and 18) often produce pretty sour results.

I guess I'm truly asking that if the routing is original and greens (or their bones) still extant original... what can the rearrangement of fairway lines, and hazard/bunker deployment really do?

Oh, I agree with you on that.  Routing is destiny.  If you're not changing the routing or the greens, or clearing out a course that's way too narrow, a renovation is not going to make a huge difference in the quality of the course.  Many of these restorations that people get all excited about are turning a 6+ into a 7, on the margins.


But Shinnecock and Royal Melbourne are great examples that a new routing COULD make a huge difference, if you have a very good architect doing it.


We don't get many calls like that, though.  I guess I've been negative enough about the prospects that other designers get the call.      However, the two projects I've just finished, at Memorial Park and at The National in Australia, kind of fit the bill.  At Memorial we did not reroute the course extensively, because of the trees that line most of the holes, but we changed everything else, and it's very different now.  At The National, there aren't any trees, so I could move green sites and change the angle of many holes and really thoroughly re-route the course, as well as building all new greens and bunkers.


I was not on record as having rated either course "before" the work, and I won't try to now, as it would be in my best interests to underrate them . . . but I don't think either was accused of being a 6 or a 7 on the Doak Scale until our work was done.  It's not as big an improvement as Royal Melbourne, but you know how people fawn over those dead guys!