Leaving Well Enough Alone

[V. Kmetz]

TD, I understand and generally agree with the premise and it takes more than one person to alter an established course, but when I follow that money and regard those changes isn't there a ASGCA member and his familiars guiding and profiting from the work?  I mean the tinkering prez/golf/green/ chair commissions, but the GCA accepts.  I've never, not once, seen a GCA come onto property and say "Things are pretty good, you don;t need much... a bunch of trees and some drainage and you're all set." No, it's all "master plan" and "Phased" construction and aspects that will now require the environmental consultant to be hired for thousands... there's a guy who is the advising architect for the course that's nearest and dearest to my heart and he's never so much as seen a picture of the place before the millennium.


What say you?

VK:  You should get to be more familiar with my consulting work.  I've told a bunch of clubs they didn't really need to do much.

Unfortunately, they don't listen well . . . they keep hearing about master plans and think they need one . . . and they think their course is "important" so they need an architect to come in regularly and hold their hands. 


Tom, I speak for myself but I believe I speak for others when I say your character in all things in this field is not in question; I do not doubt for one second that you have tried to dissuade clients from bad/hasty/ill-considered moves regardless of your skin in the game. Even if your designs go out of fashion, that aspect of your character will not.


I have been trying to get out of that business.  Maybe the members DO need that, but I don't want to spend much more of my precious time left on Earth flying to wherever, to tell the new committee the same thing I told the old committee. 


Amen, and I'll go further having observed all ranks, styles and creeds of very and demi-wealthy members up close over the years in their collective madnesses, they DONT need that... I find they use architects and other consulting professionals to settle debates as much execute work they speak with one voice about. I don't know about the politics of a forming enterprise and a newly planned design, but as to established member clubs renovating...no matter how many people on the Board or Green Committee it always comes down to 2 or 3 guys doing all the pushing; one of em finds a way to get Dom Toak to present a more palatable vision to them and the other side will have to back down, if not in the face of Toak's reputation and acumen, then because they've already stuck $_____ in his pocket for his review


At the same time, I hate the thought that there are six other architects drooling at the chance to jam their foot in the door and suggest more, so they can put that club on their resume and/or "feed their families".  [To be fair, though, Mark's not in the ASGCA.]  Even my own associates enjoy finding little things to fiddle with at great courses, and there is always something to be fixed, if you look hard enough for it.


...Watching maybe 100 courses exist and grow around me in this wonderful golf life I've had, I believe that "little things" approach is THE only way for a course to grow naturally in its design intents, its changing environment and in its playing character as technology crowds...one new forward tee...one tiny green expansion/recapture...a old fieldstone wall off in the distance exposed... an overgrown creek bed cleaned up... an appended bunker in 1976 changed from sand to grass...a new cart turnaround or reroute of a traffic area...just a little thing here or there...each season a few little things...breathes, and respirates and relaxes the course in its growth, like a visit to the barber. 

Another advantage of little things is that a prudent, transparent budget can be financed and tackled on that basis in smaller one and two and three year clips, where costs aren't likely to soar as they do trying to project something 5 and 10 years down the line.  I'm not talking about Gil Hanse and WF either here, nor prolly most Top 500 courses; I'm talking about the rank and file club with a decent or even architecturally interesting course for which a 500k expenditure on anything keeps the club email server red hot, while no Board member can eat dinner in peace.

[I was going to ask about that favorite course of yours and how it's managed to avoid ruin -- maybe that would be better left to DM's.  ]


It's not the one you might be thinking (one we've exchanged privately about), it's a neighbor of that one, by a little known architect in 1964-5, who did a singular job and remains one of his few extant, intact designs.  And it hasn't avoided ruin...while tree clearance and in house "little thing touches" has made the course much better than it was in 1986, the wholesale bunker/infrastructure renovation in 2001 by one villain is so putrid as to preclude me from ever doing a course tour on the place for fear of being laughed off the site for extolling its virtues..and the added tees/bunkers and now-OVER cutting of trees of the current consulting architect have added little but banality and homogeneity to a design that could meet that standard of "each hole memorable, fun and different"

The one thing I don't understand your view on is trees.  For my own new courses, I've spent a considerable amount of time flagging clearing lines, trying to work around significant trees, and deciding whether they will can stay or whether they'll be too much of a problem for play or for maintenance.  [Brooks Koepka made fun of this process in Houston:  "It's just a tree."]  For a lot of the courses where we consult, clearing has been a significant part of the work.

Tom, but that's for NEW designs, where the property palette is at your authoritative whim...but the question of treating an extant design, where most either know how the tree got there or can mark it as overgrown/unintended or in the (hopefully) rare case where the original designer just got the planting wrong for the manner in which the hole plays 80 years later... why does it take the skill of an architect to guide that process?  The members and the club and their Super can wield a saw or plant a new one. 

Maybe I'm reacting to the story that at the same club I was referencing, a veteran caddie, who wrote their club history down to the receipts for all the Scotch pines planted in 1970, told them to get rid of a lot of trees in 2009 and they did, and the course has never been better... but the consulting architect rolled in it into his paid contribution and a new contract to keep making the special course, banal.  I'll give you one guess who the caddie was.


This aspect of trees and renovation deserves longer response and with this CoVid situation, I suspect I'll have the time down the line to lay out my sober view in a new thread.

[Niall C]

Tom

Clearly I’m firmly in camp B although I think in fairness I’d qualify that by saying there might some situations I’d baulk at making changes, but in principle yes I think there is probably not a course that couldn’t be improved upon, even if only marginally and by the lightest of tweaks.

I say that as one of the history geeks on this site, I’m aware how much the “great” top tier courses of this country (UK) have often been radically altered, redesigned, rebuilt and tweaked on an ongoing basis. Have there been mistakes along the way ? Undoubtedly, but by and large the work that has been done is why those courses are now considered great.

IMPROVED: Muirfield, Turnberry, Royal Troon, Prestwick, North Berwick, etc
SPOILED:  not sure I can think of any but do agree about Wentworth

Niall

[Tim Gallant]

IMPROVED: Cal Club


SPOILED: Hoylake (more about previous changes to Dowie etc), Swinley


To preface the above, I believe in leaving well enough alone. And in my mind, 'well enough' came into practice once the golden age happened, where ideas of design revolutionised how golf courses were thought about and played.


Final point: It strikes me as interesting that so many Top 100 courses are going / have gone through recent changes, especially in the UK. So were the courses overrated to being with, or is the work superfluous?

[Niall C]

Tim

I think you are viewing the golden age through slightly rose tinted spectacles. It was indeed a wonderful time for golf course architecture in terms of the advancement and dissemination of ideas and the design and construction of some wonderful courses. However the ODG's from that era weren't shy in changing each others work or on occasion their own work. So did they get things "wrong" or did some one just find a way to make a hole/course better ?

The other thing is we tend to judge some of these ODG's by what is in the ground now and that may well have been altered over the years by other architects, erosion, plant growth etc. So when you say you want to preserve Harry Colt's design at some lovely old links, how sure are you that what you are in fact looking at is his handy work ?

Niall

[Clyde Johnson]

SPOILED: Hoylake (more about previous changes to Dowie etc), Swinley

Hoylake is always the first course that comes to mind when I'm thinking of courses I wish I'd been able to see thirty or forty years earlier.


I'll keep thinking about the improved list. It's a much harder task!

[Ira Fishman]

Improved: Pinehurst 2 (Ross years)
Spoiled: Pinehurst 2 (R.T. Jones laying down Bermuda rough)
Improved: Pinehurst 2 (Coore and Crenshaw)


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

Improved: Mid Pines


Spoiled: Country Club of Asheville

[Ira Fishman]

Tom

Clearly I’m firmly in camp B although I think in fairness I’d qualify that by saying there might some situations I’d baulk at making changes, but in principle yes I think there is probably not a course that couldn’t be improved upon, even if only marginally and by the lightest of tweaks.

I say that as one of the history geeks on this site, I’m aware how much the “great” top tier courses of this country (UK) have often been radically altered, redesigned, rebuilt and tweaked on an ongoing basis. Have there been mistakes along the way ? Undoubtedly, but by and large the work that has been done is why those courses are now considered great.

IMPROVED: Muirfield, Turnberry, Royal Troon, Prestwick, North Berwick, etc
SPOILED:  not sure I can think of any but do agree about Wentworth

Niall

Niall, have you seen Nairn since they undertook its changes? I think in an earlier thread you expressed concern about the potential impact.


Thanks,


Ira

[Tim Gallant]

Tim

I think you are viewing the golden age through slightly rose tinted spectacles. It was indeed a wonderful time for golf course architecture in terms of the advancement and dissemination of ideas and the design and construction of some wonderful courses. However the ODG's from that era weren't shy in changing each others work or on occasion their own work. So did they get things "wrong" or did some one just find a way to make a hole/course better ?

The other thing is we tend to judge some of these ODG's by what is in the ground now and that may well have been altered over the years by other architects, erosion, plant growth etc. So when you say you want to preserve Harry Colt's design at some lovely old links, how sure are you that what you are in fact looking at is his handy work ?

Niall

Niall,


I accept your point about ODGs changing each other's work. In fact, to show how bias I am, I have no doubt that if I was a member of the Honourable Company, and Simpson came knocking, I would likely have opposed any changes he made. And I acknowledge that he improved the course from all that we can see, and gave us one of the best par-3s in Scotland.


All that being said, I still believe, based on what I've seen and read (which isn't as much as some!), that many courses haven't materially improved post-golden age as a result of changes that weren't restorative in nature (either to a principle, or what was actually on the ground). In my mind, and this may be revisionist history, I can accept ODGs changing older courses, and even changing each other's work because they were establishing a new type of golf course design (strategic), where rules were being literally written and rewritten at the time.


Since then though, I can't see any major shift in GCA thinking that makes me feel older courses can be improved upon. For sure tastes and styles come and go, but the golden age was going from victorian and primitive styles of golf courses to ones that enhanced enjoyment and brought golf to the masses. I don't see a similar change in thinking that would lead me to believe that altering a Harry Colt course is a good idea.


But even if we take the above to be false, and I accept that this is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a Harry Colt that is a Doak 6, than a Colt, Steel, Mackenzie that is a Doak 7. I'd rather see a Colt course and understand who he was as an architect, what he valued, and what made him different, rather than playing a 'better' course. I love variety, and therefore, I'm always going to say 'leave it be and enjoy it for what it is'. I'm sure Colt or Mackenzie had a few misses, but I don't think that's any reason to update their courses. (I do acknowledge what Mark / Vinny say and minor tweaks here and there to a living breathing course are inevitable, but I believe were talking about updating greens/holes/routings, etc).


To bring the principle up to date, if we look at a Doak course like Renaissance, it isn't one of Doak's most well known courses, and I don't even think Tom himself would put it in his Top 5 favourite courses that he's done, but I'd be saddened if someone else came along in 30 years time and said 'Yup, I can improve this course'. Maybe he could, but I'd rather see what Doak did and understand / study where his strengths and weaknesses lay.


I appreciate I am a bit naive in this sense, but that's what I cherish, and some of the thinking behind why I will likely always want to 'leave well enough alone'.


If it isn't well-enough - then have at it!


PS - SPOILED: Eden Course - how has no one brought that up?!

[Tom_Doak]

PS - SPOILED: Eden Course - how has no one brought that up?!

Ooh, yes.  And I've seen several other courses spoiled by moving holes near the clubhouse in favor of a big new practice facility.


Which should make you wonder how many modern courses could have been better if the practice facility was further down the priority list.

[Thomas Dai]

If the courses that folks had played before the guttie/Haskell came along hadn’t been changed .....?
If a bunker hadn’t been installed in the middle of a certain fairway at Woking...?
If CBMacD etc hadn’t visited the U.K. ...?

If WW1 and WW2 hadn’t significantly caused so many courses (and lives) to change .....?

Royal Melbourne before MacKenzie ....?
The 18th at Pebble Beach before Fowler .....?
Etc ...?
Improved or spoiled?
And then ... two sides of a current coin ..... present day courses and the distance/length debate ....?
Improved or spoiled?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Clearly I’m firmly in camp B although I think in fairness I’d qualify that by saying there might some situations I’d baulk at making changes, but in principle yes I think there is probably not a course that couldn’t be improved upon, even if only marginally and by the lightest of tweaks.

I say that as one of the history geeks on this site, I’m aware how much the “great” top tier courses of this country (UK) have often been radically altered, redesigned, rebuilt and tweaked on an ongoing basis. Have there been mistakes along the way ? Undoubtedly, but by and large the work that has been done is why those courses are now considered great.

IMPROVED: Muirfield, Turnberry, Royal Troon, Prestwick, North Berwick, etc
SPOILED:  not sure I can think of any but do agree about Wentworth

Niall

Niall:


Yes, I agree with you on those courses and that's one reason I used Rye as my example.  On the other side of the ledger, there's Prince's, and I wish the new holes at Sandwich had been built by someone in the previous era.


To be fair, though, a lot of the changes to the early links were brought about by the evolution from the gutty and hickory shafts to today's equipment . . . it's not like those early layouts of North Berwick or Muirfield were very good by today's standard.  And also, those changes were very inexpensive to make!  If you didn't like Colt's bunker on the 8th, you could get someone else to rebuild it for a few shillings . . . so there was probably a fair bit of wasteful work like that which has escaped the historical record, because it was quickly erased.


In the USA there are some very interesting club histories from that same period:  Milwaukee Country Club, for example, had Walter Travis build them a new course in 1921, and then had Hugh Alison completely change it in 1925 !  Maybe it is indeed better as a result, but that's a fair chunk of money down the drain for the previous version.

[Tom_Doak]

But even if we take the above to be false, and I accept that this is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a Harry Colt that is a Doak 6, than a Colt, Steel, Mackenzie that is a Doak 7. I'd rather see a Colt course and understand who he was as an architect, what he valued, and what made him different, rather than playing a 'better' course. I love variety, and therefore, I'm always going to say 'leave it be and enjoy it for what it is'. I'm sure Colt or Mackenzie had a few misses, but I don't think that's any reason to update their courses. (I do acknowledge what Mark / Vinny say and minor tweaks here and there to a living breathing course are inevitable, but I believe were talking about updating greens/holes/routings, etc).


To bring the principle up to date, if we look at a Doak course like Renaissance, it isn't one of Doak's most well known courses, and I don't even think Tom himself would put it in his Top 5 favourite courses that he's done, but I'd be saddened if someone else came along in 30 years time and said 'Yup, I can improve this course'. Maybe he could, but I'd rather see what Doak did and understand / study where his strengths and weaknesses lay.

Indeed, that opinion would not be shared by many [although you've come to the right place to find the few others].


I do think the study of golf architecture has become much too precious about certain designers, and elevating all of their work above anyone else's.  We know better than to believe that most of the ODG's were not around to personally contour their greens and bunkers, and the pretense that we can do it today costs a bunch of money to developers, not to mention putting a lot of questionably necessary air miles on my body.


However, the one part I will agree with is that when you have a course that's been changed by two or three different designers -- like Bel Air was -- it's almost impossible not to lose the plot along the way.  They had added more than thirty bunkers to the course, and moved most of the rest, and had greens built by four different firms, with different construction methods.  It was a real hodgepodge of styles, and that can be really jarring to the eye, even if you don't know or care who George Thomas was.


That's less true of links courses because they are all built on sand, and most of them with a similar bunker style, where all the bunkers are rebuilt every few years anyway.

[William_G]

Thank you guys for showing your work if you picked a or b

Improved: RDGC


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edvpZ8SeWFU


cheers

[Niall C]

Tim

I find it interesting you refer to “restorative” work. In this country I don’t think we tend to do restorations so much which I think is more of an American thing. I find that quite ironic as when you think of the UK you tend to think of old fashioned conservative values while the US is the land of new ideas and innovation.

But taking the example you mention which is the 13th at Muirfield, and Simpson all but obliterating Colt’s hole. I know I’ve seen pictures of Colt’s hole but can’t honestly say they give me too much of a feel for it, so it is hard to compare the two. Also, it’s a par 3 so how strategic was Colt’s version ? Perhaps Adam Lawrence will read this and comment. Simply put both designs could embrace golden age design ideas and one might still be better than the other (and completely different). The fact that Simpsons hole wasn’t changed (as far as I know) suggests the club thought the new hole better than the old, while the fact that they changed Colt’s hole in the first place suggests it was less than great. Bear in mind also that Colt had a friend in a high place in the form of Robert Maxwell so you imagine the club had some good reason to make the change.

Going back to my comment on knowing who did what, I think one of the great unrecorded era’s in the UK is the mid to late 1930’s and post WWII. I’m sure guys like Frank Pennink, MacKenzie-Ross, Guy Campbell and CKD Hutchison did a lot of good reputable work, a lot of which would be work on existing courses.

Having an intact Colt or MacKenzie course which hasn’t been buggered about with in any significant way is probably the exception rather than the rule, and yes that might be an instance where you might think twice about making an improvement in order to keep the “whole” intact. There are good legitimate reasons why you might not make changes but for me, there wouldn't be too many that would make me not make a change that I thought an improvement.

Niall

[Niall C]

Ira,

Without going back to look what is planned for Nairn and comments made, unless my dodgy memory is playing tricks, I think my concerns were to do with any idea about changing the contours of the green for the downhill par 3. Hard to imagine anything better or more unique, and that for me is the basic test, will it be better.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

I've always used the terms 'golf course architecture' and 'golf course design' interchangeably, as one and the same. But maybe they're not the same, and more precision is in order. To speak about 'design' is to reference the ever-changing: with a course like Bel Air the question isn't whether it's "still Thomas" but instead whether "it still works as a field of play". Speaking about 'architecture', on the other hand, is to reference not the particulars but the fundamentals: not hair colour or skin tone, but bone structures.   

[MCirba]

Ooh, yes.  And I've seen several other courses spoiled by moving holes near the clubhouse in favor of a big new practice facility.


Which should make you wonder how many modern courses could have been better if the practice facility was further down the priority list.

AMEN. 

I won't name them because they generally know who they are but there are any number of vintage courses in the Philadelphia area whose original routing has been compromised negatively by the addition of a practice area.   

With the introduction of so many indoor and automated options for practice, i wonder how many may reconsider in the future rather than taking up so many valuable acres of property to just mindlessly bash balls into the distance?


**ADDENDUM** - It occurs to me that a public course may see a range as a modest revenue stream (although many high end publics include practice balls in the price), but at a private course such is probably a pretty significant expense.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Put me in the camp of the of "most things happened just the way they had to have happened."


As I have mentioned before, Post WWII, a generation that had spent their young lives fighting - first the depression, then WWII - really had no desire to look back and a big desire to modernize everything, because world events made them think the old way wasn't very good to them.  It was bigger than RTJ and Wilson trying to make names for themselves, it was part of a generations common experiences.


And, I am reminded of the Joanie Mitchell song, including the lyrics, "Sometimes, you don't know what you got 'til its gone."  The current gca mindset is also a result of a lot of things that have gone before.


If there is a design constant, to me, its that form follows function.  Traditionally, original intent is not considered a function to a designer, although it sure can be.  Function has changed so much over time, a pure design, if there is such a thing, looks forward to the future, not to the past.


Now, all that said, we have recently talked about sense of place.  From what I have seen, it is hard to make a woodland course look like a seaside course, i.e., change its very nature and look right.  Unfortunately, technology has allowed some to try that, with mixed results.  So, completely changing the character of the course is not really a good fit for the form follows crowd, either.


In the end, probably the best approach at most, not historically important courses, is a sympathetic restoration/renovation, leaving what is good and fixing what is not.  Breaking the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra is what seems to get good courses in trouble, design wise.   That philosophy is part way between "Left alone" and "Blow it Up."


Even then, as a business, there may be justification for trying a new style.  If your course isn't drawing flies, would honoring the intent of the original style seem like a good idea as trying a new one that might?  And, again, I think that is what happened when "they" tried to impose a 50-60's style on a 20's course rather than subtly upgrade its existing style.  Older courses were simply not seen by that era golfers as exciting as some of the new, bolder designs.

And again, "Sometimes, you don't know what you got 'til its gone" is part of human nature, so the trend of the last 20 years is human, too.  It just wouldn't have happened, IMHO, without the trends of the 50's happening first.

All, just MHO, of course.  It is always a complex topic, not easily answered by the OP question.

[Tim Gallant]

But even if we take the above to be false, and I accept that this is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a Harry Colt that is a Doak 6, than a Colt, Steel, Mackenzie that is a Doak 7. I'd rather see a Colt course and understand who he was as an architect, what he valued, and what made him different, rather than playing a 'better' course. I love variety, and therefore, I'm always going to say 'leave it be and enjoy it for what it is'. I'm sure Colt or Mackenzie had a few misses, but I don't think that's any reason to update their courses. (I do acknowledge what Mark / Vinny say and minor tweaks here and there to a living breathing course are inevitable, but I believe were talking about updating greens/holes/routings, etc).


To bring the principle up to date, if we look at a Doak course like Renaissance, it isn't one of Doak's most well known courses, and I don't even think Tom himself would put it in his Top 5 favourite courses that he's done, but I'd be saddened if someone else came along in 30 years time and said 'Yup, I can improve this course'. Maybe he could, but I'd rather see what Doak did and understand / study where his strengths and weaknesses lay.

I do think the study of golf architecture has become much too precious about certain designers, and elevating all of their work above anyone else's.  We know better than to believe that most of the ODG's were not around to personally contour their greens and bunkers, and the pretense that we can do it today costs a bunch of money to developers, not to mention putting a lot of questionably necessary air miles on my body.

I think I see where you're getting at, but to me, it's not just about names. Take for example Himalayan. I've not played it, but from the confidential guide and others, it seems like an incredibly unique course. From what I understand though, there are a few holes that play above before players descend into the valley.


Going out on a limb, I'm sure someone like Gil Hanse could go in and improve those first few holes from a purely GCA perspective. Would that make the course better? Maybe. But I'd rather see it as is. If I want to see Hanse, I'd go play Castle Stuart.


To your point about ODGs not even seeing out some of the work, I think that's all the more reason to understand how different crews / supervisors like Russell, Hunter and Maxwell had influence on what are essentially one man's plans. Having Rees Jones (just to pick a random name) go in and improve courses because there are improvements to be made takes away from what makes each course inherently different.


If it turns out, like Mark said, that after years of bunker splash, a green needs to be taken back, then fair enough, but that doesn't change the intrinsic uniqueness of the course IMHO.

[Tim Gavrich]

Has the desire to alter a golf course ever been confronted by the National Historic Preservation Act? I was perusing the National Register of Historic Places and see several golf courses and clubs listed, from a couple munis to Augusta National.


For example, I see that Findlay Country Club in Ohio (Bendelow, 1908) was listed on the Register last December. What are the implications of that listing as pertains to the possible desires of future club committees to make material changes to the golf course? Is there a legal obligation attached to the listing of a golf course that is similar to that of a building? Is this a good way to protect a golf course from being spoiled by future overseers?

[Niall C]

Tom

You and Tim are absolutely correct about the Eden. In fairness to the architect they were given a fairly ordinary (and restrictive) stretch of land with which to replace the old holes but that doesn’t forgive some of the shite shaping, particularly the mounding up the side of the par 5 and the pond. In fairness the pond might have been a necessity to separate the two holes and provide material (probably to allow for the shite shaping).

However there again the last couple of times I was there they had made some changes to the mounding and even might have made a change to the green on one of the new holes, which I remember thinking was for the better. That said, will it ever be as good as it originally was ? You’ve got to think not.

Re Princes – Tony Muldoon took me out to Princes for a whistle stop tour of the course last year and my recollection of it is a bit hazy. Muldoon has longer legs than me and I spent most of the time running to keep up. Also I’d never seen it before so can’t compare with the “before”, but to be honest I didn’t see anything that blew me away. I thought the par 3 at the far end looked pretty good but can’t recall if that was new. A lot of the course was fairly flat and I know from experience that you need to play that type of course a few times to see the run of the ball before making judgement.

As to your point about poorly received changes being quickly done over, well sometimes it is one step backwards and two steps forwards. That’s the beauty of the medium and also I suppose the curse in that changes can be so easy to do.

Niall

[Tommy Williamsen]

Improved: Mid Pines


Spoiled: Country Club of Asheville

Ben, I liked the changes to the course except maybe the first hole. What don't you like about the reno?

[Sean_A]

I don't think using Princes is a good example of spoiled in the way this discussion is framed.  War did the damage and there was no bringing back the orginal at the time the new course(s) were designed.  One can't say the club was at fault.

I was going to mention Sandwich and its two big par 3s.  I don't care for either hole much, but they don't exactly spoil the course in the way Eden was crashed.  I went with Huntercombe because I think it can theoretically be restored without much dozer work..if any. It just takes tree removal, wider fairways and unusually for me, bunkers replaced    But the sum of this work would make a drastic difference to essence of the design.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

Improved: Mid Pines


Spoiled: Country Club of Asheville

Ben, I liked the changes to the course except maybe the first hole. What don't you like about the reno?

Tommy,


I could write pages about the redesign and where it failed. For now, I'll give you the abridged version:

What was once a quaint and fun mountain course is no more. The reworking bunkers and hazards across the property often feel out of place and penal to the play of the membership. The subtle but challenging greens that once graced the property were replaced with over the top garish putting surfaces that do not fit with the landscape around them. At times these greens feel formulaic with their consistent, if not redundant, use of quadrants. As if there were only a few green features that had to be repeated time and time again.

While it is a mountain course and has significant elevation change across the property, the course has always employed quite a bit of subtlety into its strategy. What lays across the land today feels more like a modern-day bruit, trying to use more visual intimidation to dictate strategy over solid fundamentals. The work around the bunkers and newly created mounds do not fit into the surrounding land and have a discernibly modern feel to them. On a property that has enjoyed play for over 90 years, the new work sticks out dramatically.

What may be my greatest complaint about the whole project is the result the work has had on play across the property. The redesign at CCA may be the first course I've seen in which the course became substantially more difficult for the higher handicap player and quite a bit easier for the lower handicap player. For most if not all architects that participate on this board, they would say that is the exact opposite of what should have been done. Also, rounds on the course now take an additional 20-30 minutes more to play than they use too. The green to tee distances were not changed, so the resulting increase in time has to come at the expense of the player struggling to get around the course. For the needs of the membership, the redesign missed the mark.