Leaving Well Enough Alone

[Mark_Fine]

Let’s cut to the chase; Tom doesn’t want others messing with his golf courses.  Honestly, I don’t blame him, I wouldn’t either.  But the reality is that NO golf course is built perfectly and without flaw and/or without need for some kind of improvements/modifications/tweaks in the future.  Unfortunately, golf courses are living breathing things that are subject to constant attention and abuse.  They do not hang on a wall to be preserved without touch for eternity.  If an architect believed strongly enough in not touching another architect’s design they would completely avoid doing the same themselves.  I don’t see that happening with ANY architect out there. 


Golf courses have to evolve to stay relevant.  Maybe not for ten years or even twenty years, but eventually they will need to change.  The old saying holds with golf courses as it does with most any business, if it stays stagnant, it will eventually die.


I consider myself more a purist and a restoration guy but that is because “sometimes” golf courses evolve for the worse and what was there before is better than what is there now.  I have always believed you need to investigate and do some research before you change things yet again or you will never know.  At the same time I don’t believe in restoring crap.  Tom Doak can correct me, but I believe he once said, “Maybe 10% of golf courses deserved to be restored.”  I actually believe that % might even be high but it does imply that the far majority of courses are better off having evolved and endured change. 



I mentioned St. Andrews as maybe the best example of a course that has been improved and spoiled at the same time.  Wouldn't it be great to see and play what it once was "if people had left it well enough alone"?  Then again, it is hard to argue that how it has changed and evolved has not improved it and kept it relevant for play today 


Note: I don't believe I have ever worked on a course (original design) where the current architect was still practicing.  The only one I can think of was a Pete Dye course and I asked him first if he was ok with me working on it and got a thumbs up.

[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?

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.

As a former Member at Musgrove Mill, I only played the course a half dozen time, evenly split between the old and renovated course. I didn't notice the changes on the green. I did like what happened to the holes ealy on the back nine.
I am sad that you are dissatisfied.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I realize that the rising water and loss of the pebble ridge necessitate a redesign of holes 7-9 at Westward Ho! I am fearful that they will destroy the flow of the course. I am especially saddened that number nine will be changed from a great little par five to a par four.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


I don't know if TD said 10% deserve to be restored, but I peg it at about that.  I mean, if Ross did 400, how many of those were among the best examples of his work?  How many did he never see?  Are the plans only ones worthy of restoring to a project foreman or green superintendent's vision of what he thought Ross wanted there?


Yes, I would like to play the Old Course (and a few others) as it/they was.  Probably the better flavor of old Scottish golf is Prestwick, which hasn't been changed for tournament play in 100 or more years, maybe 200! (probably has changed somewhat, but that and lesser known courses probably a better experience.)


As to the OP, among famous courses, I (from pics and TV) actually believe Palmer and Co. improved Pebble.  Those bunkers were pretty threadbare, devoid of shape, etc., and while the new style was neither historic to Pebble's best or sympathetic to what they had become, it was a pleasant enough visual upgrade, and perhaps some changes made in location (?), and there is always something to be said for that.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Tom I am sure will correct me if I am wrong about the 10% 


There is always subjectivity and opinion in what is improved and what is not improved.  How many people make changes to a golf course thinking they are making it worse     I hope not many.  On that note about which "Ross" courses should be restored; it is a very subjective question and that is where the study and research and knowledge come into play.  And even then it is ultimately up to the owners/members of the course to make a final decision.  The problem as we all know is some architects, who want the work, will say whatever they have to to get it.  I have a problem with that but then again, people have to make a living.  It is also the reason some architects stay busy - fixing work that maybe never should have been done.  This circles back in part to Tom's point about leaving well enough alone.  It's complicated for sure 

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside over the years there have been some thoroughly nice 9-hole courses that expanded to 18-holes but where the extra 9-holes have been underwhelming in comparison to the original-9.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Excellent comments gents, and a terrific thread topic.

I think a lot of why changes occur likely boils down to three main things:

1)  First and foremost, human nature.  We constantly want to tinker, tweak, and so forth.  Its like an itch that must be scratched and can never be sated.  Exercising restraint is nigh impossible...
2)  Relating to VKs comments, a lot of courses more often than not get Type A guys on the green committee who almost feel compelled to leave their mark on things.
3)  Good old fashioned mother nature, where something slowly changes day by day, and after 10 years of looking at the same thing every day, you find an old picture and say "what the hell happened here".

I tend to side with Tom on leave well enough alone...but even if we wanted to, do we have the ability?

[Ian Andrew]

deleted

[Ben Hollerbach]

As a former Member at Musgrove Mill, I only played the course a half dozen time, evenly split between the old and renovated course. I didn't notice the changes on the green. I did like what happened to the holes ealy on the back nine.
I am sad that you are dissatisfied.

I'm surprised to hear that you didn't notice changes to the greens. Every single green was completely rebuilt, with at least 5 of them moved from their previous positions.

I would argue that the changes made to the first few holes on the back 9 were some of the worst to the course and help to illustrate the difficulty disparity that I mentioned previously

• For a long hitter, the creek on the 10th can easily be avoided by playing over the right hand portion or laying up with a long iron down the left. For the shorter hitter the creek is not clearable from the tee and a drive that lands on the down slope short of the creek can easily run into the hazard. For them they are forced to drive into a very small fairway section down the left or lay up above the slope, leaving an approach shot of 200 yards into the green.

• Removing the fairway bunker on the left of 11 takes away nearly all danger for the long hitter off of the tee and has no impact on the shorter hitter. In contrast the now elevated front lip and 2 very unnatural mounds at the front of the green prohibit a ball from being run onto the green, which use to be the standard play for many shorter and high handicap players. This hole was once a par 5 and because of the slope short of the green it now plays as such for anyone unable to fly the ball to the green.

Of course our differing views just helps to illustrate how each person can view and judge a course so differently. Without it, there's no way this site could still be operating at it's level of discourse for 2 decades. I appreciate hearing your perspective and that you've enjoyed the course changes, I wish I could share you view.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark, Ian, Tom, others,


As to the word "profitable" has anyone ever made more money on renovations than new course designs?  Major, 18 hole renovations can be pretty big fees, which I guess is the point of some comments here.  But of course, hard to talk most courses into it anyway, because, well, ya know, spending less usually beats spending more!


Master plans are typically, IMHO, break even, in hopes you get some consulting work every year.  As often as not, the clubs take the MP and do it in house with the supers, etc.  The whole spending less thing has them consider avoiding architects at nearly all costs.


As to the other comments, yes, every renovation, maybe every feature on every hole of every renovation, is a separate case and a value judgement.  The easiest call to make is the 20-20 hindsight one, where no one knows what the gca was tasked to do, or why.  Sometimes, its obvious, like the road widening at SFGC. Most times, its not.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If it hasn’t been mentioned, - and because I just said this about The European on another thread - I think it’s very important not to touch the best few examples of each architect’s work other than to protect the original design.

[Tommy Williamsen]

If it hasn’t been mentioned, - and because I just said this about The European on another thread - I think it’s very important not to touch the best few examples of each architect’s work other than to protect the original design.

Pat tinkers with the course pretty much every year. Recently he add some length and change the routing for tournament play to include 12a and skip 2.

[mike_malone]

Before we leave it alone we need to get to well enough. For years we just assumed at Rolling Green that changes shown in the 30’s photos were done with Flynn’s imprint since they happened in the first years. But as time went by and some of us looked at the 1926 photos and the original designs compared to the 30’s changes  we changed to asking “ where’s the evidence; this work looks of lesser quality?”.  So that’s how we came to believe that the 1926 photos of as built were “ well enough”.


Few places are lucky enough to have the original evidence we had to decide this. We also had the 30’s photos and some Bausch articles to confirm early changes.


Then Riley Johns and Keith Rhebb found a 1928 photo which showed no changes from 1926.


Even with all of this and unquestionably one of the greatest architects of all time the desire to just leave well enough alone waxes and wanes.


So I would say Rolling Green is a great example of having been left well enough alone but still falls short of “ as great as it can be” by just being 100% of what it was originally.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If it hasn’t been mentioned, - and because I just said this about The European on another thread - I think it’s very important not to touch the best few examples of each architect’s work other than to protect the original design.

Pat tinkers with the course pretty much every year. Recently he add some length and change the routing for tournament play to include 12a and skip 2.

He’s allowed to do that, though. It’s still his design.


What I’d hate to see is someone come in and give it a naturalistic treatment. Because that is not reflective of the original designer.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Kyle Franz has been hired to renovate Raleigh CC, one of a few courses reputed to be Donald Ross’s last. I like what Rich Mandel did a bunch of years ago but this looks to be an extensive redo including enlarging some greens to allow for more pin placements, softening the slope on the fifth green, adding 22 bunkers, and increasing length by about 200 yards.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
And the cycle of change continues at Raleigh CC like it or not. 


Mike,
Did Flynn have a falling out with Rolling Green?  Why did he not continue to work on the course as he was alive and practicing as you know into the 1940’s.  Rolling Green is an interesting example as I tend to agree with Ally (if the original architect is still around and working why not let him make any changes).  As to preserving the best of each architect, not so sure that always makes sense for the reasons stated earlier. 

[JC Jones]

I would guess that the quality of renovations over the last 20-25 years exceeds that of any other period in history...and no question exceeds the quality of renovation from 1946-1993.  Off the top of my head, I am guessing that seeing LACC-North after Hanse's efforts was the first time I walked off a renovation simply blown away (I had played LACC-N 2x prior), and other examples might be Quaker Ridge (where I had belonged for 25 years), Cal Club and Old Town (although I had not played these prior to their reno's), Bethpage Black (I remember it w 3' high weeds growing out of hardpan in the bunkers), Hanse's work at Brookline starting w the 10th hole about 10-12 years ago.  There is no question in my mind the earlier great retro's/renov's "upped" everyone's game.


Now I am trying to recall a great reno or retro from 1946-93...cannot think of any (which does not mean there were none). 

A couple of thoughts on this, Paul.  First, you didnt really have sustained recessions during 1946-1993 so a) there were more new courses being built during this time than 1993-2020 and b) as a result, you didnt have as many architects going around selling renovation work to clubs with money because they couldnt get any new course commissions.  So, its possible that other than renos being done to beef up courses for tournaments, there just wasnt as much then as there is now.


Also, courses from the 1920's and 30's are all the rage right now so there is demand to restore those courses back to how they were when they were originally designed (whether the holes play better now or not).  Once courses from the 60s and 70s come back into vogue, and they will because everything is cyclical and people will get tired of giant putt putt courses and will once again (like our fore fathers) recognize that getting the ball airborne is a critical part of the game, you'll see much more of the post war and modern era courses getting the de-tree treatment.

[Tom_Doak]

Did Flynn have a falling out with Rolling Green?  Why did he not continue to work on the course as he was alive and practicing as you know into the 1940’s.  Rolling Green is an interesting example as I tend to agree with Ally (if the original architect is still around and working why not let him make any changes).

I don't know the history of Rolling Green, but surely you understand that sometimes architects have a falling out with their former clients.  I imagine it would happen ever quicker at a club, where a new committee might want to change some things, and the architect feels like they're not giving those holes proper time to be appreciated, and refuses.


I have done a couple of pieces of work to my own courses that I really didn't think was right or necessary, but figured, better me than somebody else.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:


I had a long Patrick Mucci type response typed out, with comments in green, but then deleted it because I didn't want to commit myself to the back and forth part to follow.


Your quote that I'd said maybe 10% of golf courses deserved to be restored is accurate -- and maybe the only part of the post I agreed with.     Although, I did like your comment that architects who don't want their work disturbed, should refrain from disturbing the work of others.  That's one reason I am trying to get out of the consulting business, even if the vast majority of what I've done was to restore others' golf courses.


The part I disagreed with most was the justification for tinkering that "no golf course is perfect."  In fact, there is no such thing as perfection in golf course design -- and that applies even more strongly to the second architect than it does the first.

Let’s cut to the chase; Tom doesn’t want others messing with his golf courses.  Honestly, I don’t blame him, I wouldn’t either.  But the reality is that NO golf course is built perfectly and without flaw and/or without need for some kind of improvements/modifications/tweaks in the future.  Unfortunately, golf courses are living breathing things that are subject to constant attention and abuse.  They do not hang on a wall to be preserved without touch for eternity.  If an architect believed strongly enough in not touching another architect’s design they would completely avoid doing the same themselves.  I don’t see that happening with ANY architect out there. 


Golf courses have to evolve to stay relevant.  Maybe not for ten years or even twenty years, but eventually they will need to change.  The old saying holds with golf courses as it does with most any business, if it stays stagnant, it will eventually die.


I consider myself more a purist and a restoration guy but that is because “sometimes” golf courses evolve for the worse and what was there before is better than what is there now.  I have always believed you need to investigate and do some research before you change things yet again or you will never know.  At the same time I don’t believe in restoring crap.  Tom Doak can correct me, but I believe he once said, “Maybe 10% of golf courses deserved to be restored.”  I actually believe that % might even be high but it does imply that the far majority of courses are better off having evolved and endured change. 



I mentioned St. Andrews as maybe the best example of a course that has been improved and spoiled at the same time.  Wouldn't it be great to see and play what it once was "if people had left it well enough alone"?  Then again, it is hard to argue that how it has changed and evolved has not improved it and kept it relevant for play today 


Note: I don't believe I have ever worked on a course (original design) where the current architect was still practicing.  The only one I can think of was a Pete Dye course and I asked him first if he was ok with me working on it and got a thumbs up.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I get worn out by the back and forth as well so I understand your reason not to post lots of comments.  However, I am surprised you disagreed with The Old Course as a great example??  At least give me your reasoning why you disagree with that one?   Is it because no one "original" architect had their name on it so it is fair game to change?  Do you really believe protecting a design from change just so we have current evidence of what someone did is the right path for a golf course?
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Regarding Rolling Green, I will let Mike answer as he knows more about the history of that particular Flynn course than I do.  Flynn stated active with his clients so something must have happened there if after only a few years the course was getting changed by someone else and not for the better 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I get worn out by the back and forth as well so I understand your reason not to post lots of comments.  However, I am surprised you disagreed with The Old Course as a great example??  At least give me your reasoning why you disagree with that one?   Is it because no one "original" architect had their name on it so it is fair game to change?  Do you really believe protecting a design from change just so we have current evidence of what someone did is the right path for a golf course?
Mark

I didn't understand what side of The Old Course debate you were taking, to be honest.  I was very vocal at the time the new work was undertaken that I considered it sacrilege. 


But the work was sold as "updating a course that was the product of centuries of evolution," just like you are advocating for all these other courses.  I thought that the R & A was entirely disingenuous about that -- no one had added a bunker there in nearly 100 years -- but it just went further to convince me that a lot of the justification for tinkering with courses is bullshit, and really, as VK stated much earlier, is more about guys with power and money exercising both.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Is that really true about the Old Course?  At our 1995 ASGCA meeting, I met the super, he talked, and he kind of did the "no changes ever been made" with the "wink, wink" look, and may have said something like "that didn't happen at midnight" etc.


Of course, TOC is one of the great examples of change being gradually accepted.  If Golf Club Atlas was around then, how would it have felt about Old Tom taking out the gorse and replacing it with turf. I think I read where there was some outcry at the time that it made the course "too easy" but I am sure someone else has researched it and can correct my memory.


I agree that many changes, even those made for the Open are ridiculous.  On the other hand, as times change, others become absolutely necessary.  Thinking in terms of the unintended consequences of improved irrigation messing up the scraggly bunker banks by making the grass too good, etc.  That leads to smoother bunker edges, until we get tired of them in general, and that leads to "chunked" bunkers to get an old look under new circumstances.  There are probably better examples.

[Jay Mickle]

Southern Pines aka The Elks/ The Royal and Ancient was redone in the late 80s and the original Ross greens were significantly changed to provide tiered greens on a majority of holes. The topography and routing of the course is superb, which leads one to wonder why the greens were so substantially altered.
Tee to green is great and the greens though not Ross are fun and interesting. I don’t know which iteration was better but I look forward to seeing what new ownership may choose. Perhaps the old greens may be found beneath the current ones.[size=78%] [/size]

[Ira Fishman]

The thread about Royal Dornoch goes on for seven pages and counting, but a lot of it really seems to be fighting between


(a)  people who don't see why the club couldn't leave well enough alone, and
(b)  people who believe even the best design can be improved upon.




In the hundreds and hundreds of threads we've had on Golf Club Atlas about restoration of golf courses, the topic of preservation lies in abstract.  Everyone here seems to be in favor of restoring great old courses, but most of them wouldn't need any restoring if they hadn't planted trees when everyone else did, or hadn't let Mr. Jones build his new tees, or hadn't let the green chairman tinker with the bunkering.  In short, they might have been fine, had the members been content to Leave Well Enough Alone.




Everything in design is a matter of opinion, so there is no real way to prove one's case here, whichever side you are on.  The one fact of the matter is that Leaving Well Enough Alone comes without cost and without risk, while redesigning a course comes with exchanges of money.  As a wise man once told Woodward and Bernstein, follow the money, and you'll understand the story better.


It is possible to IMPROVE a course by changing it, but it is also possible [though much less discussed, because no one is selling that point of view] to SPOIL a course by changing it.  There are plenty of examples of each, that many of us would probably agree with, even though it's all subjective.


To illustrate, let's each name an example on each side of the coin.


My input:


IMPROVED:  Rye, England
SPOILED:  Wentworth (West)

Tom,


Have there been any courses that you have started over largely from scratch or have done a major renovation that are not better than Leaving Well Enough Alone?


Ira