Leaving Well Enough Alone

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Thank goodness, because some of those greens (well, I'll commit to a front hole location on #14, I think, the par three) are just dumb.

But that's off topic, so I'm going back to reading this discussion now.

Edit:
- SPOILED: Oakmont (trees version)
- IMPROVED: Oakmont (post-trees version, current)

Improved over the previous no-trees version? I don't know.

[Tim Gavrich]

We seem to be dancing around the concept of deliberate imperfection in art and architecture. Indeed, there was a nice thread a couple years about wabi-sabi and golf, which Tom Doak started: https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66509.0.html


The Japanese aren't the only ones with an appreciation for imperfection, of course: https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/08/the-art-of-deliberate-imperfection.html


How much is Man's urge to compete and dominate borne out in these attempts to "perfect" certain golf courses, as if that's even possible?


My generation seems to be big on "authentic" experiences, and I have to think there are many cases where trying to buff features regarded as imperfect out of classic golf courses is an affront to the search for authenticity.

[MCirba]

My generation seems to be big on "authentic" experiences, and I have to think there are many cases where trying to buff features regarded as imperfect out of classic golf courses is an affront to the search for authenticity.

BINGO.

If the 17th at The Old Course was originally designed in 1950 instead of 1450? you can be sure someone would have moved the tee by now.   Yet, in doing so, and trying to perfect it, they would achieve just the opposite.

[Tommy Williamsen]

My generation seems to be big on "authentic" experiences, and I have to think there are many cases where trying to buff features regarded as imperfect out of classic golf courses is an affront to the search for authenticity.

BINGO.

If the 17th at The Old Course was originally designed in 1950 instead of 1450? you can be sure someone would have moved the tee by now.   Yet, in doing so, and trying to perfect it, they would achieve just the opposite.

I wonder if the tee shot was blind over coal sheds when it was first built. Anyone know?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Not trying to argue but I am sure you know the 17th hole at The Old Course has been redesigned many many times since 1450!

[Thomas Dai]

Mike,
Not trying to argue but I am sure you know the 17th hole at The Old Course has been redesigned many many times since 1450!

Anyone reckon such a hole would be allowed to be built on such a site these days?
atb

[MCirba]

Mike,
Not trying to argue but I am sure you know the 17th hole at The Old Course has been redesigned many many times since 1450!

True enough Mark, and I'd have to go back to recall the exact provenance but it's been awhile. 

Hey, maybe I'll do that today as I'm sure the whole story is fascinating.   I've got a little time. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
If you look in the book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards that Forrest and I wrote, we did a lot of research on the 17th hole at The Old Course and the origin of the Road Hole Bunker, etc.  As you know, it is not easy (especially with a course as old as this one) but it is fascinating to study. 

Thomas,
No, not with the hotel where it is but obviously the shed and the hotel were not there when the hole was first built.  It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of structure on the corner as early golf loved to play over obstacles but I am not 100% sure. 

[Mike_Young]

A question: is there any reason to believe that today's architects and club committees are any wiser or more well-intentioned than yesterday's architects & club committees?
I don't think so, but of course I could be wrong.

[Adam should've left well enough alone the first time Eve called him over to try this new fruit she'd just heard about. It's been downhill ever since -- but just think of all the money that's been made that otherwise wouldn't have!]

Peter,While in school and for two years afterwards I was a cabinetmaker and built fine furniture as well as other pieces.  My grandfather had been a carpenter and had taught me.  When learning he also taught me how to refinish using old methods such as french polishing, tung oil as well as sprayed on laquers.  I loved designing and building the furniture.  I hated refinishing existing pieces.  I think golf design is much the same way.  Some guys actually like to go to a classic or even any course and just find something to do to it.  I can't imagine a more miserable way to work in any type of design than to try to sell a committee on how you would restore such and then have to constantly answer to a bunch of dudes with all having a personal agenda.  So I have only worked for a committee one time. The other frustrating thing in working for club committees is something that happens in all walks.  If a committee buys a mechanic a mower he doesn't like then it will never work properly.  Same goes for a design with many supts...I have been fortunate to figure a way to function between getting jobs outside of committees or waiting on other full projects that might not ever make " the new construction list" someone just started.  And so I have several times told clubs they were crazy to do much of the work they wanted.  My own club demolished a perfectly good golf course 10 years ago.  That committee was no where near as wise as their fathers.  And today they do the same again.  The modern committee doesn't worry about the existing memebr as much as they worry about attracting the future member and outdoing the club down the road.  As for architects, I remember when the big signatures would not even look at a public golf course until the mid 90's and now they are hyping redo's...yesterdays archies didn't have a union hyping them nor did they dare suggest spending money the way it is done today..Next few years could be interesting.....JMO

[Paul Rudovsky]

Edit:
- SPOILED: Oakmont (trees version)
- IMPROVED: Oakmont (post-trees version, current)

Improved over the previous no-trees version? I don't know.

Erik--


Interestingly, in the case of Oakmont there was no architect involvement (I am almost sure) either in the tree planting in early 50's or tree removal about 20 years ago.  The tree planting in the '50's happened because of Herb W. Wind's New Yorker piece regarding the '53 Open where he said Oakmon had to be the hardest courses in the USA and maybe the world and how hot it was that week in Pittsburgh.  He was making the point that Oakmont was the perfect course for Pittsburgh (blue color town with bars serving shots and beers).  HWW said is th article that with no trees there was no place to escape the brutal sun.  The President of OCC read that and went to the board to get approval for a tree planting program.  Approval granted...and when I first played it in 1978 or so it was a 100% parkland course.  Assume most on GCA know how the removal came about...amazing how that started a revolution in golf course maintenance.


Best
Paul

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You are very correct about committees.  They can be very challenging (I have always believed it is more probably more challenging to do a restoration/major renovation than building a new course from scratch).  The far majority of my projects are with committees at private clubs and there is a huge difference compared to the courses I work on that are owned by one person or a municipality.  Having said that, it is all how you approach those committees/decision makers.  There are some architects that will say whatever they need to say to get the work and there are others that do things their way or simply walk away.  I have always taken the approach that I am there to understand the golf course (all its history if it has any) as best I can and to help educate/get the committee to look at their course a little differently.  It is rewarding when you can get a committee to see their course in a different light.  At the end of the day, it is then up to them what they ultimately feel is best for the majority of their membership.  And at the same time, if I have done my job, I hopefully have helped them get to an answer that we all think makes sense as well.  As you know, there are always compromises but the hope is that those compromises are far more positive than negative.  At the end of the day, you have to do what is best for that golf course and for those golfers who will play there and not just what is best for you, because the architect will not be the one playing there after the work is done (or paying for it). 

Paul,
The Oakmont tree story is a great one.  Note:  Fownes and Loeffler actually did plant a few trees (near some of the tees for shade) but most of those were ultimately taken down as well.  That course has a very interesting evolution and has changed quite a bit since first conceived. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

If one article from HH Wind was enough to convince a great course to change character by planting trees, I imagine today's committees, with all the free internet advice get really confused and torn in different directions.


I got involved with one club where the consulting gca proposed a total reroute, and a member who was against it dug out an article I had written in 2008 titled "Is re-routing worth it?" and generally concluding it was not, without specific merit and real problems that could not be solved any other way.  Apparently, my name got slung around in various board meetings to such a degree the green committee chair or club President eventually called me to apologize for getting me involved with no real dog in the hunt.


There is probably enough info out there that any one faction in a club could use to push their opinion.  They formed it on their own, but they sound more authoritative when they can quote numerous architects or other experts who supposedly tell them, without so much as stepping on the property what type of renovation they "should be" pursuing.


And, there is a human factor in any situation. There is and old story of one really obstinate member who was against everything proposed by the green committee.  After many drinks, he finally blurted out "I'm against it because the greens chairman slept with my wife!" Sometimes, objections or proposals aren't rationale, but then, rational thought can vary, and irrational thought can vary widely!

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
You are very correct about committees.  They can be very challenging (I have always believed it is more probably more challenging to do a restoration/major renovation than building a new course from scratch).   Explain that one to me...It is rewarding when you can get a committee to see their course in a different light.  At the end of the day, it is then up to them what they ultimately feel is best for the majority of their membership.    Most committees are self serving and the other members have to subsidize their wants or mistakes...At the end of the day, you have to do what is best for that golf course and for those golfers who will play there and not just what is best for you, because the architect will not be the one playing there after the work is done (or paying for it). I have found most committee driven works are solely to show off for the member guest, to wiener measure with the club down the street and often to help the supt get another job...

[Tom_Doak]

If one article from HH Wind was enough to convince a great course to change character by planting trees, I imagine today's committees, with all the free internet advice get really confused and torn in different directions.

Stuff like that happens all the time at the big name clubs.  Some of them are unbelievably insecure.


At Oak Hill a USGA VP came up on a visit and shot his age, and remarked afterward that if he could do that, the course didn't have enough potential double bogey holes to host a U.S. Open.  And that's what spurred them to hire George and Tom Fazio in the 1970's.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If one article from HH Wind was enough to convince a great course to change character by planting trees, I imagine today's committees, with all the free internet advice get really confused and torn in different directions.

Stuff like that happens all the time at the big name clubs.  Some of them are unbelievably insecure.


At Oak Hill a USGA VP came up on a visit and shot his age, and remarked afterward that if he could do that, the course didn't have enough potential double bogey holes to host a U.S. Open.  And that's what spurred them to hire George and Tom Fazio in the 1970's.

Not a big name club, but I wrote a review in a magazine a few years ago stating that a certain course’s low ranking was because it “was being held back by the weakness of its first six holes”. That was as far as I went, no other discussion on the holes in question.


The next year, the club sent a note to the magazine stating “Subsequent to Ally McIntosh’s advice last year, we have planted 100 new trees on the left side of the second hole”.


Firstly, my only advice was that sentence written in review. Secondly, it was - by the nature of being merely 12 words long - a hugely sweeping statement. Out of those 6 holes, the only redeeming feature was the wonderful dog-leg left second, which was beautiful and played well exactly because you could see the nicely sited green from the tee. This green is now blocked off by a copse of 100 new trees.


I always thought “why didn’t they just send me a mail and ask?”

[Jeff Schley]

Without appearing insensitive and with the disclaimer I respect each gca's view on the complexities when working with club committees, welcome to the real world.



The issue of having to please multiple stakeholders who have shared empowerment happens in many lines of work, in my 3 different careers even I can point out aspects of this in each. Group decision making (vs. individual) is a method of decision making by an organization and has well documented positives and negatives, which is taught with cases when getting an MBA. I don't have the cases nor want to go back and look that stuff up, but in general here is what I recall:
Group positives

• Can project more perspectives based on each members' viewpoint, thus you have a sample of viewpoints which represent the population
• Generate more information which eliminates blind spots
• Eliminates or minimizes personal bias

Individual positives

• Faster decision making, don't have to worry schedules/meetings etc.
• Can't escape responsibility for making the decision, they are held accountable
• Will save time, money, and energy for the organization as an empowered individual will make quick logical decisions

IME most large organizations/companies when making strategic decisions will almost always set up a committee of various stakeholders to make a recommendation.  The actual decision will vary based on the organization, maybe goes to the companies Sr.VP's and CEO, or perhaps is voted by the stakeholders (golf club), or in some cases the head of the organization will empower that committee to come up with a group decision and that is that.
In essence a GCA is an external consultant being utilized by golf clubs/courses. My company (oil and gas) is certainly among the top 5 worldwide in the amount of money we spend on consultants (everyone wants external scapegoats). I deal with them often and there is a process in place, which isn't unique to my company about how to select the consultant for XYZ job. It starts by gathering stakeholders for a wide angle view of what is needed and to come up with a criteria for what the consultant needs to deliver. Each stakeholder is in on the interviews and submits their score based on the criteria. Boom you select one and the consultant starts working with a scope committee, then later an implementation committee if their contract covers that.

The point being, now several paragraphs later, is that in the rest of the world committees are the norm and strategic decisions for organizations typically utilize them. So having a preference of not dealing with them I share, but as my dad used to say when someone at work would not agree with a decision....."Well then, its a good thing we're paying you....because it is a job."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Interestingly, in the case of Oakmont there was no architect involvement (I am almost sure) either in the tree planting in early 50's or tree removal about 20 years ago.  The tree planting in the '50's happened because of Herb W. Wind's New Yorker piece regarding the '53 Open where he said Oakmon had to be the hardest courses in the USA and maybe the world and how hot it was that week in Pittsburgh.  He was making the point that Oakmont was the perfect course for Pittsburgh (blue color town with bars serving shots and beers).  HWW said is th article that with no trees there was no place to escape the brutal sun.  The President of OCC read that and went to the board to get approval for a tree planting program.  Approval granted...and when I first played it in 1978 or so it was a 100% parkland course.  Assume most on GCA know how the removal came about...amazing how that started a revolution in golf course maintenance.

Thanks, Paul, I'd heard that story and knew it was a result of a "beautification" committee or something similar. If this topic is only about changes made by architects themselves, I'll withdraw Oakmont from submission.

I do recall the… 1994 U.S. Open, too, being a scorcher as well, and the trees surely helped a little, but it was still a sweatfest. Not many grandstands sit beneath trees - they're almost always exposed - so for large tournament play the trees didn't seem to have much of an impact.

Not to get into the weeds (or trees) too much, but has anyone ever written a lengthy article or book about Oakmont's golf course over the decades? I'd like to read it if so.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
There is less emotional attachment to a blank landscape that is ready to become a golf course vs an existing course that someone wants to come in and restore and/or remodel.  In those committees you often have members who were involved in the last "round of improvements", the guy who planted many of the trees, the member who stocks trout in the spring in "the pond that was added because someone felt they needed a water hazard", the person who took out most of the fairway bunkers on the right because they slice a lot,..., I can go on.  These are all the things that you have to deal with when changing an existing course. 


As far as self serving committees, the best ones are those that represent a microcosm of the whole membership and feel they are there to serve the best interests of the club.  They exit and I have worked with many like this.  As Jeff says, this is what we are getting paid to do and it can be fun and rewarding (even though it is challenging). 


Yes some committees (or members of those committees) have personal agendas but that is where the education part comes in and if you can convince the majority what the right thing is to do they often come around.  You can't always convert the naysayers or the ones that don't have an open mind but if you can at least neutralize them so they don't sabotage the whole project, you can get good things done.  Much comes down to the architect and whether they are there just to get work or there to help the club figure out what is best for the membership/golf course. 

[Mark Mammel]

Mark-There you have it. Thanks to GCA, GCS, and other collections of people interested in architecture and history many clubs do have small, consistent greens committees who consult with architects interested in the same. A while back Tom mentioned that he had advised my club 25 years ago as to what we needed. He and Jim Urbina came out and basically rebuilt our 8th green themselves, and made a number of suggestions. So it took a long (and continuing) collaboration with Jim to do the things they recommended. But we tried to bring the membership along and do it right. One reason we have been successful is that the same core of people have been involved and our changing board liked the idea that a professional rather than members "who know architecture" was running the show.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The tree examples just reinforce the "form follows function" mantra for me.


Shade is good, oxygen is good.  Trees produce both better than turf or natives.  For so many Midwest courses, if the main design goal was golfer comfort, planting trees was a good idea.  Granted, they didn't consider the "authenticity" of respecting the landscape, a la Prairie Dunes, and going virtually treeless as worthwhile, and it has some design, environmental and people benefits as well.  But, you are really designing for golfers first and foremost. 


So, for most courses, I don't think we are really objecting to the idea of tree planting as much as to how badly it was done, by not consulting architects or even arborists.  Typical amateur mistakes were cheap, faster growing varieties to get that shade faster, straight lines because of no creativity or design sense, too much of a good thing (i.e., just keep planting after an area is full) and not considering the mature size of the trees when planting.


For a modern example of form not following function, look at Trinity Forest, specifically designed to host an early summer PGA Tour event in Dallas, TX.  The decision was made to do a links course (odd, given Forest is in the name.....) and it had some technical aspects to it - designed on a former dump site, there are some issues with penetrating the soil cap, methane release, etc.  But, if the function was

host an early summer PGA Tour event in Dallas, TX, perhaps a tree planting scheme to keep customers shaded would have been the logical form to follow that function, and alas, the course lost it's tournament after 2 years, largely credited to no trees and spectator discomfort.

Short version, if a course didn't or doesn't work well for it's intended purpose, we can expect someone to point that out and eventually it will probably be corrected.  I don't think Tom is even saying that in a blanket way in his OP.  His complaint is when nothing is drastically wrong and yet someone wants it changed anyway.  Some situations are obvious, and black and white, others get more complex and are many shades of grey, where no decision is clear cut, but simply a choice of which single prism point of view is deemed relatively more important.


No course is the same as others to prescribe some predetermined agenda or formula for design, whether that was modernizing in the 60's, or restoration to the current "preferred look" of architecture intelligentsia now.  Neither are likely to be correct without careful individual study.

[Don Mahaffey]

Really Jeff? You're going to come here and say they lost the event because of course design after only two years? Lost it because of design? That's about as low a thing as I've ever seen written here. You might want to visit with the Tour to learn why the event was moved.  Hint...it's that old real estate saying....

[Peter Pallotta]

An aside:
Ironically, it seems that the only courses the golf/renovation industry is content to 'leave alone' are precisely those courses that could most use the help. No one is beating down the door to renovate the Doak 2s and 3s of the world: courses that would benefit greatly from skillful hands making thoughtful changes -- and where the positive results would be strikingly tangible, and not merely reflections of current fashions and tastes.
Instead, the industry seems focused on renovating the very courses (the 7s and 8s and 9s) where the positive results, if any, will almost by definition be incremental -- and in large part influenced by the current consensus opinion & conventional wisdom.
What does all this suggest? I'm not sure -- but it does seem that the industry's main goal is not to 'improve the overall quality and playability of golf course architecture in America'. The goal isn't to 'help many many courses become better' as much as it is to 'have a hand in making a very few already good courses different'.
 

[Mark_Fine]

Sorry Peter but you are wrong.  We only on this site or at least mostly on this site talk about the courses that make someone’s Top 100 list.  Hate to tell you but unless you are Tom Doak, that isn’t where the far majority of architects are doing work.  Most of us rarely get those chances to work on the top designs and the majority of the courses we are working on are of the “average” quality.  They just don't get much attention here.  Some of these course still have history some don’t, but we do our best given what are most often challenging budget constraints to help these courses offer a better playing experience to their golfers.  Sometimes just fixing mowing lines and/or doing selective tree management or re-edging bunkers and expanding shrunken green surfaces to restore lost hole locations can make a world of difference.  Not every redo needs to be (or is) a multi million dollar project to do something special to enhance the architecture for the golfers who play there 😉


I will add one example, Griffith Park - the Wilson and Harding golf courses in Los Angeles, CA.  These are two old George Thomas designs that never get talked about on this site.  Forrest and I did a Master Plan for these two courses (they used to do 90,000 rounds a year before the pandemic). Trust me the budget was not a zillion dollars to upgrade/restore/renovate, call it what you want, the two golf courses.  But even the changes that ended up getting done had a big impact on the courses.  Neither are in the category of an LACC or a Riviera but that is ok.  Thousands of golfers play there and they want a good experience as well 

[Tom_Doak]

For a modern example of form not following function, look at Trinity Forest, specifically designed to host an early summer PGA Tour event in Dallas, TX.  The decision was made to do a links course (odd, given Forest is in the name.....) and it had some technical aspects to it - designed on a former dump site, there are some issues with penetrating the soil cap, methane release, etc.  But, if the function was

host an early summer PGA Tour event in Dallas, TX, perhaps a tree planting scheme to keep customers shaded would have been the logical form to follow that function, and alas, the course lost it's tournament after 2 years, largely credited to no trees and spectator discomfort.

Jeff:


I would have thought a professional of your stature and experience would understand that you can't plant trees on top of a capped landfill, because eventually the roots would breach the cap.  It's one big reason I'm not fond of landfill golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Not a big name club, but I wrote a review in a magazine a few years ago stating that a certain course’s low ranking was because it “was being held back by the weakness of its first six holes”. That was as far as I went, no other discussion on the holes in question.

The next year, the club sent a note to the magazine stating “Subsequent to Ally McIntosh’s advice last year, we have planted 100 new trees on the left side of the second hole”.

Firstly, my only advice was that sentence written in review. Secondly, it was - by the nature of being merely 12 words long - a hugely sweeping statement. Out of those 6 holes, the only redeeming feature was the wonderful dog-leg left second, which was beautiful and played well exactly because you could see the nicely sited green from the tee. This green is now blocked off by a copse of 100 new trees.

I always thought “why didn’t they just send me a mail and ask?”

That's a great story.


But they didn't ask, because there was one guy in particular who wanted to plant those trees in that spot, and he capitalized on your vague suggestion as the impetus to do it.


That's what a lot of consulting is like.