Restoration/Renovation and Rankings

[JC Jones]

With chainsaws, old aerials and drones in hand, its has become de rigueur that a "restoration" results in an increase in rating/ranking of a course.  But, what is the outer end of this?  Can a 4 become a 9?  A 5 become a 10?


How possible is it that a course could go unnoticed, or relegated to the 4-5 range for decades and with new bunkers, stretched out greens, cut down trees and some healthy instagram coverage become one of the best 50 or 100 courses in the country?


Is this a result of so few new courses to hit the scene in the last decade that it gives us the sensation of fresh meat?  And, are these "restored" yet previously unremarkable courses really better than the new courses we've had built in the last 20 years?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Take a look here for Golf Inc.'s Renovations of the Year


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68611.msg1645110.html#msg1645110

[Ally Mcintosh]

Can a 4 become a 9?


No way.


Unless the ranker has missed the bones of the course in the first place... or has been suckered by aesthetics in the second.


Or unless the restoration is effectively a new course because the previous one had obliterated all sense of the original, routing included.


The only thing that can make a 4 in to a 9 on the same piece of land is a complete re-design. And even then, the first attempt must have gone out of its way to miss the mark.

[Kalen Braley]

For those who played it regularly and saw the transformation.  How you would you estimate Pasatiempo before and after?

I only played the after and its a 8 maybe 9 in my book.

[Eric Smith]

Bring in the right Instagram influencers and anything is possible, especially in 2020.

[Tim Martin]

Bring in the right Instagram influencers and anything is possible, especially in 2020.

E-I don’t think I have the staging capabilities of an influencer. Dare to dream!

[Eric Smith]

Bring in the right Instagram influencers and anything is possible, especially in 2020.

E-I don’t think I have the staging capabilities of an influencer. Dare to dream!

TimBob- As JC likes to say, IYKYK.

[Tom_Doak]

If a course was completely choked by trees, and every wayward shot was a punch out, I was probably going to give it a 4 or 5 back in the day no matter how cool the greens were.  Beverly was a good example of that, actually - I think I gave it a 5 back in my original book, and took some abuse for rating it so low.


I haven't seen the latest renovation - but I thought it was a 7 with all the work done a few years ago.  Ran must be campaigning for it as an 8 with his recent interview and profile, but he's nearly always a half point higher than me on restorations.


As noted, restorations are also partly a p.r. campaign.  Members and club leaders are eager to get some press for all the $ and sacrifice that goes into such work, with the result that raters feel some pressure to bump the grade a bit extra to recognize that effort.  Architects, too - with the occasional exception.

[Jason Thurman]

A couple Langford courses come to mind.


I'm not as in love with Spring Valley as some, but it certainly has the bones of what could be a very good golf course. It might be a 3 or 4 on the Doak Scale today, and I don't know if it would even rank that high on the average rater's 1-10 scale. I could imagine a reno/resto that puts sand in bunkers, recaptures and enhances the bold shaping, recaptures the green pads, thins some trees, and peels back some of the layers that currently keep the course from shining. But I don't think the routing or the property holds up to say, Lawsonia. Hard for me to see it becoming anything better than a 6 or 7. But it could be a 6 or 7 that sparks a lot of salivating reactions from Woke Golf Instagram.


Clovernook is near and dear to my heart, and I've seen the original routing map. It's already a good course - I'd probably give it a 5. Thin some trees, recapture some of the bold bunker shaping, build the bunkers that were originally on the map but never built on the course, and establish the giant shared fairway between 17, 18, and 10 from that original routing map, and you might have... well, another 6 or 7 that gets a LOT of Instagram love.


Thinking about it in the inverse - what if Crystal Downs had gone the way of pre-restoration Lookout Mountain post-Great Depression? Greens mowed in dull circles and reduced in size by 50%, bunkers abandoned, rough allowed to overgrow, maybe a few trees slapped around the property. Could poor maintenance and neglect conceivably have bastardized the course to such a degree that its greatness was no longer recognizable? It seems like a good example of a course that:


A. Is utterly awesome
B. Lacks the ocean views and other peripheral pizzazz that inspires Instagramming even when the architecture isn't shining
C. Has features so bold that, if neglected, they could become completely wonky. Like, what even is the 7th hole if the green pad shrunk to a circle right at the crook of the L? Or the 5th hole if the Three Sisters were grassed over and the fairway narrowed and turned into a simple dogleg left? 11 playing to a round green that sends every putt from above the hole rolling off the green?


I guess it's feasible to me that there could be a course somewhere out there with 9-10 potential, but in such an extreme state of neglect that most of us would see it as a 4 or so in current state. But it's pretty unlikely based on any actual examples I can think of.


What would you rate Southern Pines today, and how good could it be with a great renovation effort?

[MCirba]

I've played a few courses recently that have gone under the resto/reno knife in recent years and I think it's fair to say that a well-conceived plan and well-executed work on the ground can add upwards of two full points to a Doak Scale rating.    On any number of golf courses in the northeast, years of planting have created situations where you can't see the golf course for the trees and with a solid tree management program, all sorts of residual benefits result to the turf, the playability, the views, and the enjoyment factor.   

[Thomas Dai]

Are there courses where the DS rating has gone down after a restoration/renovation?
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

Are there courses where the DS rating has gone down after a restoration/renovation?
Atb

I don't know if Cog Hill 4 was in the original CG, but it seems to be a botched renovation. I only played it before when I thought it an excellent course.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

California GC jumped very high in my book but it is still not a 9.  I think it is more common to go from a 4 or 5 to a 6 or 7.  But that change can be huge for a course. 

[Tim Martin]

I’ve seen work on Golden Age courses where everything is executed beautifully except the architect changes the bunker style(shapes and sizes). I’m reminded of both a Travis course and an Emmet course which suffered the same fate from the same architect. In both instances there were sufficient plans, aerials, and or drawings to know the original scale and shapes. I don’t know how that gets slipped in if the marching orders are for a sympathetic restoration. Both clubs are very aware of their history.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Interesting topic. What was Moraine before/after? I have never seen it before or after in the flesh, but the pictures look absolutely stunning. What about something like Meadowbrook in MI? Or Orchard Lake?


How many points on the Doak Scale is it worth to go from a non-entity to an "it girl" on this site?


It is vitally important that we assign a value to every course :/

[Peter Pallotta]

I've played a few courses recently that have gone under the resto/reno knife in recent years and I think it's fair to say that a well-conceived plan and well-executed work on the ground can add upwards of two full points to a Doak Scale rating.    On any number of golf courses in the northeast, years of planting have created situations where you can't see the golf course for the trees and with a solid tree management program, all sorts of residual benefits result to the turf, the playability, the views, and the enjoyment factor.

Mike - I understand what you're saying and I defer to your opinion, but then doesn't it mean that raters (official or unofficial) are focusing on and rating their playing experience on a given day much more so than the design itself? You might answer 'Yes, that's exactly what they're doing, and that's the way it should be -- you can't divorce the architecture (as originally intended) from the golf course (as you find it)'. And if you said that I'd probably reluctantly agree with you. But then why should anyone be surprised if an un-restored/un-renovated little gem of a classic course, subjected to years of tree planting and green shrinkage and narrowed fairways etc, is for years and years rated quite low? And maybe (?) the only exceptions to this are those golf courses with such exceptional architectural pedigree and storied histories that raters already know about the greatness of the designs and thus are able to 'see' and focus on and rate that greatness even in its un-restored state -- and despite their actual playing experience.

[Sean_A]

I've played a few courses recently that have gone under the resto/reno knife in recent years and I think it's fair to say that a well-conceived plan and well-executed work on the ground can add upwards of two full points to a Doak Scale rating.    On any number of golf courses in the northeast, years of planting have created situations where you can't see the golf course for the trees and with a solid tree management program, all sorts of residual benefits result to the turf, the playability, the views, and the enjoyment factor.

Mike - I understand what you're saying and I defer to your opinion, but then doesn't it mean that raters (official or unofficial) are focusing on and rating their playing experience on a given day much more so than the design itself? You might answer 'Yes, that's exactly what they're doing, and that's the way it should be -- you can't divorce the architecture (as originally intended) from the golf course (as you find it)'. And if you said that I'd probably reluctantly agree with you. But then why should anyone be surprised if an un-restored/un-renovated little gem of a classic course, subjected to years of tree planting and green shrinkage and narrowed fairways etc, is for years and years rated quite low? And maybe (?) the only exceptions to this are those golf courses with such exceptional architectural pedigree and storied histories that raters already know about the greatness of the designs and thus are able to 'see' and focus on and rate that greatness even in its un-restored state -- and despite their actual playing experience.

You are probably right. But maybe an important element of architecture is enjoyment. It occurs to me that many descriptions of courses boil down to fun/enjoyment. A very important element for me is variety and I rarely see that properly achieved when courses have too many trees. Trees may be the single most influencing element when it comes to dampening variety.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

Are there courses where the DS rating has gone down after a restoration/renovation?
Atb

I dont know about the Doak scale, I'll leave that to Tom.


Interestingly, Pinehurst #2, which is an obvious top 10 course in the US and was already laughably low rated by Digest, dropped spots AFTER the restoration.

[Mark_Fine]

Pinehurst #2 is an interesting topic.  I know the course pretty well.  I loved the work done by C&C (even though they weren't allowed to touch the greens).  However, I have talked to many people (knowledgable ones as well) who don't care for the changes.  They think C&C just made it another C&C style golf course.  Just shows what people think of golf courses is very subjective.  And by the way I don't think GD ever had #2 "laughably" low.  For a while there the course deserved to be lower in the rankings as the bunkers were totally disconnected from everything.  I still loved to play it but architecturally it needed attention. 

[JC Jones]

Dating back to the 70's, #2 was always ranked in the top 10/12 courses in the Digest rankings.  For some reason around 2009 it dropped to 20, then mid 30s, then low 40s right after the restoration.  It has slowly crept up in the last couple of cycles but no where near where it should be given that Doak gave it a 10 back in the original confidential guide (when you said it needed attention) and its clearly a 10 now.

[Mark_Fine]

I will let Tom explain how he gave it a 10 back them?  Tom may be right about a lot of things but that assessment was off the mark.  But then again, I know he is a big fan of Nicklaus and Rees Jones “restoration” work so maybe I am the one who was off the mark 

[Tom_Doak]

I will let Tom explain how he gave it a 10 back them?  Tom may be right about a lot of things but that assessment was off the mark.  But then again, I know he is a big fan of Nicklaus and Rees Jones “restoration” work so maybe I am the one who was off the mark 

My original rating of Pinehurst Number Two was based on several visits between 1974 and 1988.  Mostly it was a recognition that the course had some of the most interesting greens in the world, but I also loved the strategy of the course.


I went back with one of my interns c. 2005 and was horrified at the mowing lines and the reduction of strategy in the design.  I remarked here on GCA that Pinehurst had always scored highly for having all the little details right, and now they were all wrong, and it was sad to see, like visiting your favorite uncle and finding he had dementia.


[I was told by one of the executives at Pinehurst that last comment helped trigger them to proceed with a renovation.  Of course, it also disqualified me from doing it, but at least it generated work for some of my friends.  [size=78%]][/size]
[/size]
[/size]So, luckily for Pinehurst, my published ratings of the course were in 1988 [which I didn't change in 1996 because I hadn't played it in the meantime], and 2015 [after the renovation].

[John Kavanaugh]

#2 has dropped in the rankings because the starter encourages the golfer to cheat because no one can tell a bunker from a waste area. Truth is, everyone knows.

[Ira Fishman]

I played PH2 four days after the 2005 US Open. That was kind of cool in terms of having just seen the Pros play it, but the course did not wow me--seemed to be one big field with some cool greens. My wife and I started making fairly regular trips to PN/MP, and I had no urge to work in PH2. Last year, Sheryl said she really like to try PH so of course I relented. I am so glad that she insisted. We played PH2 twice, and the course became one of my favorites. The fact that Ross could do so much using angles really impressed.


Ira

[Wayne_Kozun]

Are there courses where the DS rating has gone down after a restoration/renovation?
Atb

Highlands Links after Graham Cooke's renos a few decades ago.