Are we propping them up?

[Mark_Fine]

If we could bring them back, would Ross recognize Pinehurst #2 or Seminole?  Would Tillinghast’s jaw drop if he saw Winged Foot West?  Would Wilson and Flynn be amazed at how Merion has evolved?  Would Mackenzie know or believe he is even looking at Augusta National? 


We give a tremendous amount of credit to the Golden Age architects and rightfully so.  However, is it the efforts of others that are propping them up into super stardom among golfers and GCA enthusiasts?  We all know there are a ton of classic golf courses that may have benefited from restoration/renovation work which has helped them keep or improve their rankings.  On the RTJ thread for example, we talked about how many Top 100 courses RTJ currently has and some feel the number impacts their perception of how great he was.  If Gil Hanse goes and restores/renovates Old Warson and helps put it back on some Top 100 list as it once was, does that elevate/prop up RTJ in the minds of more GCA critics, golfers, etc? 


There is an old saying, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit’!  The problem in GCA is that it does seem to matter and maybe we are propping up the dead guys higher than they should be and/or giving them too much credit?  I know Tom Fazio would agree 

[Jim Sherma]

Mark - so true. We fetishize the original architects but forget how important the clubs that maintain and curate these courses through the years. Certainly these committee's and decision makers make some choices that they later regret but without the their resources and desires none of these great courses would be so. Many of these ODG courses remain great, or in many cases were re-worked repeatedly into greatness, because they are the pride and joy of wealthy clubs run by powerful people. These clubs have have the desire and resources to have their clubs be thought of as something special. 

[Tom_Doak]

There is no question that the name on the course influences its ranking.


Of course, Tom Fazio, Gil Hanse and I benefit from that as much as any old dead guy.  And that's especially true for the courses we restore, which is one reason why your clients with aspirations of rankings sometimes switch out to an architect they perceive can help them get there.


None of the examples in your first paragraph hold much water, though.  All of them would scratch their heads at today's level of maintenance, but the courses you mentioned have not changed that much physically.  MacKenzie wouldn't be too happy that Augusta had changed so much, but he would certainly recognize the place.



The current state of courses like The Valley Club and Shoreacres and Somerset Hills owe very little to me, except that I resisted the temptation others might have had to screw around and "update" them.  What's on the ground today is what MacKenzie and Hunter, and Raynor, and Tillinghast put there.  But their rankings may be slightly higher than some other renovations because people know I spent time there, too, and they believe that I wouldn't have left those courses alone if they weren't really good.


Twenty-five years ago I would have killed for designer-blind rankings; I lost a job to Rees Jones specifically because he had the better-known name.  Unfortunately, it's impossible to get there when golf courses are marketed by the designer's name, and every ranking is accompanied by a list of which designers worked on the most courses.  But if we could get there, you might be surprised at the results:  yes, maybe Langford or Flynn or Mike Young might do better in the polls, but my guess is that Donald Ross would have MORE courses in the top 100 if many panelists didn't have an unofficial glass ceiling for how many courses he should be allowed.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Thanks for the comments. Resources definitely play a huge role in the status of golf courses and how they evolve.


Tom,
Those examples I tossed out might not be the best ones though you seemed to agree with me about Augusta, that course has changed dramatically yet Mackenzie/Jones still get most of the credit.  We both know that many of even the best "restored" courses have changed quite a bit from their original days.  Maybe it is just superficial (from advanced maintenance practices) but many have been tweaked/refined/altered to some extent as well under the guise of "restoration" or just from evolution, land development, need for practice facilities,....  Do you for example really think Pinehurst #2 as it is today, is the purest example of Ross's work? I love the golf course but should Ross be the one getting most of the credit?  Again there may be much better examples but you know what I am talking about.  Take Pebble Beach as it is today.  Is that Neville and Grant or ??  I know you tend to give most of the credit to who did the original routing and that is fair but if someone does a poor make-up/wardrode job, one can make even the most beautiful women not so beautiful anymore.  The opposite holds true as well   

[corey miller]

I would be most interested in attempting to surmise how the original architects would feel about the courses that have been restored rather than if they would recognize them.


We can champion all these "restorations" but wouldn't the courses have been designed differently if the architects knew or projected how maintenance practices would change?  Would Tillinghast have built the same course at Bethpage with giant hole corridors if he knew that the fairways would be narrow with penal rough? Is restoration/expansion of greens as important/relevant with narrow fairways and high rough? Perhaps the greens would have been designed differently? 

[Mark_Fine]

Corey,
Good questions.  Obviously we won't ever know the answers for architects that have had their courses restored/renovated and are no longer with us to comment.  But in general, do you think we are propping up these past architects higher than deserved?  I know (or at least like to believe) that I have for example helped prop up Gordon.  There will always be some who beg to differ which is fine, but I like to think the work we have done at several Gordon courses has helped make them better.  I am sure someday someone will come back in and change them yet again (it is the circle of GCA) but in the meantime golfers/members seem to love the changes we have made and as such I think we propped up their old Gordon designs.  Note:  The intention on these projects was not pure restoration, it was more redesign in the original architect's style while at the same time trying our best to improve on it.  Gordon for example was at times very repetitive with his green side bunkering (bunker right/bunker left on every hole).  I sometime joke that he built some awesome greens but missed the bunker sessions when he was working under William Flynn .  Tom Doak I believe once said that maybe only 10% of all courses deserve to be "restored".  That percentage is probably about right.  I do believe that 100% need to be carefully studied, however, to decide if they fit in that 10% category.  That is where the time and effort comes in that not all architects have the interest in doing.

[Sven Nilsen]

No, we are not propping them up. 


If anything, we are not giving them enough credit.  Think of how many courses that were built during Golden Age that remain a joy to play today.  And I'm not even talking about the ones that have been updated to keep up with the modern pro game.


We will never see a period of expansion of the game like this country saw in the 1920's.  Most of those courses were built in the 6,400 to 6,800 yard range.  Even though those courses are too short for the modern professional game (although one recent thread might suggest this isn't always the case), they hold up for the vast majority of golfers.  As much as we complain about technology killing the game, the fact is the advances made over the last 90 years are minuscule compared to the leap that took place when the ball changed at the beginning of the last century.  Then, courses became obsolete almost overnight.  Today, the average golfer can still enjoy a routing that was put in place nearly a 100 years ago.


Obviously, there is a good deal of generality in the above.  And most Golden Age courses would benefit from a touch up now and then, whether it be to correct drainage deficiencies, update the few holes that don't work anymore or just correct years of maintenance malpractice and neglect.  Yes, that work makes those courses better, but it doesn't do anything to denigrate the efforts of the original OG's.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Well written.  I can't disagree with most anything you said.  I built my GCA career on restoration and embracing classic design principles as well as preaching about much of what you say, however, I thought this thread might provide some interesting and different perspectives.  We will see if it goes anywhere. 


I am off to Brookside CC, an old Gordon course that we currently have under renovation.  We have had some heavy rain the last few days so I expect a very wet golf course.  So far so good though with construction.  Lots to get done before Christmas and winter weather sets in.  I hope we are not doing anything to denigrate the past efforts of Gordon!


Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Well it's probably likely that Bill Gordon's work needs a little more propping up than Ross's or MacKenzie's.


I'm just more on Sven's side in thinking there are a lot of old courses that don't need much adjusting for member play, whoever built them.  I'd put half the restoration boom down to vanity and/or wanting to be noticed, more than needing to improve the golf course.

[Ira Fishman]

How much of the restoration boom is legitimate restoration i.e. undoing a misplaced renovation? I have played only a couple before and after, but the positive impact at PH2 is dramatic.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Good topic and discussion. But whenever we talk about what the great old courses were like in the great old days, I'm reminded of an interview Gene Sarazen gave when he was 94 years old, talking about playing Augusta right after it opened. Yes: only one man's opinion, provided to us decades after the original 'time frame' (so who knows how many revisions it went through over the years), but interesting nonetheless:

"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Yes some of Gordon’s work does need touching up but as you know, almost any course can sometimes be in need of touch up.  They are all aging and some not so gracefully.  Also, with all due respect to Ross, there are a lot of “Ross” courses that could use some tender loving care.  They are not all God’s gift to GCA.  I have worked on several and they all vary up and down in just how good they are (or once were). 


I mentioned this on another thread; I believe “restoration” was a fad that had a great run.  Yes much of it was for marketing purposes but much of it was very much warranted as many older courses had been changed and bastardized over the years.  I wrote an article years ago titled, “What is hiding under all those years of change?”  The answer sometimes was a great golf course.  Many times we found that to be true.  But these days more and more top architects who can’t stay busy doing new courses are getting back into “renovation” work and it is mostly is that - renovation vs the painstaking time and effort required to do restorations. There are some who still care about the dead guys and doing restorations but many feel otherwise. 


Ira,
I wish I had a good answer to your question but it is very hard to tell what are true “restorations” and what are not.  On an earlier thread we talked about Raleigh CC and the “restoration” work that was done there several years ago.  It changed ownership and yet another “restoration” was just completed.  You tell me who did what and what is or isn’t “restoration".  I see lots of these kinds of courses and restoration/renovation work (at least I used to before Covid) and the quality of the efforts covers the whole gamut.  It is also always hard to judge an effort unless you saw before and afters.  There are also sooo many other factors that impact restoration/renovation projects that unless you understand them, it is tough to be too critical of the course or at least of the architect.


Peter,
Those are really interesting comments from Mr. Sarazen.  He was a very vocal character so I could easily see him making those candid statements.  They are pretty harsh but feed right into what this thread about - propping up many of these older designs of past architects.  Tom thinks Mackenzie would recognize Augusta, I am sure he would, but would he be amazed at the transformation or be unhappy as Tom said he might at what happened to his design?  That is the question raised here.  Has Augusta (to use as one of many examples) propped up Mackenzie even more or not?  It is mostly referred to as a Mackenzie masterpiece (at least by TV commentators.  The same goes for Pinehurst #2's greens.  I know for sure Ross wouldn't recognize those but he gets the credit and many other Ross courses think theirs should look like those. 


I have done a lot of historical research on golf courses over the last 20 years.  Some of the early designs I have studied were pretty amazing, but not all of them.  Many courses, as I have said, haven't aged well and/or were tinkered with or changed over time and definitely needed attention.  Some only need careful and thoughtful touch up and should mostly be left alone but those are generally few and far between.  Even look at a course like The Old Course at St. Andrews.  If people knew how many times holes like the famous Road Hole were changed or tinkered with they would be shocked.  Did you know #1 and #17 at one time shared the same green?  It happens - even on hallowed ground. 

[Paul Rudovsky]

1.  Before the great Golden Age architects inspected their work today, they would need to understand what has happened in terms of equipment, distance, technology (both in terms of golf equipment and maintenance equipment). 


2.  Remember that in a lot of cases they would see greens with far less severe slopes that as originally built (unless they went to Brae Burn in Boston or Brookside in Canton, OH.  Tillinghast might ask who flattened #10 at WF-West.


3.  In many cases they would see courses that resemble their original creations more than if they had returned 20 years ago.  Examples...Oakmont, Quaker Ridge, Winged Foot...which were all built are virtually treeless farmland and due to tree planting programs (Oakmont in 1953, QR in early 60's I believe and WF in mid 60's) were totally transformed and became unlike their original concepts.  I believe that these (as well as a whole lot of other courses that have been restored) and much more like the original than the 1970's versions.


4.  Regarding ANGC in particular, in thinking back to the drone shots at last month's Masters, I am thinking the course is becoming overtired...something I do not think MacKenzie would agree with.  I had not noticed that watching the Masters in previous years and maybe the one angles exacerbated the situation.  Anyone else have the same feeling?

[jeffwarne]

4.  Regarding ANGC in particular, in thinking back to the drone shots at last month's Masters, I am thinking the course is becoming overtired...something I do not think MacKenzie would agree with.  I had not noticed that watching the Masters in previous years and maybe the one angles exacerbated the situation.  Anyone else have the same feeling?

I'm assuming you meant overtreed.
When Augusta planted multiple trees 10-20 years ago I was not a fan, especially with minimal limbing up and those ugly circular pines beds.
As they have matured, and the game has completely evolved, they make much better sense to me now.
As they've grown taller, a few have been removed and most limbed up. There is recovery possible on1, 7 and 11, something which had always been a hallmarks or my memories of The Masters.
(I still hate the confusing, no recovery mess left of 18 which is in play due to moving the tee back 60 yards.)
Given the complete balk by the USGA and the skill/speed improvement of the players, they've had to change and I believe they have a very nice balance again. I saw many, many recoveries at this year's Masters.


While the romantic in me hates a knee jerk lengthening and tree planting(at least they were very wide to start) reaction to the modern scale, it's certainly a better reaction than bottlenecking bunkers at 300, WF rough, TPC shot dictation and so many other reactions that also fail to confront the actual thing that changed-scale.
I will say they are one of the few that has the room to address the scale issue, and did a good job with it, but truthfully, lengthening only addresses one element of scale, but I digress,,,,,

[Peter Flory]

A lot of those old courses that needed restorations only needed them because they were tinkered with over the years and overplanted. 

Just think how much the 14th hole at OFCC South got watered down from what it once was. 


When Smyers was hired to renovate the South course, the version of the 14th that was sitting there was about 1/10th of what you see above. 

Also, many old architects seemed to have no problem revisiting their creations and their contemporaries' creations and updating them- like Ross did.  So I would think that if they were still alive, they would have done a lot of the same updates that our modern restoration experts implement w/ adjusting bunkers, moving tees back, etc.  They might decry the need for it, but they would want the strategies preserved. 

[Mike_Young]

There is just as much damage done as there is propping up.  So much of the so called "restoration expertise" has never routed a golf course.  The ODG courses that warrant so much praise today all have a routing that allows for " changes in the name of the ODG " and much of the other BS to continue....Lot of the really good ones were much better before the "propping up"

[Mark_Fine]

The comments about the original architects coming back often and tinkering with their own golf courses as well as those of others is very accurate.  They all did that just like is done today.  So the assumption from some that I am hearing being made is that current architects or “restoration experts” are just doing what the dead guys would be doing themselves - updating these old courses to keep them relevant for the changing times, maintenance practices, equipment, golfer demands,...etc.  As such the credit should still mostly stay with the original architects as they would have been doing this themselves.  I tend to agree with this. 


Mike,
I know you have never been a fan of “restoration” or “restoration experts”.  In some ways it is a good thing that some didn’t or don’t have a lot or any routing experience or they might have been re-routing these courses as well 


I don’t know how much before and after work you get to see but a lot of the before stuff was in much need of something.  The reason these so called restoration experts found a niche in the first place is because many of the more well known architects as well as green committees,...etc made all kinds of changes to these designs over the years to the point where they no longer resembled the original architect’s work.  Furthermore many of the current well known architects (with lots of routing expertise) could care less about some dead guy’s original vision and if they did have any free time away from building their own new courses, they would just come in and recommend a “remodel” of the course in their own style.  They had no time or interest in researching how the course had evolved.  I honestly believe the main reason we still have retained many of these old classic courses and helped bring them back to closer to what they once were is because there are some architects/restoration experts out there who still care about the ODG’s work. Otherwise there would be nothing to prop up as they would all be Fazio and Rees Jones redesigns    I remember asking Pete Dye if he thought Bethpage Black was a true Tillinghast design (back when there was controversy, his comment was, "It doesn't matter any more as now it is a Rees Jones golf course".  Pete's comments, not mine. 


To your one point though, sometimes I think we prop them up and sometimes we don’t.  I personally think when done well it is more of the propping up!  Obvious that all depends on who does the work. 

[Tim Martin]

Certain courses that never had the money to restore/renovate have benefited as a result. The sticking point being tree removal. As Mark has alluded to not many from the Golden Age have gone untouched.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I know you have never been a fan of “restoration” or “restoration experts”.  In some ways it is a good thing that some didn’t or don’t have a lot or any routing experience or they might have been re-routing these courses as well 

It's not a question of being a fan.  I just don't like all the BS surrounding such.  Remember the average club member probably considers the national long drive champion a professional golfer.  He may make a living hitting a golf ball but in most cases he could not play the tour.....There are architects and interior decorators...same goes for restoration...I'm just not impressed with "jacked up Ross or Tillinghast or what ever...



I don’t know how much before and after work you get to see but a lot of the before stuff was in much need of something.
I've probably seen more than most of the restoration experts...

The reason these so called restoration experts found a niche in the first place is because many of the more well known architects as well as green committees,...etc made all kinds of changes to these designs over the years to the point where they no longer resembled the original architect’s work.

Clubs realized they could hire guys who had convinced the DRS or the Tilly Society or whatever they were experts and not have to pay for the big names....

Furthermore many of the current well known architects (with lots of routing expertise) could care less about some dead guy’s original vision and if they did have any free time away from building their own new courses, they would just come in and recommend a “remodel” of the course in their own style.

Gonna call BS again...they will take anything they can get...

They had no time or interest in researching how the course had evolved. 
I honestly believe the main reason we still have retained many of these old classic courses and helped bring them back to closer to what they once were is because there are some architects/restoration experts out there who still care about the ODG’s work.

Speaking for myself, I care about the ODG's stuff to usually try not to do more than is needed and that is often not what committees want to hear, plus this site so often forgets that these clubs belong to the members and they can do as they please....they usually equate dollars spent with quality.

Otherwise there would be nothing to prop up as they would all be Fazio and Rees Jones redesigns 
I can appreciate their work.  And their businesses...
 

To your one point though, sometimes I think we prop them up and sometimes we don’t.  I personally think when done well it is more of the propping up!  Obvious that all depends on who does the work.
In summary...If I owned a Frank Lloyd Wright house I could appreciate an interior decorator reworking the kitchen and living area but if that person was not a person that had built an entire house I would not want them messing with it...that is not a slam toward anyone....reworking bunkers and greens is not anything like designing a golf course...so I find it amusing sometimes how we hype some these restoration projects.....But then we are hyping course nowdays that havent even been built or funded...

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,

Filter out all the BS that you don't like and that you think is out there.  Are the ODG's overrated and getting propped up too much or not?  That is the question. 


You might not like some of the "restoration experts" (I tend to think those that don't perform and satisfy their clients get filtered out pretty fast).  But what about all the good work that is done by those that you would say are deserving?  Is that good work propping up these old courses and giving too much credit to the ODGs?  This is not a trick question 


And by the way, you are absolutely right; many of the well known architects will take anything they can get.  That is why there is/were so many "restoration" opportunities out there.  Those guys came in and did as they pleased.  That is not BS, that is a fact.  Look at the before and afters at Winged Foot as just one of literally hundreds of examples.  How did Winged Foot get to where it was to need that kind of extensive "restoration"?  Or is it all BS?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Filter out all the BS that you don't like and that you think is out there.  Are the ODG's overrated and getting propped up too much or not?  That is the question. 
Maintenance props up more bad design more  than anything.


You might not like some of the "restoration experts" (I tend to think those that don't perform and satisfy their clients get filtered out pretty fast).  But what about all the good work that is done by those that you would say are deserving?  Is that good work propping up these old courses and giving too much credit to the ODGs?  This is not a trick question  I have never said I didn't like the "restoration experts" anywhere.....I just tire of all the smoke that is blown up the butts of so many clubs by all the experts. 
 
And by the way, you are absolutely right; many of the well known architects will take anything they can get.  That is why there is/were so many "restoration" opportunities out there.  Those guys came in and did as they pleased. 

Do you think many "restoration dudes don't come in as do as they please?  I know it's cool on this site not to like the guys such as Jones, Fazio etc but they are actual golf architects with product of their own.

That is not BS, that is a fact.  Look at the before and afters at Winged Foot as just one of literally hundreds of examples.  How did Winged Foot get to where it was to need that kind of extensive "restoration"?  Or is it all BS?Gil Hanse is a golf architect not a restoration expert...

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Regarding this exchange below; you didn’t answer the question of how a course like Winged Foot got to the point where it needed such a major “restoration”?  Courses like Merion spent $17MM on their “restoration”.  What happened to get to this point with courses like this?  I can name dozens and dozens of others.  What happened?  Are all these Golf Architects and Restoration Experts who apparently you think are not golf architects just BSing everyone to get all this work? 

[size=0px]That is not BS, that is a fact.  Look at the before and afters at Winged Foot as just one of literally hundreds of examples.  How did Winged Foot get to where it was to need that kind of extensive "restoration"?  Or is it all BS?[/size][/color][/size][size=0px]Gil Hanse is a golf architect not a restoration expert...[/size]

[Tom_Doak]

This thread has given me whiplash:


Restoration is great
We are propping up the ODG's, their original work wasn't really so great
We are just doing what the ODG would do if he were alive today
There's going to be more focus on redesigns now
Etc.

Gotta be careful not take a stand on anything, because it might prevent them from doing a 180 to get themselves some work two years down the road.

Kudos to Mike for not being in that camp.


P.S.  Winged Foot and Merion did not "need" to spend that kind of money.  They seem to have wanted to show that they could.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I am pretty sure what Mike is saying is that if one has not routed and designed a course from scratch, one should not hypothesize about what the ODGs would or would not think if they were still with us.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

I really don't care if Santa Claus restores some club's ODG course.  My gripe is that so many clubs and members are BS'ed with restoration hype.  FINDING THE COURSE AND ROUTING IT IS THE HARD WORK AND IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE COURSE THAT HANG AROUND...unfortunately there is not much routing required today and clubs think some guy drawing some bunkers and greens is as talented as the original.  Look, in most cases the entire routing is there.  You know where the bunkers were on his plan and you see his greens...you just needed talented guys on the machines...
Secondly, I'm all for this younger group of designers who have taken the route of getting in the dirt and actually building restorations...but trying to "STUDY" the ODG and then taking his originals and just putting them  on the ground doesn't float my boat.  That smoke is based mainly on how good your shaper is...   Thirdly, IMHO the more you spend the more you mess it up...not saying it is not a good product but not really needed in most cases... Fourth, most clients don't know if they got good or bad...they base it on how good the PR person is that they paid for...