Are we propping them up?

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I think your assessment about Mike is correct.  I wonder what he thinks about my friend Ron Forse who Ran calls in his interview a “restoration expert”.  How many original Ron Forse courses have people on this site played?

Tom,
My head is spinning too.  Maybe I am to blame.  My initial question was genuine and simple.  If you read Tom Fazio’s book he is very clear with his opinion.  This thread has gone off on some tangents but I was really curious what people here thought?  At least we have Mike’s opinion 

[Sean_A]

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

Seems like a good take. All courses need additional work from time to time to maintain the fabric of design. That is not what I would call propping up. Its the lack of this type of work and left turns in design upgrades which have largely led to courses being a shadow of the original concept.

I think most designers would recognise their courses, but be disappointed in maintenance costs and change to the original designs. Does anybody really think Ross would be pleased with #2 greens?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

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? 

Lets overlook golf for the moment and look at what things were like in say the 1920's, ie circa 100 yrs ago -
USA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kjqZwAAUDk
London - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlEOEamaRiQ

As to golf -
1920 US Open - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1D8xpwrXp4
1920 - Vardon and Ray - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2mB-4bag4

Bit different to the present day!
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
You said it well.  All courses need some touch up and but unfortunately, many have been more than just touched up to the point where they are as you said, a shadow of their former self. 


Tom made a comment on this thread that Winged Foot and Merion for example didn’t “need” to do or spend what they did.  He is most likely right but obviously others disagree with him or they wouldn’t have done what they did.  On that note, did Oakmont need to do what they did?  What about LACC or Shinnecock Hills or Belair or Pinehurst #2 or Seminole or Cherry Hills or Shoreacres or Oyster Harbors or ….?  What should a course who is planning work like The Olympic Club do?   I could go on and on and on.  These examples were/are all well functioning golf courses and probably didn’t need to do anything, or did they?   How did they all get to the state that they were in (some as Sean said, only a shadow of their former selves).


I know Mike Young disagrees with me but I believe that restoration specialists have played a valuable role in GCA (and it is not all BS as Mike likes to point out).  I like to tell the story about my home club Lehigh CC.  Back in the early 90’s before I joined in 1997, the club hired the noted Golf Architect, Arthur Hills to do a Master Plan for the course.  I actually really like many of Mr. Hills' courses that he has done around the country.  He is an excellent Golf Architect in my opinion (and I know he is a Golf Architect for sure thanks to Mike Young’s definition)     However, as Mr. Hills was driving up the entrance lane to Lehigh CC in the early 1990's to present his proposed Master Plan to the Board he said to our Superintendent who had picked him up at the airport, “So John, who was it that originally designed your golf course?”      Thank goodness John had enough savvy and instinct to think this might not be the right architect and plan for Lehigh.  The Hills Master Plan (which by the way was a complete redo/partial re-routing with two brand new holes) was thankfully shelved and some “Restoration Specialist” named Ron Forse was hired instead to help enhance and retain our wonderful William Flynn design.  Whether Mike likes it or not, this kind story was repeated over and over again all over the golf world.  Call them what you want, those consultants/designers/architects,... who focused on and were passionate about restoration played a vital role in us being able to sit here right now and even have a discussion about propping up the ODGs otherwise many of the great classic courses not only would be a shadow of themselves, but would be lost for good!

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I'd be curious.  Who on this site, which are in the business, have never participated in restoration/renovation work?  I know opinions vary, but as the saying goes, actions speaks louder than words...

[Mike_Young]

Mark,

I'd be curious.  Who on this site, which are in the business, have never participated in restoration/renovation work?  I know opinions vary, but as the saying goes, actions speaks louder than words...

Not sure if there is anyone who has not participated in rework.
All I'm saying above is that I don't care what anyone is called as to architect, restoration expert etc...I'm saying the public doesn't know how good many restoration expert types would be with their own work because many have never routed enough or designed enough from scratch to be judged  BUT the golf world is presently placing them in the same boat as guys who have done their own work....and there is really no way to know how good they are...   two different animals...

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
If you are asking me specifically, I really don’t know the answer. 


Mike,
Isn’t the end product that is delivered to the client what is most important? Did it really matter back in the early 90’s if Ron Forse had done a bunch of his own designs?  Lehigh didn’t care about that. They (at least in my opinion) needed someone who knew something about the history and evolution of Lehigh’s William Flynn design and had a team that could deliver/restore that original vision.  Hills could care less about any of that.  Hills’ “new” design might have been outstanding but it would have eliminated what is considered one of the best William Flynn courses still in existence. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

That's a great point.  I can relate to that a bit when I tell people I work in tech and they assume certain things about my background when in reality there is a massive disparity of roles, experience, jobs, tasks, etc in this business that makes it a proverbial zoo full of animals! 

P.S.  Its funny you chimed in first, I thought you'd be the one to say "Never!" 

[V_Halyard]

Mark,

I'd be curious.  Who on this site, which are in the business, have never participated in restoration/renovation work?  I know opinions vary, but as the saying goes, actions speaks louder than words...

Not sure if there is anyone who has not participated in rework.
All I'm saying above is that I don't care what anyone is called as to architect, restoration expert etc...I'm saying the public doesn't know how good many restoration expert types would be with their own work because many have never routed enough or designed enough from scratch to be judged  BUT the golf world is presently placing them in the same boat as guys who have done their own work....and there is really no way to know how good they are...   two different animals...

First of all. Routing a golf course is likely the hardest part of the process so fully I agree that the original outweighs the restoration. Most people I know can't even read a topo map.
So I'm not going to argue with you there, but I will speak specifically from the viewpoint of one that was intimately involved a contentious restoration. Our Ross course was a so over treed that not only were the greens choked with moss, the fairways were soggy.
We needed more than a restoration and we were blessed with a reclamation.
I am not familiar with what has you twisted here but I will say unequivocally, our restoration reduced what had become a course that had none of the angles, width, shot values, lines of play, nor characteristics intended by the original architect, Ross.  One architect we interviewed wanted to change the routing, blow up very nice original Bendelow/Ross greens that pre-dated Ross and still had original green pads. His artful reinterpretation was denied.
Our course was so overgrown that the original routing was obscured.
One had no idea where the original routing was unless you looked at aerials.
Our project restored all of those and we received the accolades for the effort.
Our restoration architect is horrible at self promotion. His own worst enemy. He had zero hand in any "Propping up". What he did do was effectively asses our situation, devise a plan that fit our budget, and helped guide us through the process that resulted in a course that out performed expectations. The effort was delivered on a shoestring because that is all the money we had on hand.

What I will vehemently disagree with you is that I am resolute that the architect that delivered our project deserves all of the accolades accorded because he took a tract of land that had devolved into a bog and restored it to a viable and excellent Donald Ross.
And to add to that, we are going to have to do it all again because of a massive wind storm... and that effort should be recognized again for being a skilled restoration that adjusts the course to a natural and violent evolution of the land.

You can get your shorts in a binder regarding the recognition and celebration of an original course vs a restoration, but I would caution you to not snipe at the success of efforts where members/owners/municipalities and other entities have funded and helped deliver restorations are extremely pleased with the results. In our case, we are the ones paying the dues and hosting the events for satisfied members, players and groups.

[Mike_Young]

Vaughn,
First..my shorts are not in a binder and I am not twisted up here.  Just listen to what I am saying.
Your architect happens to be a very good friend of mine.  He has routed and built his own work.  He's put the time in.  YET there are many presenting themselves as restoration specialist who have not.  They are only as good as the shaper and crew they find.  And yet some club or developer might mistakenly think they can design the guy a good golf course.  And perhaps some can. 

HOWEVER, my long term gripe with all the restoration smoke and BS is opinion that YOU CANNOT PROP UP A BAD ROUTING.  Thus a restoration expert is not propping up the works of the ODG's that can stand the test of time.....THERE ARE PLENTY THAT DID NOT STAND THE TEST.  You can give them a haircut, change their make-up or whatever but spending exorbitant dollars is more in line with a tummy tuck, stomach staple etc.  Just like the best hair style on a 400 pound babe doesn't really help a lot...a"restoration expert" on a bad routing does the same...
And check in with your archie, I think he knows how I see this stuff and agrees with me.  I just have a hard time suffering BS...

[Mark_Fine]

Vaughan,
Nice post!!


Mike,
You still didn't answer my questions?  Talk about BS, what about the plan that Hills presented to Lehigh?  Your thoughts on that?  Also, I agree with you, you can't or at least shouldn't put whipped cream on crap, but a lot of times, if you remove the current crap that has accumulated there over time, sometimes there is something worth putting cream on (as Vaughan's example describes). The easier option is to just build over it which sadly many do.  Also, isn't what is most important the product that is ultimately delivered?  And the last I checked, EVERY successful project requires a team approach not just some restoration expert or golf architect, call them what you want, waving their hands.  There are lots of different paths an no degree that I am aware of in golf course architecture (did Pete Dye get one at the insurance agency he worked at or George Bahto at his dry cleaning business?)  There are many different ways to "put in the time" and develop expertise!  Furthermore, the best in this business surround themselves with great people who know about things that they might not know.  Every one on the team brings their different strengths and that is what makes great teams.  Speaking of strengths, I remember playing Shelter Harbor in RI, a Mike Hurdzan and Dana Fry design. I loved it but what struck me the most having played dozens of H&F designs was that the bunkering was some of the best I had ever seen from Hurdzan & Fry.  I asked about it when I finished up my round and found out that they were lucky enough to have Jeff Bradley do all the shaping     Talk about a team effort.  Now should Mike and Dana get the credit for the great bunkers or was it Jeff who really helped "prop them up" 

[Mike_Young]

Vaughan,
Nice post!!


Mike,
You still didn't answer my questions? ANSWERS BELOW
 Talk about BS, what about the plan that Hills presented to Lehigh?  I DON'T HAVE A CARE ABOUT LEHIGH OR WHAT HILLS PRESENTED Your thoughts on that? 

Also, I agree with you, you can't or at least shouldn't put whipped cream on crap, but a lot of times, if you remove the current crap that has accumulated there over time, sometimes there is something worth putting cream on (as Vaughan's example describes). The easier option is to just build over it which sadly many do.  Also, isn't what is most important the product that is ultimately delivered? I DON'T CARE WHAT A CLUB DOES..IT'S THEIR COURSE
 And the last I checked, EVERY successful project requires a team approach not just some restoration expert or golf architect, call them what you want, waving their hands.  There are lots of different paths an no degree that I am aware of in golf course architecture (did Pete Dye get one at the insurance agency he worked at or George Bahto at his dry cleaning business?)  IS THIS TO MAKE A POINT OR TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME?  I'VE HAD A TEAM SINCE 1988...
There are many different ways to "put in the time" and develop expertise!  Furthermore, the best in this business surround themselves with great people who know about things that they might not know.  Every one on the team brings their different strengths and that is what makes great teams.  I CONSIDER MY TEAM ONE OF THOSE
Speaking of strengths, I remember playing Shelter Harbor in RI, a Mike Hurdzan and Dana Fry design. I loved it but what struck me the most having played dozens of H&F designs was that the bunkering was some of the best I had ever seen from Hurdzan & Fry.  I asked about it when I finished up my round and found out that they were lucky enough to have Jeff Bradley do all the shaping     Talk about a team effort.  Now should Mike and Dana get the credit or was it Jeff who really helped "prop them up"      WHOSE NAME IS ON THE CARD?  I DON'T GET THAT QUESTION...SO ONE MORE TIME:  A GUY HAS 250 ACRES OF TREES AND WANTS A GOLF ARCHITECT...ONE GUY HAS ROUTED 20 COURSES AND BUILT THEM AND IS PRESENTING...THE OTHER GUY HAS NEVER DONE SUCH BUT HAS LOOKED AT THE DRAWINGS OF ONE OF THE ODGs AND BUILT A FEW GREENS AND BUNKER RENOVATIONS.....AND HE IS PRESENTING...IT'S TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS DUDE...GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ART HILLS, LEHIGH OR JB DOING BUNKERS TO PROP A GUY UP...

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
There is no question that designing a whole course from scratch is a much different task from building a few bunkers and a new green here and there.  Does that make the person who lead the one project better than the other?  Is that what you are saying?


Maybe Tom Doak will chime in and state whether he thinks it is easier to build a new course with one owner to deal with or restore an existing course and deal with committee upon committee of members who also think they are golf course architects    Both tasks can require different skills and challenges to overcome to be successful. Why are you belittling guys like Ron Forse who when he got that Lehigh job he wasn’t some well know celebrity golf architect.  Ron literally saved Lehigh from becoming another lost classic gem.  The members at Lehigh thought they were doing the right thing when they initially hired a well known established golf architect like Hills to do their Master Plan.  If the Lehigh super didn’t have some clue that the Hills plan might be a mistake, we would now have a Hills design instead of what Golf Magazine listed as one of their Top 100 courses in the early 2000’s.  Maybe you don’t care but I am glad someone else did.  Vaughan probably feels the same about his Ross course.  It might have turned into a Rees Jones special 

[Sven Nilsen]

Am I wrong, or was the premise of this thread that work of the restorers often leaves a better course than what the original architect first built, and thus it is the restorer that is propping up the reputation of the original guy?


Seems like there are so many tangents going on here that I can't quite follow any one individual post, let alone a slurry of them.


Sven

[Sean_A]

Vaughn,
First..my shorts are not in a binder and I am not twisted up here.  Just listen to what I am saying.
Your architect happens to be a very good friend of mine.  He has routed and built his own work.  He's put the time in.  YET there are many presenting themselves as restoration specialist who have not.  They are only as good as the shaper and crew they find.  And yet some club or developer might mistakenly think they can design the guy a good golf course.  And perhaps some can. 

HOWEVER, my long term gripe with all the restoration smoke and BS is opinion that YOU CANNOT PROP UP A BAD ROUTING.  Thus a restoration expert is not propping up the works of the ODG's that can stand the test of time.....THERE ARE PLENTY THAT DID NOT STAND THE TEST.  You can give them a haircut, change their make-up or whatever but spending exorbitant dollars is more in line with a tummy tuck, stomach staple etc.  Just like the best hair style on a 400 pound babe doesn't really help a lot...a"restoration expert" on a bad routing does the same...
And check in with your archie, I think he knows how I see this stuff and agrees with me.  I just have a hard time suffering BS...

Does a restoration archie absolutely need routing skills to restore a course?

I think there are different levels of expertise and different people suitable for certain jobs.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Thanks for continuing to stay chimed in. I value your thoughts and insight.  And yes this thread has taken all kinds of tangents though some are related. 


If there is one thing most of us seem to agree on is that modern maintenances practices and technology have had a dramatic impact on the change and the evolution of golf courses.  Where we still might not all agree is whether that is positive or negative?  But whether Gil Hanse’s work for example just made Winged Foot West a Doak 9 from a Doak 7.5 or 8 or simply returned it to what it once was, the jury is still out.

Sean,
My point as well 

[Ira Fishman]

A few observations:


1. Architecture from scratch is several orders of magnitude different than restoration.


2. Outstanding restoration is several orders of magnitude different than tweaks and tucks.


To Mike Young's point, it is pretty rare to be in bucket 2 if one has not been in bucket 1.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Sure, Mark, I'll chime in.  I agree with Sven.  You started this thread suggesting that "we" [as in you, and other restorers] really deserve more credit than "we" get for making Donald Ross and William Gordon look like geniuses.  Mostly, everyone but Vaughan has disagreed, and said that the guy who put together the routing and built the course originally deserves most of the credit. 

It's likely that the restorers have made some changes for the better along the way, but also possible that they think more of their changes than they should.

Restoration can be very hard, extensive work -- restoring Bel Air cost more than 36 of the 38 new courses I've built.  Likewise, restoring a painting is painstaking work, but I don't see anyone's name but Leonardo on the Mona Lisa.


P.S.  "There you go again" -- Winged Foot was a 9 in The Confidential Guide when Gil Hanse was still in college.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Thanks for stepping back in.  I have to remember when I say a Doak score I am  usually referring to my own assessment using your scale and and not what you gave it.  Honestly I had no idea what your own rating was for Winged Foot West so sorry about that.  By the way if you thought what was there was already a 9 I will be very anxious to see what you think after Gil’s work. 


My own goal and I think that of many others when doing “restoration” work is when finished, no mark is left and no one knows you were even there.  If I am working on a Ross course, it should just look more like an authentic Ross and not like Desmond Muirhead was there    As such it is not about credit for the restorer but credit for the original architect.  I tried to use in my first post projects that most here would think are a success and just asked if the work that was done was essentially making the course better than the original.  Things digressed a bit from there.


Your analogy with a classic painting is a very good one.  A pure restoration would clearly be returning to the original painting and all the credit for that painting should go to the original artist.  There can be separate credit for how good the restorer was but that should be separate.  Golf courses are not so clear cut and my question was more in line with are some of these “restorations” or renovations going beyond that and actually propping up the original designs higher than they originally were?  Peter’s post about Sarazen’s comments on Augusta National point to what I am getting at.  Mr. Sarazen clearly thought the original design needed more than just some touch up to be great.


Ira,
I agree with your comments but the end result is what matters.  If it is only nips and tucks that were done and required then so be it.  If it was a much more extensive project then the proof is in the end product.  You might be surprised if you saw more before and afters.  Maybe more people here that have been involved with or seen such efforts will chime in. Again we know this is all subjective.

[V_Halyard]

Sure, Mark, I'll chime in.  I agree with Sven.  You started this thread suggesting that "we" [as in you, and other restorers] really deserve more credit than "we" get for making Donald Ross and William Gordon look like geniuses.  Mostly, everyone but Vaughan has disagreed, and said that the guy who put together the routing and built the course originally deserves most of the credit. 

It's likely that the restorers have made some changes for the better along the way, but also possible that they think more of their changes than they should.

Restoration can be very hard, extensive work -- restoring Bel Air cost more than 36 of the 38 new courses I've built.  Likewise, restoring a painting is painstaking work, but I don't see anyone's name but Leonardo on the Mona Lisa.


P.S.  "There you go again" -- Winged Foot was a 9 in The Confidential Guide when Gil Hanse was still in college.

Nah, I didn't disagree, in fact I stated up front that routing is the hardest part and the original outweighs the restoration. What I took issue with is the notion that restoration architects are being artificially propped up or should not necessarily be recognized because they didn't route it. If an originally routed and architected course (by a dead architect) has devolved into an unrecognizable swampy bog, a (Live Architect) that restores it to excellence should be recognized. If they f*c* it up, they should be vilified. If they take credit for stuff they didn't do, they should be called out.

I do know you and I disagree if a restoration architect should be credited, not most of the credit, but credited. If I have somebody re record a classic song, we credit all of the players and performers for their performance. You make a valid point that Nobody but Da Vinci is listed on the Mona Lisa but that is more of a direct match by Pantone preservation/re-creation whereas nothing in golf architecture is the same as it was 80 years or even 10 years ago. We are going to be real-time example as our recently restored course is completely different than it was last August. We are 2020.

Dolly Parton wrote "I Will Never Love You" yet the song was not overly noteworthy until Whitney Houston sang it. Dolly still gets credit for writing it and singing it but Whitney made it famous and gets credit for that. Nobody ever says Dolly didn't write it. Same with Prince and Sinead O'Connor. I could go on. Some remakes are good, others are bad. Same with golf and all architecture. It also goes both ways, both credit and blame should be recognized and credited, regardless if they make it better or worse.
They don't get the original credit but they shouldn't be left off of the "album".

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
There is no question that designing a whole course from scratch is a much different task from building a few bunkers and a new green here and there.

Dude , you've ticked me off a little with your last two notes back to me...I'm not sure what you are after from me but you asked about propping up.  My basic answer was that good routings (and original green complexes) prop up "restoration experts much more than vice versa. 
Does that make the person who lead the one project better than the other?  Is that what you are saying?

You are talking two entirely different types of projects. 
Let's say you have a Master furniture refinisher and a Master cabinetmaker of fine furniture.  Is one better than the other. NO.... Who would you hire to build you a piece of furniture?  Neither is better than the other...  Now if a drawer needed repairing or a door needed replacing the refinisher, in most cases, could do it.  But he would be copying what was designed by the original   
Now, let's say we look at the websites of both the refinisher and the cabinetmaker and there are a hundred rare antiques the refinisher has refinished and the cabinetmaker has maybe 50 pieces of well done fine furniture he has built from scratch.  Is it a misrepresentation to say you have 100 pieces to your credit vs. the other's 50?   Who would you choose to build you a new piece of furniture?  Is one better than the other?  Yes, the cabinetmaker has the skill of building it and finishing it.  That's a trained thing not a personal attack thing...Taking a golf course with a old set of plans and trying to replicate such on an existing course with lakes, fairways etc in existence and  overlaying the ODG original green outlines on a master plan is not the same as taking 250 acres of forested land and creating a good golf course. 
Maybe Tom Doak will chime in and state whether he thinks it is easier to build a new course with one owner to deal with or restore an existing course and deal with committee upon committee of members who also think they are golf course architects    Both tasks can require different skills and challenges to overcome to be successful.
Why Tom,  is that one of the hot buttons that give one credibility and approval from this website?  Would you like my opinion since I have also dealt with both?  As a note, I don't get my jollies from approval of this site or do I feel this site gives me unearned credibility... what's this Lehigh thing?  Is it some big job I should know about and why are we bringing it up?

Why are you belittling guys like Ron Forse who when he got that Lehigh job he wasn’t some well know celebrity golf architect.  Ron literally saved Lehigh from becoming another lost classic gem.

Ok, this is where you tick me off...don't put words in my mouth...ok?  I have never belittled anyone on this site.  And Ron has not been mentioned by me in this thread.   But you want to talk "belittle". If I was Mike Hurdszan or Dana I would tell you to go F yourself....Jeff Bradly is great and may be another button that makes one "cool" on this site...but you basically said H&F needed propping up on a job...think about it...

The members at Lehigh thought they were doing the right thing when they initially hired a well known established golf architect like Hills to do their Master Plan.  If the Lehigh super didn’t have some clue that the Hills plan might be a mistake, we would now have a Hills design instead of what Golf Magazine listed as one of their Top 100 courses in the early 2000’s.  Maybe you don’t care but I am glad someone else did. That's great.  To me it sounds like Hills might be a safe name one can belittle on this site...

 Vaughan probably feels the same about his Ross course.  I thought Ben D. Low did Vaughn's course.But maybe that was earlier.    It might have turned into a Rees Jones special     OK..if that club wanted a Rees course that's fine...the key to any of these is having a guy like Vaughn who can convince his membership.

[Peter Pallotta]

From reading here over the years: if you want a great restoration you'd better have a [once] great golf course to start with. If you do it doesn't guarantee success, but if you don't you're actually not 'restoring' anything but renovating it instead. And that's fine too: why not renovate an average old course to make it better. But I suppose what Mike is saying is that if you do have a great course to start with it's mostly because of the routing.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark et. al,

I apologize if my question got the thread off-track, it wasn't my intent.  Just genuinely curious if anyone had forgone work that wasn't "original" due to a moral crisis of sorts.

After re-reading this entire thread, I think my answer to your question would be "Yes", but I don't find anything wrong with that.  If you find an old car in a barn and restore it with original parts as close as possible to the best of your knowledge and resources at your disposal, I think that is certainly a worthwhile venture.  And no doubt you look good and people seeing the restored classic will love it.  Where I suspect many may have issue is finding said car and souping it up with modern parts and turning it into a hot rod with big tires, big engine, and various other modern parts...and then proclaiming to the owner "The restoration is complete!!" 

In course terms, all that being said, I absolutely agree with Mike's statement (I left it in CAPS as that's how he wrote it):
FINDING THE COURSE AND ROUTING IT IS THE HARD WORK AND IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE COURSE THAT HANG AROUND.

There is a huge difference between original work and restoring/tweaking/repurposing someone else's original work.  I see similar kind of stuff in my profession where the big companies are non-stop suing each other for patent infringement.  I can't even begin to tell you some of the insane meetings I've had to sit thru over the years with patent attorneys telling us what we could and couldn't do when researching ideas and submitting work for potential patents, and what we should or shouldn't disclose, and to never ever ever email each other, etc, etc, etc.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Relax, it's the holidays      This is just a discussion.  We don't have to agree on everything (or anything) but when you stated or at least implied "restoration experts" aren't golf architects just because they never routed a golf course you ticked me off as well.  I thought that was demeaning and an unfair comment. 

The reason I brought up Lehigh CC is because it is my home club and I wanted a real world and personal example of what has happened out there with many classic golf courses.  You never answered my question about Hills presenting a complete Master Plan for a club the stature of Lehigh where he didn't even know or care who the original architect was!  If that is not BS I don't know what is. Do you agree?  I was trying to prove a point about why "restoration experts", guys like Ron Forse for example (he just did an interview for this site and he is the one who was hired at Lehigh so I thought he was a great example) make valuable contributions to GCA.  If you re-read your posts you undermine this kind of work and call it BS.  My comment back to you was the work of restoration specialists stands on its own.  If it is BS and sucks it will be called out, and if it doesn't then it should be recognized.  At the end of the day, the best ones in the field aren't looking for unnecessary credit or they probably wouldn't be doing this kind of work in the first place.  This kind of work is not easy and can be very challenging for lots of reasons as you know.  Many are in it because they believe in something and are passionate about it.  I am glad this thread has brought out some emotion and maybe some controversy.  I didn't mean at all to demean someone like Mike Hurdzan or Dana Fry.  I know Mike pretty well, he is a good friend of Forrest Richardson who I have worked with a lot.  I was just trying to show yet another example of how a shaper like Jeff Bradley, who many here know does a lot of shaping for C&C, happened to do the shaping at Shelter Harbor on the H&F project and it turned out fantastic. I was mostly joking about "propping up" H&F but knowing Mike he is a humble enough guy that he would probably agree as Jeff did an amazing job for the "team".  I go back to the first statement I made in this thread - It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit!.  Obviously when we started talking about the details of where credit is or isn't due - emotions flared.  I guess no one likes to feel they need propping up which is why I thought this thread would be thought provoking 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Relax, it's the holidays      This is just a discussion.  We don't have to agree on everything (or anything) but when you stated or at least implied "restoration experts" aren't golf architects just because they never routed a golf course you ticked me off as well.  I thought that was demeaning and an unfair comment. 
Don't worry about me being relaxed.  And hopefully people here know by now I don't worry if you agree with me or not.  AND I have said nothing here that is demeaning and unfair.   It would be much more demeaning to take a guy who has been designing his own work from scratch and getting a good product to have to be told that reworking a ODG product is the same and then having to listen to some clowns that don't know the difference think they are getting the same work experience.  There are plenty of guys who have designed their own who do very good restoration and are good at it but they focus on their own work....the opposite not so much...and much easier to BS an unknowing soul who reads a website and can't distinguish the difference.  That's where all the Master Plan line items on some websites amuse me...( makes me really appreciate the young design build dudes)
The reason I brought up Lehigh CC is because it is my home club and I wanted a real world and personal example of what has happened out there with many classic golf courses.  You never answered my question about Hills presenting a complete Master Plan for a club the stature of Lehigh where he didn't even know or care who the original architect was!
I am not familiar with the stature of Lehigh and consider any club dealings to be between themselves and the architect...
If that is not BS I don't know what is. Do you agree?
none of my business even though this site would consider me "cool" if I did agree...
I was trying to prove a point about why "restoration experts", guys like Ron Forse for example (he just did an interview for this site and he is the one who was hired at Lehigh so I thought he was a great example) make valuable contributions to GCA.   If you re-read your posts you undermine this kind of work and call it BS. 
SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER UNDERMINED THAT KIND OF WORK OR CALLED IT BS.   Oh, and thanks for advising me of the interviews on this site....I read them...but thanks anyway...   I was on a Donald Ross Society panel at Pinehurst with Danny Maples, Ron and myself back in early 90's chaired by Brad Klein.   As soon as Brad introduced the panel the guys in the room immediately turned the entire meeting into an attack on Hills and his work at Inverness.  That's when I realized how many restoration experts were in the room.  And when I realized what the DRS really was.  I don't like to fly at night but it was freaky enough I went right back out the the little airport there and flew home.  That's when I saw the coming of the restoration hype for what it was/is...it has nothing to do with guys like were on that panel.  It's the self anointed that stir me.
My comment back to you was the work of restoration specialists stands on its own.  If it is BS and sucks it will be called out, and if it doesn't then it should be recognized.  All work stands on it's own.   
At the end of the day, the best ones in the field aren't looking for unnecessary credit or they probably wouldn't be doing this kind of work in the first place.  This kind of work is not easy and can be very challenging for lots of reasons as you know.  Many are in it because they believe in something and are passionate about it.
Do you think I'm Clem Kadiddlehopper or someone you have to explain all of this to?  I've been in this business for almost 40 years doing design/build.  I have passion about what I do.  And I know enough about it to know there is a lot of BS around the ODG's.  I'm not intimidated by any of it.

I am glad this thread has brought out some emotion and maybe some controversy.
[/size]explain...no emotion or controversy here from me...just clarifying myself and defending all the guys who route their work and design/build it everyday. 
I didn't mean at all to demean someone like Mike Hurdzan or Dana Fry.  I know Mike pretty well, he is a good friend of Forrest Richardson who I have worked with a lot. 
That's great..I know Mike and Dana also....I like FR video and maybe he can fix ASGCA one day...I was just trying to show yet another example of how a shaper like Jeff Bradley, who many here know does a lot of shaping for C&C, happened to do the shaping at Shelter Harbor on the H&F project and it turned out fantastic. I was mostly joking about "propping up" H&F but knowing Mike he is a humble enough guy that he would probably agree as Jeff did an amazing job for the "team".
Great,  I've known JB since he was at Cuscowilla...( another "cool button" along with C&C for this site) does great work.  But to me, on this site, "mostly joking" means you were not entirely joking about propping up.  For clarification and to "be cool" on this site...why didn't you use Sand Hills as example instead? 
I go back to the first statement I made in this thread - It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit!Yes I do some restoration, am working on an ODG classic plan right now which will begin in February ....I will be in a seance with him next week...I'm not worried about getting credit or I would have put it on the various sites etc....
.  Obviously when we started talking about credit - emotions flared.  I guess no one likes to feel they need propping up which is why I thought this thread would be thought provoking     
the only time my "emotions" flare is if some one puts words in my mouth.  I gather that you put great stock in the title "golf architect" and that it is demeaning not to call a person who does restorations such.  You insinuate that, not me.  I don't care what I am called but I do resent misrepresentation and misconception by so many unknowing clubs, clients thinking that specific levels of restoration dude are the same as the original.  BTW, I have seen plenty of messed up restoration. 
And so my last words on the subject are: Golf course designers build golf courses.  Call them what you may.  Due to that experience they may also renovate or restore projects. And some may do more of that than their own work.  And even when it coems to architects I break them into design/build vs. plans/contractor.  Two totally different levels of involvement and learning.  Renovation/restoration experts with little more than a business card and some dreamed up master plans or a bunker here or there are not golf course designers.