Which great old courses were the most Stubborn, and why?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents — interesting and informative.
And a ‘thought experiment’ for some rainy day:
“What would golf-gca be like today if none of the classic old courses ever gave a rat’s ass about anything, ever — their members always perfectly and unselfconsciously happy and content to play the course as it was originally designed, and as they found it?”
Well, maybe not so fruitful a thought experiment, as I suppose the answer would have to be “who knows?”

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks, gents — interesting and informative.
And a ‘thought experiment’ for some rainy day:
“What would golf-gca be like today if none of the classic old courses ever gave a rat’s ass about anything, ever — their members always perfectly and unselfconsciously happy and content to play the course as it was originally designed, and as they found it?”
Well, maybe not so fruitful a thought experiment, as I suppose the answer would have to be “who knows?”

Just go back in time to 1950, before clubs thought of renovating / restoring / sympathetically bullshitting their courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I used to say and still do in the businesses that I have run over the years, “If it is not broke, you didn’t look hard enough, fix it anyway!” 

This is the quote that should be on your tombstone.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I can't think of too many of the GAP golden age courses that haven't been changed too much especially the better ones.  There is an old Tillinghast design from 1922 called Irem Temple that might qualify but not even sure about that one.


Tom,
I have to laugh.  Don't you like that quote?  I am not sure who used it first but I like it.  Maybe the next time you use the camera on your iPhone you will think about it.  Though we didn't invent the LED, years ago my team developed one of the materials that enabled the white LED to be invented.  Good thing they believed the incandescent bulb was broken 


Not all golf courses are broken, but most aren't perfect in their original form.  Some should be preserved as much as possible for posterity and/or because they are just that good, but many do have room for improvement.  The key to me is to carefully study each one before making strong recommendations to change them. 

[Daryl David]

Thomas J. Peters management consultant and author of In Search of Excellence coined the saying.

The old saw, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” doesn’t apply anymore.  Peters replaces it with: “If it ain’t broke, you just haven’t looked hard enough.” And he adds: “Fix it anyway.”

[Tommy Williamsen]

Not sure what we do with a club like Royal North Devon. In so many ways the culture of the club has been resistant to change. Yes, they built a few tees to lengthen the course for tournament play, but they are only used for tournaments. Now they had to build some new holes at the far end of the course because of the encroaching water over the pebble ridge. Those changes were out of necessity. Other than that there have been few changes to Fowler's redesign of Old Tom's course.

[Sean_A]

I don't know Tommy. Most of the time we go on about bunkers on this site like they are the most important part of golf courses. I am not saying Westward Ho!'s bunkers are the most important part of the course, but I think the bunkers on 4 and 15 are a serious loss to the course (I think there was a giant pit left on 3 as well). These were huge, rough, horrible waste areas that imo helped WH! earn its rep as a challenging course worthy of hosting championships. They were so large they nearly (I wouldnt be surprised to learn they did connect) connected as one HUGE hazard. It doesn't get talked about much, but these bunkers should be properly restored.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks, gents — interesting and informative.
And a ‘thought experiment’ for some rainy day:
“What would golf-gca be like today if none of the classic old courses ever gave a rat’s ass about anything, ever — their members always perfectly and unselfconsciously happy and content to play the course as it was originally designed, and as they found it?”
Well, maybe not so fruitful a thought experiment, as I suppose the answer would have to be “who knows?”

What would have happened is that all the courses with any intricate design (bunker shapes, green shapes, mowing lines) would have been simplified beyond recognition by greens crews whose primary aim was to maintain the course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't know Tommy. Most of the time we go on about bunkers on this site like they are the most important part of golf courses. I am not saying Westward Ho!'s bunkers are the most important part of the course, but I think the bunkers on 4 and 15 are a serious loss to the course (I think there was a giant pit left on 3 as well). These were huge, rough, horrible waste areas that imo helped WH! earn its rep as a challenging course worthy of hosting championships. They were so large they nearly (I wouldnt be surprised to learn they did connect) connected as one HUGE hazard. It doesn't get talked about much, but these bunkers should be properly restored.

Ciao

Sean, I’ve often thought about some of the great bunkers on our links courses (such as 4 at Westward Ho!) and the reality is they belong to a very small moment in time. They were less bunkers and more the untouched natural landscape that was constantly changing. It is impossible to have those bunkers restored to their original for any length of time. And any attempt to meet halfway sometimes just looks contrived.

[Thomas Dai]

What would have happened is that all the courses with any intricate design (bunker shapes, green shapes, mowing lines) would have been simplified beyond recognition by greens crews whose primary aim was to maintain the course.

Over time and often not perceived or appreciated is how ease of maintenance and nature take over especially when money becomes tight or outside events like wars reduce available labour or even cause terrain changes themselves.
It will be interesting to see how the these days newly opened-up sandy areas and intricate crinkle-cut edges on bunkers on links and heathland courses, and even some parklands, look in a few years time even more so if those in charge of clubs have not adjusted the size and financing of their maintenance teams to deal with all the additional edging and strimming and weeding that will be required to keep the 'perfectly natural' look in place.
And then there's the ball and equipment and distance debate. Best not to get into that here again though.
atb

[Sean_A]

I don't know Tommy. Most of the time we go on about bunkers on this site like they are the most important part of golf courses. I am not saying Westward Ho!'s bunkers are the most important part of the course, but I think the bunkers on 4 and 15 are a serious loss to the course (I think there was a giant pit left on 3 as well). These were huge, rough, horrible waste areas that imo helped WH! earn its rep as a challenging course worthy of hosting championships. They were so large they nearly (I wouldnt be surprised to learn they did connect) connected as one HUGE hazard. It doesn't get talked about much, but these bunkers should be properly restored.

Ciao

Sean, I’ve often thought about some of the great bunkers on our links courses (such as 4 at Westward Ho!) and the reality is they belong to a very small moment in time. They were less bunkers and more the untouched natural landscape that was constantly changing. It is impossible to have those bunkers restored to their original for any length of time. And any attempt to meet halfway sometimes just looks contrived.

I agree, a pure restoration is impossible. But I think the spirit of these vast walk in hazards can be recaptured.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


When I think of going back and finding the same thing I would go for Somerset Hills in NJ and Gulfstream GC in Florida. Both seem to be "frozen in time".


Gulfstream for those who might not have heard of it is an uber private enclave for the wealthy right on  A1A . It's a small town sandwiched between Delray and Boynton Beach. Worth a google earth look. The 18th hole runs directly along the Atlantic Ocean. Its a Ross original. Even if they wanted to which assuredly isn't the case a lack of surrounding real estate would make any tinkering very difficult.


Somerset Hills is a wonder , nuff said. If you ever get a chance to play there don't miss it!

[Ira Fishman]

When I think of going back and finding the same thing I would go for Somerset Hills in NJ and Gulfstream GC in Florida. Both seem to be "frozen in time".


Gulfstream for those who might not have heard of it is an uber private enclave for the wealthy right on  A1A . It's a small town sandwiched between Delray and Boynton Beach. Worth a google earth look. The 18th hole runs directly along the Atlantic Ocean. Its a Ross original. Even if they wanted to which assuredly isn't the case a lack of surrounding real estate would make any tinkering very difficult.


Somerset Hills is a wonder , nuff said. If you ever get a chance to play there don't miss it!

Wasn’t Mr. Dye a member at Gulfstream? I believe that he renovated most of the greens at some point.


Ira

[Pat Burke]

I remember when growing up at Deal (NJ), it seemed every few years something would be changed depending on that round of greens committed.  Bunkers were often the target.  Flashing sand up the faces one time.  Changing it back to grass faced or reshaping them, not to mention trees


I’d imagine it would be hard to find a course that hasn’t had well intentioned footprints all over it at some time

[JMEvensky]

Somerset Hills is a wonder , nuff said. If you ever get a chance to play there don't miss it!

What's up Archie? The Lurker always told me SH stayed unchanged because the members preferred "shabby chic".

[Niall C]

With regards the UK, it seems to me the deciding factors are the economics and the nature of members clubs. On the first point, UK clubs simply don't have the life-changing sums of money that US country clubs seem to have and therefore they are restricted in what they could do even if they wanted to blow the course up and start again (they also generally have less land as well from what I can see).


On the second point, members at UK clubs seem to be more conservative when it comes to changes (that's my perception anyway) which seems to often lead to periodic battles between the Captain/Greens Convener because of the pet project they want to do. Again, money is usually behind the reticence of members to make changes.


Notable examples of that are the likes of R&A sponsored projects where the changes are in the cause of hosting the Open with the added sweetner that the members aren't footing the bill.


Niall

[archie_struthers]

 


JME   ....he knows these places well

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know Tommy. Most of the time we go on about bunkers on this site like they are the most important part of golf courses. I am not saying Westward Ho!'s bunkers are the most important part of the course, but I think the bunkers on 4 and 15 are a serious loss to the course (I think there was a giant pit left on 3 as well). These were huge, rough, horrible waste areas that imo helped WH! earn its rep as a challenging course worthy of hosting championships. They were so large they nearly (I wouldnt be surprised to learn they did connect) connected as one HUGE hazard. It doesn't get talked about much, but these bunkers should be properly restored.

Sean, I’ve often thought about some of the great bunkers on our links courses (such as 4 at Westward Ho!) and the reality is they belong to a very small moment in time. They were less bunkers and more the untouched natural landscape that was constantly changing. It is impossible to have those bunkers restored to their original for any length of time. And any attempt to meet halfway sometimes just looks contrived.

It's not the exact shape of those bunkers that is important to restore . . . it's the spirit of them.  And it's far from impossible, we have incorporated similar natural sand blowouts into many golf courses over the past 25 years.  The hard part is to keep clubs from effing them up!  The Himalayas at St. Enodoc was just a blown out dune top for 40-50 years before someone decided they needed to enclose it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't know Tommy. Most of the time we go on about bunkers on this site like they are the most important part of golf courses. I am not saying Westward Ho!'s bunkers are the most important part of the course, but I think the bunkers on 4 and 15 are a serious loss to the course (I think there was a giant pit left on 3 as well). These were huge, rough, horrible waste areas that imo helped WH! earn its rep as a challenging course worthy of hosting championships. They were so large they nearly (I wouldnt be surprised to learn they did connect) connected as one HUGE hazard. It doesn't get talked about much, but these bunkers should be properly restored.

Sean, I’ve often thought about some of the great bunkers on our links courses (such as 4 at Westward Ho!) and the reality is they belong to a very small moment in time. They were less bunkers and more the untouched natural landscape that was constantly changing. It is impossible to have those bunkers restored to their original for any length of time. And any attempt to meet halfway sometimes just looks contrived.

It's not the exact shape of those bunkers that is important to restore . . . it's the spirit of them.  And it's far from impossible, we have incorporated similar natural sand blowouts into many golf courses over the past 25 years.  The hard part is to keep clubs from effing them up!  The Himalayas at St. Enodoc was just a blown out dune top for 40-50 years before someone decided they needed to enclose it.

Tom,


These links dunes and blow-outs can change shape and character at a quick pace, especially when a golf course is routed next to them and grasses start to stabilise them. The Himalayas at St Enodoc changed a fair bit over those 40 years.


Flatter, low-lying sand hazards (like the 4th at Westward Ho!) can change overnight in a big storm.


These hazards generally start to get contained because they are threatening the course.


Above aside, I agree with you that it’s the spirit that is important to restore. I just don’t particularly like when there is any hint that that spirit looks man-made. Sometimes I prefer the more formal hazard that has been replaced.

[Thomas Dai]

The Himalayas at St. Enodoc was just a blown out dune top for 40-50 years before someone decided they needed to enclose it.

I’ve read somewhere that StE are planning on restoring the Himalayas to what was once there. As to what was once there, “pass”, ask them not Postman Moi!
Atb
PS - stubbornness ... both StE and RND/Westward Ho! have used astro-turf within some of their bunkers.
PSS - I believe the Cape sleeper ramparts on the 4th at RND/WH were originally sea defence related and go back to the time when the sea used to regularly enter the ‘inland sea’ as the big pond/lake left of the 3rd was once known and flood right across the first part of the 4th and behind what is the now 16th green. There are old photos of this on one of the RND/WH threads herein.

[Thomas Dai]

With regards the UK, it seems to me the deciding factors are the economics and the nature of members clubs. On the first point, UK clubs simply don't have the life-changing sums of money that US country clubs seem to have and therefore they are restricted in what they could do even if they wanted to blow the course up and start again (they also generally have less land as well from what I can see).
On the second point, members at UK clubs seem to be more conservative when it comes to changes (that's my perception anyway) which seems to often lead to periodic battles between the Captain/Greens Convener because of the pet project they want to do. Again, money is usually behind the reticence of members to make changes.
Notable examples of that are the likes of R&A sponsored projects where the changes are in the cause of hosting the Open with the added sweetner that the members aren't footing the bill.
Niall

Valid points Niall.
Sometimes however the powers at be and grandee’s at Clubs become influenced in some way by the ‘Royal Engineers’ as Tony so beautifully described them on another thread herein a few days ago and their like and all sorts of things can happen then even at less than usual high end Clubs.
“Keeping up with the Jones’” and all that.
Atb

[Niall C]

David


That's the thing, I really don't think you have the same arms war that you have in the US. There is no keeping up with the Jones syndrome which is evidenced by an awful lot of older courses over here that are largely untouched. Of course after 100 odd years you get bunkers having been moved about and the odd green being moved for whatever reason but it's generally for very good reason; usually against the wishes of a sizeable section of the membership; and never in my memory to keep up with work done elsewhere.


Niall

[Sean_A]

David


That's the thing, I really don't think you have the same arms war that you have in the US. There is no keeping up with the Jones syndrome which is evidenced by an awful lot of older courses over here that are largely untouched. Of course after 100 odd years you get bunkers having been moved about and the odd green being moved for whatever reason but it's generally for very good reason; usually against the wishes of a sizeable section of the membership; and never in my memory to keep up with work done elsewhere.


Niall

I believe a significant percentage of GB&I work is for two main reasons. Hosting R&A events and trying to attract more visitors, which in effect is competing with the neighbours and often times chasing rankings. Sometimes competing with the neighbours coincides with good environmental and agronomic practices.

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

David
That's the thing, I really don't think you have the same arms war that you have in the US. There is no keeping up with the Jones syndrome which is evidenced by an awful lot of older courses over here that are largely untouched. Of course after 100 odd years you get bunkers having been moved about and the odd green being moved for whatever reason but it's generally for very good reason; usually against the wishes of a sizeable section of the membership; and never in my memory to keep up with work done elsewhere.
Niall

I believe a significant percentage of GB&I work is for two main reasons. Hosting R&A events and trying to attract more visitors, which in effect is competing with the neighbours and often times chasing rankings. Sometimes competing with the neighbours coincides with good environmental and agronomic practices.
Happy Hockey

These days there’s a significant social media factor to consider as well. Much of the sort of content that would once have appeared herein is now more likely to be posted on Twitter and Instagram.
Lots of what could be termed product or services advertising or ‘highlighting and sharing good practices’ (although some might consider it ‘showing-off’) amongst clubs, courses, members, staff, archies, shapers, sales reps etc etc. Mind I’m not adverse to a nice photo or video clip of some trees being felled!:)
And some folks seem to be quite good at convincing committees to undertake work they maybe don’t need to undertake and spend more money than maybe they maybe really need too.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

David


That's the thing, I really don't think you have the same arms war that you have in the US. There is no keeping up with the Jones syndrome which is evidenced by an awful lot of older courses over here that are largely untouched. Of course after 100 odd years you get bunkers having been moved about and the odd green being moved for whatever reason but it's generally for very good reason; usually against the wishes of a sizeable section of the membership; and never in my memory to keep up with work done elsewhere.


Niall

I believe a significant percentage of GB&I work is for two main reasons. Hosting R&A events and trying to attract more visitors, which in effect is competing with the neighbours and often times chasing rankings. Sometimes competing with the neighbours coincides with good environmental and agronomic practices.

Happy Hockey

On the flip side to Niall’s point, GB&I courses don’t have the same connection with their architectural heritage and are often times quicker to make piecemeal changes that are not in keeping.


US courses do full on renovations more often. But GB&I sometimes die by a thousand cuts.