Time Capsule

[Mark_Fine]

Since there is so much guessing and speculation about what architects did or their intent or what they would do with their courses in the future, why not use a thread on this site as essentially a time capsule that contains architects thoughts and wishes.  50 years or so from now (or whenever) the contents of this time capsule can be read about what architects wanted to be done to the golf courses they impacted and/or designed. Anyone who has designed anything please feel free to comment in as much or as little detail as you would like.  I am happy to give this some thought and take a first shot but if someone beats me to it, great.

[Tom_Doak]

I wrote one down 25 years ago but it is on one of those little 3 x 3 floppy disks and nobody can read it now.


Likewise, this thread will be long gone in fifty years.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Have you tried Amazon Tom?
https://www.amazon.com/NEWSTYLE-3-5-External-Floppy-Drive/dp/B00KX8EMOO/
You can do it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What you wrote back then (if you remember or if you can down load it on that floppy disk) would be interesting.


I do think this thread and the contents of GCAtlas will be around for a while and it would be nice to have the essence of what architects want etc in one spot.  Again this is just an idea.  I am running to a project but will post a few of my thoughts later tonight.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Ron Whitten suggested years ago that all of us in the biz write out our project memories, in the case of some of the older among us, while we still can.   I have done a few, plan on doing more as time permits as sort of my first post retirement project.


One comment Tom Doak made on your "What were they thinking thread" made even more sense to me.  He said Jones's 1960's writings on ANGC were done after decades of seeing the design in action.  (and it seems some changes were started before that.)


My point is, maybe a gca's thoughts well after the fact would be more valuable - or at the least, a valuable addition to - his/her thoughts at the time?  You could start a new "Fine Ranking."  If it was mine, it would range from "almost perfect" to "I'll never do that again!"


That way, maybe our courses would get restored to what we really wanted, not just what we thought we wanted at the time.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Guys--


This may be the most BRILLIANT and IMPORTANT idea from any thread I have seen...

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought it has been shown that the Baby Boomers are an outlier when it comes to nostalgia.  The restoration fad of recent years was no more than either a power or money grab. A few smart dudes figured out to make a buck. Golfers just want better courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Ron Whitten suggested years ago that all of us in the biz write out our project memories, in the case of some of the older among us, while we still can.   I have done a few, plan on doing more as time permits as sort of my first post retirement project.


One comment Tom Doak made on your "What were they thinking thread" made even more sense to me.  He said Jones's 1960's writings on ANGC were done after decades of seeing the design in action.  (and it seems some changes were started before that.)


My point is, maybe a gca's thoughts well after the fact would be more valuable - or at the least, a valuable addition to - his/her thoughts at the time?  You could start a new "Fine Ranking."  If it was mine, it would range from "almost perfect" to "I'll never do that again!"


That way, maybe our courses would get restored to what we really wanted, not just what we thought we wanted at the time.

My recent book was an attempt to do what Ron Whitten suggested.  I think I made a lot more that way than by getting the courses to pay me a consulting fee to come back and opine, but YMMV.


Gil Hanse and I did a hole-by-hole document for Black Forest after it opened, but I looked at it ten years later and at least half the things that had changed in terms of mowing lines / long grass, had changed for the better.  [I was by then less focused on the look, and more on the playability.]  So, I agree with your thought that the best approach is to make current recommendations of what to do.  I have been sending my associates out to many of these places to catch up on tree removal, mowing lines, and those sorts of issues.


P.S.  I was just kidding about the floppy disks, but not about the changes in technology.  It is hard enough to dig through the Golf Club Atlas archives now, and I would be shocked if the thing still existed for long after Ran forgets where the password controls went.  If you're not putting your recommendations in print, and making a couple of copies, they will be gone with the wind soon enough.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I wrote one down 25 years ago but it is on one of those little 3 x 3 floppy disks and nobody can read it now.


Likewise, this thread will be long gone in fifty years.

You need one of these: https://nerdtechy.com/best-external-usb-floppy-drive

[Tom_Doak]

You need one of these: https://nerdtechy.com/best-external-usb-floppy-drive

Wayne:


Not really, see my P.S. above.


Note that I have been cleaning out my office in recent weeks and I am amazed at all the "stuff" we have lying around.  I've digitized the maps and now need to figure out what to do with the originals, since I'm sure they will have some value someday, and I learned via The Confidential Guide not to let second-hand collectors claim all that value. 


But all the years worth of correspondence and emails and tax records &c ?  If I haven't needed to look at it in the past five years, why keep any of it?

[Mark_Fine]

Sounds like some think the idea has some merit.  What is a tricky is deciding how much does an architect really want to put out there in a public forum about what they want to happen to their golf courses in the future.  I am sure most of us would like a dome put over the courses we designed or worked on and have them never touched.  But at the same time we realize that isn’t going to happen so you want/need to be open and honest about your feelings and expectations so those who are stewards of these courses might have some guidance to follow if they so choose.  This could end up being a long and comprehensive course by course description for all of us.  Even for those who focus mostly on renovations, restorations, and redesigns, we still have the same kind of emotions and passion about what we have accomplished.   My hope would be that the courses I touched have and will continue to bring pleasure and interest to a wide range of golfers. Furthermore, if changes have been made or are deemed necessary (to keep these courses viable and financially stable) I hope they have or will be made with careful consideration and study as many of my courses include detailed written descriptions and documentation of the evolution of the design and explanations of why the improvements and/or alterations were made. I have also co-authored a book titled Bunkers, Pits and Other Hazards that contains many of my thoughts and opinions on golf course design. I hope those contemplating major changes to what I have done would read it prior to doing any work.  I recognize that golf courses are living works of art that serve as the platforms for a game that will always continue to change.  As golf evolves, hopefully my golf courses evolve gracefully with it.     


Running back to a project that I have worked on for 15+ years.  We are nearly done.  Maybe I should leave a copy of the above paragraph with them

[Jerry Kluger]

With so many gca geeks on this site is it likely that there will be many surprises with respect to the intent of today's golf club architects?  I think that our conversations with so many architects as well as literature available today that I doubt that there is very much that we are missing.  Is that good or bad - to me it is definitely a good thing as what is better than to be able to recognize what the intent of the course or hole was and how does it play. How many times have we looked at a course and see that it plays completely different from what we believed was the architect's intent - I would say not very often.  To me, Tom's "Getting to 18" tells us so much about what he was thinking when he was routing those courses and this is so very important in learning about what his intent was when designing and building a course.  I think this gives us so much insight when we are playing a course, whether Tom's or not, which gives us perhaps a better way to play it. 

[Garland Bayley]

I wrote one down 25 years ago but it is on one of those little 3 x 3 floppy disks and nobody can read it now.


Likewise, this thread will be long gone in fifty years.

The most flexible archival device that has held up over the many generations of computers and computer hardware advances is


paper.


Had you printed out what you wrote, it could now be scanned and redigitized. No need to get an old floppy reader.

[Thomas Dai]

Isn’t there a saying along the lines of “Whoever writes the history, controls history.”?
Hence its probably worth documenting your work yourself and publishing it too it if you want accuracy about your own work and don’t want it misconstrued either at the time or later by others? Of course some are more boastful or modest about their work than others.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

The most flexible archival device that has held up over the many generations of computers and computer hardware advances is

paper.

Had you printed out what you wrote, it could now be scanned and redigitized. No need to get an old floppy reader.

Had I printed out everything I have ever written on Golf Club Atlas, it would not only be quite embarrassing but it would probably cause the felling of more trees than my design work has!

Thank God Mr. Crosby tried to collate some of the best of it so I did not have to worry about the rest!


Or, for Thomas:  Yes, been there, done that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

With so many gca geeks on this site is it likely that there will be many surprises with respect to the intent of today's golf club architects?  I think that our conversations with so many architects as well as literature available today that I doubt that there is very much that we are missing.  Is that good or bad - to me it is definitely a good thing as what is better than to be able to recognize what the intent of the course or hole was and how does it play. How many times have we looked at a course and see that it plays completely different from what we believed was the architect's intent - I would say not very often.  To me, Tom's "Getting to 18" tells us so much about what he was thinking when he was routing those courses and this is so very important in learning about what his intent was when designing and building a course.  I think this gives us so much insight when we are playing a course, whether Tom's or not, which gives us perhaps a better way to play it.

Jerry,


Years ago, I toured a Franklin Hills, a Ross project near Detroit, and they happened to have his field notes so I read them.  I was amused to see they were pretty much like mine.  "Lower and move second green left to make it more visible." was one example.


I have long felt that the members of this website would probably read more into design intent than most architects thought about themselves.  The key words in your pp above is "it plays completely different from what we believed was the architect's intent"

In other words, while opinions around here are probably better than 99% of golfers, in the end, I'm not sure anyone but the architect or others who were closely involved in a project can really say what their intent was, if even they could articulate it.  Not all were great speakers, and not all write as well as Tom Doak.


Even then, there might be problems getting to the bottom of things.  No one would write for public consumption something like, "Boy the owner was a real jackwad.....I wanted the green over there, but he insisted it go where it ended for some silly reason."

[Thomas Dai]

Elements we now have that we’re not available even a few years ago that ought to aid record keeping within the GCA ‘time capsule’ includes various clever techie archie/construction etc stuff plus social media, podcasts with architects/shapers etc, drone footage with architect narrative etc etc etc.
Ought to be a significant aid for future restorations/renovations etc although said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if the records are that good and what’s on the ground is kept as detailed and explained by an architect on video etc will there be a need for resto’s and reno’s?
Atb