[Mark_Fine]

I have been doing some kind of restoration/renovation/redesign/remodel/updating/ in the spirit of,…. work (I have no idea what to call it anymore as there are sooo many different definitions) for almost 20 years.  Who started the “restoration” fad anyway?  Maybe we should name names? 


These days I not sure what architect’s are calling their work anymore?  Is the recent work at Merion and Winged Foot and Baltusrol and some of the other courses we talk about that have been worked on all touted as “restoration”? 


For a group that loves GCA, we seem to give a lot of grief to those who are trying to bring light to past architect’s work.  As Mike Young has said forever and ever, I am sure there is some BS going on out there.  Every business has it but I would argue the vast majority of the work is being done in good faith with good intent. Most are trying to make the course better for those who own and/or play it.  Very few are out there restoring crap just for the sake of restoration.  And the work that is true BS will just be opportunities for others to go in later and clean it up.


I think we should be more concerned with those who take a different approach and say, “who cares who originally designed this golf course, I can do better”.   

[Philippe Binette]

Too much credit for the overall design...maybe a little


But too me it's more that the ODG courses get overanalyzed...
When you ear: ohh, look at that great mound on the back right corner of the green, ODG really thought about players spinning the ball of that mound to get to that hole location behind the bunker... ODG is a genius...
That's a complete joke...


A) players were not hitting wedges into that green in the past,
B) greens were running at 6-7 on the stimp not 11


C) the ODG might not have seen the green before it was done, or after  ...
D) Odds are, the mound was there and it was too much an effort to get rid of it


E) the ODG was just thinking: let's built a good golf hole... and how about having a little drink in town after a good day of work !

[Sean_A]

The ODGs get too little and too much credit. I know for Colt, I am impressed with some of his no name projects. The same design skills as the famous projects were employed, but the sites aren't as grand. It was the sites as much as anything which made Colt's best courses as good as they are.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Philippe,
Well stated.  As has been said here many times we will never know 100% what was the architect’s original intent unless we find clear documentation.  But if we see enough and study enough we can at least make some thoughtful educated guesses about intent and what was original and what was added on later (maybe by someone other than the original architect). 


I also agree with Sean that the site has a lot to do with success for many architects.  In part that is why I have admired Pete Dye as he didn’t get many great ones.  He built his courses.  He didn’t find them. 


Only a small percentage of courses should be restored, preserved, maintained as the original,… call it what you want.  Most every thing else will change whether we like it or not and probably should as the game changes with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The ODGs get too little and too much credit. I know for Colt, I am impressed with some of his no name projects. The same design skills as the famous projects were employed, but the sites aren't as grand. It was the sites as much as anything which made Colt's best courses as good as they are.

Ciao

Perhaps another thread, but how do you judge an architect's talent - by what he/she did with their best sites/budgets/owners, or by what they did with their average sites?  I think I would give a pass on judging what they did with their absolute worst site.


Perhaps we just give them credit for the wrong thing?  In the big picture, a handful of transplanted Scots and Americans reinvented architecture and adapted it to a whole new environment, and that should be celebrated, because those principles are still emulated by most living gca's today, with mods for current conditions.  Or that they got decent courses built with only a few (or no) personal site visits, so they did show us how to organize crews to get work done on a worldwide basis with some kind of efficiency. 


As to specifics, like that mound on the back left of the green being brilliant, perhaps the horse just stopped their to poop and they left it, or some other reason, LOL.  That said, one sign of artistic genius is knowing when to leave well enough alone.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

E) the ODG was just thinking: let's built a good golf hole... and how about having a little drink in town after a good day of work !

Years ago, I posted a link to the Annie Hall scene where, in the line at the movie theatre when real-life Marshall McLuhan was pulled out from behind a lobby standee to 'tell off' a pseudo-intellectual blowhard-critic who was pontificating about director Fellini.  Near the end, he says, "You know nothing about my work." 


I may be wrong, but somewhere in there, I thought he responded to a specific scene by saying he was drunk and his assistant took charge that day, although that may be another film.  Either way, the gca being drunk and leaving it to assistants seems to have been applicable back in the Golden Age (and beyond, in the cases of certain architects)


And, the phrase, "pontificating pseudo-intellectual blowhard-critic" has crossed my mind when reading this site over 20+ years.
 
Woody Allen meets Marshall McLuhan - Bing video

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lastly, I have seen a lot of old plans, mostly be Ross, and even a few in field notes by same.  Rarely was there a mention of a specific green feature, although Mac had some arrows indicating when a shot might use a bank as a kick plate.  For the most part, those notes were pretty basic as to say where to place a bunker, or mounds, etc.  Most green plans showed the back being higher than the front, and most showed where to get dirt from the front to raise the back as directed.


Ross field notes that I recall seeing often said things like "Lower green and move left to make it visible" or make it safe, better draining, etc.  Again, pretty practical things, which I would expect when they had one day to see the work and then had to hop the train.  It also gives rise to a question of whether we should treat each feature with the same reverence?  Brad K documents Ross's travels pretty well, so what if he only saw the first 6 greens under construction, but not the other 12?  Does that give the restoration archie a freer hand on some parts of the course?

[Peter Pallotta]

That they designed for a game that was not our game but that has become today the only game in town says a lot about the fundamentals of their approach, and the bedrock principles of their architecture. In that context/through that lens, it's impossible to give the ODGs 'too much credit'. But, since those  aspects of their specific work examples is 'binary', ie the fundamentals-principles have either survived intact for 100 years at a given golf course or they haven't, I suppose it's to be expected that many focus on the surface of things and the aesthetics instead, ie on the peripheral or the accidental or the non- essentials; and in that context I think we do give them too much credit.

[Sven Nilsen]

Lastly, I have seen a lot of old plans, mostly be Ross, and even a few in field notes by same.  Rarely was there a mention of a specific green feature, although Mac had some arrows indicating when a shot might use a bank as a kick plate.  For the most part, those notes were pretty basic as to say where to place a bunker, or mounds, etc.  Most green plans showed the back being higher than the front, and most showed where to get dirt from the front to raise the back as directed.


Ross field notes that I recall seeing often said things like "Lower green and move left to make it visible" or make it safe, better draining, etc.  Again, pretty practical things, which I would expect when they had one day to see the work and then had to hop the train.  It also gives rise to a question of whether we should treat each feature with the same reverence?  Brad K documents Ross's travels pretty well, so what if he only saw the first 6 greens under construction, but not the other 12?  Does that give the restoration archie a freer hand on some parts of the course?

You might want to check the Hyde Park thread going on right now.  I don't think you give the proper credit to Ross for the amount of detail included in his notes and sketches.

[John Kavanaugh]

I can’t believe Strantz died in 2005. It feels like a lifetime ago.

[Philippe Binette]

I'm not saying ODG were drunk on the job..
I'm more thinking that they weren't overthinking

[Ira Fishman]

Lastly, I have seen a lot of old plans, mostly be Ross, and even a few in field notes by same.  Rarely was there a mention of a specific green feature, although Mac had some arrows indicating when a shot might use a bank as a kick plate.  For the most part, those notes were pretty basic as to say where to place a bunker, or mounds, etc.  Most green plans showed the back being higher than the front, and most showed where to get dirt from the front to raise the back as directed.


Ross field notes that I recall seeing often said things like "Lower green and move left to make it visible" or make it safe, better draining, etc.  Again, pretty practical things, which I would expect when they had one day to see the work and then had to hop the train.  It also gives rise to a question of whether we should treat each feature with the same reverence?  Brad K documents Ross's travels pretty well, so what if he only saw the first 6 greens under construction, but not the other 12?  Does that give the restoration archie a freer hand on some parts of the course?

You might want to check the Hyde Park thread going on right now.  I don't think you give the proper credit to Ross for the amount of detail included in his notes and sketches.

Sven,


Absolutely spot on. Even a quick tour through his Field Sketches and Notes evidences quite a bit of detail.


One aspect I am interested in is that some of his green designs had almost Dr. Mac like pronounced tongues. I am curious if they were actually built that way or just softened over the years. Hope Valley has some clear remnants of such tongues but certainly not as dramatic as the drawings, but it has gone through several restorations/renovations.


Hope you are well.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven, Ira,


I don't consider those plans detailed at all, at least not in design thought.  I only saw one note that even mentioned how a slope would affect a shot, etc.  It was mostly construction related, like how deep this bunker or that ought to be, what to remove, what to save.  Not that I would necessarily expect it.  A common thought on preparing any type of construction drawing is to give the builder what they need to build, not necessarily explain design thought, which the builder should take for granted....although as time goes on in the golf biz, builders question architect's intent and'/or substitute their own judgement in place, especially if they don't expect the gca to come around to check for a period of time and they need to get it done (or, they are passive-aggressive in nature, but I digress.....)


But, there is nothing on those plans to indicate any deep, deep thoughts. (unless you count deep, deep, bunkers as thoughts!


Ira,


As to those tongues, I have wondered the same thing.  I believe green corners could be tighter in those days because they were all mowed by hand.  I have also seen 50-60's era Dick Wilson and Joe Lee plans where the green edges and corners are much more squiggly and sharp than I have ever seen in photos.  In both cases, I wondered if they really meant them to be built that way.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:


We've been through the Ross on-site conversation before on other threads.  I am of the belief that he was more hands on with a lot of projects than Brad and others give him credit for.  It might make sense to use specific courses as examples when talking about Ross' working patterns, as there was a broad spectrum of clients that hired him for different purposes (and different time commitments).


Whatever the case, the workloads of the early guys were downright amazing.  I tend to think the product they produced, whether built by an in-house construction team, local contractors or the club itself, turned out pretty well on the whole.  Must have been an amazing time to be in that business.


Sven

[Ira Fishman]

Sven,


I did notice one potentially (emphasis on potentially) interesting difference when I looked at the Hyde Park drawings versus Hope Valley. According to the archives, both sets of drawings date to 1926. The Hyde Park drawings are generally more detailed and definitely more legible. Ross lived not too far from Durham so could be there more easily to supervise construction compared to Hyde Park. Perhaps he was more explicit when he could not supervise construction as regularly.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


I am always grateful to those of you who spend countless hours figuring out who did what.  I am merely interested in the results, and for no particular reason other than it is interesting to me.  I know you have said that there is a boatload of info that has come out since Brad's book ten + years ago.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()