[Tommy Williamsen]

In the 50s and 60s courses were "modernized." Clubs like Oakland Hills and Baltusrol brought in RTJ to toughen up their courses for an Open. Lesser-known smaller clubs did similar things. Now clubs are restoring their courses to reflect the designer’s “original intent.” I’ll be playing Baltusrol and Oakland Hills next month. They have removed much of Jones and “restored” Tillinghast’s and Ross’ intent as well as they could. I am eager to see what has changed and what has remained of Jones’ work.

Clubs are touting their lineage. I came up worth a list of Golden Agers. Alison, Bell, Bendelow, Braid, Colt, Crump, Dunn, Emmet, Flynn, Fowler, Fownes, Hunter, Macan, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Maxwell, Old Tom, Park jr., Raynor, Wilfred Reid, Ross, Strong, Tillinghast, Thomas jr., Thompson, Travis, Tull, Tweedie, and Hugh Wilson. Many of their courses are classics, but some are only adequate and don’t need to be restored but altered.

At the moment, many clubs are restoring their Golden Age courses. They are extolling the virtues of these courses. I wonder if we are not giving too much credit to some of these designs. Maybe some of the courses don't call for restoration but redesign. How does a club decide what to do? Do we give the ODGs too much credit?

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


I was going to write "cue Mike Young" and I'm sure he will chime in, but his take is more that we give the "name" guy more credit than he deserves for what actually got built back then.  [Which is no different than today, really.]


As to the number of restoration projects being done nowadays, you should expect that a lot of them are not strict restorations, but redesigns under false pretenses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy-
a closing line from a wonderful old John Wayne-Jimmy Stewart film, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, comes to mind:
"This is the West, sir, When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[JESII]

The reality is, the name on the front door always gets the credit...they also get the blame. This is universal.


If the question is; since these courses have to be worked on, back and forth even, how great can they really be? I'd argue that's more of a psychology experiment.


I suspect you'll love Baltusrol and Oakland Hills.

[Jim Hoak]

As I have noted on here, Brook Hollow in Dallas has been redone/restored--whatever you want to call it.  It was done in what I think was a great job by Keith Foster, who has worked in recent years on several other Tillinghast courses.  The objective wasn't to make it a "replica" course, in exact adherence to what Tillinghast did originally.  Rather, Keith did it in a style of what he felt Tillinghast would have done if here were alive today--taking into account changes in play, government rules, the environment, etc.
Isn't doing it in the style of "the old dead guys" different than what you are somewhat objecting to?  Keith studied the pictures of the old Brook Hollow course, brought in a Tillinghast historian to advice, and studied the Tillinghast style at many different courses.  The Committee did the same, traveling to several other Tillinghast courses.
The course opened to guest play July 1.  We'll see what people think.

[Tom_Doak]

If the question is; since these courses have to be worked on, back and forth even, how great can they really be? I'd argue that's more of a psychology experiment.

All that's required to provoke changes to a golf course are a bit of self-doubt and fear, things which are prevalent throughout modern society.

[Kyle Harris]

If the question is; since these courses have to be worked on, back and forth even, how great can they really be? I'd argue that's more of a psychology experiment.

All that's required to provoke changes to a golf course are a bit of self-doubt and fear, things which are prevalent throughout modern society.

Nothing is immune to ego with a checkbook that clears.

[Jeff Schley]

Great respect to the ODG's certainly and they should be celebrated for their talent.  However they did benefit from several phenomena, I am taking a crack at defining below. Welcome discussion/additions etc.

• First movers advantage - building golf courses in the US was a blank canvas in the early 20th century as there were hardly any courses in the USA. They took the best of what they knew from the courses in the UK and applied it to their designs in the booming US market.
• First choice of land - Whether it was the developers (rich guys, or consortia to form a club) or the architects themselves who selected the sites to meet their clients objectives, they have the first pick of prime sites which provided the best land, sandy soil and views if by water.
• Financial backing -  Developers were rich, so the courses that were built in general had the resources needed to provide for the design. It was a rich's mans sport (maybe still is today). Conspicuous consumption not to be enjoyed by all as most clubs were private. Muni's weren't the as plentiful.
• Almost no environmental restrictions - Yes there was a time when you could actually build almost anything you wanted however you wanted. Almost impossible to build along the ocean today and in urban areas.

Things working against them:

• Lack of heavy equipment/machinery - Until after WWII there wasn't the heavy machinery that was utilized later to allow for more ambitious builds. This forced the architects to move minimal ground and find great land as they couldn't move much ground. I don't know the definitive history of all courses, but ANGC was unique in that Jones / Mackenzie cut down huge trees to carve out the course. It was a monumental task back then without heavy equipment.
• Golf was not as popular as it is now as it wasn't democratized via public access and price as it is today. The real estate golf communities weren't utilized to sell homes as they were in the 80's onward. So while the best courses were built back then in general, they were prime sites with great backing combined with talent so a gem is more likely.
• The great depression happened. While some progress was made during this time, it slowed down the builds and the demand as the world had other things to deal with.
• Irrigation wasn't a thing then so you couldn't build courses to the extent around the country as we could later in the 20th century due to irrigation, grass types, maintenance technology etc. With new technology came more applications of it to build more courses via these techniques.

So while Mackenzie, Mac, Raynor, Ross etc. have a place on the Mt. Rushmore of GCA's if you switched their places in history with Hanse, Coore, Devries, etc. I think you would have uncovered great results which would have endured to this day as well. Not the same artwork, different but special in it's own right. I think talent is talent regardless of the era, because of technology today it allows for more man made courses which is great because the best sites have either been built on or can't be built on due to environmental restrictions.

[Ira Fishman]

As the baseball HOF Billy Williams liked to say, "the cream always rises to the top." So I agree that great talent will shine through regardless of era. However, it is a testament to many of the ODGs that their work remains so relevant and admired after all of these years. In a thread not so long ago, Tom Doak stated that among the architects who designed more than 100 courses, he would gladly put his name on those designed by Colt and Ross. That is high praise and validation from one era to another.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Yes we do.  But still almost every course deserves at least a careful look at its evolution before making/recommending wholesale changes. 


That said, so much depends on the course owner, who are the golfers playing there, and what they want to accomplish.  If you have a vintage sports car that needs work/repair you probably don’t take it to a Tesla dealer.  But then again, some might have an old Classic and don’t really care.  They just want it to look and run more like a brand new _____.  To each his own. 

[Mike_Young]

Tommy,
IMHO it's not a question of giving them "too much credit" as much as it is a questioning of sorting thru the BS of thinking just because some ODG showed up for a day at some place somewhere it has to be great.    They have been abused in that so many take advantage of notoriety and use it today.  So often a club that has been around long enough to have a financially solid membership will maintain a mediocre course at a high level and the average guy will think it is the ODG that made the course into some classic when all it is a well maintained golf course.  The one's given too much credit are often the one's blowing smoke at these green committees and BSing them.  So often much of the rework is just not needed...JMO...

[Ben Hollerbach]

The epitome of giving the ODG's too much credit can probably be seen at the work that was just completed at Congressional.


While Emmet was the original architect, it's pretty clear that RTJ's work was pivotal in Congressional's status as a championship venue. In all respects the Blue course is an RTJ design.


Even though the Blue course included 12 or 13 original RTJ holes, when the club decided to "restore" the course they bypassed RTJ and went with Emmet. So to properly execute an Emmet "restoration" they would then need to re-imagine how Emmet would have designed and built 2/3rds of the course through playing corridors established by RTJ? How does that make sense?


At the end of the day, I'm not sure how you could call the Blue course today anything other than an Andrew Green re-design that was inspired by Emmet. But the question has to be asked, if the course was going to be inspired by a previous architect why was it not inspired by RTJ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

If the so called "purists" really believe in restoration, and the architect's original intent, then we will start to see more RTJ and Dick Wilson courses restored now, no?  I get the impression that the restoration fad will be over.


It kind of already is, perhaps, with more and more architects seemingly doing more interpretation than restoration, no?  Like all fads, it has to end at some point, perhaps when every Golden Age course has been "restored" to some extent.


Besides, I think gca will become ever more challenging, with ADA, environmental issues, water, etc., etc., etc. having to dictate design to a larger degree than nostalgia.  I also don't expect any limits to clubs and balls so many hope for, so adding tees, stretching length, moving fw bunkers, etc. will have to continue to make the course work for future members and golfers.

[Ben Hollerbach]

So often a club that has been around long enough to have a financially solid membership will maintain a mediocre course at a high level and the average guy will think it is the ODG that made the course into some classic when all it is a well maintained golf course.  The one's given too much credit are often the one's blowing smoke at these green committees and BSing them.  So often much of the rework is just not needed...JMO...

That to me sounds a awful lot like the Country Club of Asheville. An original Ross design, but after nearly 100 years and multiple owners it was hard to say how much time had covered over the original Ross features. Even then, the bunkering was not over done, the greens were subtle but challenging, and the elevation changes made the course absolutely a blast to play.


For the 5 or so years prior, The grounds crew had unified the look of the bunkers with a flat bottom/grass face look and expanded the greens back towards their original size. The course presented really well, with the biggest challenge being turf maintenance during the summer months.


Then the renovation came.


While no original drawings of CCA were on hand, the renovation was grounded in the massive library of Ross drawings that exist from other courses. Using this catalogue of references as the basis of work, the renovation was conducted in the spirit of what Ross would have or could have done. Sadly the end produce is something I'd imagine Ross would have bee disappointed by.


All 18 greens were completely dug up and rebuild using a strong quadrant system to dictate slope. The greens no longer fit with the landscape around them, they look artificial and contrived, but don't you worry because there is a library of information that exist to justify exactly why Ross would have done it this way. Consideration as to what made the previous greens enjoyable was thrown out behind the "expert" knowledge as to why the greens were not Ross creations.


One year after the course reopened it had to be closed again so the greens could be fixed. Certain problematic greens has to be re-graded as the slopes and transitions on certain areas were too sever and maintaining grass on the was not possible. To justify the required changes the architect sent the membership a 6 page letter explaining the fundamental of Ross green design, his great "understanding" of how to build Ross greens, and excuses for why his Ross greens failed after 1 season of play.


BSing indeed.


If the renovation was conducted with respect as to what in the course made it compelling and enjoyable to play, heightening those elements and improving deficiencies, it could have turned out really well. But that was not the case. It was all about how much Ross had been lost and what it would take to put back as much "Ross" as possible, even if those elements were not previously present.

[Ronald Montesano]

I sense four threads operating under one umbrella here:


     --Are the golden-age tendencies as good as some say they are?
     --Did golden-age designers put as much into a product as revisionist historians claim?
     --Did the era cause the architecture, or did the designer cause the architecture?
     --Is the jig up?


Most of these have been answered over the decades of GCA (almost 25 years now, correct?)


I'd love for a working architect on this site to give us his least/most for the following question:


Which of your projects had the most input from your associates in the final product, and which had the least?


100 years from now, GCA denizens will be able to trace their answers, and wish that GCA had been around in 1921.

[John Kavanaugh]

Given how many people from this site still make the drive out to Apache Stronghold we can confidently say that obtuse fandom is not confined to the dead.

[Kyle Harris]

Yes.

[Jim Sherma]

I think the answer is undoubtedly yes. That is not to say that they did not do exceptional work that merits study.


The role that the cubs play in terms of stewardship get overlooked in my opinion. The ODG courses that get most venerated are generally those that are associated with moneyed clubs that have continuously put money into the course chasing excellence. Some of these investments are now looked on as either wrong turns or outright mistakes. However, it was the ability to keep investing in the course that gives us the courses that we have today.


There are cities where the RTJ and Wilson courses have historically been the best clubs/courses in town. Are we seeing those clubs acting similar to the ODG high end clubs on the coasts in terms of restorations?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Some courses that have been designed by these men have only a tenuous relationship. Ross drew plans and hired the crew but didn't ever see some of his finished products. Some of them have been tinkered with over the years and retain little of the original intent. How much can we attribute to them? Some don't have the original plans. Some just aren't all that great and restoring them doesn't make sense. Some clubs just don't know their history very well. It makes it difficult to know what to do.

[Kalen Braley]

If the so called "purists" really believe in restoration, and the architect's original intent, then we will start to see more RTJ and Dick Wilson courses restored now, no?  I get the impression that the restoration fad will be over.

Jeff,

I'm not sure I agree with this premise.  Just because one believes in restoration doesn't mean they also think EVERYTHING should be restored. 

Clubs still have preferences and likes, and perhaps they feel those would be better off to be renovated over restored.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If the so called "purists" really believe in restoration, and the architect's original intent, then we will start to see more RTJ and Dick Wilson courses restored now, no?  I get the impression that the restoration fad will be over.

Jeff,

I'm not sure I agree with this premise.  Just because one believes in restoration doesn't mean they also think EVERYTHING should be restored. 

Clubs still have preferences and likes, and perhaps they feel those would be better off to be renovated over restored.

I don't believe Jeff was insinuating that everything should be restored, rather that as the trend of restorations progresses that we should begin to see more Wilson and RTJ courses get restored. Meadow Brook in NY may be one of the first Wilson courses to be restored, but will it be the last?


Currently it appears clubs who have Wilson, RTJ, and other 1950's and 1960's built courses do not have substantial respect for their original designs. In part that may be because of the golf worlds current love affair with the ODG's. So clubs current preferences and likes may dissuade them from restoring their RTJ in favor of an ODG inspired reimagining. Which is a sad and costly conclusion. While this thread pushes the idea of over appreciating the golden age architects, more should be done to raise appreciation and awareness of the pivotal post-war architecture.

[Thomas Dai]

In a slightly different context maybe we don't give those from the past enough credit. Mr Braid and Mr Woods. Mr Braid also designed some rather fine courses.
atb

[Jim Sherma]

Given that the post golden age era was at least partly, if not mostly, driven by cost containment how much of form follows function should we expect moving forward. As labor, water and other inputs get more expensive will the desire for frilly bunker edges and significant hand mowing wane. Would not be surprised to see a lot of these current Instagram-Reno's be simplified as they age.

[Mike Hendren]

FWIW, Golfweek's Modern vs. Classic Lists:


1.      Pine Valley                         Sand Hills

2.      Augusta National              Pacific Dunes
3.      Cypress Point                     Friar’s Head
4.      Shinnecock Hills                Ballyneal
5.      National Golf Links           Old Macdonald
6.      Oakmont                            Sebonack
7.      Merion East                       Ohoopee
8.      Chicago GC                        Whistling Straits
9.      Pebble Beach                     Bandon Dunes
10.   Fishers Island                     Shadow Creek




20.  Somerset Hills                   TPC Sawgrass
30.  Bethpage Black                 Congaree
40.  Baltimore CC (East)           Gamble Sands
50.  Baltusrol (Lower)               The Tributary
60.  Baltusrol (Upper)               Sweetens Cove
70.  Mountain Lake                   Grandfather Mtn.
80.  White Bear Yacht                Valhalla
90.  Skokie                               Hidden Creek
100. Monroe                             Cuscowilla
125. Palmetto                           Stone Eagle
150. CC of Florida                     French Lick (Dye)
175.  Forsgate (Banks)              Sherwood
200. Bayonet                            We-Ko-Pa
 
 
If you could only play one list?


Bogey

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm not sure we give the old dead guys too much credit. I think we might not be giving the more recently dead guys enough.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()