Sean, Sean, Sean... I realize this is in vain, since your agreement with Rich and Forrest shows we've already lost you to the dark side, but I will try anyway to bring you back.
First of all, I don't think there is anyone on this side who is for restoration as strict as you, Forrest or Rich (henceforth referred to as the Evil Axis, or EA
) imply. I don't think even Tommy or Tom M, probably the two strongest proponents of restoration, have stated that there must be a slavish devotion to each and every blade of grass returning to its rightful place, as it were.
Second, I think that most of us on the pro-restoration side recognize the inherent difficulties in practicing "true" restoration, if there is such a thing. What most have called for is that the "restoring" architect do as much research as possible and attempt to remove his ego from the process as much as possible. I like to look to similar practices in analogous industries for examples. There are people that specialize in restoring historically valuable art, for instance. I don't think most would view their work as a success if they were modernizing features on the artwork.
Now I know the EA is going to jump in at this point and (rightfully) state that a golf course is a natural evolving entity and that it is unrealistic to ignore the changing demands and nature of the game. These are certainly valid and strong points, but they are also ones which are not ignored by the good guys. I think most of us (the good guys, that is) feel that not enough thought is being put into changes made, and that too often the changes made in fact achieve the exact opposite of their intent. Furthermore, if they are not corrected relatively quickly, they can themselves become part of the whole "what and when do you restore to" equation. I think us good guys tend to think most of these changes are simply made for reasons of difficulty, and frankly are usually worthless.
Third, I think the EA
loves to try to paint the good guys as a bunch of ivory tower idealists who refuse to accept the real world. I haven't met the other good guys in person yet, but I would say that likely nothing could be further from the truth. We simply care about the historical nature of the art involved and feel that, on balance, far more harm than good has been done under the guise of "improving" golf courses.
We like to ask simple questions that are ridiculed by others (questions which to my mind remain unanswered) like:
- Why can't "restoration architects" (the whipping boys, anyway) seem to make bunkers or holes that fit in with the rest of the course? Is their intent mailicious, or simply mistaken?
- Why do people seem obsessed with score or difficulty being the determining factor of a courses greatness? Why can't members appreciate what they have? How many members are really tearing up their home courses? Does it really matter what Tiger shoots? Do they have a healthy enough ego to see that it doesn't? Some of the old guys (Jones & Mackenzie spring to mind) seemed to feel a golf course should yield low scores if played well. Food for thought for today's leaders.
Fourth, I don't think any of us feel all golf courses are above any sort of remodeling. Where we seem to differ is in our regard for special older courses. Even someone like Tom MacWood, who has done the research to back up his claims, has said a course like Medinah might benefit from someone like Rees injecting a certainly personality it might be lacking. Again, we differ from the EA in that we don't think personality should always be injected into a course.
Fifth, most of us (good guys) don't take statements like "building in the spirit of" well - I'd say history is on our side for this one, but there certainly are exceptions.
Sixth, we view this board as an opportunity to exchange ideas. I don't think any of us feel that we have a right to inject or enforce our own beliefs into a private club, but maybe we just hope that pointing out that sometimes the emperor indeed wears no clothes may help folks out. Admittedly, on this point some of us can come across too strong, but others make completely reasonable, rational comments, only to have them shouted down by others. I guess it's all in your view of the particulars.
I need to pause now because my thoughts are becoming more and more disjointed.
I will conclude by saying that most of the good guys
feel that each situation is different and must be examined as such. It is the EA that has attempted to portray us as overly zealous in an attempt to discredit our opinions (kind of like I'm doing to the EA in this post, in an attempt to inject a little levity into the situation).
I suspect all of us could sit down over a beer or three and we'd probably find that we aren't that far apart. At least, I hope so. If nothing else, I hope we'd respect each others opinions and their right to them.