[Tommy Williamsen]

I've been fortunate to play a goodly number of courses that have had some significant work done in the past few years. Six that I have some experience with are Philly Cricket, Oakland Hills South, Naval Academy, Eisenhower, Pinehurst #4, and Baltusrol Lower. I had liked Cricket before the work was done, but loved it afterwards. The opened vistas made more of a positive change than I thought it would. The conditioning is some areas was much improved.


THe first time I played OHS I didn't like it much at all. The bunker work that was done and the tree clearing were exceptional. I had forgotten how good the terrain is. It felt more playable as well, although without a good caddie the greens would have made me look silly.


Baltusrol Lower was so much better that at times I thought I was playing a new course. It was always very good but the work that Hanse did bumped it up a bunch. Holes 2,5,7,15-18 were just enough different to make me want to go right back out. I think 15 is my favorite hole on the course. The tee ball is demanding and the green is exceptional. If holes 7-12 were on more interesting terrain I would like it nearly as much as OH.


A couple of weeks ago my wife and I played Kyle Franz' just finished work as Southern Pines. I had not played the course previously but had seen pictures. It is now outstanding. The terrain is much hillier than I had thought and the bunkering is just exceptional and in well placed in locations. I had a bunch of sand in my shoes after the round. The par threes were excellent and the short par fours fun. It will make a nice complement to Mid Pines and Pine Needles.


I played #4 a couple of years ago. I loved it in the early 80s, didn't like it much after Fazio's work, but fell in love with it again. For me it was almost like playing a new course.


Other courses that worked are the Naval Academy, nearby Eisenhower, and the totally redesigned Birdwood Course at UVA.


We are living in some great times for sprucing up some older courses.

[Tim Martin]

Tommy-I agree with your take on Baltusrol Lower and think Gil Hanse did a great job. Tree clearing and fairway widening alone make it more playable for all skill levels. I know the membership is keen to have Gil come back beginning in 2024 and undertake the same process on the Upper.

[Dave Duevel]

Tom and his team's work at Bel-Air is the best restoration I've come across. An incredible transformation.


Old Town Club's revival would be a close second.


Locally, Jeff Mingay's work in the Twin Cities region shouldn't go unnoticed. His work at both Minneapolis GC and Town & Country have been tremendous.

[jeffwarne]

Both Southampton GC and Augusta CC were successes(Silva) and quite early in the restoration trend.
Frankly Palmetto didn't have as far to go as either of those as it hadn't fallen quite as far, but Tom Doak and Brian Schneider's work there was excellent.

[Jeff Taylor]

Rolling Road in Maryland got some extensive bunker work, some detail work on fairway shaping, and added some tee boxes.
Given the small footprint of the property, I have to say that the work is exceptional.


https://pbase.com/jstaylor/rolling_road

[Tommy Williamsen]

Rolling Road in Maryland got some extensive bunker work, some detail work on fairway shaping, and added some tee boxes.
Given the small footprint of the property, I have to say that the work is exceptional.


https://pbase.com/jstaylor/rolling_road

I always liked Rolling Road. It certainly makes the best use of its small piece of property. Glad to see it get some loving care.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Just got an e-mail that #8 at Pinehurst is closing for summer 2022.  The objective is to restore the firmness of the turf.


Is that really what people appreciate most about the restorations on some of these courses?

[Mike Bodo]

Tommy,


Interesting that two of the courses referenced in your original post are restorations Gil Hanse did. Having caddied at OHCC in the 80's, I'm dying to see the South course in its current iteration. The photos I've seen look absolutely amazing! The restored 7th looks even better and more playable than anything that had been there previously. The greens at OHS have always been the courses primary defense against par, so don't feel bad if you struggled on them.


The question I have for you is the course major championship worthy or is it too playable now for today's best players? For instance, with all the tree removal that's been done I can see Bryson bombing it anywhere he wants and be able to get his approach on the green from wherever his ball lays in the rough - same with some of the other long-ball hitters on tour, which could render the course not substantial enough a challenge for a major. Thoughts?

[Jeff Schley]

Tom and his team's work at Bel-Air is the best restoration I've come across. An incredible transformation.

Dave it is one of the best IMO as well and I'm only thinking restorations myself. Conditioning has never been an issue at Bel Air for sure.  So it was removing the bastardizations that have occurred over the years there which was needed and ripping off all those band aids at once really has allowed the course to reach it's potential for the ground it sits on.
BTW let's see how the $50 million new clubhouse turns out, which is multiples more than spent on the course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A serious question:


If a course is primarily about site, routing, green contours and hazard placement, why are all these restorations having SUCH a difference on the way these courses are getting evaluated.


Taking all of these transformations mentioned in earlier posts, which of the four elements above have had so much significant change that it changes a course from a dog to a world beater?

[Sean_A]

Are people claiming these courses went from dogs to world beaters?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I recall it being said herein and elsewhere that 80% of restoration/renovation type work is mowing lines and tree/brush removal.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Are people claiming these courses went from dogs to world beaters?

Ciao

That’s how it often appears. In other words, because the aesthetic change suits someone’s tastes, they attribute a greater “improvement factor” to the restoration than it actually merits.


Sure, improvement in playability often changes too and that shouldn’t be underestimated. But structurally, the golf courses often remain the same.


This is more of a philosophical discussion by the way. I too love the look of most of these restoration / renovations.

[Sean_A]

Are people claiming these courses went from dogs to world beaters?

Ciao

That’s how it often appears. In other words, because the aesthetic change suits someone’s tastes, they attribute a greater “improvement factor” to the restoration than it actually merits.


Sure, improvement in playability often changes too and that shouldn’t be underestimated. But structurally, the golf courses often remain the same.


This is more of a philosophical discussion by the way. I too love the look of most of these restoration / renovations.

I spose it comes down to if people consider trees and cut lines as part of architecture. Its hard to argue the architecture of a course isn't altered with mass tree removal resulting in more playing lines. Cut lines too can change how a hole plays. Bottom line for me is tree removal and cut lines are not merely aesthetic changes.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

It is all architecture though, even the aesthetic changes.


I agree that tree removal and mowing lines affect playability. But a lot of it is aesthetic first and foremost.

[Sean_A]

It is all architecture though, even the aesthetic changes.


I agree that tree removal and mowing lines affect playability. But a lot of it is aesthetic first and foremost.

Not for me. Playability equating to less looking and hacking is the biggest reason to remove trees. Aesthetics is secondary, but still important because visuals are important for golf. Usually, an ugly course is not overly inspiring.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

It is all architecture though, even the aesthetic changes.


I agree that tree removal and mowing lines affect playability. But a lot of it is aesthetic first and foremost.

Not for me. Playability equating to less looking and hacking is the biggest reason to remove trees. Aesthetics is secondary, but still important because visuals are important for golf. Usually, an ugly course is not overly inspiring.

Ciao

You’re not doing the work though, Sean. Every architect is driven by their own aesthetic more than they sometimes admit.


A lot of my mow line changes are because I like short grass, I want to try and hide transitions and I want to ensure the scale is right with the surrounding landscape…. “Playability” is a secondary advantage.


Really, I’m just questioning if too much emphasis is placed on the make-up rather than the bones of the course? I’m not 100% sure myself. What I do know is that a “bad aesthetic” gets lambasted in these parts, regardless of what lies underneath.

[Tom_Doak]

Are people claiming these courses went from dogs to world beaters?

Ciao

That’s how it often appears. In other words, because the aesthetic change suits someone’s tastes, they attribute a greater “improvement factor” to the restoration than it actually merits.


Sure, improvement in playability often changes too and that shouldn’t be underestimated. But structurally, the golf courses often remain the same.


This is more of a philosophical discussion by the way. I too love the look of most of these restoration / renovations.

Ally,


I agree with you.  A lot of the most celebrated restorations have spent EIGHT figures to keep the course basically the same apart from the aesthetics.  The principal example of my restoration work cited here [Bel Air] did make major changes to several greens and to practically all of the bunkers, yet I wonder if it's the one cited here because it's by far the most we have ever spent on a restoration.


In contrast, there really have been some transforming restorations done for not so much money.  I believe I remember correctly that when we restored the greens at Yeamans Hall in 1998, we charged $3000 per green to reshape them -- and we had to double the size of the greens and add back all of the contours of the originals because it had been buried under topdressing over decades.  That first step made far more difference in how the course plays today, than all of the bunker work etc. they've done since.

[Sean_A]

It is all architecture though, even the aesthetic changes.


I agree that tree removal and mowing lines affect playability. But a lot of it is aesthetic first and foremost.

Not for me. Playability equating to less looking and hacking is the biggest reason to remove trees. Aesthetics is secondary, but still important because visuals are important for golf. Usually, an ugly course is not overly inspiring.

Ciao

You’re not doing the work though, Sean. Every architect is driven by their own aesthetic more than they sometimes admit.

A lot of my mow line changes are because I like short grass, I want to try and hide transitions and I want to ensure the scale is right with the surrounding landscape…. “Playability” is a secondary advantage.

Really, I’m just questioning if too much emphasis is placed on the make-up rather than the bones of the course? I’m not 100% sure myself. What I do know is that a “bad aesthetic” gets lambasted in these parts, regardless of what lies underneath.

Well if we are taking about bunkers, yes, too much spent is on making bunkers look pretty when the money could have been spent on more pressing areas. But bunkers attract eyes and eyes attract visitor money. Its stupid, but thats part of the importance of aesthetics.


Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,


Interesting that two of the courses referenced in your original post are restorations Gil Hanse did. Having caddied at OHCC in the 80's, I'm dying to see the South course in its current iteration. The photos I've seen look absolutely amazing! The restored 7th looks even better and more playable than anything that had been there previously. The greens at OHS have always been the courses primary defense against par, so don't feel bad if you struggled on them.


The question I have for you is the course major championship worthy or is it too playable now for today's best players? For instance, with all the tree removal that's been done I can see Bryson bombing it anywhere he wants and be able to get his approach on the green from wherever his ball lays in the rough - same with some of the other long-ball hitters on tour, which could render the course not substantial enough a challenge for a major. Thoughts?

Mike, one of the smarter things I did was play the course at about 6100 yards. From the back tees, with the new bunkering and the movement of the greens, I'd be surprised if the pros would go very low. The bunkers were all grass faced so there were no balls in the face of them. It has a lot of teeth. When I had played it previously I could actually move the ball off the tee and my expectations for score were higher. Yet for all that I did get it around in under 80. If I thought anything was a tad easier it was off the tee. The fairways were wider.

[Tommy Williamsen]

At Baltusrol the course was changed somewhat, albeit not dramatically and it went up a notch for me. The tee shot on two is more demanding. The bunkering on five was changed and the fairway widened. Number seven went from a straight away par five (for members) to one that had some turn and a couple more bunkers were added. The tee shot on fifteen is way more interesting and difficult with the new bunkering in the fairway. The par three sixteenth is way more interesting and the cross bunkers on 17 will come into play for more people. Eighteen is different. I can't remember exactly how it used to be but it seems the the water comes into play more off the tee and some bunkers were added up at the green.


There certainly were visual changes but some of the work added interest to the course.

[Dan_Callahan]

The most transformation restoration I've seen was at Kittansett. Taking down all the trees completely changed how the course is played. And visually, by adding ocean views on a majority of the holes, it went from very good to great. They continue to make some tweaks, such as pushing the mounds on 10 farther back to bring them into play off the tee.


The other standout restoration in New England was at Keney Park, which transformed a beat up muni into one of the most enjoyable public layouts in CT.


My hope/guess is that the restoration at Yale surpasses them all ...

[Britt Rife]

Rolling Road in Maryland got some extensive bunker work, some detail work on fairway shaping, and added some tee boxes.
Given the small footprint of the property, I have to say that the work is exceptional.


https://pbase.com/jstaylor/rolling_road

Jeff,  I randomly happened to see your photos last week (you must have just posted them).  Great job!  I'm a member there, and I'll tell you that everyone is thrilled with the work.  The plan was to restore Willie Park's design elements, toughen the course for low handicappers and remove needless irritations for guys like me.  The big surprise was just how aesthetically pleasing the whole project turned out to be.

[Joel_Stewart]

The most successful restoration/renovation I've seen is Cal Club.  Growing up in the Bay Area I can tell you that it was never in the conversation of great courses and seriously doubt anyone on this site ever mentioned it.


They took a huge gamble in a recession 2007/2008, letting Kyle Phillips use some land that was unused, taking down hundreds of trees, planting fescue fairways and restoring the Mackenzie bunkering. 


Now its a top 100 course, membership is full. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Having played a number of before and after restoration courses, the three best and most dramatically improved were Inwood, St. George's, and Huntington.  Bel Air is quite an improved change, but there was a very good blueprint 3 miles below on Wilshire Blvd.  Inwood inspired surrounding courses to cull their trees and improve green runups.  St. George's inspired it's neighbors to recapture green pad areas and of course cull a lot of trees.  And finally, Huntington showed that a bunker here and there could be renovated inhouse along with green expansion to original sizes.  Prior to work, you would have never seen the wonderful flow of the land at these courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()