It is only a matter of time!

[Mark_Fine]

One of the architects we most respect, especially on this site, demonstrated while working on a “restoration project” that, in certain instances this Golden Age design could be improved.  He proceeded to adjust and tweak things and with all due respect, I believe he was right and he did make it better!


Are some of the architects of today better than some of the best architects of the past?  I personally have come to think they are.  Is it just a matter of time until the same will be said by future architects about the best work of today? 

[Ronald Montesano]

They had better be! They are better educated in the architecture, they have better equipment, they have history to draw on. The only thing they lack is the land that the ODG had.


How many architects like Tom, Bill, Gil, David (the darlings of the current money lenders) were forced to change their trajectories when jobs didn't come their way? How many were compelled to design differently, due to their debt to the financier? How many simply don't agree with the way that the Fab Four and their ilk design courses, both in layout and in playing features?


It's a jolly question. I know that you worked with Scott Witter. I always found Scott to be talented and passionate, but 2008 was the nail in the coffin to his career in architecture.

[Ira Fishman]

One of the architects we most respect, especially on this site, stated while working on a “restoration project” that, “Perry Maxwell was a good architect, but we can make this course even better.”  He proceeded to change things and with all due respect to Mr. Maxwell, I believe he was right and he did make it better!


Are some of the architects of today better than some of the best architects of the past?  I personally have come to think they are.  Is it just a matter of time until the same will be said by future architects about the best work of today?

Mark,


Which Maxwell course did you make better?


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

Love it, Ira!!!

[Jim_Coleman]

   No question this is true.  This is why “restoration” is an unfortunate fad.  Hire a good architect and ask him to improve the course. If he’s any good, he’ll look back and forward.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -

over the years I've found myself answering that question in two very different/distinct ways.

At times I've been sure that today's architects (as a group) are better than their predecessors, and that today's best are better than the best from the golden age. You have the advantage of being able to study and learn from 100+ years worth of writing and on-the-ground examples.

At other times, though, I've been sure that the primary/quintessential function of a gca is to route an 18 hole golf course, and that the most prized talent than any architect can posses is the ability to make the very most out of a given/natural site through his routing -- and that, in this regard/context, the golden agers were better than today's architects, if only because they had much more practice at it (and no other choice) in the days before massive earth moving equipment was readily available and ubiquitous.

BUT

If you asked me this same question today, I would probably type NA - not applicable, or neither answer. I just don't think it works the same way in golf course architecture as it does in, say, scientific research.

In the latter, you could not possibly have had a Hawking without an Einstein, or an Einstein without a Newton, or a Newton without a Galileo. We still might not say that one was 'better' than the other, but it is undeniable that the later ones very significantly expanded upon and enriched the work of the earlier ones. But as I say, I don't think gca works that way at all. No one today is "enriching" or "expanding upon" the work of his predecessors; but neither are Ross and Mackenzie necessary precursors to Coore and Crenshaw.

The principles of gca have always been there, and remain unchanged; and also essentially unchanged, from then to now, are the main functions involved and the many tasks at hand, and the varied challenges faced and different talents that are tested. Which is to say: I don't think you can say one way or another whether today's architects are better than those from the past, or not.

[Mark_Fine]

Good and savvy responses by all.  It is an interesting question to ponder and like many questions we ask here, has no definite right answer. 


Ira,
Who knows if any of us make any of the courses we touch better or worse?  I guess you have to ask each architect’s clients and the golfers who play there.  Forrest and I were privileged to work on Robert Hunter’s only original design at Berkeley CC.  We did our best to bring much of the original design/concepts back but we also like to think as Jim said we looked back and forward and improved it. 


By the way, the comment about Maxwell was from Bill Coore and as I said I agree with him, he did make that course better.  At least I think so. 

[Ronald Montesano]

I'll use TD/Renaissance Golf as a counter to Peter's point on expanding the ideas of a previous generation. His work is better known to me than that of other, living architects.


TD/Renaissance builds greens that are better than anyone before them. I've only hated one green that they built, and it was the Redan green at Old MacDonald. I played it twice and it didn't feel like it fit the shot either time. Other than that, absolutely stunning putting surfaces.


Could TD/Renaissance do what they do with Pete Dye? Could Pete have done what he did, without the journey to Scotland? No on both counts. TD/R build better greens that Dye ever did, thanks to his time with Dye.

[Sean_A]

Today's archies stand on the shoulders of yesterday's archies. Regardless, trying to compare today's archies with those of 100 years ago isn't really apples to apples. For one thing, these old courses were intended to be much more difficult than they play today. Second, architectural, agronomic, equipment etc changes have happened which make significant to subtle differences in how courses play. Bottom line is we aren't playing the course that was designed 100 years ago. We play the evolution of those courses with 100 year old evolved eyes.

In truth, it's remarkable and a testament to the talents of the ODGs that so many old courses are revered. I think a big reason they are is that they play far easier than originally intended.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

So to all, are we turning another page in GCA?  When I first started getting involved in “restoration” I was very much a purist. I remember reading at one point about Tom Fazio saying something along the lines of “why should I worry about what some dead guy did 100 years ago, I can make it better”.  I thought that was it a bit arrogant but maybe he was right.  Now I hear others like Bill Coore saying he can improve on what was done in the past.  I was always of the opinion who am I or who is anyone to think they could improve on what some of the great architects of the past did.  We all know many courses didn’t fare so well when that happened. Instead I focused on at least trying to figure out what was once there and outlining to clubs/members through old aerials and photos etc how their course evolved for the better or the worse.  Maybe the new trend which we are seeing more and more of today is going well beyond “restoration”.  It is more of working in the spirit of the original design and literally building on it.  It is only logical to believe that the same will be done in the future for the courses built today.

[Jim Hoak]

Isn't the proper test not what some great architect did, but rather what he would do if he were around today?  That requires knowing his style/his thinking/his principles, etc. and takes some good thinking and hard work.

[Jim_Coleman]

   My problem with a “pure restoration” is when an architect puts a fairway bunker where it was 100 years ago rather than where it has been moved to adjust for today’s game.  Move the bunker 50 closer to the tee challenges the poorer golfer while freeing up the better golfer.  Makes no sense, but it happens.

[MCirba]

Just remember that every single architect and every single committee who screwed up a Golden Age course also believed they were "improving" it.

[Niall C]

Just remember that every single architect and every single committee who screwed up a Golden Age course also believed they were "improving" it.

Mike


That's very true but then it's only dirt and you have the option of having another go. On the other hand how many courses have been improved. I suspect that if you looked at the ledger over time the courses that have been improved outnumber the ones that haven't. It should also be said that the ODG's weren't squeamish about making changes to each others work.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

If a golf course drains well, hasn't been clogged up by trees, retains its original width, and is still maintained the way it was in the beginning, what's there to make 'better'? It's a golf course, serving its function the way it always has, and in its own particular and unique way. Sure, it could be 'different', but why does it need to be different?

It's like the wool sweater your grandmother knitted for you years ago, with a rather pronounced collar, sleeves that need to be rolled up because they've always been too long, and with a horizontal striped design in her three favourite colours. It has kept you warm and cozy on cold Christmas Eves for many years now -- but could there be 'other' sweaters in your dresser, and 'different' sweaters, and even sweaters that you 'like more'? Of course there can, but that doesn't make them 'better', just different and other. And even if it was possible, would you really want to snip and cut or dye or unravel your dear old nan's handiwork just in the name of making it better?

What kind of cold heartless bastard are you? Don't you have any love at all for your aging nan, or warm appreciation and gratitude for all she did for you growing up? You're rich enough that you can buy a dozen new sweaters -- do you really need to make nan's unique gift to you more like all the rest and everything else? Will you actually be happier or more at peace in the end, after you've ruthlessly torn apart what your kindly old nan so lovingly made just for you?

What's that next cold Christmas Eve going to feel like for you, eh Ebenezer? Cozy and warm, or lonely and sad? What will you think about and remember when the Ghost of Christmas Past shows up? Don't you see -- it's the Fairytale of New York this obsession with making every course better: you got cars big as bars and rivers of gold, but the wind goes right through you and it's no place for the old.

[Joel_Stewart]

 "but we can make this course even better.”

I know three former employees for the Fazio organization and all have said Tom has stated that he can make any course better.

[MCirba]

Just remember that every single architect and every single committee who screwed up a Golden Age course also believed they were "improving" it.

Mike


That's very true but then it's only dirt and you have the option of having another go. On the other hand how many courses have been improved. I suspect that if you looked at the ledger over time the courses that have been improved outnumber the ones that haven't. It should also be said that the ODG's weren't squeamish about making changes to each others work.


Niall

Niall,


I don't believe that holds true for courses in the northeast US, respectfully.  By and large, any number of changes made after WWII (including mass planting of trees including crappy pines) were egregiously negative overall and mostly the whole reason for the recent "restoration" movement in the first place. 


I'd also argue that dirt isn't just dirt and that some claiming to be restoration specialists are a velvet Elvis claiming to be a Rembrandt.

[Mark_Fine]

Joel,
I know Tom has said that.  He is a great guy and an amazing architect. We talked several times in the past including for several hours when he did an interview for our book.  That said, it always made me cringe about his thoughts on classic golf courses  But then I heard Bill"s thoughts, as humble as I am sure they were, about a great Maxwell course.  I saw what Bill did and it is better than what was there so I think he was right. 

Peter,
A lot more than what you stated changes over time but I get your point. I have seen a lot of the recent “restorations” and trust me, they are more than just “pure restorations”.  But wow, the changes are really good.

Jim C,
We are dealing with that now with a bunker project I am involved with on a Flynn course.  It is not a black and white answer what should be done. 

Mike C,
I totally agree, there are a lot that got screwed up.  Tom Doak and I both saw that at Cherry Hills.  Thankfully they listened and returned much of the great Flynn design (not all of it).

Niall,
I also agree with you.  However, bunkers, mowing lines, trees,…, are a lot easier to restore compared to greens that have been blown up and rebuilt.  Sorry but you can’t truly restore a classic green that has been completely changed.  You can restore the location, rough shape and size and approximate look but that is about it.  You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Jim H,
You will catch a lot of crap with that statement about trying to assume what a past architect would do today.  But I agree with you, it is critical to study and learn all you can so you can at least make semi intelligent suggestions and observations about what past architects might have intended or had in mind.  Many of them left a lot of good insight and information behind but you need to want to look for it. 

Again, I have the utmost respect for someone like Bill Coore (I can’t think of much of what he has done that I don’t love) but when he said what he said aboutopportunities to not only restore the spirit and sole of an old course but possibly improve it, it made me ponder. 

[V_Halyard]

Anything 100 years old being used by 1000’s of people/year will need some form of update. To say otherwise would be doing a disservice to the course, players and maintainers.
Insight and balance is essential. Ross used his courses in Pinehurst as labs, putting some of them through numerous iterations.

Would be interesting to hear what Tom Bendelow would have to say about this thread.

[Mark_Fine]

V_Haylard,
Also very much agree with you.  There is no arrogance from these architects, especially someone like Bill Coore who is the consummate gentleman; he just wants to do the best he can for any course he works on.  He uses a scalpel vs an axe when he does.  Amen to that. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I suspect there are a couple of things at play here.

1)  Its a near impossible task to define "better" in the aggregate when it comes to a golf course project.  Tom and Bill are both smart guys I'm sure and would have a pretty good understanding of the subjectivity in knowing you couldn't disprove such declaration.

2)  Its possible they're just providing a few sound bytes or quip quicks for course leadership to use in marketing materials for new members or to quell the fears or provide justification to existing ones. And no doubt both of those guys have a helluva track record for what they've done and how raters view their work.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Just like the word better, no one can clearly define what is or isn't "improvement" either. It is subjective.   I don't think there was any marketing intent, I just think architects are being architects.  They are dealing with living ever changing features/landscapes/surrounds for a game that is constantly changing as well.  No one is at fault for trying to enhance things.  That is how innovation comes about.  If nothing is broke there is nothing to fix.  Glad Apple didn't think that way or I wouldn't have my iPhone and couldn't travel and work the way I do 

[Niall C]

Mike C,
I totally agree, there are a lot that got screwed up.  Tom Doak and I both saw that at Cherry Hills.  Thankfully they listened and returned much of the great Flynn design (not all of it).

Niall,
I also agree with you.  However, bunkers, mowing lines, trees,…, are a lot easier to restore compared to greens that have been blown up and rebuilt.  Sorry but you can’t truly restore a classic green that has been completely changed.  You can restore the location, rough shape and size and approximate look but that is about it.  You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Mark,


If I read the OP correctly we're talking about improvement rather than restoration. If you have a fantastic green then why change it ? And if it isn't that great then what is the issue ? There are some fantastically talented people out there, lets give them a chance.


Mike,


Did the velvet Elvis's make the courses better ? Who gives a toss if it's a true restoration as long as the course is better.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
I think the point that will ALWAYS be debated is what is improvement?  As Mike C said, no one sets out to make something worse.  They change/tweak/alter things will good intentions.  The debate is why should you do anything different period - just restore it.

[Michael Wolf]

Setting aside the advances in agronomy, drainage and other technology - and of course those gains have been significant and beneficial - I'm shocked by how many of the responses in this thread seem to define "better" as some vague notion of what appeals to the posters current preferences for strategy or difficulty.

Once a hole is changed, it's gone forever. And every change that's made makes more changes easier to justify. Particularly sad that the R&A is behind some of the highest profile examples of this modern temporary insanity.

Michael