News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« on: December 26, 2021, 05:10:08 PM »
I'm not certain how many times the Golden-Age greats were recalled by clubs to alter/improve their work, or how many times they solicited such an opportunity. However ...

a friend indicated that Pete Dye returned to The Golf Club in Ohio, at some point last decade. He let the membership know that he had learned a few things over the years, and there were some improvements that he wanted to make to his original work. I don't know the details, but I trust the veracity of the story.

Are there golf holes on great courses (let's just deal with the great courses) that Golden-Age architects might have returned to improve? Holes that are not in keeping with the rest of the course, that after five-ten seasons of golf, revealed an alternative?

I'm not after holes that have succumbed to the vagaries of technology/distance gains. What I'm chasing, is holes that needed a little (a bunker here, a shifted green there) or a lot (an adjacent playing corridor) of touch-up, to get in line with the rest of the routing.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2021, 05:36:57 PM by Ronald Montesano »
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Anthony Gray

Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2021, 05:26:05 PM »





 Great question. Ross and Macdonald lived close or on their favorite creation. How often did they tweet them?




Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2021, 05:37:55 PM »
Anthony types like I type! I just fixed two of my typos. I'm guessing he/you mean(s) tweak them.

I immediately thought of Pinehurst #2 and Pasatiempo.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2021, 05:42:52 PM »
Flynn kept reassessing and changing Lancaster CC, and possibly other courses as well. I have little doubt that they all would have kept refining and changing their work if the backing money had allowed them to.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2021, 05:55:30 PM »
Thank you, Jim.

I continue to wonder which SPECIFIC holes stand out to this crowd, as deserving of just such a punch-up from the original architect...
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2021, 06:18:28 PM »
Flynn kept reassessing and changing Lancaster CC, and possibly other courses as well. I have little doubt that they all would have kept refining and changing their work if the backing money had allowed them to.


He definitely did this at Huntington Valley a few years after opening the course.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2021, 07:22:46 PM »
 8)




Shame he didn't alter that bunker at Philly CC......lol    :-X :P :-*

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2021, 04:44:56 PM »
MacKenzie wrote about how he would change Alwoodley in one of the galf mags. The par 3 10th (?) did get changed in that the green was moved but can't recall off hand whether that was down to Mac. Perhaps Neil Crafter will chip in as he managed to locate the old green.


Niall

Peter Pallotta

Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2021, 05:32:57 PM »
I find this easier to think about in terms of living architects, ie those with long careers and several 18 hole new-builds to their names. I'd imagine that, to a person, every one of them would say that they're always learning over the years, always getting better at their craft, always improving their technical and aesthetic 'know how' in terms of actually building good golf holes. Which either means that, if given the chance every living architect would go back to their first course(s) and change not just a hole or two but all 18 holes, making the entire course better, or that they are lying about their continual learning!  :D

« Last Edit: December 27, 2021, 05:35:14 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2021, 05:38:31 PM »
Peter,


Learning is a choice that can only be derailed by ego.


Maerry Christmas!
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Peter Pallotta

Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2021, 05:43:42 PM »
And to you and yours, Joe.

And my compliments: that line may or may not be your most learned, but it is almost certainly your pithiest!

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2021, 05:45:14 PM »
Egan would want to do something with 14 at Pebble.  It has an awkward green.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2021, 07:56:09 PM by mike_malone »
AKA Mayday

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2021, 05:48:01 PM »
Egan would want to do something with 14 at Pebble.


Perhaps, but 12 is where the proverbial dynamite needs to be used.  And at least 14 is pretty unique, I can't think of another par 5 like it...

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2021, 05:49:58 PM »
Peter, et al., I want us to be BRAVE and guess about golf holes.


For example, there is a lot of beef on this DG about the 6-7 hole corridor at Pasatiempo. Might MacKenzie, given his love for the Old Course, have made the 6th and 7th a double fairway, and perhaps incorporated a bit of the 8th as well? The trees are spectacular ones, but they do narrow the two fairways.



Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2021, 06:08:40 PM »
I believe my collection of GCA books is close to 200 and I can't EVER remember reading about an architect writing about one of their designs that they thought was absolutely flawless right from the start (not even Tom Doak  :D


ALL architects know that the game of golf is evolving, has been from the start, and will continue to evolve.  They are not naive to think that what they designed today might not need some tweaking in the years ahead.  Some of the classic architects talked about that in their writings.  Some added elasticity to their designs so they could be modified if and when needed.  Some like Flynn were constantly adjusting things, especially bunkering, as they saw how their courses  were played.  Look at what Fownes and Loeffler did at Oakmont (heck they modified the course in the middle of golf tournaments/exhibitions).  Most things that are stagnate die especially if they are associated with a game/sport that is constantly undergoing change.  Clearly some hold up longer than others but there is hardly a course out there that hasn't undergone some kind of change or could benefit from some.  Look at the The Old Course at St. Andrews itself as the model for change. 


Maybe a few should be kept perfectly in tact like Oakhurst Links for kicks and giggles and played with hickory shafts and gutta percha balls but those are few and far between. 

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2021, 06:09:42 PM »
Egan would want to do something with 14 at Pebble.




Perhaps, but 12 is where the proverbial dynamite needs to be used.  And at least 14 is pretty unique, I can't think of another par 5 like it...


Maybe because it’s goofy.
AKA Mayday

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2021, 07:27:53 PM »
We're getting there. We're approaching BRAVERY. You need to say more than just "12" or "14." I want to know the how and the why.


I think about the hole that follows #3 at Bethpage Black. Many over the years have suggested that any other architect would have followed the valley left to the current 5th tee, and created a very playable hole. The architects instead went low right, then high over the rampart, and built a spectacular par five hole. If they had gone left, I'd like to think this thread would include the missed opportunity right.


Make sense?
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2021, 07:51:24 PM »
Tillinghast reworked San Francisco GC at least once and probably twice.


I'm unsure if Mackenzie who lived at Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz ever changed the course or down the road at Cypress Point.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2021, 08:45:43 PM »
I find this easier to think about in terms of living architects, ie those with long careers and several 18 hole new-builds to their names. I'd imagine that, to a person, every one of them would say that they're always learning over the years, always getting better at their craft, always improving their technical and aesthetic 'know how' in terms of actually building good golf holes. Which either means that, if given the chance every living architect would go back to their first course(s) and change not just a hole or two but all 18 holes, making the entire course better, or that they are lying about their continual learning!  :D


The flaw in most people's understanding of the term "evolution" is the belief that evolution connotes improvement.  Instead, evolution is an adpation to the changing demands of the environment, or, in a business setting, the changing demands of the market.  Just because frilly bunkers [or muscle bunkers, or no bunkers] are in vogue at one time, doesn't make all of the projects that went before "wrong", or worse.


So, I may be better at building whatever kind of bunker I want, than I was in 1989 -- or, probably more accurately, I've got more guys around me who are good at building them.  But, that doesn't mean that if I were to go back to High Pointe and resuscitate it, that I should build bunkers in the style of Tara Iti or Pacific Dunes.  It's a different place, a different setting, and it was a different time in my career, and I think all of that should be respected.


P.S.  If everybody's so much smarter in their old age, then why aren't all of them building their greatest-ever designs?  Could it be that for many, the passion fades?

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2021, 09:14:44 PM »
I believe my collection of GCA books is close to 200 and I can't EVER remember reading about an architect writing about one of their designs that they thought was absolutely flawless right from the start (not even Tom Doak  :D


ALL architects know that the game of golf is evolving, has been from the start, and will continue to evolve.  They are not naive to think that what they designed today might not need some tweaking in the years ahead.  Some of the classic architects talked about that in their writings.  Some added elasticity to their designs so they could be modified if and when needed.  Some like Flynn were constantly adjusting things, especially bunkering, as they saw how their courses  were played.  Look at what Fownes and Loeffler did at Oakmont (heck they modified the course in the middle of golf tournaments/exhibitions).  Most things that are stagnate die especially if they are associated with a game/sport that is constantly undergoing change.  Clearly some hold up longer than others but there is hardly a course out there that hasn't undergone some kind of change or could benefit from some.  Look at the The Old Course at St. Andrews itself as the model for change. 


Maybe a few should be kept perfectly in tact like Oakhurst Links for kicks and giggles and played with hickory shafts and gutta percha balls but those are few and far between.
Mark,


Further to Tom Doak’s post, what does “evolving” mean?
Tim Weiman

Peter Pallotta

Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2021, 09:44:58 PM »
TD, thanks for that. I hadn't before considered the 'uncoupling' of evolution and improvement.

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2021, 09:47:11 PM »

P.S.  If everybody's so much smarter in their old age, then why aren't all of them building their greatest-ever designs?  Could it be that for many, the passion fades?
I think like most creative enterprises someone's best work is done more towards the beginning to the middle of their career when the creative juices are bursting. There are only so many original songs a musician can wrote, only so many original films a director can direct, and only so many great courses an architect can design.I would say the slight advantage a golf architect has is he isn't given a blank canvas (i.e a flat piece of featureless land). If the land is great the chances of building something great is way higher.Pete Dye wasn't very good the last 20 or so years because he had nothing to work with. In the 80s he was great at making very good courses with nothing. After a while, you run out of ideas. A great site is like having a writing partner, like how Lennon had McCartney.
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2021, 10:02:04 PM »
Not to niggle this one to death.

But there are two different concepts going on as I understand them

Architects and those in business are acclimatizing and learning, perhaps very frequently, as they deal with new information, conditions, inputs, etc.

Evolution comes into play after something like a bunker is put into the ground and it changes and perhaps morphs into something else. There is no intelligence in evolution per se, its just a series of near countless small interactions and variations that lead to change, for better or worse.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2021, 07:34:28 AM »
I think that 17 and 18 at Whistling Straits Irish are rotten golf holes, completely out of sorts with the rest of the course. They are culled from Florida course design, the let's-put-a-pond-in-it on both. I don't know that the water had to be there. They did have tabla rasa to build whatever they wanted. Those would be a do-over to make Irish a step better. This is an example of what I hope to read in this thread.


When I think of Donald Ross' Country Club of Buffalo, only one hole stands out as different: 17. They say that the hole used to play left to right slightly, not right to left. That's not true (https://givenmemoriallibrary.net/vex/vex1/images/F24F9373-96FA-40CB-8379-397700797822.jpg and https://giventufts.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/07EEC9F0-7478-4877-9879-493798293386 2nd last image right column) However, that beloved tree on the left, and the pond on the right, are not original to the hole. The JPG above shows the bunker scheme in the drive zone, and the beloved tree stands precisely where the left carry bunker stood.


What do members adore more, a tree or a sand pit? I'd go with the later. As a purist, I'd love to see the tree gone and the bunker returned, but I understand why they want the tree. It's not Ross' fault that someone came in (RTJsr or Cornish) and added a pond. I believe that the 2010s restoration team asked if that tree on 17 should go, as it was not original. The tree still stands.


This second example is not an example of what I hope to find in this thread. I put it here only to keep others from following the wrong path.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of their own holes would the greats have altered?
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2021, 07:39:40 AM »
Tim,
I talk about course evolution a lot on my projects and often do side by side hole by hole and full course aerial comparisons to show what has taken place over time.  Evolution as Tom said is not always for the better which is one of the main reasons for restoration (what is there now is not as good or as interesting as what was there before).   Evolution happens naturally and at the hand of man. 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2021, 08:01:05 AM by Mark_Fine »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back