Can a Restoration Ever Be As Good As a Renovation?

[MCirba]

Haven't had much time to read all this much less participate but Lord...in my experience the changes made to many classic courses over the years have not been what we might consider improvements and in my experience I've seen some fantastic (and some not so much) positive changes by going backwards to original green pads, fairways lines, tree management,  and so forth.


Those arguing for course revisions seem to be stuck on the length justification so just adding new back tees where viable seems to work well in most cases.

[Mark_Fine]

Some old courses were designed with elasticity in mind so length could be added if needed.  That said, I am adding more forward tees these days vs new back tees which is great news and much needed but that is a whole different thread.  Where things get tricker (if one even cares) is on shorter older courses that don't have the option to make their courses longer.  What often happens on these courses is that original hazards that mostly challenged the better golfer are no longer in play for them and for the most part only make the game harder for the higher handicapper.  That criticism is common at my home course by many of our members.  Many feel our fairway hazards are no longer in play for our better golfers (not just scratch players) from the main set of tees which is where almost all events are played (except for the club championship).  They feel the course is too hard for the average golfer and too easy for the better players as a result.  This is actually pretty common at many older courses.  This might be the answer to Jeff's question as to why one might worry about original design intent.  Generally the easiest way to address this is with tees but that is not always an option.

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark: Agree.  Even worse is when, on a 100 year old course, 40 years ago a bunker was moved from a 200 yard carry to a 250 yard carry so that the better modern golfers would be challenged - exactly as you posed. But now, in the name of “restoration,” should the bunker be moved back to where it was 100 years ago, again challenging the poorer golfers and being virtually irrelevant to the better players. This is why I suggest that “blind” restoration is a bad idea.

[Phil Young]

Tom Doak stated: "[/color]Where I argue with all of you is the idea that the Intent was for the course to require certain shots for a certain level of player.  If they intended this, they certainly did not understand how the game would likely evolve."[/size]
[/color]Tom, I disagree with this as Tilly certainly did design his courses with that intent. This can be shown in a January 6th, 1936 interview he did with the Boston Post, where he stated: [/size]“‘The one shot that tells the story in golf is the shot to the green, and if you conceive of golf as a game of animate attack and inanimate defense with regard to that shot, you have my theory of design in a nutshell,’ he summarized, and then sank back to finger his pointed white moustache and seek adequate explanation [bold mine].
“‘All my courses are designed on the principle of the master trap guarding the green [bold mine], just the way the hands might guard the jaw. To play them successfully, the drive must be so placed that the second shot can be hit from the one good strategic position in the fairway [bold and underline mine]. And then the approach to the green must still avoid this one master trap. You see now, I hope, my theory of inanimate defense against the animate attack of mid-irons, mashies and niblicks.’”
He further stated: “‘Just this, If that master bunker remains by the green, the par golfer will always have his troubles. But nearly all the fairway traps can be removed. They only harass the dub, who will have trouble enough without them. They do not affect the par golfer, who is seeking only to place his drive on the right side of the fairway and get a good shot at the green.”
[/size]He is clearly stating that he designed his holes to challenge the better player differently than the lesser one.
[/size]As I stated earlier in this thread, he also expected his courses to change over time, both in the short and long-terms, primarily due to equipment changes and the ability of players improving, and gave the two examples of SFGC & Brackenridge Park. I do agree with you in that neither Tilly nor any other architect from that era would expect the game to evolve as it did for every level of player, yet even with that evolution of the equipment and player, which is what primarily changed, his design intent still meets those challenges when properly applied to modern golf courses, whether by reconstructing them or building them new.

[Ira Fishman]

There certainly cannot be a rule that covers all courses given the wide variety and quality of courses. However, there is a class of them where there should be a presumption against alterations. Architects clearly are entitled to earn a living, but to continue Jeff’s Wright analogy, it is hard to believe that any building architect worth his or her salt would not turn down a commission to alter Fallingwater or the Guggenheim. Sure, fixing the plumbing (irrigation analogy) is one thing but moving or resizing wings (greens analogy) is a wholly different thing.

Ira


What if the overhanging structure had lost its structural integrity or wasn't well enough engineered (not sure if that is the case with Wright's designs but certainly there is reference somewhere to propping up) would you;


a) let the structure decay and degrade naturally to the point that it couldn't be used
b) restore to its original design/spec knowing that it was no longer fit for purpose
c) adapt the design so that it didn't fall down


Niall

Restore the structural integrity without moving or removing the wing. This is analogous to rebuilding the face of a bunker that might collapse. No change in the original design of the course.


More interesting: are Jim C and Mike members of the same club and same green committee?


Ira

[Jim_Coleman]

  Yes club; not committee. He’s winning.

[Kalen Braley]

I've been thinking about this question a bit more, and it seems to me I would have asked this question otherwise,  "Can a renovation ever be as good as a Restoration".

Is TPS better than it was in the 90s?  I suppose.  But it doesn't hold a candle to before and after pics I've seen of places like LACC North for example.

[Joe Bausch]

Tom Doak stated: "Where I argue with all of you is the idea that the Intent was for the course to require certain shots for a certain level of player.  If they intended this, they certainly did not understand how the game would likely evolve."

Tom, I disagree with this as Tilly certainly did design his courses with that intent. This can be shown in a January 6th, 1936 interview he did with the Boston Post, where he stated:

 “‘The one shot that tells the story in golf is the shot to the green, and if you conceive of golf as a game of animate attack and inanimate defense with regard to that shot, you have my theory of design in a nutshell," he summarized, and then sank back to finger his pointed white moustache and seek adequate explanation [bold mine].

“‘All my courses are designed on the principle of the master trap guarding the green [bold mine], just the way the hands might guard the jaw. To play them successfully, the drive must be so placed that the second shot can be hit from the one good strategic position in the fairway [bold and underline mine].

And then the approach to the green must still avoid this one master trap. You see now, I hope, my theory of inanimate defense against the animate attack of mid-irons, mashies and niblicks.’”

He further stated: “‘Just this, If that master bunker remains by the green, the par golfer will always have his troubles. But nearly all the fairway traps can be removed. They only harass the dub, who will have trouble enough without them. They do not affect the par golfer, who is seeking only to place his drive on the right side of the fairway and get a good shot at the green.”
He is clearly stating that he designed his holes to challenge the better player differently than the lesser one.

As I stated earlier in this thread, he also expected his courses to change over time, both in the short and long-terms, primarily due to equipment changes and the ability of players improving, and gave the two examples of SFGC & Brackenridge Park. I do agree with you in that neither Tilly nor any other architect from that era would expect the game to evolve as it did for every level of player, yet even with that evolution of the equipment and player, which is what primarily changed, his design intent still meets those challenges when properly applied to modern golf courses, whether by reconstructing them or building them new.

[Phil Young]

Thank you Joe, I didn't realize that it didn't post properly.

[Jim_Coleman]

“I've been thinking about this question a bit more, and it seems to me I would have asked this question otherwise,  ‘Can a renovation ever be as good as a Restoration.’”



    The reason I framed it the way I did is because an architect hired to do a renovation would be free to do a pure restoration if he believed that would produce the best golf course. But if he believed making changes from 100 years ago would improve the course, he could do that too - say 90% restoration and 10% improvement.
   It seems that the best argument against this is mistrust of the architect, and I’m not sure that’s a good way to hire someone. Maybe say to your new architect, “We’d like a restoration, but not at the cost of making a hole worse than it can be for today’s game.” This would leave the new architect the freedom to leave a well placed bunker or tree that was added after the course was built, or to add one himself.

[Sean_A]

“I've been thinking about this question a bit more, and it seems to me I would have asked this question otherwise,  ‘Can a renovation ever be as good as a Restoration.’”



    The reason I framed it the way I did is because an architect hired to do a renovation would be free to do a pure restoration if he believed that would produce the best golf course. But if he believed making changes from 100 years ago would improve the course, he could do that too - say 90% restoration and 10% improvement.
   It seems that the best argument against this is mistrust of the architect, and I’m not sure that’s a good way to hire someone. Maybe say to your new architect, “We’d like a restoration, but not at the cost of making a hole worse than it can be for today’s game.”

Its not an issue of trust, more an issue of filling the brief. A restoration is a tightly guided exercise designed to take a course back to a specific era. A renovation is more open ended and may include restorative elements. In the right hands either approach could be better.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   Why is adding length to a hole any less of a renovation than, say, moving or adding a bunker to accommodate today’s game?
   Maybe here’s another way to look at it. When an architect moves or removes a bunker or a tree or makes some other change, the answer to the question of “why”  should not be “because that’s where it was 100 years ago.” It should be “because that’s where it was 100 years ago and it’s better this way for the following reason.”  If that’s the answer, the club should defer to the architect’s judgement, because that’s why he was hired and no such decision will likely bring unanimous agreement.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Your last comment is accurate.  I personally don’t believe is restoring crap just for the sake of the word restoration.  I tried to point out that even on the greatest courses like Winged Foot where clubs were trying to bring their course back to a certain high point/time frame.  Even these “restorations” were not pure restorations.  Merion and many others fall in this same category.  Frankly I can’t think of any pure restorations.  Yes some are closer than others but that is why you hire an architect to help make those decisions.  Preferably hire one who cares about the past if you truly are looking for a finished product that reflects the past. 

[Mark_Fine]

By the way, how do you “restore” an old oak tree that was six feet tall when planted and now is 60 feet tall and hangs over half the green or fairway?  What you also have to love are what I call "back up" trees that are planted next to other trees for when the original tree dies.  This is sometimes how forests get planted    Restoration is not always as simple as some here think.  And then you have new roads and neighborhoods that end up around old golf courses.  Talk about safety issues and major drainage issues (some older courses have become catch basins for the development around them and all that water needs to be managed). All these things need attention and impact restoration decisions. 

[mike_malone]

Mark,


It’s a simple question. Can a restoration be as good as a renovation?


Absolutely. Nuff said.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
What we can’t all agree on is what is what 

I can’t think of many if any project I was involved in that didn’t have some of both. 


Is Rolling Geeen a restoration or a renovation or a combination of both?  You know the answer 

[MCirba]

If the intent is to move bunkers to new places that will impact the new brand of bombers coming up, that ship has sailed and the point is moot.


Played Old Mac a few weeks ago with a great kid who caddies at Bandon.   Playing downwind on the "Bottle Hole" he just blasted a drive over 400 yards over all the trouble and was just short of the green.  While impressive, he inexplicably chunked the touchy shot he had left before recovering to make par.  On the par five 15th, into the same breeze, he hit driver, 4-iron and almost made an albatross, his ball finishing about 3 inches behind the hole.   He was about 6'2"", 160 pounds and just torqued the crap out of it.


He's not unusual these days and if you think these guys fear being in a manicured fairway bunker with a short iron that would be another mistaken assumption.  Unless a bunker is somehow unkempt or there is very soft sand where the ball sits well down it's just a nice, spin-able, tight lie to those guys.


We are still thinking from the prism of our own games.  Because we view bunkers as hazardous to our scoring we are thinking that moving bunkers to where...300 yards?  350?  375? is somehow making our courses more challenging in a nuclear, grip and rip stage of our golf evolution.


I would argue that bunkers moved out to the bombing range would still only impact the weaker players and the "rest of us", only on our 2nd or 3rd shots.

[Kyle Harris]

This entire discussion seems to be a proxy war of using restoring a golf course to restore an aspect of the sport and game.

[Tom_Doak]

This entire discussion seems to be a proxy war of using restoring a golf course to restore an aspect of the sport and game.

This is well said.  A lot of the people who are so passionate about renovation are just tired of seeing how much farther young players today can hit the ball.  They want to Do Something without thinking through MCirba's point above, how meaningless fairway bunkers are to these young guys.  A half hour's discussion of that with Brooks Kopeka was all I needed to hear.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Most of us have given up (especially on most older courses) to trying to design for the bombers.  It makes no sense and I rarely if ever worry too much about that.  In most all situations, you have to worry most about the majority of the players who will be regularly playing the golf course.  As such, if every fairway hazard (what ever kind it is) is primarily impacting the player hitting it 180-220, is that really what the original architect intended?  What you don't want is a course that offers little strategic challenge for the better players (say 10 handicap and below) but is at the same time very penal for your higher handicappers. 


Bunkers clearly don't bother the best players (as has been stated here by several) but they do very much bother the higher handicappers.  So my point is why should they (mainly talking about fairway bunkers) always be left in locations that only impact the weaker player?  Yes sometimes that is the only place they fit properly and in those cases leave them, but that is not always the case especially on flatter topography. 

[Ira Fishman]

As Kyle points out, the thread has become centered on the question of fairway bunker placement, but the larger issue of whose judgment should be followed covers more aspects of a course: green location, slopes, green contours, fairway width, green side bunkers, angles from the tee, etc. For the category of golden age classics (probably 200 or so US courses), I certainly would strongly presume to trust the judgment of the original architect. Sure, there are fabulous modern architects whose ideas for a particular hole or holes might overcome that presumption, but it should be a compelling case versus even a well thought out viewpoint about modernization.


We also seem to be missing the fact that a club that is interested in a restoration has a course that was altered subsequent to its original status either by other architects or the course of nature. It strikes me that the question then becomes the degree to which the course should be put back to the original rather than a modern architect wanting to layer on further changes. I see a better case for leaving changes alone if they have worked well than for making significant new alterations from the original.


It strikes me however as a fool’s errand to make decisions based on assumptions about broad categories of golfers by ability when (a) technology will continue to change and (b) golfers in any category are likely to have divergent views about architecture, even where fairway bunkers should reside.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Good points.  I like your last one the best where you said about "technology will continue to change".  This is where I believe many courses should evolve or at least consider evolving with it.

Note:  Most courses that are interested in "restoration" are primarily looking for strong consideration given to refining what is there now or what was once there if it is recoverable vs having someone come in and blow the place up.  My course, Lehigh CC (a fantastic 1920's Flynn) is a great example.  Years ago when the club was interested in making improvements to their golf course, they had one architect come in and he created a totally new plan.  It would have been a remodel.  Another architect came in and talked about "restoration" which really meant, enhancing what was there and restoration of some of what had been lost or changed over time.  What was done was by no means a "pure restoration" even though the perception is that this was a restoration project. Most all projects, where the term restoration is banded about, are hybrids.  And these projects definitely can be much better than remodels or renovations where little if any original work is considered.     

[Kalen Braley]

This entire discussion seems to be a proxy war of using restoring a golf course to restore an aspect of the sport and game.

This is well said.  A lot of the people who are so passionate about renovation are just tired of seeing how much farther young players today can hit the ball.  They want to Do Something without thinking through MCirba's point above, how meaningless fairway bunkers are to these young guys.  A half hour's discussion of that with Brooks Kopeka was all I needed to hear.

Tom,

While I agree in principle, I'm having trouble squaring this up with the near unanimous chorus of PGA Pros and co who abhor center-line bunkers on the courses they play.  Weren't you basically told not to put them in at Memorial Park?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


Typical golfers know exactly where fw bunkers should be placed......5 yards past their maximum drive.   And seriously, for average golfers not much has changed either distance or dispersion wise in 40 years.  As Mark says, 99% of discussion is based on the ability of 1% of players, and it is also a fool's errand to base design on those, except for courses that know they are going to host major national tournaments at some level.  Even for state amateur events, courses rarely play over 7,000 yards and are set up to protect the lower half of the field, which might be shooting in the high 80's.


I just heard a PGA Tour official say that the statistically, best defense in the 300-350 yard range is fw cross slope.  I suppose gnarly random slopes might work as well.  Jim Colbert told me the same thing 30 years ago.  It is not really cost efficient to build too many bunkers out in the range where only 1% (or less) will hit.  Maybe a few for variety.


BTW, with more architects using proportional tees, which on longer par 4 and 5 holes sometimes puts the forward tee players in position to drive past the 300 yard dogleg, hazard placement gets a lot more complicated than back when we arranged tees to try to get all players somewhere near the proposed LZ, but leaving a disproportionate approach shot length for most players.


I see a better case for leaving changes alone if they have worked well than for making significant new alterations from the original.I completely agree with your statement above.  It jives with my earlier thought of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  And I mean for any reason, whether history, style choice, whatever.  The design needs to solve problems, not cause them.  And, ideally, identify future problems and fix them.  It's about a lot more than what you talk about here when you consider upcoming environmental issues, best practices, and cost savings, efficiency, etc.  A typical example might be bunker slope steepness.  If Tillie and others design flash bunkers that just keep washing, even with a bunker liner, does it make sense to purposely recreate bunkers that cost an additional $50K per year just to be historically authentic?  Obviously, there are a few clubs where money is no object, but for most, it is.  Yes, financial stability does affect design.....

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


I could not agree more about not designing or altering for the 1%.


But I also do not think that one should move bunkers because they may now affect weaker players like me. I do not want to make generalizations, but an awful lot of us accept our games for what they are and do not mind taking our punishment even if our class of players could not reach the bunkers with the technology available when the course first opened.


Ira