Did any architect ever get it right to start?

[Mark_Fine]

For all the “Brilliance of Donald Ross” that we heard during The U.S. Open and that #2 is truly is his masterpiece, he sure didn’t get it right to start. It was a constant work in process and took literally years and years to perfect the design even to the point where the greens of #2 today are not Ross’ greens.  And it will no doubt continue to be tweaked over time.   


Does this say something about how we should view new/existing courses?  We might think they are at their peak architecturally when they first open, but how many do we know of that haven’t been improved over time (and in some cases dramatically like #2) through constant effort not only by the original architect but by others as well including those who maintain them?  By the way, “maintain” is probably a poor choice of words!


Note:  I can comment from my own experience on restoration/renovation projects that I can’t think of one project where I wouldn’t like to go back and make some kind of change or modification to work we did.  Sometimes it is because we didn’t have the budget or were pressed to get something done/opened for play by a certain time or weren’t allowed to do something we recommended, or just think we could change something to make it better,… the list of reasons goes on.  But there seems to be always something that could have been better.  And sometimes we do get to go back later on make those changes. 

[Tom_Doak]

Of course, I totally disagree with this point of view, and not just because I've built a few courses that I see no need to change anytime soon. 


Of course, if in fifty years' time there are kids hitting 400-yard drives, someone else will see the need to change it, even if amateurs still hit it 220 and the course works fine for them.  But are you really going to use THAT as proof that I "didn't get it right to start" ?  By your silly idea of design intent, if the equipment and the golfers keep changing, then it's impossible for any design to stay "right" for very long.


As for Pinehurst, Donald Ross lived there and he liked to tinker with Pinehurst #2.  By the same token, he didn't tinker much on Pinehurst #3, and it was just fine until the resort started taking ground away from it and squeezing 18 holes into the space of sixteen.  Did the long-term success of the resort mean he got #3 wrong?

[Michael Morandi]

Aren’t you being a bit harsh, Tom? I'm not a Friars Head member, but I seem to recall that they made some changes not too long after opening and before there were big tech changes in the balls and clubs. Core and Crenshaw, maybe encouraged by Ken Bakst,  weren’t afraid to see how they could make improvements.

[Mark_Fine]

I knew this would be a sensitive subject for some.  I just know from my own projects, there are/were always things we would have liked to have done differently but for whatever reason couldn’t do it at the time. 

But as Michael alluded to, even the greatest courses are often being tweaked in some way.  Think about courses like Oakmont.  One can’t even count how many times Fownes and Loeffler altered that golf course.  Who knows what iteration it is on today. 

I have said here many times, architects like Flynn often didn’t even fully bunker some of his designs until he saw how they were played.  Some like Herbert Leeds at Myopia Hunt carried pebbles in their pockets and would toss them in areas where their were lots of divots knowing that was where balls were landing and have bunkers added in those spots. 

At one of my Tillinghast courses, there were two holes that were totally out of character with the other sixteen.  After much research it turns out the club had run out of money and those two holes were finished in house as best they could after Tillie had moved on. It happens.

Anyone care to guess how many times even the iconic 17th at The Old Course was rebuilt/altered? 

I am by no means saying every course is flawed when it opens but are there many/any out there that are perfect to start?  I recall Pete Dye once saying, if he had just one more parcel of land how he could make the course much better!  Would he or someone else change his design if that land became available or just leave the design alone?

Be clear I am a big advocate of restoration and on courses where it makes sense, trying to restore the original design/intent (yes I know that is controversial for some).  However, I have never believed in restoring just for the sake of it.  Those two holes at that Tillie track are just one example.  That course was not perfect when it opened.

[Tom_Doak]

No course is perfect.  There is no such thing.


Chasing perfection later on, then, is kind of a fool’s errand.  It is way more expensive and disruptive than one’s first attempt, and it is only a matter of opinion that it’s better.


If you couldn’t do something you wanted to originally and that became an option later, sure, go for it.  If you built a course in your backyard in 1903, and built 300 more honing your skills afterward, sure, change whatever you want. 


But those are uncommon situations.  The common situation is that the course is good enough, and if it is, I believe it’s better to leave well enough alone.


I guess it depends on whether you think there is any art in golf architecture.  Artists don’t want to go back and paint over their original work, or chisel a little bit off the nose.  Those decisions were a moment in time, and artists respect the moment of inspiration.  If they have a new idea, they just go out and create another piece of art.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think your last paragraph is prefect and sums it up well.  That said, how many times do you or other architects wish or want to go back and alter something that they did?  It seems to me that many do/did go back and change things.
Golf courses are living art as they are constantly changing even without human intervention so it is different from a painting or a stone sculpture.  They are also easier to change.  Maybe that is a good and bad thing. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The way I have come to look at things is that when I move on from a piece of work - whether it be a new green site or any similar shaping - if nothing “annoys” me in the way it looks (or plays), then I will be happy and will have no desire to change it in the future.


In other words, I have tended to spend enough time with a site before we start construction that I have never had to second-guess my concept. It has only ever been to do with perfectionism with execution.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Yes, golf courses are art, but they are golf courses first. Art is something to admire; a golf course is much more than that. It is something on which a game is played - a game which is constantly changing. Pete Dye tried to improve Teeth of the Dog, his masterpiece, until the day he died. I think it’s beyond selfish to argue that the only person who can improve a golf course is the original architect, and that when he dies improvement ends.

[archie_struthers]

 


Crump pretty much hit it out of the ballpark first time at Pine Valley. I know he had collaborators but not much changed over the years save a few tees to make it longer. A couple of the newer changes should be de-coupled LOL

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does this say something about how we should view new/existing courses?  We might think they are at their peak architecturally when they first open, but how many do we know of that haven’t been improved over time (and in some cases dramatically like #2) through constant effort not only by the original architect but by others as well including those who maintain them?  By the way, “maintain” is probably a poor choice of words!

The newest global top 100 course, Cabot St Lucia by C&C, is redoing a hole and they have barely opened.

[mike_malone]

Just because changes are made doesn’t mean it wasn’t right the first time. You mentioned that Flynn would wait to see play before completing bunkering. I see that as first time work.


  For me tinkering isn’t implying that it was wrong the first time because I see the whole course as what is right or wrong. Small adjustments don’t change that.


We played the Bridge a week ago and significant changes were made from the original so you might say it was wrong the first time.

[Michael Morandi]

The Bridge wasn't wrong from the start. I think they chose Rees because he had successfully navigated the land use rules not too far away in designing Atlantic. Somewhere along the line, the owner wanted a different look. The superintendent was very involved in the build of Hudson National. Personally, I think he likes to change things up. He’s very talented. Course maintenance might not be enough for him. He has a bit of golf architecture in him. Looks like he and Jeff pulled it off.

[Tim Martin]

The Bridge wasn't wrong from the start. I think they chose Rees because he had successfully navigated the land use rules not too far away in designing Atlantic. Somewhere along the line, the owner wanted a different look. The superintendent was very involved in the build of Hudson National. Personally, I think he likes to change things up. He’s very talented. Course maintenance might not be enough for him. He has a bit of golf architecture in him. Looks like he and Jeff pulled it off.

Reese has continued to get plenty of work since he built The Bridge over twenty years ago as evidenced by a chronological list of projects on his website. That said I wouldn’t think he would be the pick if the course was being built today. I wonder what his reaction was to the changes and that he wasn’t contacted regarding same? I guess he must be used to people coming in behind him and chopping up his older designs at this point….

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I am impressed but also a bit surprised that you would never want to change or improve on anything you did in the past.  Good for you but think that is rare for most.  We all seek to do our best work but sometimes obstacles don’t allow it and sometimes we just see things differently after we have studied them a bit more down the road.


Archie,
Pine Valley came to mind for me as well but then I looked at a serious of changes albeit maybe minor but changes none the less to for example #10.  It evolved over time to what it is today particularly the front bunker.


Mike,
You know as well as anyone what Flynn often put in his drawings either never got built or was altered over time.  Take the “interrupted fairways” at Cherry Hills.  If you restored them as Flynn had in his plans you would be mistaken as they were removed by 1938.  He added and altered his bunkering as much as anyone on some courses over time.  So to say that was what he wanted from the start is a big stretch.

[Sven Nilsen]

Not sure in #2 is the best example for the point you are trying to make.  The course opened in an era that was markedly different from the years to come.  Evolution was natural, and inevitable as Ross was on site throughout his life.  It was a labour of love, and if anything should be studied as a memorium of how the game itself changed over the first 50 years of the last century (and beyond).


You could probably say the same for ANGC, although Pinehurst’s lifespan touched on the earliest period of American golf.


Does it surprise anyone that a course built shortly after 1900 was not right by the time the 20’s and 30’s rolled around.


Sven

[Ben Sims]

Perfect is the enemy of good.

I recently went back to see a course I really like and hadn’t seen a long time, Palmetto. It’s still largely as I remember a decade ago. Really down to earth and fun. But one change struck me as heavy-handed: a blowup of the 5th green. What replaced it is certainly not what was there before and in my opinion, not as good. The green that preceded it wasn’t perfect but neither is the one that replaced it. Whether thats problematic is largely dependent on one’s perspective.   

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It happens on this site too. Too often we (the whole treehouse) expects perfection from their fellow posters with reference to perspective, experience, and tone. In the moment, inspiration hits. We toy with it and perhaps try to opine on it. But it won’t be perfect. That’s where grace comes in. Graceful acceptance of art in dirt or writing (or any other medium) is missing. Hard to talk about and even harder to actually do.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,
I am impressed but also a bit surprised that you would never want to change or improve on anything you did in the past.  Good for you but think that is rare for most.  We all seek to do our best work but sometimes obstacles don’t allow it and sometimes we just see things differently after we have studied them a bit more down the road.


Archie,
Pine Valley came to mind for me as well but then I looked at a serious of changes albeit maybe minor but changes none the less to for example #10.  It evolved over time to what it is today particularly the front bunker.


Mike,
You know as well as anyone what Flynn often put in his drawings either never got built or was altered over time.  Take the “interrupted fairways” at Cherry Hills.  If you restored them as Flynn had in his plans you would be mistaken as they were removed by 1938.  He added and altered his bunkering as much as anyone on some courses over time.  So to say that was what he wanted from the start is a big stretch.

Hi Mark,


I didn’t quite say that - I implied that I have never yet wished to change a concept because I’ve spent sufficient time generating them.


Some of the detail we’ve built I would like to tweak. And I’ve changed a couple of tees that we built too small.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I hear what you are saying about #2 not being the best example but then again maybe it is an ideal example because the original architect lived there and really had the chance to study what he built and fine tune it. 


I did give several other examples as did others such as Oakmont, Myopia Hunt, Cherry Hills, even The Old Course at St. Andrews,….  All these courses evolved over time (much at the hand of the original architect/early care givers).
 
Ben,
Be clear, I am NOT AT ALL saying all change is good nor am I suggesting there is such a thing as perfect.  I am simply asking how many courses do we know of that haven’t been tweaked in some way (particularly by the original designer) to enhance or change something they think would help improve it or if given the chance the original architect would do so if they could. 


As yet another example I recall talking with Ron Whitten about a few of the holes at Erin Hills.  He and Mike Hurdzan went back after it opened and modified several of them that didn’t quite play and turn out like they intended. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I suppose the answer is along a scale and not absolute.  In my mostly public side work, it was a luxury to have a hole rebuilt and we felt it was our obligation to get it right the first time.  If we couldn't, I always felt we were just playing in the sandbox as opposed to being professional golf course architects.  Now, that said:


- I understand the great courses have been built by playing in the dirt.  No doubt having that time and $$ freedom can produce better results.


- There are probably a few holes on each course that I might have tweaked with the opportunity.


- I probably loved my courses when built, hated them 5 years later when I had evolved somewhat in my design philosophy, and then loved them again after about 10 years when I could see exactly what I was trying to accomplish.


- Lastly, I always believed that anything I designed that was near impossible to maintain or play would be renovated eventually.  I didn't know many golf course operators who cared about original intent over what it meant to them in operations.


Not to mention, the client is always right, even when they aren't.

[Mark_Fine]

Good post Jeff.  I am sure architects designing totally original new courses have a different perspective vs renovating existing ones and wishing you could do maybe a little more or sometimes a little less.  As you said, the client is always right even when they aren’t.  The trick is to help them get to the right answer and make them think it was their idea in the first place which is sometimes easier said then done 

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  I think your title may be off. One can get it right initially but still make significant revisions. In fact the revisions can be wrong.


  What did you really want to discuss?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You are right the title could be better worded.  A lot of courses are very right on opening day in fact some are incredible.  However, I was just asking despite how great many are when they open, most seem to have changes made to them (often by the original architect) with the intent to make them better.  You would hope when the original architect is responsible for those changes it is because they saw something they could do better.


In the case of Flynn, I believe he definitely felt he could make his courses better well after they opened and he saw how they were played.  Why else would he hold off finishing many of them particularly with his bunkering? It is likely because it is less costly to add bunkers then to build them and then remove or move them later.

[Jim Hoak]

Doesn't the answer to this question require a differentiation between minor tweaks to a course and a total rebuild of the course using the same land?  Obviously, a minor change in mow lines on a hole wouldn't mean that the architect got it wrong.  A total reconstruction--especially if done immediately--might.
But there is a continuum between the two extremes--and you can't decide if the design was wrong without deciding toward which end of the question you are.
Of course, as said, external factors like driving distances might also impact this definitional decision.
So, in the final analysis, the question as asked might not be answerable.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good post Jeff.  I am sure architects designing totally original new courses have a different perspective vs renovating existing ones and wishing you could do maybe a little more or sometimes a little less.  As you said, the client is always right even when they aren’t.  The trick is to help them get to the right answer and make them think it was their idea in the first place which is sometimes easier said then done 

Ken Killian was good at that.  He often introduced design ideas in presentations by saying, "We got this idea from Joe on the green committee and we are going to build it exactly like that, but just a little different."  The committee member stops listening after hearing his name....usually.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I tried using the example of #2 where Ross continued to alter his design as the years went on to the point where it’s actually changed fairly dramatically to what it is today.  Maybe it was “right” at the start but Ross (like many other architects working on their own courses) kept changing things and trying to improve what they first put in the ground.


I asked if we can think of examples where that has not been the case or where the architect wouldn’t alter anything even if given the chance.  That is a harder question to answer.