Preservation of Architectural Integrity in face of technology

[Ronald Montesano]

In the Oakmont course feature on this site (https://golfclubatlas.com/countries/oakmont) the author in 2008 writes (apparently) admiringly of William Fownes' commitment to the preservation of architectural integrity, in the face of "rendered ineffective through time."

"William C. Fownes spent over four decades getting to know the course and observing how it played. If a particular bunker was rendered ineffective through time (such as the advent of steel shafts in the 1930s), he did not hesitate in working with the legendary Green Keeper Emil Loeffler to build another one further up the fairway to ensure that the integrity of a hole was preserved. William C. Fownes and Loeffler made a formidable team, both in the construction of bunkers and in imbuing the greens with some of the most imaginative interior contours for putting surfaces on this side of the Atlantic. Loeffler accentuated the design’s merit by setting new standards for fast and firm playing conditions in the United States."

Does this apply to just bunkering at Oakmont? Does this apply to golf course preservation in general?

[Mark_Fine]

Ronald,
This gets very much into “design intent” which some on this site do not think is relevant.  Their argument is how can anyone but the original architect know what their design intent was!  As such they feel just leave everything alone and not worry about preservation or restoration of architectural integrity. That is one approach and it can make sense for certain courses in certain situations but it will always result in debate.  As the game changes, should the playing fields change with it or remain constant?  There is no black and white universal answer.

[Ronald Montesano]

Thank you, Mark.

Over my near-20 years on the DG, I've read both sides of the argument. I've seen restorative and renovative combined with success, most recently on a visit to Fox Chapel. I've read opinions of diametric opposition on the matter.

It's always worth noting when something from a respected source is written on the matter, leaning one way or the other. That was my intent with this thread.

I think about Myopia (1894) and Oakmont (1903) and imagine that the intentions of the founders had to be quite distinct. I wonder if someone like Fownes the elder was always thinking ahead to expansion, knowing that there was extra room out there. I wonder if Forbes (Myopia) was content to not do so. Sometimes, golf courses become legendary with no intention of doing so. At other times, that was the plan all along.

[Mark_Fine]

Ronald,
I have studied Fownes and Loeffler extensively as I have worked on Loeffler courses and also worked on a plan for Oakmont East.  I was just talking about it with an Oakmont member two weeks ago. Both these architects would not expect their course designs to remain stagnant and there is enough writing and evidence out there to prove that. Fownes and Loeffler would be rolling over in their graves if they watched their design features be rendered obsolete by modern play. It wasn’t about ego for them in that they did their absolute best at the start and nothing should change to their courses.  It is almost the exact opposite.  If they felt something could be improved to make the course better or more challenging,…, they would literally implement that change overnight.  Ask Sam Sneed

Again determining “design intent” is very controversial.  I understand that.  It is one thing to say, I think XYZ architect would have changed this or done that.  But if backed up by evidence of writings and research, etc at least it lends some credibility to the statement.  Good luck with this thread

[Tom_Doak]

Oakmont was built for championships, and if it was Bill Fownes' intent to keep it relevant for championships, that's fine.  I hope he left a lot of money in his will for that.


Most courses [as in 99.5% of courses] are not built for championships.  Yes, the architect may have thought about them in terms of challenging a certain player who hit the ball a certain distance [say, 250 yards] . . . and it still works perfectly for that distance, it's only that isn't quite the same subset of players anymore.


The best architects fit everything to the topography of the ground.  When you change the scale significantly -- if you want to test the guys who want to hit it 300 yards now, instead of guys who hit it 250 -- it often isn't possible to put tees in the right spots to make that work.  And just moving bunkers does not have the same effect, because they won't fit into the topography the same way. 


This was a real problem for us at Crooked Stick last year.  Mr. Dye made his landing areas rise up to the golfer at 250-280 yards off the tees, but now the best players hit it over that, and if you move the bunkers out to 320 you can't even see them unless you build weird landforms to prop them up.  So his INTENT wound up completely backfiring on him.


Oakmont is not nearly as difficult for modern players as it was 100 years ago, even with all of their changes to keep it relevant.  I wonder what Mr. Fownes would think about players driving into the ninth fairway to get a better angle on the first green?  If he came back from the grave to watch today's players, he might blow up the whole place.  Or close it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
All great points.  As I said, this is a very controversial topic. 


I am a 99% guy as well (you might remember years ago my 99% rule).  But I have a question for you.  Who were for example most of the classic golf courses designed for? Are you saying Oakmont is the exception and it was one of very few designed for championship play? If so, are you suggesting the 99% back then are no better golfers than the 99% today and that the game really hasn’t changed for them so there is no need to change the golf courses?

I understand totally about using landforms etc. But if courses were designed back than for the 99% how can they be still perfectly relevant for the same 99% today unless the game didn’t change for them.

Maybe for example those bunkers set at 250 back then weren’t in play at all for the 99% if they are perfectly relevant for those same golfers today? 

[Jim_Coleman]

   I’m with Mark. If the primary purpose of a bunker is to help paint a picture, leave it. But if the primary purpose is to offer a challenge to the golfer who hits a poor shot, move it to suit today’s game. Otherwise, by leaving it alone you’re only challenging today’s weaker players, who don’t need the additional challenge. Yes, some bunkers serve both purposes and a decision has to be made. But most do not.

[Thomas Dai]

Per Alister MacKenzie …..
Atb


“3. There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.”

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Adding length (new tees) is easy when there is adequate room/real estate.  The challenge comes when there is no room to add tees. 

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
Adding length (new tees) is easy when there is adequate room/real estate.  The challenge comes when there is no room to add tees.

The point I suggest is that Dr MacK’ was considering matters in advance?
In other words, putting his mind to anticipating and preparing for what may lie ahead.
Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom makes the most important point. Architects don't just plonk a bunker down because they think it should be at a certain distance: they reflect the topography of the ground. Colt, for one, often put bunkers at what might be perceived as random distances, because he saw a landform that would suit a bunker. No landform, no bunker. QED they can't just be moved like that.

[Joe Hancock]

As we contemplate adding length and moving things around to accomodate change, why is it we tend to ignore the need for added width? The ball doesn’t *only* fly farther in a straight, intended line after all. If we’re going to play the game of ascertaining architectural intent, let’s consider all facets.

[Joe Hancock]

Tom makes the most important point. Architects don't just plonk a bunker down because they think it should be at a certain distance: they reflect the topography of the ground. Colt, for one, often put bunkers at what might be perceived as random distances, because he saw a landform that would suit a bunker. No landform, no bunker. QED they can't just be moved like that.

I agree, with the addendum that much of Florida allows one to make their own landform to support a bunker, if they’d like.

[Mark_Fine]

Great sites definitely dedicate hole and hazard locations much more so than more mundane and featureless sites.  But I always recall Gil Hanse telling me years ago when we were walking a potential new golf course site together that he preferred the flattish rolling farmland over the more dramatic parts of the property we were walking.  He said they was his feeling in general with the reason being that on featureless land he could build what he wanted and not be forced to use certain landforms, etc in his design. 


On many new and old golf courses, the architect built what they wanted and where they wanted it.  I don’t buy the argument that “most” courses were “found” and they had no choice but to locate bunkers for example only where nature dictated.  No question most moved less dirt in the classic age and definitely tried to use what they were given and some like Flynn didn’t like anything blind but they also built most of their features on most of their sites and they placed things where they wanted with a purpose.  Read George Thomas’ book and tell me he just found all that strategy he tried to incorporate on all the sites he worked on.  I don’t think so.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Many architects either feel that way, or just accept that it is something to take advantage of when presented the opportunity.  Pre-design, I usually feel that at least 12 holes can be built without any grading outside the tees greens, and bunkers.  The other six may require varying degrees of major earthwork changes.  In fact, since you usually need a place to put the fill dug out of irrigation lakes, I have twice had the problem of designing "too natural" of a routing without need to deposit 30-60,000 of fill somewhere.


It also applies, IMHO, to preserving the architectural intent or integrity.  On gently rolling land, I would guess many, if not most, holes could move the fw bunkers down the fw by placing them in a similar upslope that was used to build the original bunker.  So, if the landform exists to move a bunker from 250 to 300, most would use it to update the hole but keep the strategery the same.  On holes where accommodating landforms are not available, the gca needs to take another tac.


BTW, I learned in SF at our annual meeting that the USGA keeps its course rating base distances at 250 yards, despite increases.  First, even single digit handicappers have driver distances averaging just 258 yards.  But wayward balls don't go as far, so any lateral hazard should be a bit less than the average drive, in their opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Lots of good points.  I am just saying, there are features/bunkers/natural landforms,… you simply can’t or don’t want to alter but many others were built and there is sometimes room to make adjustments to those that the original architect would likely have considered as the game has changed. 


In 1980 the average drive for the “best players in the world” was just over 250 yards (256). What was the average at the turn of the 19th century (obviously much less) and how far were the rest of us hitting it back then?  My point is after 100 plus years of the game of golf evolving, the original design intent of most courses built back then has had to have been altered for some golfers, probably for most. If when doing restoration, we don’t at least try to give some thought to original design intent, are we really doing restoration?  If for example we “restore” an original bunker that back then was for most a target or aiming bunker and now is a carry bunker, what did we restore?  Sometimes what to do after careful study is obvious.  Other times it requires a decision and that is when it gets tricky.

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom makes the most important point. Architects don't just plonk a bunker down because they think it should be at a certain distance: they reflect the topography of the ground. Colt, for one, often put bunkers at what might be perceived as random distances, because he saw a landform that would suit a bunker. No landform, no bunker. QED they can't just be moved like that.

I agree, with the addendum that much of Florida allows one to make their own landform to support a bunker, if they’d like.

I mean you can build a landform anywhere, not just in Florida, if the budget permits it. But that isn't quite the point, is it?

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
No question some courses are found and the land on those sites dictates most everything.  But many courses (like many of those in Florida) since Florida was mentioned, were built not found and there is opportunity to restore architectural integrity.


By the way, were the Streamsong courses mostly built or mostly found. I believe the land was a former phosphate strip mine.  As such it had likely been heavily disturbed prior to golf.  The architects surely encountered some wild and unusual land forms but were they natural or from the mining process?  And does it even matter? 

[Sean_A]

Tom makes the most important point. Architects don't just plonk a bunker down because they think it should be at a certain distance: they reflect the topography of the ground. Colt, for one, often put bunkers at what might be perceived as random distances, because he saw a landform that would suit a bunker. No landform, no bunker. QED they can't just be moved like that.

A case in point is the bunkering on 18 Swinley Forest. It looks bizarre. I see many newish bunkers out of place. I even see them in blind locations because they are at the distance for bigger club hitters. It might be different if the work entailed shaping out well beyond the hazard to tie into another feature, but this is rarely done.

That said, was Fownes particularly bothered about aesthetics? I get the impression his main focus was to maintain a difficult course able to host top flight championship golf. If this is the goal something has to give. Unfortunately we have seen what gives when it came to Augusta, TOC and other championship courses.

Happy New Year

[mike_malone]

This is why placing bunkers based on distance from the tee is a bad idea. You are going to have to change them. I’m with Adam’s reference to Colt by suggesting it agrees with Flynn. The land should support a bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

By the way, were the Streamsong courses mostly built or mostly found. I believe the land was a former phosphate strip mine.  As such it had likely been heavily disturbed prior to golf.  The architects surely encountered some wild and unusual land forms but were they natural or from the mining process?  And does it even matter?

The first two courses were mostly found; big parts of the third one had to be built.


None of the landforms we used were natural . . . the natural ground was pretty flat.  Nearly everything on that site had been mined decades earlier, and #2 Red was mined on their way out after we started construction.


A lot of the contours were the result of sand overburden drifting around after it was dug and piled out of the way, but some of the more severe things were dug by the miners.  The big lake is as deep as they could dig, and those dunes on the clubhouse side of #7 Blue are as high as the 300-foot boom could pile the sand.  The deep waste bunker on #15 Red was dug to transfer water out of the big pond, years before we saw it.


I guess you could try to create something like that from scratch, but no one ever has!  I should ask Brian Zager to run a calculation of how much earth they moved, by just telling him to flatten it all out, except I don't think there is any record of how deep some of those lakes are.

[Tom_Doak]

This is why placing bunkers based on distance from the tee is a bad idea. You are going to have to change them. I’m with Adam’s reference to Colt by suggesting it agrees with Flynn. The land should support a bunker.

Some architects disagree, because they want the work.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Many courses get mucked up when someone tries to “update” them.  That is what keeps some of us busy.  I am sure at someone will fix or change some of my muck ups down the road.  We all understand that.  It is a very subjective business and what one thinks is great, another thinks is trash.  We all for the most part do what we feel is best for the course/client.  It is all you can do and if you don’t feel good about what someone wants done or how it will be maintained etc you walk away. 

I happen to think Ross gets the most mistreatment (good and bad).  He never even saw a third of the courses he designed yet some think every one is the bee’s knees! 


Tom,
Thanks for the update. Makes a lot of sense what you say about Streamsong. I figured a lot there was from the mining operation. 


Mike,
What does the land dictate on plowed farmland (the kind of site Gil Hanse loves to design on)? 


By the way, some of the many new bunkers at The Olympic Club were not tied to landforms - they were just built and many could have been placed in multiple locations depending on the decision of the architect.  That is not a criticism that is an observation. 

[mike_malone]

Mark,


 Atlantic City, Indian Creek, and even Shinnecock are three Flynns where your point is taken.

[mike_malone]

Just ignore technology. It will always change. The preservation should be based on the desire to respect the individuality of the course.