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.


Matt Schoolfield

What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« on: February 15, 2025, 03:16:12 AM »
The folks over at the Fried Egg with an article about "restorations" that's really worth reading:

https://thefriedegg.com/golf-course-restoration-renovation-differences/

Kyle Harris

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2025, 05:52:52 AM »
Aronimink is a great example. ;D
http://kylewharris.com

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

“Split fairways are for teenagers.”

-Tom Doak

Ally Mcintosh

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2025, 12:51:14 PM »
Nice article. I agree.

V. Kmetz

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2025, 09:34:10 AM »
I appreciate the narrative journalistic prose, though it's hard to get invested in the distinction anymore, intellectually or practically; just make a hamburger term like "reno-storation" and go for it... I've yet to see a thing  called "restoration" that didn't "renovate" what existed.  Meanwhile, I've seen plenty of renovations not care a whit for what was there or lacked a purpose to be faithful to anything that may have been there...the restoration community in all its local and national faces says they are correcting the latter.


What leaves me cold in the content and the flagging self-realization of the voice that creates it is that it's so strikingly clear that the only thing that fuels the vapor is ta-da...bucks.  This article is about selling/economic resolve of the underwriting of tens of millions, social history of club wealth and who's been killing it and what causes buzz among the cognoscenti and wealthy club/resort corners of the playing purchasing public.


Instead of the jingo list-felching pap about how somebody went from 400 to 32 in somebody's list (consensus? groupthink?) as evidence of the efficacy of... "whatever you call it"... I couldn't care less...what I'd like to see is a journalist with chops, as this fellow possesses, drill down on how the individual decisions in the PCC (or any project) were sorted out and what risks/rewards/ruinations feared were tackled..."OK...this bunker on this hole...this drainage on this expanded collection area...this closely mown tie in between a green and a tee...this shape and relative position of this fairway bunker relative to new technologies...how do the minute decisions play out in the realization of a project on an existing course?


And because the article has no real point to make or plain unadorned evidence (such as the above) offered for US to make evaluations, look how disjointed the end becomes. First, the penultimate quote from Hepner - regarding who's going to be in trouble...economic cycles in memory...and then the conclusion...who will be "worthy" of the term "restored."  Like its some economic beauty prize...when nothing has been meaningfully examined - what is beauty, in this case?


Yet it is/was passed on for free and I didn't have to give my email and get another 25 eternal mails once my info hit their shores, so on those terms, fine.
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Peter Sayegh

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2025, 10:31:21 AM »
...it's hard to get invested in the distinction anymore, intellectually or practically; just make a hamburger term like "reno-storation" and go for it... I've yet to see a thing  called "restoration" that didn't "renovate" what existed.  Meanwhile, I've seen plenty of renovations not care a whit for what was there or lacked a purpose to be faithful to anything that may have been there.
I'm with you V.
I've always looked at architectural work on existing courses as "re-imagined restorations."
Too bad architects doing any reno/restore rarely, definitively, term their work one way or the other.
I think that would be an interesting topic.
P.S. I know Tom Doak has been candid when his team has been tasked with such jobs.

Jaeger Kovich

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2025, 02:15:29 PM »
How can anyone judge the authenticity of a restoration unless they are armed with old aerials, plans and photographs?




Thomas Dai

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2025, 02:56:04 PM »
Some may disagree but I find the desire to restore a course to how it once was yet wish to play it with modern era agronomy practices, modern era course conditioning, using modern era clubs and balls while wearing modern era clothing and footwear slightly amusing. :)
Atb
« Last Edit: February 16, 2025, 03:03:26 PM by Thomas Dai »

Joe Hancock

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2025, 03:03:39 PM »
Some may disagree but the desire to restore a course to how it once was yet wish to play it with modern era agronomy practices, modern era course conditioning, using modern era clubs and balls while wearing modern era clothing and footwear slightly amusing. :)
Atb


I agree 100%, and there’s few golfers that would agree to restoring equipment, agronomics, etc. Too many see every advance in technology as an improvement.
" 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

Simon Barrington

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2025, 04:43:31 PM »
Perhaps "Resto-perfection" might be a better phrase?
Something the original design and agronomy could never have achieved.
When the tightness and pristine conditioning dominates the bones, design & strategy perhaps its too much?

Simon Barrington

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2025, 04:52:40 PM »
How can anyone judge the authenticity of a restoration unless they are armed with old aerials, plans and photographs?
Spot on.


Also, from a contrary perspective, how many "naturalised" bunkers have been built to match old photos when in effect they may have been hazards simply collapsing from benign neglect and caught on camera at a moment in time?
"Suspended decay" is really hard to replicate (some do it really well) but I suspect some of these hazards (built to match B&W's) may not age as well as hoped?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2025, 05:31:51 PM by Simon Barrington »

V. Kmetz

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2025, 08:00:40 PM »
How can anyone judge the authenticity of a restoration unless they are armed with old aerials, plans and photographs?


I don't know from what perspective you were offering (a pointed, "yeah so" to the article or a caution to those judging authenticity from the armchair without data?) but in the interim, a question:

Q: I know what separates me, armchair muser, from Gil Hanse. But any working architect (whether in the pool of celebrated names or not) can have/will be given/knows how to find that data.  Now, what distinguishes Gil Hanse from his peers or lessers in sensitivity to restoration, beyond knowing - as everyone can - where things were? 

*It's like a twist to the Seuss story of the Star-Bellied Sneetches - where everyone is sold again and again on a mark of distinction, so no one is distinct in their individuality; the Gil Hanse thing, among the clubs that are on TV in the Top Lists, all are a Hanse; Aspirin is turned to aspirin.


**
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Chris Hughes

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2025, 02:50:56 AM »
I don't have a definitive answer but whatever it is Andrew Green sure is doing a lot of it!!


The guy is dominating the market for big projects in North Carolina...


Lengthy but good watch here:  https://vimeo.com/928498270
"Is it the Chicken Salad or the Golf Course that attracts and retains members?"

Jeffrey Stein

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2025, 11:57:14 AM »
Pure restoration, as we have come to see over the last 20 years, is a bit of a myth and has always been highly interpretive (even if armed with aerials, maps, and photographs).  It's more common in practice to undo a previous renovation, carefully remove soil like an archeologist and return a particular feature to its original grade.  I believe that can be a pure restoration, but it is not necessarily possible to do across an entire golf course.  The effects can ripple, things change over 80-100 years and it impacts the other parts. 

I have personally shaped features on several restorations of golden age golf courses, in most cases parts/entire golf holes were restored to the best of our ability (aided by photographic evidence or archeological) to make them fit with the original architectural style, on that particular propertyThere was always a sensitivity and intent to get as close as possible for accuracy and authenticity.  The same can not be said of every “restoration”. 

From the outside looking in, its just hard to know which club's are doing historically based work (if that is what you are interested in) and which are hopping on the restoration band wagon and building new.

The desire to know about the design and construction of golf courses is exactly why I got in this line of work!  As historians and enthusiasts of great old golf courses we want to know, what happened?! We would like an honest account of why certain work got done, particularly now, when so much information is available, we’d like it to be accurate and justified.  The reality is that we mostly get imperfect information or none at all (particularly if a club wants to cling to a certain architectural identity).


To VKmetz, I do agree that we don't get as much in-depth analysis of why certain decisions get made, but Tom D did write a routing book recently covering just this topic.  The field work is fascinating and time consuming, explaining it in words is even more daunting.  But to perhaps quench your thirst for real world examples we will no doubt discuss, on this board, the work being done to ‘restore’ Walter Travis’ Great Dunes golf course on Jekyll Island. 


There is a long and interesting history of golf on Jekyll Island including the likes of Willie Dunn Jr. , Donald Ross, Karl Keffer, and Walter Travis.
Brian Ross and I are working together on the project.  We are restoring and enhancing what was left behind by Travis, as well as re-creating Travis' style had he used the land which we are now given.  In time we’ll present the facts and let everyone else decide how it should be labeled.  Regardless of attribution, the Great Dunes on Jekyll Island is an authentic and historic American links with significant contributions from the Old man himself.  As golfers and architectural enthusiasts I hope we can all get excited about this!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2025, 12:08:54 PM by Jeffrey Stein »
I love the smell of hydroseed in the morning.
www.steingolf.com

Mark_Fine

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2025, 12:42:37 PM »
Jeff,
Good post.  Also enjoyed playing The Lake Course together and sharing observations and perspectives.  We need to go around Brookside when schedules match up.


The term restoration when it comes to golf courses will always have different meanings to different people.  After 20+ years of being involved in such types of projects I define it as this, “Restoration, or the extent there of, to a golf course can variety dramatically but one thing they all have in common is a genuine intent to study and focus on the past to determine the future.”  I will leave it at that for now.

Tom_Doak

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2025, 04:48:54 PM »
Pure restoration, as we have come to see over the last 20 years, is a bit of a myth and has always been highly interpretive (even if armed with aerials, maps, and photographs).


It's not a myth.  It's a story that most architects don't want to follow, because then they won't get any credit for their own ideas.


Certainly, it's not possible in all situations, but it was possible at The Valley Club of Montecito, it was possible at Bel Air, it was [almost] possible at San Francisco Golf Club, and at several other courses I've worked on.  I never had any desire to change or add to any of those courses, when it was possible to restore what MacKenzie, Thomas, and Tillinghast had done.


But, I get my kicks from trying to build new courses that are just as good as those.  Others who don't get to build new courses would more likely have found something to change.

Mark_Fine

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2025, 07:43:03 PM »
Tom,
We have all debated what restoration is forever on this site.  I have no idea what other architects are trying to achieve when they do "restoration" work but when I am done with a project that is "restorative" in nature, I don't want anyone to know I was even there. I want them to think it all looks just like original Gordon or Flynn or Tillinghast or ... That defines success for me.  It is not at all about getting credit for new ideas, at least not when it comes to restoration work. 


By the way, didn't Fazio completely rebuild one of the nines at Bel Air?  Maybe I recall that incorrectly but if so, not sure how you do pure restoration on an original green that has been completely rebuilt. Again, maybe that was not what he did.


Mark

mike_malone

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2025, 08:56:39 PM »
We moved away from “ restoration “ at Rolling Green to “ make the course as great as possible “.  In most cases that was going back to the bunkering of the original photos.
AKA Mayday

Mark_Fine

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2025, 09:31:15 PM »
Mike,
I think most golfers want their course to be as great as possible, but who is in charge of defining how “great” they want their course to be and also how much does budget and disruption of play for golfers, …. come into play?  As you know there are all kinds of factors that come into play if/when a committee would hold a meeting for example and state, “Our job is to help make this course as great as it can be and we have hired _______ to help us figure that out.”  Many “restoration” projects are a direct result of these well intentioned meetings  :o :)

Don Mahaffey

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2025, 08:57:58 AM »
Golf courses are modernized
Infrastructure is modernized
Features are modernized to make it easier to meet modern conditioning expectations.


Golf designers are tasked with maintaining the character and strategy of the OG design while modernizing hole lengths, feature placements, width for safety, and most delicately OG green surface characteristics while editing for modern speeds.


No one is restoring to what was there 75 years ago. That time has passed.


What is worthy of study is the degree to which designers used modernization to add their mark. I think the pendulum has swung too far for uber conditioning as the more I'm around this process the more conditioning is what drives the decision making.   


But a course that is modernized while capturing the character and strategy of the OG design is something to be celebrated.


PCCraig

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2025, 01:56:15 PM »
I thought the Club TFE article is well done.


I think the $20-30mln "restoration" projects have become totally overdone. I understand when there is a need for irrigation, etc. But the idea that because you need a new irrigation system that now automatically needs to be a total bunker and regrass project is kind of ridiculous.


The point that the regrass and reshaping work makes the course look too new and removes patina is real. Old courses should have texture and look old, not have uniform bent grass. Uniform light green bent grass is the white bunker sand of the 2020's....
H.P.S.

Simon Barrington

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2025, 02:15:25 PM »
I thought the Club TFE article is well done.

I think the $20-30mln "restoration" projects have become totally overdone. I understand when there is a need for irrigation, etc. But the idea that because you need a new irrigation system that now automatically needs to be a total bunker and regrass project is kind of ridiculous.

The point that the regrass and reshaping work makes the course look too new and removes patina is real. Old courses should have texture and look old, not have uniform bent grass. Uniform light green bent grass is the white bunker sand of the 2020's....
There becomes a point visually when you look twice at the pictures of these "restorations" and suspect they are AI generated...


Imperfections are real and beautiful, may they persist as well as the aspect of chance they bring to the game...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2025, 02:27:59 PM by Simon Barrington »

Tom_Doak

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2025, 07:28:18 PM »

No one is restoring to what was there 75 years ago. That time has passed.



Almost no one.  I've done it a few times, as close as we possibly could, anyway.  Some jerk-wad is always going to say it isn't perfect, but we've given it our best effort.

Ben Malach

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2025, 10:44:55 PM »
Like everything in golf architecture.


Most restorations normally turn out to be shades of marketing and reality.


It's a lot easier to walk into a room full of interested members and tell them that they already have a great golf course. If only they would “restore” it to its former glory. Than to walk into that same room and tell them their golf course needs a lot of work to be great.


Once you get the job.


Some like Tom, take it ultra seriously and really trying to stay true to the original architecture. By taking on the task of being true historical stewards of these courses. Even though this sounds awesome, I feel like in my experience it's a pipe dream for all but the most well-known or lucky of golf courses. As finding proper documentation and records that give you enough archaeological proof of how a green was built or how an approach surface drained is tough. I am also not sold on the modern Lidar tech and how it can be used to recreate slopes in subgrades when recreating greens.


The other side of the spectrum are the situations where the modern architect is asked to purely interpret and the original architect.


Leading to the conversation of this is the x-year version of y hole. This is an idea that works well in a vacuum but it can be tough to execute in the field without leaving your mark. The issue with interpretation is it's tough not for you to have a personal bias. This can lead work to becoming uniform. Which honestly is a huge personal pet peeve.


I think a majority wash somewhere into the middle. Do I care no not really. The only thing that matters is doing the work improves the product and leaves something to follow as the original architect did for them.

@benmalach on Instagram and Twitter
Eclectic Golf Design
Founder/Lead Designer

Simon Barrington

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 03:51:38 AM »
No one is restoring to what was there 75 years ago. That time has passed.
Almost no one.  I've done it a few times, as close as we possibly could, anyway.  Some jerk-wad is always going to say it isn't perfect, but we've given it our best effort.
Wondering if John Legend might be a GCA Resto-nerd at heart...

"Love your curves and all your edges
All your perfect imperfections
Give your all to me
I'll give my all to you
You're my end and my beginning
Even when I lose, I'm winning..."
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 04:24:25 AM by Simon Barrington »

Don Mahaffey

Re: What Does “Restoring” a Golf Course Mean These Days?
« Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 08:04:07 AM »

No one is restoring to what was there 75 years ago. That time has passed.



Almost no one.  I've done it a few times, as close as we possibly could, anyway.  Some jerk-wad is always going to say it isn't perfect, but we've given it our best effort.
Tom, if you are calling me one of those jerk-wads at least quote my entire post - don’t just grab one line that supports your use of a shitty term like that.
The rest of my post pretty much supports your approach. But not every designer is as sympathetic to the OG work, and not every post here is about your work.

Tags: