[SPDB]

Restoration, sensitive or nominal is perhaps the touchiest subject here, and for good reason.

Generally the more the restoration encroaches on the interior or the green ends of courses the more of an issue it becomes and the more painful scrutiny it draws.

My question is:

What are the general thoughts about new tees? Particularly championship tees seldom used by members (e.g. Merion #18). Are there potential dangers? Is there anything objectionable to them?

Is this approach the only path of least (or no) resistance that a club can take in trying to "toughen" or "update" there course?

Assuming this is an interest that is always at the forefront of a club's collective mind, is this the "only" approach that should be taken, in terms of "alteration"?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

It may be a difficult or impossible task, but, you may have to look at the impetus and reasons that the features were removed in the first place to get an understanding on what was the desired intent, and what has changed in the interim.

Then, you have to determine if the club wants to faithfully restore the removed features or wants to make additional alterations.

If a green was disfigured 40 years ago, and the club wants to restore it, I wouldn't automatically categorize that as a negative.

Tee length depends upon intended usage.
If a US Amateur or similar tournament is coming to the club, they may want to make modifications that will allow the golf course to present a reasonable challenge, including the addition of length, which many architects allowed for.

Courses that don't have the luxury of available land have to look to other means to counter the effect of the longer ball.
Bunkering could be used as a legitimate feature.

I think each project has its own unique circumstances and has to be evaluated accordingly.

[Tyler Kearns]

SPDB,

    I think the addition of new back tees IS the path of least resistance to restoring the architectural integrity of a classic golf course, as long as these tees are located on the same line as existing back tee. It does not resolve the fact that from the newly restored landing area, modern players are hitting wedges instead of 6-irons, however, the artistry of classical bunkering remains intact.
    At the end of the day, the classic courses are "obsolete" for only the very best players. With the technological advances of the late 20th century, the middle tees, that recieve by far the greatest amount of play are more relevant to the architectural integrity of the course than ever before. Without trying to make a sweeping generalization, I feel a large portion of players playing the middle tees hit the ball as far as the professionals did in the 1920's & 1930's. Thus, it could be said that technology has enabled them to experience the architectural intent of the course more completely.  

Tyler Kearns

[tonyt]

As simplistic as I may sound, I agree that moving tees back along the same line and if successful, restoring the landing area and it's decisions off the tee as close as possible to the original intent seems the safest practical restoration. It's danger is also lessened if the new tee is to be seldom used. Obviously conditions are still different, but I'm sure it's the closest thing we have where room is permissable.

But I know that the original archie's intent is not always automatically dependant on the line. Which is where the choice of archie for the new work becomes so critical. If the land doesn't permit the optimal result for an added tee, the club should always ask themselves firmly just how much they want/need the changes. For most of us who aren't rocket launchers, that original fairway bunker is still in play, and I'm still it's ho.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()