Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Blasberg on July 04, 2006, 12:12:54 PM
-
Having lived through a major project at Seawane and having seen the results of a major project at Engineers I've been thinking about restoration projects generally. Given the current discussions on other threads I found it appropriate to offer this brief essay to constructively focus a discussion on what is likely the most important golf course architectural issue facing classic courses existing in the modern world.
"An Essay on Current Restoration Issues" by Jason K. Blasberg:
“Pure Restoration” vs. “Re-Design” and “Restoration Attempts”:
The phrase "Re-Design" has been used to criticize recent restoration projects and it has been used in contrast to what I’ll call a "Pure Restoration." The following explores these concepts in the context of the author’s view of the fundamental nature of architecturally sound golf courses. In the interests of full disclosure this author believes that it is practically impossible to perform a “Pure Restoration” but rather I insist that what can be performed is a “Restoration Attempt,” which I firmly endorse and consider to be entirely different from “Re-Design” which should be avoided entirely with sound designs.
Some defintions:
A “Re-Design” is the fundamental altering of course design and design elements. It necessarily requires changes in routing, angles of play, the reconstruction of greens and green sites. In short, if one played a “Re-Designed” golf course they would hardly recognize it from its former self.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is a “Pure Restoration” which is the process of returning a golf course to it’s original state as exactly as possible. It adds no bunkers if they weren’t originally there, removes no original bunkers and very seldom if ever moves bunker locations. It does not lengthen a course, it does not permit trees to grow and it does not plant trees where they weren’t. It does not move tee locations and it certainly never alters a putting surface. If today one played a course designed in 1917 that went through a Pure Restoration, everything within the confines of the course would be nearly the same as in 1917.
A “Restoration Attempt” lies somewhere between a Re-Design and a Pure Restoration, although it is far closer to the Pure Restoration end of the spectrum. It is a restoration consistent with the original design in appearance, strategy, and playability. It takes license, however, with certain design elements because it must consider the course in the context of the Modern world with, among other things, its current club and course maintenance technology. It accounts for property restrictions and membership preferences. It also requires more thought from the restoring architect.
When doing a Restoration Attempt the restoring architect should obtain and study as much historical data as possible. In this process he should consider how the course likely played given the time when it opened. For instance, he must try to understand which hazards were dominant in those days, which were secondary, which were window dressing? He must then apply that to what's on the ground in front of him and what is possible given current property restrictions and/or current budgetary restrictions and/or current membership priorities and preferences.
The result will never be a Pure Restoration nor should it be in my opinion. What it should be is a thoughtful attempt to get as close as one can to the design architect's intent (to the best it can be discerned) given the current environment in which this living thing of a golf course exists.
Results will vary and modern architects will necessarily leave their imprint on a course because they necessarily bring to any project their perspective. The issue becomes one of degree and respect for the design architect’s style and intent. This is not Re-Design.
Golf Courses as Living vs. Static
There are at least two fundamentally different views of what a sound golf course is and I will call one view (my view) the “Living View” and the other the “Static View.”
The Static View believes that there is a point in time when a course reaches a certain state worth preserving and it believer further that that state should be protected for all time. When it has been changed it should be restored to its historic state . . . the "Static" state. Thus, I understand this view to encourage restorations that are a virtual roll back of time to this Static state.
The “Living View,” however, is one that considers every course a living thing, dynamic at birth and evolving in life long after the life of the design architect expires.
For instance, why is it that modern architects continually return to the courses they have designed or to courses where they are the consulting architects? And, why is it that they sometimes do this to watch tournament play? They do it because courses evolve over time and in the context of the world around them.
The Living View of Course Restoration.
In Restoration Attempts aerial photos are crucial to understanding tree patterns, green sizes and bunker placements. Also, sometimes tees get shifted around which change angles of play which can be well understood by aerial photography.
However, some design elements do not survive the evolution of the game. For instance, original bunker placements often make no sense given today's game, so they need to be moved or removed. Does it make sense, for example, to have strategic fairway bunkers requiring only 220 yard carry from the back tee markers? Sometimes hard choices must be made. Should tees be moved back or the bunkers moved forward? Or should outdated design features be left even though practically they do nothing to advance the architectural intent?
Then there is the issue of adding bunkers where there were none originally. This is a more invasive decision and must be made carefully; however, I advocate such additions where they make sense strategically. For instance, modern equipment has rendered many doglegs impotent because players hit the ball so high and far that the inside corners are often no longer a challenge, either because the trees that were and are there can be carried or the corner itself can be negotiated and the equivalent open angle to the green can be obtained by going down the inside of the hole whereas one using the equipment of the 20s or 30s had to play to the outside of the dogleg to obtain the better angle to the green. In these instances bunker additions in the primary landing areas can make the player think about his tee shot and club selection in a way similar to the way the decisions had to be made many years ago.
The issue of re-contouring greens is likely the most invasive technique used in a Restoration Attempt and requires the most thought and will always be the greatest subject of criticism for the restoring architect. Given modern green speeds, however, re-contouring is sometimes required. This maybe to add pin placements for tournament play and/or to allow greater playability when original pin placements become unplayable.
The Living View of restoration permits and actually encourages these alterations, it does not bind the hands of the restoring architect, rather, it guides him in principle but gives him the ability and responsibility to bring his perspective to the project. That is not to say that the Living View lets the restoration architect off easy, rather it places upon him a greater burden, the burden of responsibility.
A Pure Restoration, in contrast, dictates most every decision the restoring architect makes. “See, it’s all here in this 1922 aerial photograph” the Pure Restoration architect could explain. "These weren’t my decisions; they were the decisions of Herbert Strong!"
In conclusion, sound golf course architecture is about making the player make choices and execute shots. If a Restoration Attempt restores the thought required to play a hole but alters certain original design elements that have otherwise been rendered moot over time or become unplayable it actually does more to restore the original design intentions than a Pure Restoration ever could.
Jason K. Blasberg
-
Jason
I think that there is a place for "pure restoration", "sensitive restoration", keeping the feel and look of the original architect and redesign.
I think it all depends on the individual golf course and its merits, how much really good data or original plans exist, the proposed use of the facility relative to who is paying for it (ie "tournament/ US Open Venue) and the wishes of the membership who own the place.
I'll put a plug in here for a "pure restoration" or as pure as possible of Yale.
1- Yale has no fairway bunkering that needs to be moved for strategic or equipment issues. The topography is its defense and that is still in place.
2- Work done from the 1950's onward has only been done to make the course easier. Yale from 1926 was a much more difficult golf course then the Yale of today. Other work was done in the name of maintenance issues related to small budgets just trying to make the course playable or presentable. Given the lively ball and better equipment I think the old Yale would be a better test. Put in some new back tees and we are set. So many of the remodeling or even "sensitive restorations" are done in large part to make the course more difficult and in line with modern play. That's the opposite of what happened with Yale.
3- There exists documentation of the old 3rd green (double punchbowl" and old members who recall great detail about the bunkering on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 18. It can all be put back in place.
-
Thank you for the interesting post. I agree with most of what you say, especially the fact that pure restorations are not possible.
However I hope you are aware that many, if not most, architects use this excuse to leave their mark on the course in the name of updating to the "modern game and technology."
The problem I have with most architects is that they are influenced by pros and some of a club or courses' best players and feel they must address either the distance or degree of difficulty in a given hole. This applies to 1% of the play. Therefore I fear a "restoration attempt" is a free pass to leaving their mark with new tees, new bunkers and flatter greens to accommodate today's mowers.
Call me old fashion, but I would like to see the architect's original bunkers (okay move them 20 yards back), green contours, and orginal tees. This course would then become more fun for 99% of the players. If this is a "restoration attempt" then we are on the same page.
-
Lynn, I think we are on the same page.
-
Jason:
A lot of people simply begin to argue about the definitions and semantics of these various words.
Obviously, the strictest definition of a true restoration of architecture would be the most exact replication of the way it used to be as anyone could possibly determine and carry out.
I don't think any restoration architect, or any club for that matter, interested in a true restoration would have a problem with doing that PROVIDED it could be determined that using that particular process and goal would be the absolute best thing they could do for both the play and playability of the course and the maintenance of it.
When any architect or club begins to depart to some degree from that exact goal and definition is generally because they simply feel there is a more effective way to make play and playability even better, as well as the same vein regarding maintenance.
For some reason people like Tom MacWood does not seem to care about those considerations or even understand them and so he tends to think someone is intent on corrupting the architecture of the original architect if some exact replication is not carried out.
I feel if he belonged to a course, perhaps got involved in administering to it or spent as much time in the field with some of these restoration architects as some of us do he'd begin to understand better the realities of most of these things.
-
Jason -
Nice essay, but perhaps you should give some attribution to Justice Breyer?
-
Jason -
Nice essay, but perhaps you should give some attribution to Justice Breyer?
I would actually pay the most homage to Justice Brennan about witch President Eisenhower said his appointment was a mistake as “Brennan proved to be the most liberal and influential justice on the modern Supreme Court. He authored important opinions in the areas of free expression, criminal procedure, and reapportionment." www.oyez.org.
We live in an evolving world and I never can figure out why people are so steadfast in denying their own nature via strict constructionism, whether it is in constitutional politics or golf course architecture!!
-
Jason -
Nice essay, but perhaps you should give some attribution to Justice Breyer?
BTW, if I'm totally ripping off some definitional categories from a Breyer opinion please let me know as it would be entirely coincidental . . . plus I'd like to know as I rarely think that well
;)
-
Jason
One way to rationalize re-design is to paint the alternative as reactionary and unreasonable. Those crazed defenders who object when a significant course is redesigned demand that these courses can never be lengthened, that the tees can never be moved, that trees must be maintained in state of suspended animation, that the course must be kept in a condition just like the day it opened. I don't know anyone who advocates that.
As has been pointed out many times on this site, each course has its own story, some were great the day they opended others went through several transitions before reaching architectural greatness. Research and historical knowledge is imparative when deciding what is the best course of action...that is why TE and Wayne's initiative will be a huge help. A lot of the worst re-designs are result of historic ignorance.
And not every golf course is canidate for restoration, very few landmark designs in my mind should consider it, and with those preservation and protection might be the best course of action based on the growing number of redsigns packaged as restorations.
Your two catagories paints both sides to an extreme and everything in between as rational...that is gross generalization and far too broad, there is a lot of good, bad and mediocre in that middle...and you completely ignore preservation.
Your essay could have been written by every architect that has improved, maintained or butchered a classic golf course.
-
Jason
One way to rationalize re-design is to paint the alternative as reactionary and unreasonable. . . . Your two catagories paints both sides to an extreme and everything in between as rational...that is gross generalization and far too broad, there is a lot of good, bad and mediocre in that middle...and you completely ignore preservation. Your essay could have been written by every architect that has improved, maintained or butchered a classic golf course.
Tom MW:
Please tell me two things:
1) What is your definition of re-design?; and
2) What is your definition of "preservation" and how to you suggest implementing "preservation" at a privately owned facility?
I expected you to avoid the substance of what I am saying and revert back to throwing about phrases with presumed and unexpressed definitions, such as "re-design" and "restoration."
It's put up or shut up time Mr. MacWood, what the hell are you really saying and why should I be wasting by time beating my head against the wall when you speak like a broken record?
Is your only interest in all of this to criticize all these projects that your refer to as "re-designs?"
Do you not care to engage in intellectual discussion about the very assumptions you make when approaching this subject? You're constantly assuming away the issue by presuming you're right, and quite frankly you're dead wrong. I've tried to engage your mind and that effort has ostensibly failed. Perhaps you are too feeble or perhaps you are too stubborn, or, perhaps I'm too ignorant to realize how right you are.
All I can say is that I'm the one defining my terms. I'm the one explaining my assumptions and I'm the one seeking to have an intelligent dialogue.
Care to join me?
-
"...that is why TE and Wayne's initiative will be a huge help. A lot of the worst re-designs are result of historic ignorance."
Tom MacWood:
Oh, thank you, even if on another thread I thought you said my philosophy was one of supporting redesign under the guise and label of restoration, and I thought you said my ideas on architectural archiving were consequently baseless and useless. In fairness, Wayne and I were just two who proposed this kind of thing as things were evolving. The idea itself for an architetural archive somewhere actually came from Mark Rowlinson of England. The initiative itself is not ours---it's very much the USGA's.
Perhaps one of the most spookily cogent things I've ever heard regarding restoration projects came from Bill Coore not long after I first met him.
About restoration projects he said that in all clubs the very same issues come up in about the same order and to the same degree of adversity. He said that is almost competely predictable---but then he said the real surprise in most every restoration project is that those you think will oppose you often support you and those you think will support you often oppose you.
-
Jason
Oakland Hills was redsigned by RTJ....moving and adding bunkers. The 16th green at Engineers was redsigned by Tripp Davis...recontouring a green is redsigning it.
Preservation is attempting to maintain and repair features, not freezing them in time, but allowing them to evolve naturally. Preservation is not allowing green spaces and fairways to shrink and not allowing trees to incroach on the strategic interest of a golf hole. Preservation is moving tees in response to the uncontrolled equipment advancements. Preservation is keeping re-design specialists at bay.
In fact in my mind the best restorations are non-evasive. Re-establishling lost green and fairway space, and removing trees. There are very few courses I would recommend attempt a full blown restoration (rebuilding hazards, greens etc). It should not be a major capital expenditure...which may disapoint some architects, especially those who are graduates of the redesign university.
-
Tom,
What would you do where a club with an aged classic course, designed by one of the masters of yesteryear, is interested in "restoring", but there's no concrete historical evidence - ie. original plans, antique photos, historical aerials, etc. - to clearly indicate what the master architect intended?
-
Jeff
That's hard to say, not knowing the course, the architect and the exact circumstances. But if you have no plans, no photos and no aerials, any restoration will be conjectural at best which is a redesign IMO...which may not necessarily be a bad thing depending on the circumstances.
The few courses that I would recommed for a faithful restoration are the cream of the crop, and there is usually good amount of documentation with those courses.
-
Tom Mac, you wrote, "Preservation is attempting to maintain and repair features, not freezing them in time, but allowing them to evolve naturally... Preservation is moving tees in response to the uncontrolled equipment advancements."
Are you stating that it is your opinion that one may ONLY be "moving tees in response to the uncontrolled equipment advancements?"
For example, is it wrong to move or remove a fairway bunker that is no longer in play and has lost any & all strategic influence because of distance gained through technological advances, especially where a tee can not be extended to bring it back into play?
Wouldn't the more proper response be to move the bunker forward &/or into the new landing areas so that angle of play into the green might be protected?
Also, even though Jones was called in to redesign Oakland Hills, what many forget is that it had already been "renovated" much earlier.
At the end of September in 1936, Tilly was asked to stop in, at the request of resident pro Al Waltrous, and examine the course and make recommendations in preparation for the coming Open the following year. He was deeply impressed with teh course, stating that, "here is a truly great course." Yet great or not, he recommended a number of changes in order to make certain that the course was as challenging as possible for the Open. These were all carried out.
He recommended the removal of "duffer's headache" bunkers on holes 1, 6, 9 & 10, and the lengthening of five holes. The course would now measure a bit over 7,000 yards.
Was this making wholesale changes to the course? Some would make the case that it was changing the design intent of Ross (who was not asked to examine and recommend) because more than a third of the course saw changes.
Tilly though didn't view it as such and really thought of it as nothing more than tweaking a wonderful design to bring it up to current standards. He wrote that, "aside from the shifting [this seems to apply limited movement rather than drastic changing]... there will be no changes and no more sand traps than the usual collection will be added..."
He described the new tees this way: "These are at the second (lengthened to 530 yards - and a mighty fine hole); the fourth hole (where, in my opinion, the lengthened tee-shot has not helped the hole but rather detracted from it); the eighth ( extended to a magnificent testing hole of 510 yards); and the eighteenth (now 515 yards). The other new teeing ground is at the fourteenth, the one weak hole on the course, shortened somewhat, because of the lengthening of the eighth. But this change has not mattered much, for the hole has always been a weak sister..."
-
Its a basic essay but some people need the basics.
Having been part of some restoration issues and then observing others at my home course it all boils down to execution and workmanship. You could have the best plan in the world by the best architect and if the workmanship is lousy you will have a lousy result. Furthermore you could have a lousy plan but an artist as a shaper and you might get away with a nice result.
-
Jason:
I was just curious because your essay seems prefigured by the neverending battles over constitutional interpretation.
I mention Breyer because he is the current standard bearer of the "living Constititution" ideal as discussed in his book "Active Liberty"
-
Phil
When I look at Tilly's career I consider his PGA tour the low point architecturally. Removing thousands of bunkers from coast to coast may have been a needed cost savingd help at a dire time but it was not a proud architectural achievement. I'd put that work in completely different catagory from his serious design and redesign efforts.
I do believe whenever possible moving tees is preferrable. Have you seen what Ross's Oakland Hills looked like....RTJ did not move Ross's bunkers, he came up with a completely new bunkering scheme. And I would not suggest OH's go back to the Ross design (although it was a damn good one)....the RTJ's layout is the courses architectural high point, and a historic design.
-
Jason (or anyone who may know):
What was the cost of the renovation project at Engineers...if you don't know precisely what would you estimate it was?
-
Jason (or anyone who may know):
What was the cost of the renovation project at Engineers...if you don't know precisely what would you estimate it was?
That remains a club matter Tom.
-
This is most interesting. Now that Tom MacWood has actually supplied some specifics of what he would endorse or support on various restoration projects I find that Tom MacWood and I are remarkably on the same page on this general issue of restorations. Isn't it interesting what happens when one goes from generalities such as---"you're a redesigner under the guise of restoration" and gets into the details and specficities of what actually goes on with Restoration projects in clubs and in the field?
I rest my case---for now. ;)
-
Can anybody point out an example of a highly regarded classic or modern architect making a significant change to one of their own designs?
For instance, recontouring a green, adding bunkers, removing bunkers, etc.
I don't claim to be a historian and while I like to read a lot of GCA related material my primary interests lie in analyzing GCA by playing whats out there now, not researching what once was . . . so could somebody with historical knowledge provide some examples of the above?
-
I'm probably not the right guy to answer, but I seem to remember Pete Dye doing quite a bit of work at Casa de Campo. Also, would Ross' continual work at #2 qualify?
-
Pete Dye seems to be constantly updating his courses, I know he supervised the recent work at Oak Tree and has tinkered with Crooked Stick endlessly.
Also Jack Nicklaus is constantly tweeking Muirfield Village.
David Kidd has done some changes at Bandon Dunes since it opened.
-
Dave:
I think Pinehurst #2 is a fine example. I remember watching a program about Ross and how he lived their for years and constantly tweaked the course. It was his opus to the golfing world so to speak.
l know there are many on this Board that have great appreciation for and knowledge of #2 and I'd be very interested in learning more about the changes Ross made over time.
I know this all becomes an issue of degree but the point I'm trying to make is that nobody jumps up and down saying that Ross is "re-designing" (as if the phrase itself is a bad thing) #2 and ruining his original intent. Apparently designing architects are allowed to change their minds but once they are no longer working on a course it gets set in stone and nobody can change a thing after that.
I hope everyone here can see the absurdity with that logic and that is why I'm so frustrated with people throwing about terms like "re-design" for changes that could easily have been by the designing architects themselves had they had te opportunity.
I think restoration projects are crucial to appreciating old master pieces that have either fallen in disrepair from neglect or significantly changed over time. However, I think we need to bring some perspective to the issue and understand that some changes over time are good and are often made by the very same people that originally design the course.
IMO, it's about taking responsibility for and care in restoring a course which necessarily involves some change and it's not about blind replication of what used to be.
-
Jason
Oakland Hills was redsigned by RTJ....moving and adding bunkers. The 16th green at Engineers was redsigned by Tripp Davis...recontouring a green is redsigning it.
Tom Mac
For the record then I'd like to know what you think of teh work Tom Doak did to soften the 11th green at Pasatiempo and the 8th and a couple of others at San Francisco Golf Club?
-
Tom, you answered me with, "When I look at Tilly's career I consider his PGA tour the low point architecturally. Removing thousands of bunkers from coast to coast may have been a needed cost savingd help at a dire time but it was not a proud architectural achievement. I'd put that work in completely different catagory from his serious design and redesign efforts..."
I offered the info about Oakland Hills and Tilly not as a comment on his work during his tour but rather because the implications of your first comment (you were the one to bring up Oakland Hills) was to condemn RTJ for "redesigning" the course as if it were the first time any changes had been made. My point was that Tilly himself viewed his work as merely a tweaking of the course where it SEEMS, and I could be wrong and am seeking clarification on this, that you believe that any changes to a hole or a sufficient number of holes, minor though they might be, constitute a redesign.
Could you please give a definition of the terms redesign and restoration, and where they differ? I think that would be VERY helpful.
As an example, I believe that changes to a hole CAN be a restoration of it. This is not contradictory. Consider where technology has destroyed the design intent and changed either shot angles or shot values, is not the act of relocating tees and bunkers so as to bring these back an example of restoration through change?
-
Geoffrey
In the past I've expressed disapointment with both cases...a bad idea and a waste of money IMO. I'm not crazy about the 'restoration' of CPC either.
Phil
When did I condemn RTJ at Oakland Hills...I have consistantly stated that his redesigned course is the high point of OH, in fact I've said in the past I think the club should try re-establish the rugged look the course had shortly after he made the changes.
Redesign is an alteration of a design. Restoration is trying to restore the design.
Its pretty common for golf architects to claim they are re-establishing or restoring lost 'shot values' when they are in the midst of a redsign. We've lost a lot of Tilly and some of his contemporaries original work that way.
Jason
I expressed disapointment in the changes made by Pete Dye to Crooked Stick....I know Tom Doak for one agreed with me. Each case is unique and should be evaluated on its own merits...I know you have little interest in history or the past, but this subject requires some knowledge of the past.
-
I stand behind Mr. MacWood on most of these issues.
I think the word "restoration" is being used for a lot of projects which should not be labeled as such. Moving a tee to bring an old bunker back into play is something I would consider on occasion; moving a fairway bunker from its natural place in the landscape, per Phil Young's example, I have found to be unsuccessful in nine out of ten examples I've seen through the years. You can't just put a bunker at a certain distance relative to the tee -- it fits into a certain fold in the land, and the original architect has decided which fold that is and placed his tee accordingly.
Geoffrey Childs: the 7th and 8th greens at SFGC had already been significantly changed by someone years before we got there. I think my version of the 7th green is the fourth try, after Tillie's original, a flat version after it had been washed out in a flood, and Mr. Tatum's c. 1975 attempt at restoration (based on a single photograph which is all they have). We did a bit of work to each without changing their character. Had they been Tillinghast's I don't know if I would have done anything. We did alter Tillie's original second green, because I was convinced that it would become unputtable with the new grass on the green ... I hated to do that, but they wouldn't go with a different grass.
I did pass on doing any work at Engineers because it had to involve major softening of several noteworthy greens ... I'm sure Trip Davis did a fine job of that, I just didn't want to be the one who erased them.
Joel:
I second your comments but I feel compelled to add that when the outcome of such projects is so much in doubt based on the execution, then maybe they shouldn't be done at all!
-
Geoffrey Childs: the 7th and 8th greens at SFGC had already been significantly changed by someone years before we got there. I think my version of the 7th green is the fourth try, after Tillie's original, a flat version after it had been washed out in a flood, and Mr. Tatum's c. 1975 attempt at restoration (based on a single photograph which is all they have). We did a bit of work to each without changing their character. Had they been Tillinghast's I don't know if I would have done anything. We did alter Tillie's original second green, because I was convinced that it would become unputtable with the new grass on the green ... I hated to do that, but they wouldn't go with a different grass.
I did pass on doing any work at Engineers because it had to involve major softening of several noteworthy greens ... I'm sure Trip Davis did a fine job of that, I just didn't want to be the one who erased them.
Tom
I think that you will find that I have altered my previous and perhaps a bit inflexible stance on these issues. I even at some point I believe apologized for past criticism of your agreeing to alter 11 at Pasatiempo (the modified version which I still have not seen) just because of issues such as the way a club chooses to maintain the green (grass or mowing height). I'd prefer that someone like you go in and remain sensitive to the design intent if greens are to be modified.
Could you please tell me the difference between you going in and modifying the 2nd green at SFGC "because I was convinced that it would become unputtable with the new grass on the green" and Trip Davis going in and modifying the 16th at Engineers (probably for a similar reason as yours). Why is Engineers a case of "I just didn't want to be the one who erased them" and SFGC or Pasatiempo not ERASING THEM?
-
Geoffrey:
The 2nd green at SFGC was pretty much a single, 5-6% slope from back to front. If the greens got too fast, there were going to be NO hole locations whatsoever. We reduced the slope by lowering the back of the green (so we wouldn't steepen the approach for bounced-in second shots), to give the green 3/4 as much tilt as it had before. It was the best approach I could think of.
When I spoke with the green chairman at Engineers, it was pretty clear that he had decided that certain greens had to be changed, and there were a couple of them that I could not imagine changing, without changing their character significantly. And I thought their character was worth preserving, so we didn't present a proposal for the work.
But, to be honest, the difference between the two is pretty small. I don't like to alter greens, period ... and I don't want "Quad" Davis to alter any of mine someday. :) I wish clubs would just keep them at a reasonable speed instead, but sadly, we architects don't have control over a little detail that makes all the difference.
-
Tom,
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of playing many of your courses... yet! (I'm playing Black Forest in August)
I totally understand your comment about "Quad" not altering your greens, but I have to wonder (without specifics)... looking back on the courses you have built are there not things that you would do differently if you were given the opportunity? Are there not greens or bunkers that you would alter if you had the chance?
-
Tom
First let me say that I have complete and TOTAL respect for you turning down jobs that you feel are not in keeping with your design philosophy and your respect for the work of our departed architects. That kind of ethics and honesty is exactly what I would hope that all architects use when choosing work. I commend you for that stance.
I feel really funny trying to defend some changes to classic greens (re:- Engineers) especially when I did not see them before and given my previous stance which was really close to Tom MacWood's. I need solid reasons why one job is OK and another not and especially given similar requests from members of the clubs.
I have played Apawamis several times (once in a MGA tournament as well) and that Elenor's Teeth green (4th) was beyond one dimensional with a single (goofy) pin location on the front left. Gil Hanse changed the green and I still have to go back and play it to see if it has the "character" intended. I hope the 10th at Alpine is left alone as I think their 14th green was altered a bit too much (Mark Mungeen did that).
The bottom line from my perspective is that each case is unique. I don't have the hard line that I used to and I'm willing to give a club a break. I liiked what I saw at Engineers. Those greens had all the challenge I could want. I wish I had seen them before the work to make a better judgement relative to changing/modifying them.
-
Tom
What would you estimate a project like Engineers would cost the club - rebuilding 4 or 5 greens, constructing aprox thirty new bunkers plus fees?
-
"Can anybody point out an example of a highly regarded classic or modern architect making a significant change to one of their own designs?
For instance, recontouring a green, adding bunkers, removing bunkers, etc."
Jason:
I'd say sort of on my own golf course (Ross 1916).
Over the years we have three hole by hole master plans. The first one was by Donald Ross himself who came in ten years later (1927) and did a hole by hole recommendation plan where he critiqued most every hole, recommended recontouring a number of greens for various reasons, improving the look and maintennce of various bunkers and recommended adding some bunkering. It's an interestng plan with all handwritten text by Ross and various sketches by him.
Tom MacW;
If your interested in basically going by Hanse at my course it would be something like 40k per green, and about 8K per bunker and tee.
Geoffrey:
As you may know, Apawamis is the home of the USSGA and I loved that Eleanor's Teeth hole. I've never seen anything like it pinnability-wise or otherwise. The thing was sure wide enough to get plenty of pins all across the front of it, I thought. That odd narrow front band of pinnability never looked stressed or beat up to me and I wish they didn't feel they had to change that green. Some of the holes on the front nine of Apawamis have some pretty serious quirk.
-
Tom M: It's hard to put a price on greens reconstruction without knowing exactly what steps they have taken. We have done them for less than $10,000 apiece (Yeamans Hall, 17 at once, native sand surfaces) to more than $50,000 each (USGA greens in expensive areas). Throw in the New York factor, and it's easily possible they could have spent $300,000 just on the greens.
Tom P's number for the bunkers is reasonable.
-
Geoffrey:
As you may know, Apawamis is the home of the USSGA and I loved that Eleanor's Teeth hole. I've never seen anything like it pinnability-wise or otherwise. The thing was sure wide enough to get plenty of pins all across the front of it, I thought. That odd narrow front band of pinnability never looked stressed or beat up to me and I wish they didn't feel they had to change that green. Some of the holes on the front nine of Apawamis have some pretty serious quirk.
Tom - Perhaps I got the same location by chance each time I was there. It is/was a wide green so perhaps it was possible to pin all along the front. Still, that's very one dimentional. I remember Gil or someone else explaining that green having a few usable tiers in the past that might have been topdressed away over the years. Maybe Gil restored those tiers based on photos and or talking with old time members who remembered how it used to be contoured. I really did not like that green as it was. The approach shot is really neat as is the other quirk on that golf course.
-
Herbert Strong was the pro at Apawamis (1906-1912) when the course went through a redesign and although I have yet to find any direct evidence that he did the work, I think it is likely he did. Strong and quirkiness go hand and hand.