Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Kevin_Keeley on November 12, 2003, 11:29:30 AM
-
I've been invited to play Del Paso in Sacramento and did some research because my host said they are looking to spend $10 million to redo it. Then I found out it's a Hebert Fowler course.
Is this so and does it have any of his touch remaining? Was it ever top notch? They did once host a US Women's Open, so it must have something special about it.
KK
-
Do you mean restore it or re-do it?
-
This was the information on golfcourse.com,
"This course has many trees and thick vegetation lining its fairways. It was built on rolling hills. There is one creek and one lake that come into play on six holes. This course has been redesigned several times this century, the latest by Gary Roger Baird in 1981 and Robert Muir Graves in 1985."
The architect is listed as John Black in 1915?
-
I've been invited to play Del Paso in Sacramento and did some research because my host said they are looking to spend $10 million to redo it. Then I found out it's a Hebert Fowler course.
Is this so and does it have any of his touch remaining? Was it ever top notch? They did once host a US Women's Open, so it must have something special about it.
KK
-
Actually, yes there is a lot left of what Fowler originally designed, the whole course. We have a greater number of trees and underbruch that are being slowly thinned, however the redesign info is all worng. Baird came up with a master plan that only enhanced and added bunkers to the course. The members never fully encompassed his whole plan. Graves on provided a guideline for the irrigation system. No one has truely tried to even touch a redesign until now and Kyle Phillips is trying to do just that. It is something, and to play it would be step back into a time when art and nature came together to form a test of golf in a park like setting. However, I may be a bit bias, I am a member who happens to be on the green committee. Mindy
-
Ok, now for all of you historians or history buffs out there, I am searching for any information that I can get on Herbert Fowler, specifically what brought him to California, besides Del Paso or LA CC. and how long did he stay and when did he return to England? or I will take anything I can get me hands on abot Fowler. Thanks for the help, Mindy
-
Mindy,
-What type of historical information is Kyle Phillips working off of?
-Is he working off of old photos?
-What type of historical documentation does the club have? --Is he making changes in strategy to the original design or is he just saying he is going to remodel the holes to look like a older classic course?
-What is the actual feelings of the green committee regarding the course? Do they want it exactly like it was? Do they want holes changed. Are there opposing factions of green committee members and the actual members of the club?
-
Del Paso is a Fowler golf course--he referred to it as Sacramento.
-
Kyle Phillips did not begin working off of the original maps and some old photos that we have at Del Paso, he was simply given cart blanche and he took of and came up with an entirely new course design saying that he was doing just as you asked trying to make it look like older classic courses. I thought that is what we have, how much more classic can one get. The green committee has not been asked their opinion yet, that meeting is on Tuesday. However, there is as you suggest a very deep division on the issue, both on the Green Committee and in the membership. Our historical documentation is very extensive and the more I look into the history the more I am convinced that we do not need a "Championship Style" course per Phillips. We need to restore our course per Herbert Fowler.
-
We need to restore our course per Herbert Fowler.
This is great thinking and I'm sure most on this site would agree with you. You get very few chances to restore a course with someone like Fowlers name attached and your course would get far more attention being a restored Fowler than a Kyle Phillips course.
With that said, I have talked with Kyle a number of times (not about Del Paso) and am trying to think of his rational for blowing up the course with a new routing? Does the course not have enough land? You gave him carte blanche with the requirement that it look like an older course. Is that all that the club asked?
-
I have been close to this project from the first day, so I feel particularly qualified to address some of the issues raised here.
In the first place, the decision to hire Kyle was made after careful consideration of the resumes of several very talented and accomplished architects, and was taken in part because the committee was convinced that he was the guy who most clearly understood that the club was committed to the idea that we wanted to preserve the true spirit of Fowler's design.
Once we identified Kyle's firm as the one we wanted, they (Kyle and his assistant, Mark Thawley) spent hours combing through our archives to gain as thorough and complete an understanding as they could of our history and traditions. They also spent a considerable amount of time and effort researching the work of Herbert Fowler, and were soon able to bring a great deal of new information about him and his work back to a group of people who already thought they were pretty Fowler-knowledgeable. We now know that we had only scratched the surface.
So that I don't put everyone reading this to sleep, I'll try to wrap this up by saying that our needs (in addition to preserving the character of our course) were many. We are dealing with 1) a piece of property that has been cobbled together over a long period of time, meaning that a significant percentage of it is lying unused, 2) a wholly inadequate practice facility that must be enlarged and improved, 3) inadequate parking for our members and their guests that must be expanded and improved, 4) a 90-year-old mat of common bermuda on clay and hardpan that is unacceptable as a playing surface in this day and age, 5) urban encroachment, 6) future water issues, and more, all of which is positively and pro-actively addressed in Phillips' plan for our course.
I believe that we chose the right architect, and that his design is well-conceived and in the best interest of our club's future.
-
Cliff:
Your course like many classic courses has some serious areas of concerns. I don't fault the club for wanting to modernize areas such as parking and the practice areas. Wouldn't it be great if all clubs could have a practice areas like Shadow Creeks.
I belong to the Olympic Club in San Francisco and everytime I walk through the locker room I look at the proposed routing from Seth Raynor. I see a number of other members looking at it and wondering how great it would have been to play the holes he laid out. The problem I see at Del Paso is that in 10 years from now, how many members will regret tearing up the Fowler course to have another modern non descript course. If the members want to join a modern course with all the bells and whistles, shouldn't they go join El Dorado or Winchester?
As much as I like Kyle Phillips I think the club has to be very careful in giving him carte blanche. He has done some very good work (as well as lousy work - Squaw Creek as an example) but his work and knowledge at restorations might be questionable. Look at Fazio and Nicklaus in this area as examples.
Good luck with your effort. I'll end with your club could be well known as the best private club in Sacramento with a restored Fowler course than anything else.
-
Joel,
Thanks for your interest and good wishes.
Obviously there are certain things that must be done as a club ages and evolves: kitchens have to be updated and equipment replaced as it wears out, furniture has to be refurbished or replaced, and so on. Infrastructure has to function in a manner that is relevant to the world as it exists.
That being said, though, I assure you that we're not about to tear up a classic golf course that we all love so that we can build another tricked-up example of what already exists on just about every street corner. We believe Kyle's design is true to the spirit of Fowler's work, and that if built it will be a source of pride to our members for the next three quarters of a century, as this has been.
-
Cliff,
Your reasons are in tune with a club of your caliber that has little knowledge or clue of classic design. Good luck with your choice--a beautiful new Robert Trent Jones II-like design. It should suit you and your unknowing members well. It also allows guys like us, more reasons to look on the works of other great designers and realize it was the petty bueracracies such as these, that are the reason for their demise.
But fear not. Your not the only one out there like this because 99.9% of the less then notable club's in America are the same.
-
Cliff,
Also, In an email conversation with one of your other members, it was cited that there is opposition to the Kyle Phillips plan. I responded to this person with honesty and experience of the situation. It was reiterated to me that the situation was almost as if I was a member of Del Paso's green committee.
You can put all of the spin on it you want, but ultimately pleasing the masses, is a hard thing to do. Iwill also apologize for my harsh reaction, but it is tiresome and of little help, especially if you already have so much knowledge of Herbert Fowler. It would be appreciated if you could share with us your findings.
Mark Thawley is an aquaintence and he's a bright and likable individual. Yet, it surprises me that he didn't seek the help of others who he knows that have more knowledge of the subject.
-
Courses in the spirit of Ross or in the spirit of MacKenzie or in the spirit of the links are littered all over this country--they are a dime a dozen. Why would anyone want a course in the spirit of Ross, MacKenzie or Fowler, when they can have an authenic Ross, MacKenzie or Fowler?
I'd be especially suspiscious of anyone promising to design a golf course in the spirit of Fowler. I'd suggest they look deeper than the club's archives. For one thing Fowler didn''t design many courses in the US to draw off of. And secondly many of his designs have been altered...the question is what are they basing their 'spirit' upon. You might think you're getting course in the spirit of Fowler and end up with a course in the spirit of Robert Muir Graves.
-
Tommy - Based on your reaction its hard to imagine why more green committees don't come here for insight.
That guy didn't deserve that. I'm not sure anyone would.
Why not show him the best of GCA, not the worst?
-
Sean,
I have apologized in my second post less then seconds afte I made the prevous one. I have my reasons--because just like Merion and others--no one listens and mistakes are made. It is evident that happened at Merion and others. I have dealt with similar issues at not one but two different CC green committee's here in SoCal that are exactly what is going on at Del Paso, which I explain in the previous post of contact I have had by one of the members. You need to read it more closely.
Tom MacWood hits it right on again, and it is no different then Yale or Merion--stupid decisions that amount to petty beauracracy. There needs to be a point of order--my point is to call them all extremists to their own cause while the original intent to design gets further shredded to pieces. Kyle Phillips like Tosh Belzinger will do an excellent job of making sure of that.
-
Simply put--its a lost cause.
-
SPBD- I can't speak for Tommy but I do see It really is at the "throwing up your arms" point. NOT appreciating the art of the architecture is, in the long run wasteful. If the green committee needs a crash course in Fowlers art, they should get it first, before making any decision. If they don't have the sense to learn about all the mistakes made in the last fifty years by other clubs, they probably don't have the sense to know that by valuing the art they will add to the bottomline, not to mention the one experienced golfing.
-
Tommy -
The problem you fail to (ever) see, is that it is their mistake to make, and the verbal abuse and petty (and, now, as far as it concerns me, personal) sniping isn't going to help disabuse them of their potential error.
Private golf clubs and the courses they own, whether you care to realize it or not, do not exist for your benefit. Maybe Del Paso is making a mistake they don't realize and need to be educated. But do you think for a minute that browbeating is going to make them see the error of their ways. If anything, you just probably cemented this particular green committeman from ever relying on GCA as a useful, friendly resource. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
I don't know why constantly feel the need to personalize the whole process. You are an intelligent person who has probably forgotten more about golf architecture than I'll ever know. But instead of using it in a positive way to educate others, you stand on it like a soapbox and insult others. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I'll tell Tosh you send your love.
-
Sean, I just went and accidently erased a Paulian-length diatribe and I'm not going to re-type it. Re-read allof the posts all of the way thourgh, clearly.
If you think that Ciiff will be a positive particpant on GCA, forget it. I will guarantee you that his comments will likely go no further then this thread. He has too many other things to get done like assessing the members for parking lots, kitchen equipment and Kyle P's work. He's played all of Kyle's courses in the Sacramento area, and he can't wait for it to look exactly like Granite Bay and others. It won't look like Fowler's. He doesn't care about Fowler other then to use it as a tool for Kyle P. to ge the work.
I know the type. He's trying to stifle Mindy's quests for information to further his cause. Let him invite you when he is done, and you guys can enjoy his RTJII-like course together. It won't be Fowler's underneath it all anymore.
-
Hello all, I appreciate all of your comments. I am still looking for information regarding the life and times of "Bill" Herbert Fowler and thank you for pointing me in the direction of the other courses.
Cliff, perhaps you and I should have a private conversation?
Mindy
-
Go get'em Mindy!
-
Mindy
If you haven't already, you might try contacting Russell Talley, an archie who knows Walton Heath pretty well, and has possibly seen more of Fowler's designs in person that any of the other "experts" on this thread have even read about or seen pictures of. His e-mail is rtalley@egd.com. Apologies in advance, Russell, for using your name.
Also, your own advice of have a private tete-a-tete with Ciff is a great one. As a completely outside observer, I think that you both have the interests of the club at heart, just different ideas as to how those interests might be best served.
As for all the bashing of Kyle Phillips, we should not forget that he is the creator of Kingsbarns, which is one of the finest new courses of the past 20 years, at least equal in design quality to places such as Pacific Dunes, for example, IMHO. I would guess that if he is given the proper overall guidance he will do a fine job for your club.
Good luck, and sorry for MY intrusion. Hope it helps.
Rich
-
Rich
Being an obvious fan, perhaps you can make arangements for Kyle to redesign Dornoch after he completes Del Paso.
I agree Russell Talley would be a tremendous resource...I suspect if he were involved the direction would have been much different....what's an archie?
-
Tom
If you ever make it up to Dornoch (which I hope you will some day--even you might learn something!) you will see that Dornoch does not need to be redesigned, although (as I have said many times before) my mind is always open to such possibilities, particularly since the course has been so vastly improved from the numerous previous interventions.
PS--I didn't coin the affectionate diminutive for architect ("archie"), but I'm happy to use it, when appropriate.
-
1. I wonder whether this course can be truly "restored". Of course, I don't know as I've not been there and evaluated the site, work, archives or needs.
2. I don't know a lot about Fowler, but his limited work over here would be very interesting to know more about. Of course, I haven't been to the club and seen what they have on hand about Fowler or his efforts.
3. I am interested to know how much of Fowler's work is left at this property — indeed, I wonder how much of the property Fowler touched is still covered by golf. (And also: How much new property might be now used for golf.) Of course, I haven't been there to find this out, nor to study the assembly of land for the past many years.
4. It would be great to know how Kyle is approaching the work. I have high regard for Kyle and his solutions. One of his motivations for leaving the large concern of Jones was to branch out and bring his personal creativity and interest to his work. Of course, I have not spoken with Kyle and understood his approach at Del Paso.
5. The tendency here is often to throw things under the bus at first grasp. Of course.
-
Here is how I feel about our course. I know that this may be contrary to the norm and the thinking of the ad-hoc committee, however everyone deserves the right to voice their thoughts and if in the end we respectfully disagree then so be it.
The architecture of the course may very well not mean anything to anyone, but I am very passionate about the subject beacuse I think that it does matter. For 93 years we have been playing a course that was designed by an historically significant figure in golf course architecture, Herbert Fowler...would anyone tear down a Frank Lloyd home under the guise or movation that it will look like his original, would anyone resculpt Michaelangelo's David under the guise or motivation that it will look like his original? I think not, so why treat historically significant golf course architects and their courses any other way? Is a course not about the game of golf and the average golfer's shot making ability in order to be rewarded at the end of the day? Perhaps the conversation we should be engaged in is restoration, not renovation. Perhaps the conversation that we should be engaged in is about "A Diamond in the Rough" and what would it take to polish up a valuable gem that we already own?
I understand the concepts that have been asked to be addressed in the new design, I just question whether or not it is right for Del Paso and lastly "What are the alternatives?" There are always alternatives.
Thank you again gentelman for your messages. I learn more each day. Mindy
-
Gentelmen, do not get me wrong when I speak of Kyle Phillips work...as an architect he may very well be a good and his work may very well be good. I will acknowledge that fact. Again, in the end if we respectfully disagree then so be it.
Mindy
-
Mindy,
I think a great many of us here appreciate your point of view. Probably more so than you realize. Considering that you appear to be a newcomer, so to speak, I'll give you a brief recap of recent events.
Your distinction between renovation and restoration is an apt one. It's discussed quite often, in particular, more recent discussion has centered around Merion, Pasatiempo, Yale, Oakmont, Inverness, The Creek, Riviera, Cypress Point, MPCC and SFCC to name a few off the top of my head.
Some have gone even further than restoration and have created a new notion of a "sensitive" restoration. It is the sensitive resoraton that I think you are advocating, based on the significance of the architect's place in the history of GCA. Why redo the Mona Lisa, right?
Yet, at the same time, I think you recognize that even a wonderful Frank Lloyd Wright home can become run down if it is not properly maintained. Even a wonderful Frank Lloyd Wright, such as the civic center in Marin, could use a facelift or "remodel" if it is not longer large enough to house the # of people that is demanded of it.
Now, I readily concede that this is a stretch, but I think you understand what I am getting at in regards to your Fowler course. Thus far I believe that I've read that your course has some encroaching underbrush that has squeezed the fairways. I've heard a need for a new practice facility and more parking for the members. I think I read that the club has purchased additional land that could be incorporated into a couple of new features to the course.
Like in so many disagreements, the respective parties seem to be going polar on this one. It happens here at GCA all the time. SOmeone like Tommy is fanatical about his "hands off" policy. Others are at the entire opposite of the spectrum. I'd like to think the wise endeavour lies somewhere in the middle. Especially in light of your clubs circumstances.
Of the courses I mentioned above the following has occured:
Merion-Complete bunker renovation. Some like the new bunkers. Some hate them. The routing was not altered. Some claim the new work has violated the tradition of the "white faces of Merion". Has it defaced the historical work of Hugh Wilson.....you tell me?
Pasatiempo-Here is a great example of a sensitive restoration. Tom Doak and his crew have worked, based on old photography, to restore what Mackenzie originally built. Routing not altered, just bunker work.
Yale-See the "tragedy at Yale thread". It's been renovated. Most hate it, think it has ruined the course. Definately not a good example of a successful renovation.
Oakmont-They undertook-may still be undertaking-a massive tree removal program. The goal is to get the course nearer to what the Fownes original design entailed. You could call it a sensitive restoration I guess, although the greens and what not haven't been messed with. Still, there is a goal in mind.
Inverness-Many hands have worked here. Art Hills, Fazio. A lot claim that the new work is inconsistant with the original work of Donald Ross. It's been renovated and not is another candidate for a sensitive restoration, if you believe what's there now is inferior.
Riviera-Sensitive restoration by Coore and Crenshaw, Renovation of a couple of holes by Fazio. Highly controversial.
Cypress Point-Sensitive restoration of the bunkers.
MPCC-Renovation, perhaps a good course to look at when it comes to examining whether or not a renovation will give you a superior product. Most are raving about Strantz's work, about how it will make a vastly superior course to what they had before.
SFCC-Unlike Pasatiempo, Doak reworked a green or two here. What is the key, in my opinion, however, is that his new work fits with the old. There is no loss in consistancy.
Lastly, I'd add that what would The Country Club at Brookline and Shinnecock Hills be if it wasn't for William Flynn's work there?
I hope this helps and that I've got all my facts straight. I'm sure someone will point out the truth otherwise.
I hope that if Kyle Phillips renovates your course that he works to incorporate as much of the original Fowler into the final product as possible. AND, that he works to make his new features mesh with the old. Retain the consistancy in style.
-
Just to clarify something, the additional land that was purchsed was done so in the 1960's. The original land purchase was done in January of 1916.
Mindy
-
"Oakmont-They undertook-may still be undertaking-a massive tree removal program. The goal is to get the course nearer to what the Fownes original design entailed. You could call it a sensitive restoration I guess, although the greens and what not haven't been messed with. Still, there is a goal in mind."
MDugger: The Fownes only "original intent" was to create America's most chellanging and different golf course. I enjoy your comments, but you fail in this example to arrive at the most suitable conclusion: Oakmont — to be a true legacy — will never be finished. At least it should not be.
If you were to "restore" Oakmont where would one determine is THE point in history that you might choose? Before the Chruch Pews? — of course not. Rid the course of the grand trees which buffer the Pennsylvania Turnpike? — of course not. Make the course a par-82, as it once was? — of course not.
No, the best approach is often an historic interpretation. Perhaps what you mean by "sensitive"...?
Anyway, the fact is that a golf course often is best brought along from where it is, many times the absolute best route is to allow it to change and be re-invented and along the way, yes, re-discovered. This is not to say that history should not be embraced. For it is always good to link to the past.
-
Mindy- Perhaps someone who knows the numbers can attest, but it seems to me that doing a restoration wouldn't be as expensive as re-doing the course. And I suspect that most of that 10mil will go for the other physical plant improvements.
If that is the case? I would also think that seperating the projects into two different budgets would show everyone how much you value the courses pedigree. Another sensible approach is being done at Beverly Cc where the restoration of one hole allows the membership to actually see the difference.
-
Adam, my good friend who is often misguided by the fresh air of New Mexico,
Don't you feel it might be more sensible to — first — find out whether there is anything to "restore" — and also, what this might be? I can think of no good reason to suggest Mindy consider your recommendation without knowing more facts and understanding what has already been proposed — and why.
I have very limited knowledge of Del Paso, but it seems like there have been many architects and pros monkying with the course over the years. I would be very surprised to learn that Fowler's design (whatever level he may have left) could even be brought back — I would also be surprised to be convinced that this would be a good idea without severe interpretation and leeway on the part of someone learned in the art and science of golf course architecture.
-
Forrest,
Sure. You are skilled in the art of analysis. I was rushing and probably didn't get my intent across very well. Oakmont might not have been the best example to cite.
Do you think Oakmont's program was done for pure aesthetics? Isn't it a restoration in some sense?
-
Mdugger,
C&C did not perform a sensitive restoration at Riviera.
I don't think that Inverness could ever be restored, and to my knowledge, based on discussions with members, no such project is under consideration. I would like to see modifications to holes # 3, 5 and 6 as they are clearly out of character.
SPDB,
I'm not so sure that certain clubs have the right to alter their golf courses. I would concede that they have the power to alter their golf courses, and that there is a distinction.
All too often, decisions are clouded by a veil of secrecy.
In many cases, not even the members of a club are aware of what is transpiring or what has been decided, for THEIR golf course.
I've seen situations where not even the committee members, or Board members were aware of what had been decided by those who actually hold the reins of power.
So when you speak of the rights of a club, I'm not so sure that you're correct, because you imply that the entire membership endorses the project, and that the decision making process encompasses all of the members.
If a project was going down the path of mutilating the golf course, what recourse do club members, and concerned outsiders have, especially if the veil of secrecy exists.
Sunshine laws seek to prevent secret meetings by keeping the public involved, but there are no such laws governing a private entity.
Initially, the buck has to stop at the Chairman of the committees involved.
They should be identified, and they should be accountable for their actions. They should be available to answer any and all questions regarding the project. I don't think that these individuals should be demonized, but if they are about to make a bad decision, or have already made a bad decision, they should be brought to light and to task for their actions.
My next question to you is:
Is a membership transient ?
If so, do those transient members have the right to alter their golf course ? If you say yes, then is the golf course open season every ten years to the revolving transient memberships
Isn't the preservation of the golf course the sole most important function of any current membership ?
Let's go back to the committee level.
Do the committee members possess the knowledge, historical perspective and architectural abilities to make such decisions on behalf of the membership ?
Where did the ideas come from ?
Why does the club want to make these changes ?
Does the club need to make changes ?
These are questions that each club needs to address when embarking on any project that would alter their golf course.
Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Scrutiny and constructive criticism are valid, and should be SOP.
-
Mdugger,
C&C did not perform a sensitive restoration at Riviera.
I don't think that Inverness could ever be restored, and to my knowledge, based on discussions with members, no such project is under consideration. I would like to see modifications to holes # 3, 5 and 6 as they are clearly out of character.
SPDB,
I'm not so sure that certain clubs have the right to alter their golf courses. I would concede that they have the power to alter their golf courses, and that there is a distinction.
All too often, decisions are clouded by a veil of secrecy.
In many cases, not even the members of a club are aware of what is transpiring or what has been decided, for THEIR golf course.
I've seen situations where not even the committee members, or Board members were aware of what had been decided by those who actually hold the reins of power.
So when you speak of the rights of a club, I'm not so sure that you're correct, because you imply that the entire membership endorses the project, and that the decision making process encompasses all of the members.
Pat - Drawing an analogy between rights and powers vested in a club (and remember, I was referring to a club not the committee) is kind of an odd approach. As much as you would like to compare it to a contract remedy (i.e. a party has the power, but not the right to breach) it doesn't really do your argument any justice.
You certainly know far more about club politics than I do, but whether a committee makes a mistake or abuses discretion in some way doesn't mean that they never had the right to make the decision in the first place.
If you follow your theory to its logical conclusion there would have to exist some contractual or quasi-contractual between the membership and the various committees. Conceivably, a suit could be brought for breach of warranty if a committee promises a restoration and delivers something else. The problem is liability, and I don't think any court would attach liability to a committee, either individually or jointly.
What committee would undertake a restoration if this type of duty existed? Let me answer for you, none.
Assuming that there are no legal relationships between committee members and the members at-large, then any distinction between "rights" and "powers" is semantic.
-
Pat,
What would you call what C & C did at Riviera? Surely it was partly a sensitive restoration (bunkers), although now that you mention it I do recall reading something Coore said about the membership choosing not to restore some of the greens.
What was it then?
-
The Fownes only "original intent" was to create America's most chellanging and different golf course. I enjoy your comments, but you fail in this example to arrive at the most suitable conclusion: Oakmont — to be a true legacy — will never be finished. At least it should not be.
I was under the impression that part of the original intent was to be a links style course with few trees.
I think there is a tremendous difference between interior and exterior trees on a golf course & to cite leaving in trees shielding the turnpike is about as obvious as leaving in the trees that shield the local roads as well, which the geniuses at NBC saw fit to point out as examples of how there were still plenty of trees.
I think Mike's point about Oakmont was close to dead on. He never recommended or commented in any way about taking Oakmont back to a specific time, pre or post anything.
Sean -
You may be right about scaring people away, but I also wonder how much the soft approach helps. Any examples of people who've been gently persuaded away from the wrong thing back to the right course?
Patrick -
Care to share with the rest of us why you don't feel C&C's work at Riviera was not sensitive?
-
George -
That's the logic of shoot first ask questions later. Strong arming and intimidation as the first retreat will get you nowhere.
Do you think George B. would have the same influence he now enjoys if he simply insulted every committee member that was contemplating an unsympathetic Raynor restoration?
Heck, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if Tommy was a member of Del Paso, and had been merely fed up following efforts to try and convince his fellow members of their errors. However, he made an on-the-fly assessment of the motives of Cliffhenry based on reading one post and lobbed insults at the guy (with a subsequent apology - but you can't unring the bell). Do you think Cliffhenry is now going to go back to the next committee meeting and say to his fellow members "I was insulted by a guy on a golf-architecture website, and it made me realize we made a mistake." ??
-
Sean -
I honestly don't know what approach works better. In my personal life, I try to lead by example, and cautiously at that. Take it from me, my management style does not work well in a business setting. Being generally nonconfrontational (off this site - obviously on, I like to mix it up :)), I often wonder if a good slap in the face doesn't sometimes work better to wake people up. In this instance, I'd say Tommy probably did come on strong out of the gate, but I'd be surprised if a soft sell were to do any better in this case. Mr. Henry seems to be trying to reassure us, rather than offer anything or seek any advice. If I were a psychiatrist like Tuco, I'd surmise he's looking for us to say it's okay to go ahead and screw with something that might be really special. Forrest & Rich might think so, but I sure don't.
If calm rational discussion truly persuaded people, you'd think at least one of us would change his mind occasionally. Surely it shows how little most of us have changed our opinions after years of discussing these types of situations almost ad nauseum. :)
Still waiting for that example of the gentle approach working....
-
I'd hope you wouldn't slap a complete stranger who walked into your business. Why do it electronically? If a slap in the face (figurative or otherwise) is the first, default approach I'd say that therapy might be the best option.
What did you think my example of George Bahto was supposed to accomplish, if not an answer to your question?
-
Mindy, Cliff, people of Del Paso, :)
I'm sure there is little doubt that Kyle and Mark have put something impressive together, but when I hear "the spirit of Fowler" I'm inclined to feel as Tommy N and Tom MacWood do, and that is to be very skeptical. Not of the architects necessarily, but of the members for perhaps not having a clear mission for these gentlemen besides finding ways to expand parking and the range and then doing something that looks impressive on paper to sell a large group of people on what I assume is a costly undertaking. The spirit of Fowler wreaks of a talking point and sales tool.
Most of us don't know as much as we'd like about Fowler, but perhaps something like this project will help and perhaps will pay off for Del Paso and the architects too if there is not a huge rush to get this project going. I recently saw Eastward Ho and for me it's easily the least known great course in America (though Ran's write up will probably change that). If other work of his exists that is even smidgen of the quality of that fine course, every effort should be made to find ways to restore it because the members will benefit not only in more enjoyable golf, but in an enhanced image and more valuable membership.
Most new courses are desperately trying to embrace history and tradition, while it always perplexes me when older courses treat their background with less regard than many of us might hope they would.
Patrick,
I can't wait to hear your description of what Coore and Crenshaw did at Riviera, seeing as you are well versed in the details of the project.
Yours in Restoration, :)
Geoff
-
Sean -
I was thinking about this while we were knocking out our last order & you're probably right, the benefit of the doubt should be extended upon an initial post. I will admit I'm pretty skeptical, but that doesn't warrant an attack.
I'd love to sit down with some of our restoration specialists & try to get honest answers about what gets through to members. George B's efforts are impressive, but I'm under the impression people seek him out as an expert. Such individuals would naturally be more receptive to a cautious gentle approach. I wonder if the situation at Yale doesn't (sadly) represent the typical situation with most golf course "owners", be it members or actual owners. I think most would be better served taking a stance of stewardship of special assets versus enhancers or developers of said assets.
P.S. Much as I'd like to occasionally, I haven't slapped any clients yet. And certainly not any strangers.:)
-
George, You just hit "another" home run. :)
-
George - I went back and re-read Cliff's post to see if there was something in it which indicated affirmatively that they were disregarding Fowler's original design for something totally different. I couldn't find it. How are we to know what Cliff means by "the spirit of Fowler" without asking? Is it not possible that he means a sympathetic restoration? An easy way to not find out is to insult him and charge him with negligence for what may amount to a mistaken use of a phrase. It's just as likely that the negligence may be Tommy's.
On balance, Geoff's response is probably a bit more diplomatic and more in the spirit (!?) of "caveat emptor."
As far as George B.'s style is concerned, I think you may be confusing cause and effect.
-
Sean -
It's probably just that too many times architects and committee members have said "the right thing", only to have the result reflect something entirely different. Yale is a clear example of that (again sadly). The casual golfer would probably think we're all nuts to even care what goes on there.
It's only natural to be skeptical when one's been burned - couple that with Tommy's passion and you have the formula for napalm. :)
I do hope things go well at Del Paso, but I have to admit, pretty much anyone saying they intend to duplicate "the spirit" of someone else's work scares the heck out of me.
-
Sean, Once again, lack of facts are contributing to YOUR negligence.
Phillip's proposed plan has it for a complete rerouting of the golf course which has a unique fortune of most every hole not having the sun in a player's eyes throughout the year. With Phillips REMODEL, it will be a complete reversal of this unique routing feature.
Try to stick on the facts Sean--or do you actually know any of them?
-
MDugger & George Pazin,
C&C were prevented from performing a true restoration by the club, hence you can't say that there work was a sensitive restoration, that would be inaccurate and a misrepresentation.
SPDB,
In your haste to disagree with me, you've failed to understand the issues I've put forth.
Clubs are now incorporating the sanctity and integrity of their architecture into their by-laws for the express purpose of protecting the golf course from misguided committees and individuals. Just ask Paul Richards.
As a Green Chairman and Project Chairman I clearly understood what I had the power to do. But, that didn't give me the RIGHT to do it. I think responsible, knowledgeable individuals understand that. Arrogant individuals do whatever the power conveyed upon them allows them to do, and sometimes more.
The green superintendent at Yale had the power to bulldoze the second green, and he exercised that power. But, did he really have the right to do that ? The right to disfigure an architectural masterpiece ??? Blind ownership allowed him to exercise that power without recourse.
Let's pretend for a second that I owned Yale at the time the superintendent bulldozed that green, and that he did so without my express written or oral permission. Do you think I would have recourse ???
What's the difference behind the act, the power and the right possessed by the green superintendent under those two owners, Yale, and Me ????
I've seen more golf courses disfigured due to ignorance and arrogance then I have out of intelligence.
If a committee or individual disfigures or mars a golf course then they have to take all the heat for a their decision, from their members, golfers, architects and the golf world at large.
If you're going to exercise your rights and your powers then you have to be prepared to address your accountabilities and responsibilties to the golfing universe.
If you would like to debate the bunker-wol and bathtub construction/configuration endorsed by a committee with me, I'd be happy to do so ;D
-
George, by my count of the FACTS--that is your sixth Home Run of the GAME. Keep it up and your going to make All Stars! ;D
-
Pat,
Should that be the case.....would you agree that what Doak has done at Pasatiempo WAS a sensitive restoration while what he did at SFCC WAS NOT.
Just want to make sure we are on the same page
-
Thanks, Tommy. I can even pass the new steroid test, too.
-
MDugger,
I played SFGC years ago, before any work was done, and haven't been back since, so I'm unqualified to comment on the work.
I've never played Pasatiempo so I'm unqualified to comment on that work as well.
I think some of the difficulty is actually seperating what the architect genuinely wanted to do, what the club wanted to do, and where the final results lie in the context of those two objectives. Sometimes it is very difficult to seperate the interests of all parties, which is really needed if you're going to make an evaluation of the architects final work product.
-
Sean,
That's the logic of shoot first ask questions later. Strong arming and intimidation as the first retreat will get you nowhere.
Do you think George B. would have the same influence he now enjoys if he simply insulted every committee member that was contemplating an unsympathetic Raynor restoration?
In researching Fowler, do yourself a favor and open-up Geoff's Golden Age of Golf and read page 19.
It would seem that Del Paso CC is already in tune with my type of Strong arming and intimidation when it comes to judgments of their golf course some 82 years ago.
When you get done reading it, then I want you to post it for everyone to read. Just the first two sentences. That's all, just post the first two sentences.
-
Cliff Henry,
We believe Kyle's design is true to the spirit of Fowler's work...
What does this mean ????
How are changes to the golf course, even radical changes, defined in the context of the true spirit of Fowler's work ??
What is the "true spirit" of Fowler's work ??
In many cases, it's a cute catch phrase that disquises the disfiguration of a classic golf course.
In other cases, it misrepresents to the membership, the scope and nature of the work about to be done to their golf course.
I'm totally unfamiliar with your golf course, the subject of this discussion, but wouldn't adhering to the TRUE SPIRIT of Fowler's work, imply a dedicated, true restoration ?
Not an interpretive redesign in the guise of modernization ???
-
SPDB,
When Tommy Naccarato, Tom MacWood and I agree on a issue, I'd exercise caution in taking a contrarian position ;D
If TEPaul agrees, then you might as well just shut down this thread, because the party and issue is over.
-
MDugger,
I played SFGC years ago, before any work was done, and haven't been back since, so I'm unqualified to comment on the work.
I've never played Pasatiempo so I'm unqualified to comment on that work as well.
I think some of the difficulty is actually seperating what the architect genuinely wanted to do, what the club wanted to do, and where the final results lie in the context of those two objectives. Sometimes it is very difficult to seperate the interests of all parties, which is really needed if you're going to make an evaluation of the architects final work product.
Pat,
I don't see where as whether or not you have played or have not played these courses matters when it comes to claslifying the work that was done there. Once again you have taken something quite simple and made it difficult.
But I don't really care. That's fine, I'm use to it. I just don't understand why you have to go and pull this type of crap when Tom Doak has told us STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH what he did and did not do at these two fine clubs.
Perhaps you don't recall what he said, in that case I can understand why you wouldn't answer the question.
Just for kicks, let's say that in a hypothetical world Tom Doak reclaimed many of the bunkers at Pasatiempo working from aerials in the clubs archives. Would you label this a sensitive restoration?
Then let's say that in this same hypothetical world Tom Doak tweaked a few of the greens at SFCC in the process of rebuilding them. Would you label this type of work a restoration, a remodel or a sensitive restoration?
-
Tommy - I'm not arguing facts here about the specifics of what is taking place at Del Paso, I never heard of the place until this thread. I have no idea what is going on at Del Paso, and never once have i claimed to, because its immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.
If you have facts, by all means please to disclose them to all of us. I merely made a comment about what I perceived to be an over-the-top comment you lodged at Cliffhenry. If you possess some facts about the plans then maybe those should come first followed by insulting remarks.
What gave you the impression that I am researching Fowler?
Certainly nothing I've said.
Pat - Perhaps I misunderstood the point you are trying to make because it is hidden behind a series of questions (rhetorical or not). Its very difficult to make a point of anything by merely asking a string of questions, and even tougher for the person to whom those questions are addressed. I get enough socratic method in class.
What you're saying about power v. right is perfectly understandable. Admittedly it makes more sense in a legal relationship, e.g. I have the power to punch a stranger, I don't have the right to.
I don't question anybody's right to question or criticize a committee's decision (not even Tommy). However a club delegates to a committee a certain amount of authority and discretion. So long as they are not defrauding anybody or acting unilaterally, I'd say their discretion is fairly limitless.
In the (extreme) example you gave, the superintendent is exceeding the scope of his employment. But membership/committee relationships don't fit neatly into an employer/employee examples.
Would you agree that the rank and file member who ignores debate/discussion about proposed renovation to a club has the right once its complete to object to it, even if the renovation conforms to exactly what came out of the committee?
I really don't want to discuss this too in depth b/c it really has very little bearing to my original point.
-
Pat - I'm not sure you guys are all talking about the same thing. Whatever happened to your love affair with facts ;D. Seven-year itch? ;D
-
I don't see where as whether or not you have played or have not played these courses matters when it comes to claslifying the work that was done there. Once again you have taken something quite simple and made it difficult.
You must be kidding, you want me to make an evaluation of a golf course or work I've never seen ???
How can you classify work, IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT ???
What does that practice do to one's credibility ???
But I don't really care. That's fine, I'm use to it. I just don't understand why you have to go and pull this type of crap when Tom Doak has told us STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH what he did and did not do at these two fine clubs.
I'm not prepared to take any architect's word as gospel, on a project that that architect was involved with. I don't know if they're capable of providing an arms length view.
I think independent evaluation may be a more valid form of determination.
Perhaps you don't recall what he said, in that case I can understand why you wouldn't answer the question.
Just for kicks, let's say that in a hypothetical world Tom Doak reclaimed many of the bunkers at Pasatiempo working from aerials in the clubs archives. Would you label this a sensitive restoration?
hypothetical questions and examples are a form of mental masturbation, and a complete waste of time
Then let's say that in this same hypothetical world Tom Doak tweaked a few of the greens at SFCC in the process of rebuilding them. Would you label this type of work a restoration, a remodel or a sensitive restoration?
See my above comment regarding hypotheticals and mental masturbaton
You have to learn not to get so upset when people challenge your position, correct you or debate with you.
Unless of course, you feel that your positions are above reproach. ;D
-
Cliff Henry,
We believe Kyle's design is true to the spirit of Fowler's work...
What does this mean ????
How are changes to the golf course, even radical changes, defined in the context of the true spirit of Fowler's work ??
What is the "true spirit" of Fowler's work ??
In many cases, it's a cute catch phrase that disquises the disfiguration of a classic golf course.
In other cases, it misrepresents to the membership, the scope and nature of the work about to be done to their golf course.
I'm totally unfamiliar with your golf course, the subject of this discussion, but wouldn't adhering to the TRUE SPIRIT of Fowler's work, imply a dedicated, true restoration ?
Not an interpretive redesign in the guise of modernization ???
WELL STATED PATRICK!.
This post is brilliant and insightful and should be pulled up every time a club with a classic course considers putting a shovel in the ground.
Regards,
Mike
-
Forrest- Since I'm breathing air that's polluted so you Phoenicians can have power, I'd like to learn more, so I won't be so misguided. Of course, I am aware of your position on restorations and I disagree, but I think its more semantics.
I have seen the subtle differences that comes of Mr. Prichard's work and it reassures me, that it is the little details that make bigger things work. Do we disagree on that? You are correct that I know little about the course but from what has been shared, here, I felt it safe to assume that there is probably plenty of Fowler left, and if not?,,,,what fun it would be to find.
I have golfed Crystal Springs and not until reading Pete's post did I recall that it was a Fowler. I can assure everyone that there were points along that course where the openness of the space is grand. The golfer is absolutely put in proper perspective to mother nature. The deceptions pretty cool, too.
Mindy- does that describe your course? or are there too many trees?
-
Pat,
I never asked you to make an evaluation of anybody's work, I think everyone BUT you understood the question and would answer it quite simply. In a nutshell, I asked you to define the following:
1. What a 'sensitive' restoration is?
2. What a restoration is?
3. What a renovation is?
If you would kindly provide YOUR definition of the following, and provided we can TRUST what Tom Doak says that he did, I conclude we can deduce whether his work at Pasa and SFCC was 1, 2 or 3.
Quite frankly, however, I don't really care anymore. You've once again exhausted my interest. Not because I am beyond reproach, but because it's not worth engaging you in discussion because it always comes back around to a riddle wrapped inside an enigma.
To me whether Tom Doak is telling the truth or not is not the issue. The question was based on the premise that what he says he did at Pasa and SFCC is what he indeed did. If you want to debate whether he indeed did what he said he did that's another issue. However, I choose not to engage in this sort of speculation ,choosing instead to simply believe what the man says. I don't understand why you are so skeptical about this, although I do concur when it comes to the value of an independant evaluation.
Furthermore, I guess I choose not to split hairs like this because we have to remember we are talking about 100 year old golf courses. Of course Doak didn't recreate the bunkers at Pasa to 100% of their original design. That's impossible. But it was the goal, was it not? It is obvious that this isn't good enough for you, but it is for me.
"Hypotheticals are mental masturbation,"
puh leez
Tell that to the guy who invents things.
-
Neal - I'd be careful if I were you. Making reasonable points on this thread is done at your own peril. Are you sure you don't want to offer any speculation? self-serving assumptions? Preemptive judgments? After you have made all of those - insult somebody please? Anybody at all, it doesn't matter if its warranted or not. ;D
-
Tommy -
I haven't the vaguest idea of what you are getting at. I don't have the book (which I imagine disqualifies or discredits me from something). Please type them out for me, so we can discuss whatever point it is you are making.
What is it? Does it talk about knee-jerk insults?
-
what's going on here? i've responded to two messages that have disappeared. Maybe they got sucked into the same black hole as everyone's common sense.
-
I have golfed Crystal Springs and not until reading Pete's post did I recall that it was a Fowler. I can assure everyone that there were points along that course where the openness of the space is grand. The golfer is absolutely put in proper perspective to mother nature. The deceptions pretty cool, too.
I don't think there is one inch of Fowlers work left at Crystal Springs and very little at Burlingame. Gib could comment on this which makes for a more interesting subject, Fowlers work possibly only existing at one or two course left in America.
Personaly I think this is one of the most informative threads on GCA in a while. Real life example, lets invite Cliff and Mindy back.
By the way, Del Paso hosted the 1957 and 1976 US Womens Amateur and the 1982 Womens US Open won by Janet Alex. Someone can get a bonus if they know where Janet Alex is today.
-
See Sean, your even seeing things! GO SEE KATZ! :o
Why don't you don't own Geoff Shackelford's Golden Age of Golf Design???? One of the best books on classical architecture with excellent pictures of Pine Valley, MERION and others. It's what got this whole mumbo jumbo thing of destroying the White Faces in the first place.
-
Everyone on this thread except for me should book daily sessions w/ Dr. Katz. Even Pat Mucci's has been brainwashed. After years of fighting the good fight against the factless, he's finally capitulated.
-
And I have no reason for not owning Geoff's book. I've definitely looked at it numerous times, have just never gotten around to buying it. I'll trade you The Good Doctor Returns :-X for your copy.
-
Mindy,
Fowler was the partner of Tom Simpson.Simpson concentrated on Europe.Fowler concentrated on Great Britain and the United States.Most of his time here was spent in California.Fowler and Pebble Beach professional Harold Sampson became friends and when Sampson went to Burlingame both remodeled that course.
Fowler returned to England in the early 1920's.
He died on April 14,1941.
-
Mdugger,
I find the term sensitive restoration as redundant.
It's either a restoration or it isn't.
Restore: to bring back to or put back to a former or original
state.
Renovate: to restore to a former better state.
Sensitive: Mdugger ;D
I don't know the extent of what Tom Doak says he did or didn't do, hence I'm not prepared to accept your view on the nature, scope and evaluation of his work.
In addition, even if I accept every word attributed to him, I would be remiss if I did not evaluate his work in the context of personal examination, and since I haven't seen it, I'm unqualified to comment.
Everybody has their own perspective of what they did or didn't do. That doesn't mean their opinion is absolute.
That's what we have judges and juries for.
Perhaps my prior experiences have taught me to follow a fairly thorough discovery process prior to rendering an opinion.
SPDB,
You might be surprised by the FACTS I possess relative to Del Paso and the pending project. Don't be so quick to disqualify me, or pack me off to Dr. Katz. Remember, you don't know what I think or know, only what I post ;D
Tommy Naccarato,
Since Sean doesn't have the reference at his immediate disposal, why don't you post it for us,
Thanks
-
Joel- I didn't remember much till I put it together with the pictures of Eastward Ho. I have no idea what is left of Fowler at Crystal Springs but I feel the shot that sweeps down that hill (2nd or 3rd ?) best exemplifies what was memorable about that course. If it wasn't Fowler, it doesn't matter to me, but I still suspect as much. Pete?
-
George says: "I do hope things go well at Del Paso, but I have to admit, pretty much anyone saying they intend to duplicate "the spirit" of someone else's work scares the heck out of me."
Yet, George also says the Fownes, creators of one of America's most teasured courses, apparently desired to duplicate the spirit of links courses being built across the sea. Thankfully George was not around in 1902-3...but certainly it is great having him around now.
I will also not dig deep into his hundreds of posts in which he applauds certain designers, designs and ideals...for doing so would only serve to point out that he truly does embrace the concept of the duplication of "the spirit" of someone else's work."
And, why not? I see this as a positive when appropriate.
Adam — I agree completely that it would be a blast to find and uncover Fowler's work. Am I missing something? Does any of the information we have suggest this is not the case at Del Paso?
Knowing Kyle I beleive his energy to accomplish such may far outlast even the most serious "Atlas-er" — and imagine this: Kyle also has the credentials and background in golf architecture, including a well-versed historical perspective.
-
Pat, Right now its in a room I can't get to because my cousin is asleep in my office/library/central research center :)
But I'll try to touch on it because it was a reference about Fowler, and how he had little patience for his unknowing clientele who had no idea of architecture but were always quick to opine. His response was that he usually flew off at the handle at them; or to that extent. Such is Sean's implications of me--as if I didn't already know I'm certifiably wacko.
But he fails to see the extent of Cliff's original posts where he (Cliff) is simply trying to dis-credit Mindy and switch attention from us certifield wackos. He wants to "Spin-it" if you will! (who he doesn't understand just how well read and versed some are about the subject on GCA or their abilities at finding research.)
At that time, I had already had, as did others, a few email conversations with Mindy. This turned into a phone conversation, and from these conversations I find her to be a highly-intelligent woman that is ready to search out the best resource for her club's cause; as well as its her job as a member of the Del Paso greens committee. Her chore is a typical one--a faction of green committee who wants their course to look and play like Serrano at Durado or Granite Bay-yet, the membership is based of mid to high-handicappers who love to play as much as the low handicappers do. They do it for their leisure, enjoyment and competitive bent. They love their course, and several other factions of the green committee do not fully understand the neccessity of a very costly redesign of a course that has suited them nicely for 83+/- years. Yes, it may need work, but to fully reroute the course as well as build a beheamoth that won't be anything like Fowler's work, only a representation of what Kyle Phillips feels is along the "Classical Lines" of Fowler's work. To me, that is more then enough reason to research all of this.
Simply put, I think someone is trying to bully her into submission, and from what I can tell you from the conversation I had with her, it isn't going to work.
So, Sean, if I had an extra copy of GAOGA I would send it to you, but I don't, but I still think you should have one or at least Tosh, so he can see how wrong he got those bunkers at Merion! ;D But as I have said before, that I know there times that I'm very harsh and thats because I just can't stand to see another Merion or Riviera or Oak Hill or Bel Air or any of Max Behr's courses, and so on and so on. The list is ad infinitum.
So instead of harping more on this--lets try to find some information for this really passionate lady who wants to learn Fowler and his body of work as well as restore order to a wonderful private member's club that could be the same as anyone in a million in regards to their maintenance and upkeep and original design intent. Sean, you live much closer to Far Hills then I do. Why don't you put down the books for a second and get over there and do four hours research of Fowler with Paul Turner or anybody else that wants to learn, and has no problem with the 3000 mile barrier between Sacramento and New York.
I will guarantee you it will be totally exhilirating when you find something that might be of great help, and in truth it really feels great when you do!
-
Tommy Naccarato,
Wouldn't anything done in the TRUE SPIRIT of Fowler mandate the preservation of his routing of the golf course.
Isn't the routing the soul of the golf coures ? His true spirit ?
Isn't that what endures long after features erode and evolve?
If you're going to dramatically change the routing, then you are destroying Fowler's TRUE SPIRIT.
There are no if, or buts about it, you're disfiguring and forever destroying his work.
How can a club that knows nothing of Fowler's work, declare that a total revision will preserve the "true spirit" of Fowler's work ?
Have plans been submitted which reflect the recreation of Fowler's true spirit ?
Forrest Richardson,
I believe that Oakmont never considered re-routing their golf course, let alone changing a hole or two. Oakmont's work has been along the lines of a faithfully restoring what mother nature, and perhaps a green chairman might have planted or narrowed.
-
George says: "I do hope things go well at Del Paso, but I have to admit, pretty much anyone saying they intend to duplicate "the spirit" of someone else's work scares the heck out of me."
Yet, George also says the Fownes, creators of one of America's most teasured courses, apparently desired to duplicate the spirit of links courses being built across the sea. Thankfully George was not around in 1902-3...but certainly it is great having him around now.
Surely a learned man such as yourself can see the difference between attempting to emulate the spirit of someone else's style and emulating a style of golf. Or perhaps not.
As for the second part:
I will also not dig deep into his hundreds of posts in which he applauds certain designers, designs and ideals...for doing so would only serve to point out that he truly does embrace the concept of the duplication of "the spirit" of someone else's work."
I do indeed laud designers who attempt to learn their craft through deep thinking, critical reflection, etc. I'd be surprised if any of my posts indicated that I felt an architect was accurately attempting to duplicate the spirit of someone else's work. Even my many posts on Oakmont, which to my recollection are the only posts I've made regarding specific restoration work, are comments on the course itself, not on the work carried out by the various parties involved.
I also see a difference in an original designer of a course attempting to emulate the spirit of another designer, and designer over another designer in his spirit. If Brian Silva chooses to emulate Raynor's spirit in creating Black Creek, I think that's very interesting. If he chooses to redesign one of Raynor's original courses in the spirit of Raynor, I'd say that's not a good thing. Look at the result's of Fazio trying to emulate the spirit of George Thomas. I don't think there was any malicious intent, but that didn't stop a bad thing from happening.
Lastly, when I say a statement scares the heck out of me, that most definitely does not mean it is automatically wrong - it means all the red flags are up & I think it's time to do some serious thinking and rethinking of the issue at hand. It is indeed possible that someone could build a better course than the work of the original architect. It just seems to happen so infrequently that I think prudence would win out. For all his written devil may care, let's let things evolve attitude, I'd be surprised if Rich Goodale would encourage someone to come in and remodel Dornoch in the spirit of the previous work done. Similarly, I'd be equally surprised if you were to say to one of your clients 20 years from now, sure, let someone else redo this course I created in the spirit of what I intended.
The most insightful comment on this entire thread was Tom MacWood's simple observation: Why would anyone want to play a course created in the spirit of a master when they can play the real thing?
-
Tommy - your thread is informative, and is a pretty good example of what I was looking for. By describing the background you have qualified your remarks (but not necessarily justified them).
Your comments about Fowler are interesting. Nevertheless, whatever Fowler did in the context of an employee/employer relationship doesn't give you the same authority.
I sincerely hope that Cliff and Mindy do what's right by the membership, and resolve their differences to the satisfaction and approval of the WHOLE club. Hopefully that means a thoughtful and sympathetic restoration of Fowler's course. If, however, a majority of the club members want something different, who are we to argue with them, regrettable as it may be?
I can only imagine how this thread would turn out if we substituted "Los Angeles CC (North)-Fowler? Soon to be redone?" in the title, and swapped George C. Thomas, Jr. for Kyle Phillips.
It does illustrate that these are hard questions.
-
George
If you look back at my last post on this thread (and my body of "work" on this site), you will see that you are wrong--I am in fact very much open to the possibilites of improving Dronoch. It has been done before, many times--why not again?
I know Tommy has puffed you up a lot on this thread, but the only home runs being hit here are from Sean. He hasn't put a foot wrong yet and all the Kings horses and all the Naccaratos and MacWoods and Pazins and even Muccis have done nothing to even make him wobble sitting up there on his wall. Keep it up, SPBD (and Forrest)! .......and the rest of you--raise your game if you want to play or take your balls home and sulk. This whole thread, started so positively by Mindy and Cliff has become a non-content, petulant no-brainer.
IMHO, of course.
-
Sean, Lets just say that my comments were done in the Spirit and Classic Lines of Fowler--you see, I want it always to be my way and my way only! ;D Actually, the over-seer of construction of Fowler's LACC North was Captain Thomas. Not really sold on many of Fowler's principles, Thomas choose to remodel the course in the late 20's and that course is the course that made it the reputable one that it is today. Thomas wasn't the first to disagree with Fowler's Principles--So did MacKenzie, who did in print say that he didn't agree with many of his designs, but still respected his knowledge and fundamentals. Or something to that extent.
So you see Sean, if you get over to Far Hills, you can help in uncovering this lack of proper material on Fowler. It will be of great help in this cause.
George, seven home runs in one Game is more then All Star material, it's hall of fame.
Pat, as eloquent as ever!
-
SPDB,
I think a flaw exists in your assumption that Cliff Henry is a member of Del Paso.
If Cliff is an employee, and as I've indicated many times before, if you take the King's schilling, you do the King's bidding, his official position is predetermined irrespective of his personal opinion.
Cliff may not be in a position to consider any course of action other then that course of action as dictated by his employer, and as such he must support and promote that position, with his architectural blinders on.
He never answered the questions I posed to him.
Yet, he maintained that the project would incorporate the true spirit of Fowler's work. How can you do that if you don't know what that is.
And, Tom MacWood is 1000 % correct, why strive to play someones guestimate or interpretation of Fowler's true spirit,
when you can play the real deal ???
Something isn't passing the smell test !
Sean, I don't know if you follow or play chess, but are you trying to employ the famous Merion Defense ? ;D
-
Pat, You just have completed a three-move checkmate! ;D
-
George — Well said, until this part: "Surely a learned man such as yourself can see the difference between attempting to emulate the spirit of someone else's style and emulating a style of golf. Or perhaps not." "See" the difference? Or, "know" the difference? I suppose either way the result is similar.
As for Tom's insightful remark, I would suggest we all ask ourselves the same question as it relates to our conversation here — "Why would anyone want to engage in conversation on line rather than in person?" I can think of several rational answers — and also several to Tom's question relative to Del Paso/Fowler.
-
Rich, I ask you for some help here. Not with Fowler, but in helping me understand why it is that your always quick to be critical yet, never offer any help in the form of content other then a quick slam or insert of criticism that is always sent, "IMHO."
The fact is what credibility do you have in regard to research of golf other then showing up for a tee time? While I will always be a student of this game and this subject, I know that I know as about as much that can be expected for a working class electrician from La Habra. But for someone with your education, this stuff should be a snap for you to add some positive slant or insight and not be critical of others that are equally, if not more intelligent then you. (Tom MacWood for example)
Get with it, go search out some information on Fowler so we can help this really nice gal. Or is it just too beneath you?
-
Rich -
If you've read the thread, then you've seen that I did in fact agree with Sean that any opening attacks were not warranted.
If you've read the thread, you've further seen that I stated that the folks you love to belittle tend to view statements like "design in the spirit of" in a highly skeptical light. This is probably the biggest difference between us & Sean. He seems much more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Henry (& by extension, Kyle Phillips) than the rest of us - kudos to him for his faith in the common man, I guess we're just a tad more cynical. Some might even say this is borne of experience.
If you've read the thread, you can easily infer that I flat out DON'T BELIEVE YOU when you so cavalierly say that you're always looking for ways to improve Dornoch, at least in the manner that seems to be forthcoming at Del Paso. Mr. Henry's post sounds a lot more like redesigning a course than tweaking. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, etc., etc. If I knew more cliches, I'd spout 'em. When you call in Kyle Phillips to redesign Dornoch in the spirit of those who preceded him, I will concede that you were consistent in your beliefs all along.:)
You can denigrate my comments all you wish, your opinion of my posts matters not in the slightest to me. It is, after all, your opinion and nothing more. I don't generally like to waste my time cheering on or taking cheap shots at others' posts, but will do so if the occasion warrants, so by all means, go ahead & keep spouting. I appreciate Tommy's words, but that's not why I'm posting.
While we do need to encourage frank & open discussion on this site (& all of life, really), I'm not sure how much pussyfooting around situations like this help anyone. That is what I was trying to convey to Sean, not any defense of anyone's tactics. If you choose to read Mr. Henry's comments as positive, well, again, that's your opinion.
-
Forrest -
Wish I could say I understand your opening comment, but I don't. I do find the statement "well said, until" kind of curious, since that was my opening comment. I guess you didn't think much of the rest. :)
As for why we choose to engage in conversation online instead of in person, well, I'm not going to be with you, Tom M, Tommy, Patrick, Rich & Sean anytime soon, so that's my reason. What's yours?
-
George,
It occured to me that we are in the beginnings of the cold winter months, and its probably really biting cold and rainy just across the Firth, plus it allows for all of about 6 hours of sunlight, if it can peak through the dark heavy clouds. This means no golf today for Rich, and thus, hopefully, the attitude. I would hate to think it was to spite any of us for our endeavors.
-
The point of asking the question about conversation is to point out that all things in life are not ideal — nor are they supposed to be. Pseudo approximations are OK in the real world — in manmade environments and with artifacts built by mankind the authenticity of something is often the approximation of an existing condition, space or formerly created object.
When we see great landscape design it is often from nature or other designs — true also in golf. And conversation by phone, pen, smoke signals and maritime flags is no different. While it is not quite authentic, it is, without question, "OK" and acceptable. It signifies progress many times. Other times it is taboo.
I do not consider the adoption of style and continuation of a design legacy to be taboo in all instances. If Fowler's original design can be uncovered and if what is found is appropriate — great. Embrace them. But, if like the transformation of The Old Course from so many holes to so many new ones, the change is a continuation of the site and its demands, then behold the old while embracing the new.
-
George - Please don't mischaracterize what I'm saying. I'm only keeping this going because to me it appears that everyone here (except, of course, Rich and Forrest (and Neal Meagher for about 4 minutes)) has taken leave of their (common) senses.
As far as what is on the surface (not in the recesses of Tommy and Pat's brains), everyone is too eager to jump to conclusions based on inferences drawn in an entirely self-serving way. Whether these inferences later turn out true is of little value, since it is equally possible that they could be wrong.
Suit yourself, but Rich is keeping me going.
-
Tommy or somebody,
I have read the comments about M. not agreeing with Fowler's principles but respecting him etc., as well as others here talking about the spirit of Fowler, but can anybody tell me what those principles were? I.e., What kind of courses did he build?
Jeff Goldman
-
SPDB,
I fear that the "concept" of what is transpiring is escaping your grasp.
If a club is about to embark on what Kevin Keeley quoted as a
$ 10,000,000 project, and if that project will plow under 14 of the 18 holes, is it safe to say that the core and soul of the golf course is being destroyed ??
A simple YES or NO will do.
Consciously or subconsciously you've adopted a defensive position related to Merion, because to agree with us regarding Del Paso, would force you to agree with the likes of Mr Naccarato when it comes to Merion.
Hence, I understand your resistance and reluctance to see the heart of the problem.
Mike Hendren quoted something I wrote, perhaps you should re-read that quote in the context of Del Paso and Merion, there is a common denominator.
-
Pat - You've truly lost touch with reality.
If I have taken the same view of Del Paso as I did of Merion, it is because I am a sucker for consistency, a concept that seems totally lost on you (e.g. I'm totally unfamiliar/I have all the facts).
Why are you referring me to Mike's post, when it only quotes a post that appears right above it? Flattery? Self-importance?
You and I are talking about two different things. I'm not talking about the substance of Del Paso's project, so I don't know why you keep asking me about it.
-
SPDB,
For a brignt guy, you're either in denial or just not grasping the issue at Del Paso.
Could you answer the question I posed above, it's very basic and only requires a YES or NO answer.
Thanks.
P.S. I still owe you dinner for our Merion bet,
the question is, will you collect before you lose
The Creek bet on the 5th hole skyline green, especially
now that the winds have blown the leaves off of all of
the trees ? ;D
-
Pat - If you read my post #78, you'll see that you and I are talking about two different things. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the merits of the project at Del Paso when I know so little about it.
I question whether you even read my posts before you respond to them. ???
Pat - with the windstorm of the past week, the 5th at the Creek may now be a skyline green. I've given you aerials, which are all you need to determine line of sight. What do I get when I win?
-
Pat — Did the "heart and soul" of TOC go away the day Robertson worked on behalf of members and his own sense of style — including Old Tom's — and built the Road Hole?
A simple "yes" or "no" will do. And, by the way, I owe you no dinner or drink that I recall.
-
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype=a&mapdata=xU4YXdELrnC1W3a3EokQzTKFkP7R0zQVu60AdOCmdnYp404j5lROckzdVLeazrVV1%2bAFXUwfBIi%2biu6tNk6Tbw3XkL2%2bEGLkTObqEJdPzKNWBMvnNxnVut1uPkmpBDJsr%2fVM8QjV%2b%2f0BwBN4W96Sd%2bNZKY86dwDAceDK8wVUWq4OxLqIhNkM%2f1tGqNeb36o2GNF5Yg%2bcqXnLPF1aGGA6cNNmpRzse7Zv1WeWoRiX6bGgFqR8FXPwfeazm3zxzF%2bA0mwZsGdHJH9j2JK893IeglpPXUF9sfIsWY6OjsQxQ7FgGJKPca0ZvBsl7ogPVGr7aUoNtl1E64oN%2fjhoXo98uiqgh52BheTWZ%2bCHUT0%2bUPJzq94RLX2Bjq9g976PPbsym%2f4SOL%2bd3So5mR8NyvtJk5HIZK58E%2f6zXbb1BZgOxGror4ytPZ%2baHmTRnaPrhKsVW1SPXAxXb%2b61%2feynrGZ6CszdnpF5%2fkcQaOaJKtVAoorw19kVrKtj8A%3d%3d (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype=a&mapdata=xU4YXdELrnC1W3a3EokQzTKFkP7R0zQVu60AdOCmdnYp404j5lROckzdVLeazrVV1%2bAFXUwfBIi%2biu6tNk6Tbw3XkL2%2bEGLkTObqEJdPzKNWBMvnNxnVut1uPkmpBDJsr%2fVM8QjV%2b%2f0BwBN4W96Sd%2bNZKY86dwDAceDK8wVUWq4OxLqIhNkM%2f1tGqNeb36o2GNF5Yg%2bcqXnLPF1aGGA6cNNmpRzse7Zv1WeWoRiX6bGgFqR8FXPwfeazm3zxzF%2bA0mwZsGdHJH9j2JK893IeglpPXUF9sfIsWY6OjsQxQ7FgGJKPca0ZvBsl7ogPVGr7aUoNtl1E64oN%2fjhoXo98uiqgh52BheTWZ%2bCHUT0%2bUPJzq94RLX2Bjq9g976PPbsym%2f4SOL%2bd3So5mR8NyvtJk5HIZK58E%2f6zXbb1BZgOxGror4ytPZ%2baHmTRnaPrhKsVW1SPXAxXb%2b61%2feynrGZ6CszdnpF5%2fkcQaOaJKtVAoorw19kVrKtj8A%3d%3d)
I posted the url link to hopefully give an aerial of the Del Paso CC. Looking at the history of the redesigns there, I have to question what is left of the original Fowler work. I can't even figure out the routing. But it surely seems like it is landlocked and tree infested.
par yards slope c.r.
Middle 72 6300 122 70.60
Forward 74 5866 129 73.80
Other Blue 72 6591 131 72.00
I read Tommy's remark about the routing not ever having the sun in one's eyes. That is a start as to describing what we are even talking about in terms of qualities and character. I read a few call the question; "what is the spirit and design ideals of Herb Fowler to be preserved". It seems that his original designs in CA didn't last too long becasue they are (NLE) like Lake Merced and Ambassador Hotel, and his remodels were remodeled. It is not mentioned if he worked in collaboration with others here in the US like he did in England with Abercrombe and Simpson. How much of the enduring work in England was the other two gents, as contrasted to solo work just by Fowler? I don't know the answers. It sounds like Russell Talley may. But, I do wonder what we are really talking about if we are concentrating on the merits of the decision to remodel. I fully understand and agree that there is no restoration or sensitive restoration that will likely take place if the above work descriptions by 'cliffhenry' are correct. I do think it is disingenuous to say they will retain the "spirit of Fowler" yet describe the extensive work to be done. That sure sounds like a marketing spin to me. But, who else commenting here knows the golf course, its merits, unique qualities (other than avoiding sun in eyes in routing) which are Fowler's? Are the greens spectacular and set well for interesting approach shots after thoughtful tee shots? Does the course have interesting strategy due to use of topo and hazard placement that exhibits some real craftsmanship of high merit. Do the hole designs offer the golfer interesting options that spring from some basic expressed ideals of Fowler? What would the course offer if just trees are thinned or removed to reveal hidden periphery features (if any). There was some comment about the soils and drainage. Is the course in distress due to poor, petered out or compacted soils, or lack of infrastructure to the point that it can't merely have the crust scraped off like one of those famous California skin dermabrasions/dermaplannings? If resurfacing takes place, does that set into motion all sorts of new drainage issues brought about by modern codes and restrictions in this apparently land locked residential area.
I think we are hung up on the diverse and strongly held basic instincts many of us hold about so-called restorations that turned out to not be truly such. Contributors to this thread seem to be defending their basic instincts and values more so than the on-the-ground issues, that most of us really don't know in Del Paso's case.
-
Forrest RIchardson,
I don't know how you can draw an analogy between the destruction of 14 out of 18 holes, and modifying/creating one hole.
Remember too that TOC was 22 holes and a number of other configurations and that it evolved over time. It wasn't designed from the get go, as an 18 hole golf course, as Del Paso was.
Despite not answering your question, I'll still buy you dinner.
RJDaley,
There are soil and agronomic issues, but I don't know that I would make the quantum leap that a thorough redesign will fix them, but a restoration wouldn't.
-
Your recollection of TOC is, at best, missing several hundred years worth of change. It was not originally 22 holes, nor was the Road Hole among its most dramatic changes. I like filet.
-
Pat — I failed to see that word again — "restoration".
Explain this as it relates to a playing board that changes with the wind, owners, erosion, settling, people influences, economy, growing conditions, amount of play/wear and tear, extreme weather, management style, trends and thousands of other extremely worthwhile affects. (I just partially described "golf" in case you were not aware.)
Restore what? To when? To what level?
It's all a large grey area. "Restoration" is posisble only in very specific instances and this, I believe, is not one. The course may be "sensitively remodeled" as was pointed out. It may be fixed and in process pay hommage to a particilar architect's style. It may also be interpreted in the form of a particular era or architect. A few features — maybe even 50 — can certainly be "restored", at least partially and approximately.
But restored?
-
Forrest Richardson,
I never said that TOC was originally 22 holes.
I don't know how you leaped to that conclusion.
I said that it had many configurations and that one of them was 22 holes.
When a membership has enjoyed a golf course, a slowly evolving golf course, for 80 + years, I don't know how you justify a RADICal alteration as being true to the spirit of Fowler's work.
"Restore what ? To when ? To what level are valid questions.
I don't know, with any club, if there is an absolute answer, but, there may be a prudent answer.
The club could attempt to determine the answers to your questions through extensive research, and a decision borne of practical applications with respect to the information revealed through that process.
It is a grey area, but that doesn't mean that clarity is impossible. I agree 100 % with Merion's decision to return the course to the historical date associated with Jones's win.
I've proposed that GCGC do the same with 1936, the year the USGA held the Amateur there, and a year with abundant photographic records.
When is the last time you saw a golden age golf course lose 14 of its holes, while at the same time paying homage to the original architects style. Wouldn't the ultimate homage be a restoration to the course on the day the architect unveiled it?
I like filet too ;D
-
I am a distant bystander. But from what I know there are not 14 of Fowler's holes there that are being lost. As I said very early on, this seems a bunch of second guessing. I'd leave it to the experts who've researched and been on site. I.E., the professionals.
And, you're right: Grey areas abound!
-
Fascinating thread, lots of combustion fodder - gotta love GCA. The real issue for me is the continuing nonsense of golf architectural cliches. There are some phrases/catchcry's that should be discarded at once:
"I like to work with the land"
"The course will be playable by all"
"It will be a fair test of golf"
"IN THE SPIRIT OF ..."
The last one really makes me pewk!
The only time it seems to work is in "The Spirit of St Andrews" but that was different, and not quite worded IN THE SPIRIT OF.
-
Forrest- Maybe you were too young when you left Burbank, but I found,(sadly, first hand) that the word 'professional' in California, is a four letter word.
Recently, I've seen and heard little defference (actual disdain) towards GC archies. Why is that?
-
"Restore what? To when? To what level?"
Forrest
All good questions. When given a project that involves an older course...how much time and effort do you spend researching the architectural history of that golf course and its original architect (or architects)?
-
Paul — I disagree with you nearly 100%. The clauses you cite are very worthwhile when you look beyond the contrary viewpoint. I would agree, some of these have been said and not meant. Even misused. But they are honestly correct when used by well-meaning golf course architects. You are a "glass-half-empty" poster this morning. I learned a long while ago that some phrases and words — even though overused — DO have meaningful and wonderful definitions. "BandAid", for example, is often used as a way to say something is not fixed well at all — "That bunker work is nothing more that a BandAid Phil..." However, a "BandAid" is a remarkable device. It does exactly what it is supposed to do with extreme reliability. "BandAid" is a good word mostly. Just ask any 8-year-old. Adults make it a trashy word by using it to mean "something not done right." How awful.
Adam — When will New Mexico be up for statehood again? I'm wondering as Arizona might make a run for your territory.
Tom — Even in the most casual instances — let's say an inquiry about a course needing to make a change with one feature — I will find out who did the original work, who may have made changes and what alterations have taken place over time. If the project flourished into a major undertaking of any sort we would continue that research and use the collected information along with all of the other project information. I am sorry not to give you an exact hourly number. You might use this as a gauge: At a 9-hole course in Central America we were asked to provide some advance planning on adding another 9-holes and "fixing" problems with the existing course (the club had lost some property and there are many maintenance issues.) So, we set out to see who designed it and this involved calls to historians, writers and an architect in Europe. This will lead us to finding out about an architect's style and work. We also secured some photos and discovered that the "original" course was built in 1934 a few miles away. The course we are now dealing with appears to have been laid out by the club pro in the 1950s — a suspicion we had from the beginning. This does not mean that we abandon the notion of any careful rehabilitation and improvement plan. (Although many on GCA would immediately throw under the bus a course not designed by one of the classic favorites mentioned here!) In this case it means we can momentarily stop researching and focus on getting things straight in terms of the course and what it needs now — in 2004. I'd say in the Central American case we spent two full days digging up stuff. And another 1/2 day walking the course with old members. I would also note that there will be nothing wrong with creating some new holes "in the spirit of the old, original course" should we move forward.
-
Who was the architect of the course in Central America and what did you learn about his style and work?
Do you consider two days digging up info a lot of time?
-
The original architect appears to be a well-known Englishman. The club pro is an unknown, now long-gone chap. Two days of time (combined among staff) was quite a bit of time to spend for a site visit and some meetings. If we move forward I suspect we will spend more time looking into the original NLE site and what was there. In terms of style I will need more in-depth study time. All we know now is a brief amount of who did the work and about what it looked like when it was abandoned and closed.
Two days may well be several weeks or more on a larger project involving an existing course. It could easily involve travel to see courses designed by the same architect...etc.
-
Forrest
Who is the well-known Englishman?
What are some of his courses that you plan on visiting? What other research will you typically conduct and how much time do you devote to the research process?
-
I'm not at liberty to divulge specific information. The club is underway with tough decisions and has asked that there be no disclosure at this time.
A percentage might be a good answer for the second part of your question. I'd estimate in this situation that about 10% of the design and up-front time will be spent seeking information and inspiration from the past. I don't think there is any standard amount of time or percentage. This is consitent with all golf projects: Each is simply unique. Truly.
-
Forrest
You plan on spending 10% of your time researching this architect and drawing inspiration from his work...in redmodeling a golf course that was built in 1950 by another man (evidently) a few miles away?
An interesting idea, but is this example similar to Del Paso....I don't think so?
What are some of the other projects you have been involved with where research really had an impact on the final result...something more like the Del Paso situation?
-
10% of up front/design time. Not 10% of all time. Your questioning seems odd, Tom. I'm not sure if I justifying something for you, helping you with a project, or providing some degree of detail that is being used to write a book.
As I've said about Del Paso: I'm a distant bystander, but from what I can discern from my casual vantage point there is probably not a lot of Fowler left to "restore". I'm thinking that the best bet is to see what might be brought back and allow the professional prfocess to continue. It would be wonderful if, as Adam said, Fowler's original work could be truly restored.
I believe this is how we got on the subject of the project with the nine hole addition. You might keep in mind that a majority of my work is not working with existing courses, but rather creating new courses. However, in the past few years we have become more involved and, I believe better, at working with existing courses on renovation, betterment, resolving troublesome conditions and remodeling. (There are a bunch of other "r" words available, too.)
Truly I am not "the" expert in this area. Some of the architects and consultants who frequent this site are better bets. I am, however, always armed with opinions.