Why is Whitten So MAD?

[TEPaul]

Reading that article it doesn't look to me like Whitten is mad exactly. I think he's just taking a well aimed shot at those who may be described as "ultra purists".  

The basic philosophy of the "ultra purist" seems to be that with the best architecture it shouldn't even be touched for the simple reason that the chances of screwing it up are far too great. In other words, the "ultra purist" trusts noone to do the right thing other than the orginal architect who in every case is long since dead and gone.

In this "ultra purist" philosophy as it relates to the realities of golf today there is very much something of a Catch-22, it would seem.

On the other hand, if one questions an "ultra purist" very carefully they probably would find that there may be one person, and one person only, in the mind of the "ultra purist" who could do the right thing with the restoration of great architecture---and that one and only person is of course the "ultra purist" himself.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Reading that article it doesn't look to me like Whitten is mad exactly. I think he's just taking a well aimed shot at those who may be described as "ultra purists".  

The basic philosophy of the "ultra purist" seems to be that with the best architecture it shouldn't even be touched for the simple reason that the chances of screwing it up are far too great. In other words, the "ultra purist" trusts noone to do the right thing other than the orginal architect who in every case is long since dead and gone.

Tom,
Your experience with all of this has to rival Whitten's.  Do you know of actual true restorations that have NOT gone well?  The woods are full of bad renovations, but what about real restorations?  I'm asking this in all seriousness; I'd like to know if this is actually happening.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Your experience with all of this has to rival Whitten's.  Do you know of actual true restorations that have NOT gone well?"

AG:

Before I even attempt to answer that question----if I know of a true restoration that has not gone well I think you'll need to specifically define what you mean by a "true restoration".

It occurs to me that what some define as a "true restoration" may've not yet ever even been attempted much less ever accomplished.  

In probably every so-called "restoration" project I'm aware of, for instance, at least some tee lengthening has been done.

If that's true, would some call the project a "true restoration"? Would you?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think TD hits the nail on the head about this. Sure, it's logical to assume that Ross, Mack, Thomas, Tillie, Flynn etc would try and progress in their designs, but to assume that ANYBODY can take their designs and seamlessly interpret what they think those designers would've done is folly. I think the whole notion of renovation and restoration and the difference between the two is vital at the club level and educating the members what they are getting with each. I would be shocked if Whitten thought that courses like La Cumbre, Bel Air, Rancho Santa Fe, Oak Hill, Scioto, Inverness, Ojai etc. are a better course now than when they were first built. ALL of the men who came in after these designers had access to equipment and such that the GA's did not, and some how in every one of the instances the courses came out the worse for it. Now, there are instances where Mother Nature and such have had a hand in the evolution of some of these courses, but most of the "improvements" have been done by lesser designers than the originals.

David,

How do we REALLY know that the courses are worse off for it?  Some are, yes, but many of those old ideas may have proved impractical, like preserving some of the arroyos at La Cumbre that required so many forced carries.  Oak Hill has gone on to host numerous top flight events, which it wouldn't have been able to do without RTJ improvements.  Yes, I too question the Fazio rerouting, withoug having studied it, but its too easy to say "all" and "everytime" without any of us really knowing what the course had evolved to in 1960 or whatever.

In reality, I don't think the distinction between sympathetic restoration/renovation and pure restoration (whatever that is) can be made. Its not distinct, its too fine a line, and most clubs would be better off with some sympathetic treatment, but changes where necessary where nature, technology, etc have not been kind.  (As opposed to laying a 1980 style mound based design over a classic)  

I don't care which label you start with, you are interpreting the gca's intent, his possible changes based on subsequent courses, the course's "high point" etc.  For either "side" of this argumnt to claim high ground on that issue is a non starter for me.

[KBanks]

AG.....I am not aware of that many restorations that have gone awry, but there is one that is near to me that I feel has been poorly classified as a renovation.
I feel it should instead be considered a redo.

Colt and Allison designed one of the original nines at Sea Island and it was fabulous.....one of my favorite nines anywhere.

When the Fazio team came in to renovate, they left very little to recognize....I doubt either of the original designers would know where the were if placed anywhere on the course.

This is not a slam of Fazios work by any means....I don't doubt that his marching orders were to create something to dazzle....and he did. Seaside is ranked in the top 100 of most lists.

I just don't think it should be classified as a renovation.

Paul,

Seaside is terrific example of the difficulty with the semantics around the terms restoration, renovation, or redo.

I agree with you that it is a redo and C&A wouldn't recognize much of the old nine, with the exception perhaps of the old fourth, seventh and eighth. (I miss the old fifth!)

I think Sea Island is pretty candid that it is a Fazio course at this point. They do like that C&A association, though. Witness the drawings in the bar.

KBB

[TEPaul]

DavidS:

I would also question what point of reference any of us can use to determine if anything was "better" than something else at any point in time. Obviously this gets into trying to define and determine what the so-called "high point" of a golf course and its architecture was in its entire evolution.

So how does anyone do that? Or, the question could be asked---is it even possible to determine.

The only possible rule of thumb I can think of to determine something like that is----at what point has a golf course supplied the most enjoyment to the most people?

Let's not forget that most of the ODGs used that principle in golf architecture of trying to supply the most enjoyment to the most people in what they did and in what they created.

If they said that, and almost all of them did----then did they really mean it? I guess we'd have to assume they did mean it, and so that's probably the only way anyone can determine the "high point" of a golf course no matter whether it was its original form or some apparent improvement or other iteration of its original form.

Some of us refer to this kind of thing as a golf course's ability to "stand up to the test of time".

The ones that do that best, it seems to me, are generally the ones that will not undergo much change now or in the future. If those golf courses that are standing up to the test of time (constantly supplying maximum enjoyment to the most people) there then becomes no real reason to even want to change them or even think to change them.

This is the basis of the philosophy of what Max Behr referred to as "permanent architecture".  

[A.G._Crockett]

"Tom,
Your experience with all of this has to rival Whitten's.  Do you know of actual true restorations that have NOT gone well?"

AG:

Before I even attempt to answer that question----if I know of a true restoration that has not gone well I think you'll need to specifically define what you mean by a "true restoration".

It occurs to me that what some define as a "true restoration" may've not yet ever even been attempted much less ever accomplished.  

In probably every so-called "restoration" project I'm aware of, for instance, at least some tee lengthening has been done.

If that's true, would some call the project a "true restoration"? Would you?

Tom,
I would include in the term "true restoration" work that "moderized" the course, such as tee lengthening.  I would suppose that "restoration" would be primarily undoing the damage done to the original design by subsequent greens committees, either on their own or by instruction to a GCA.  The work of Spence, Silva, Prichard, and others stand as excellent examples, and in some cases there is "interpretation" done, such as the well-reviewed work that Bill Bergin has done at Chattanooga CC.

What I am wondering is where examples are in which a GCA has come in with the intent of doing a restoration (with or without moderization) and the results were generally considered to be unsatisfactory.  Has this happened?

I ask this because we all know of examples of "renovation" that have crashed and burned, or at least been highly controversial in terms of acceptance.  Have the same things happened with efforts at "restoration", and if so, where?  (If not, then I have no idea what Whitten is talking about, since he was not really writing about purists who want a course to never change; he wrote about changes BY "purists".)

Thanks in advance, Tom.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, I just posted this on the large bunker thread, but it applies here.

"We think of that era courses as having small greens (and also tend to restore to that) but in fact, their greens were modern sized and just grew in by nearly half over the years."

My point is that when acclaimed restorationists C and C did Riviera years ago, they chose to restore the greens to current size, despite the photographic evidence that they were much larger and shaplier originally, both because the members preferred the challenge of the smaller greens and thought it would be more in line with major tournament challenge.

So, that "restoration" and those acclaimed restoration, classicists that they are, got the seal of approval from the press, enthusiasts, etc. despite intentionally not bringing the course back to what it was.  Then Fazio restores a green, granted, not exactly what it was but gets thrashed by same.

Both made decisions that included judgement.  My belief is that there is too much label and brand favortism here to discuss the issue clearly.    For that matter, its too hard to talk about restoration  in general - or even one element of a restoration in general terms.

In fact, every inch of every bunker, tee, green extension, whatever needs to be carefully thought out as to what is best now and what might have been done then to make the right decision for that particular item.  If the entirety of the situation seems to demand (in the view of those entrusted with the restoration/renovation) changing something, then it should be done, regardless of what label is attached.

[A.G._Crockett]

A very good post, Jeff, and just the kind of example that I was wondering about.  Thanks.

[TEPaul]

“I ask this because we all know of examples of "renovation" that have crashed and burned, or at least been highly controversial in terms of acceptance.  Have the same things happened with efforts at "restoration", and if so, where?  (If not, then I have no idea what Whitten is talking about, since he was not really writing about purists who want a course to never change; he wrote about changes BY "purists".)”

A.G.

Good point. You’re right, Whitten didn’t say anything about purists who do not want any change at all.

Personally, I think these terms like renovation or restoration have been thrown around indiscriminately and interchangeably for so long it’s hard to make any distinction between them with these projects.

Whitten asked:


“So why do club members today treat a Ross design as sacrosanct? Because they think it's a piece of art, a Rembrandt or a Monet, and not a living, breathing, daily-changing golf course.”

This is an interesting point on Whitten’s part. I sure do know what he means about perhaps not recognizing that a Ross course and Ross features on some of his golf courses are not exactly the same things as some static art such as painting art and such.

However, for Whitten to suggest that no one should consider some of Ross’s architecture or some of the architecture of others of the great early architects as NOT sacrosanct in some way is a pretty dangerous notion in my book.

The fact that Whitten tries to make the point that simply because Ross may not have looked at his own work at the time he was practicing as sacrosanct as being some good reason why none of us fifty years later should ever look at it as sacrosanct is really missing the point of all this, in my opinion.

Personally, I see absolutely no reason at all why any of us should feel contrained to look at Ross's work precisely the same way he looked at it a half century ago.

If that were the case I think it would leave the appreciation of art at any time in history in a rather odd and unevolved place, as it were.

Whitten is a well known architecture analyst and in some ways some thought of him as the one who introduced the forgotten or latent quality of the old American architecture to the public mind.

Over the last decade or slightly more an entire renaissance has been built up in the renewed appreciation of this old architecture.

For Whitten himself to take those who feel this way to task for some reason is a pretty curious happenstance to me.

Perhaps this thing with Whitten is a result of that old demarcation line that some believe in which is if you're going to actually get involved in creating golf architecture you should at that point desist from actively critiquing the architecture of others as some of the best writers do and have done.

Some believe very strongly that one should never try to do both and the fact is Whitten has done both and apparently continues to.

Perhaps he's become somewhat conflicted because of all that.  

[TEPaul]

I've got to admit, A.G. that even though I've never met Ron Whitten (I've only spoken to him on the phone briefly) I find myself often of two minds about where he's coming from on various things.

On the one hand, I like the way he writes things that spark some pretty interesting debate and discussion, but, on the other hand, he seems like a man who either doesn't have or doesn't want to have a real appreciation for some of the best aspects of a golf architectural movement he himself seems to have had such a hand in creating.

[TEPaul]

A.G.

I guess I can cite you one project that has perhaps NOT worked out all that well.

I have no real idea if it was referred to as a "restoration" or a "renovation"---I can only tell you the project was rolled out as taking the course back to what the club felt was its "high point". The reference that was made with this project by the club was "back to the future".

They may've used as the "high point" the way the course was in 1930 for the simple reason that that time at that course was the amazing culmination of the "Grand Slam" by Bobby Jones. Taking a course back to that time is actually a pretty interesting political move, if you really think about it.

However, the fact is the bunkers they came up with in that project basically don't look much of anything like Merion East ever had before, and I can tell you from personal experience that they don't play much of anything like any bunkers they ever had before. (I do not want anyone to automatically assume that the fact I just said that means I do not like the bunkers Merion has now!!).

As you know, I'm citing the highly controversial (at least on here ) bunker project of Merion East.

It seems like some stirrings are in the works over there now to change what they did somehow and perhaps try to take those bunkers back to something that both look and play like they used to.

By the way, I hate to say this, I really do, but the coincidence and irony of it is pretty strong with a thread like this on Whitten.

I fully believe this was all just basically accidental but the fact is when Merion began working on their bunkers with Hanse and Kittleman, Ron Whitten wrote about it in one of the golf magazines and he referred to the architectural attribution of Merion as Wilson/Hanse/Kittleman. The fact is he did that without first checking with Hanse or Kittleman.  

WELL, when the club saw that architectural attribution in that magazine they were some kind of furious and who essentially took it on the chin? Hanse and Kittleman did.    

On the other hand, this kind of thing is just the rough and tumble world of golf course architecture and all its nuancy dynamics. Gil and BillK are both big boys and they know how to get past this kind of thing and they have.  It's the nature of the business----you have to have a thick skin sometimes.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
I wondered if the Merion situation might have been such an example.  

Even given that, the damage done to courses that is later undone in "restoration" seems to make the risks worthwhile, at least in my mind and to my limited experience.

The restorations I've personally seen before and after (all with modifications to be fully "modern" are Hope Valley CC in Durham, NC (Ross/Silva), Wilmington Muni (Ross/Prichard, at least primarily), and Cape Fear CC (Ross/Spence).  In all three cases, the restored version was just far, far superior to what had evolved at each place over the years.

I've also seen great work done in renovation, such as Clyde Johnston's work at Pine Lakes (Wilson) on Jekyll Island.  I haven't seen Chris Cupit's Rivermont (Lee) since Chris Riley renovated it, but I have heard nothing but praise for what was done there.  

I guess the long and the short of it is that I agree with you, Tom.  The terms restoration and renovation have been thrown around so much that their meaning is murky at best.  Good GCA is good, whatever it is called.  Simple, and not really helpful, but the only universal truth.

[Dan_Callahan]

The Rulewich "restoration" at Yale made the course worse. Just look at Geoff Child's before and after photos and it is clear the work took the design in the wrong direction. The subsequent restoration by the staff has resulted in a remarkable turnaround. It's amazing how the removal of a few thousand trees can bring back the architect's original strategic elements that have long since been forgotten.

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan,
Would you classify the work at Yale as a botched restoration, or renovation work that went completely against the original intent of the course?  There is no doubt that a great injustice was done there, but is that an indictment of restoration, or an endorsement of being very, very careful to NOT renovate without great care being taken?  

[TEPaul]

A.G.

No matter what the term for it is, here are a few examples of things I think would make even some holes on some of the world's most respected golf courses better.

1. #9 NGLA---If a diagonal line of bunkering was put in on the second half of this hole there's no doubt in my mind the hole would be much better and much more interesting in play. Macdonald apparently might have thought to do this but even if he didn't I don't see that it matters as far as this improving the hole.

2. #7 Pine Valley---apparently Crump was in the process of turning this hole into something of a double dogleg by taking the left side of the fairway on the second half and turning it into rough waste area and adding its commensurate amount to the right side of the present fairway. But he died and it was never done. I think it should be done as this would make it an even better hole and more interesting.

On the other hand, some think because these courses are so famous that even things like these should never even be attempted.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
Good examples, and if I take your point, the correct approach would be very measured in regards to renovation, but without sacred cows.  I can buy that wholeheartedly.  I can accept the premise that Ross or any of the other Old Dead Guys might make certain changes to their own courses today that we might not due to the pedigree of the course without regard to IMPROVEMENT of the course.  (Again, we're back to a point of agreement, but on a point that Whitten wasn't venting on.)  

But does that work in reverse?  While we might fail to improve things due to the pedigree, I'm still not sure that I know of a good example of Whitten's point, in which an actual, faithful restoration (in so far as possible, with or without modernization) has made things WORSE.  You point out that the Merion bunkers were different than anything that had been there before, and certainly what happened at Yale wouldn't be an actual restoration in any sense of the word, so I don't think he was talking about those two.  Beyond that, all of the restorations that I've gotten to see, or know much about, have been fabulously cool.

So what in the heck WAS he talking about?

[TEPaul]

" I'm still not sure that I know of a good example of Whitten's point, in which an actual, faithful restoration (in so far as possible, with or without modernization) has made things WORSE."

A.G.

Frankly, I can't really think of one either.


"So what in the heck WAS he talking about?"

I don't know what he was really thinking about. I guess soemone on here could ask him to clarify it. But when he made that remark about too many people thinking a Ross course or whatever is basically the same thing as a Rembrandt or Monet tells you someting, don't you think?  

[David Stamm]

David,

How do we REALLY know that the courses are worse off for it?  Some are, yes, but many of those old ideas may have proved impractical, like preserving some of the arroyos at La Cumbre that required so many forced carries.  Oak Hill has gone on to host numerous top flight events, which it wouldn't have been able to do without RTJ improvements.  

Preserving Billy Bell bunkers proved to be impractical to numerous clubs across the country. That does not mean, IMHO, that the course is better off now. It depends on how badly a club wants to preserve a feature. And because they were able to host big events after RTJ's work doesn't mean that Oak Hill is a better course for it.

[Tags:]

Tags: