Will the modern day courses (1960+) remain as

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

much fun to play decades and a century from now as the old modern classics from the early part of the 20th century ?

Will they endure in their general form ?

Will they be altered ?

Will they be altered to the degree that they lose their distinct character ?

Which ones will survive, inherently intact ?

Which ones will lose their inherent character ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I have little doubt that history will repeat itself. Some will remain in their 'general' form, most will be altered, some of the 'best' will remain true to character and some of the best will not.

In general, I think everything will tend to get scruffier, except Augusta. 
 
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I think history will repeat itself, including a future movment to restore those to their original designs as time allows us to appreciate what their design qualities were.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
Then we are in agreement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Why does it take so long, almost in cycle, for club members to understand and appreciate the value of the architecture that they had, that they disfigured, before they restore it ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
To avoid any confusion, my first post should have read "I don't doubt that history will repeat itself.

[TEPaul]

"Why does it take so long, almost in cycle, for club members to understand and appreciate the value of the architecture that they had, that they disfigured, before they restore it ?"


Patrick:

You seem to put a thread on here on this basic subject like once every couple of months. Why is that?

Don't you know that the generation of our fathers when they altered a lot of those old courses didn't think they were disfiguing them? They felt they were improving them. Tastes, opinions, perceptions of the same things just tend to change over time; it's the complex tapestry of Human Nature.

Look at Victorian architecture, for instance, and Victoriana generally----hugely popular once upon a time and then the entire thing sort of "went into the attic," so to speak and then after about 75 years it had something of a renaissance.

My theory on most all this kind of thing---eg cycles, particularly in the United States of American, is we are basically "change oriented"; "change" is sort of the middle name of our country's ethos. We love change, we basically glorify change, we indulge in change and move forward extremely rapidly in some area or new direction (we consider ourselves to be the world's best and greatest "can do" people), eventually we tire and become discontent and what do we almost inevitable do? We look back to a former time and what it had and we bring it back, we recreate its look and feeling and we go through a renaissance with it. Obviously it makes us feel better about ourselves and the world we live in.

It's no different with golf course architecture. Why do we look back, bring it back and restore it? Obviously it makes us feel better; it takes us back to another earlier time, perhaps one we feel was of more innocence and sort of "human grounding."

It's not exactly a mystery, Patrick, at least not to me. Maybe it is to you, but don't fret, as I've always realized you need me to explain everything to you and for you!

[Patrick_Mucci]

You seem to put a thread on here on this basic subject like once every couple of months. Why is that?

To help those who seem to be having more "Senior Moments"

Don't you know that the generation of our fathers when they altered a lot of those old courses didn't think they were disfiguing them? They felt they were improving them. Tastes, opinions, perceptions of the same things just tend to change over time; it's the complex tapestry of Human Nature.

I disagree.
Most people resist change.

I'd be interested to see the numerical breakdown of pre and post-WWII changes to golf courses that weren't financially motivated.

Look at Victorian architecture, for instance, and Victoriana generally----hugely popular once upon a time and then the entire thing sort of "went into the attic," so to speak and then after about 75 years it had something of a renaissance.

But, the things that went into the attic were preserved in their initial form, not modified to meet the emerging style.

My theory on most all this kind of thing---eg cycles, particularly in the United States of American, is we are basically "change oriented"; "change" is sort of the middle name of our country's ethos. We love change, we basically glorify change, we indulge in change and move forward extremely rapidly in some area or new direction (we consider ourselves to be the world's best and greatest "can do" people), eventually we tire and become discontent and what do we almost inevitable do? We look back to a former time and what it had and we bring it back, we recreate its look and feeling and we go through a renaissance with it. Obviously it makes us feel better about ourselves and the world we live in.

It's no different with golf course architecture. Why do we look back, bring it back and restore it? Obviously it makes us feel better; it takes us back to another earlier time, perhaps one we feel was of more innocence and sort of "human grounding."

I don't feel that restorations are "nostalgia" oriented.
I think a light bulb moment occurs somewhere within the membership when they realize that what they HAVE is inferior to what they HAD.

If the change produced a superior quality to the work, chances are it will remain untouched, unless subsequent leadership thinks they can further improve on it. 

But, most often, I think THOSE NOT INVOLVED with the change see the lack of continuity in the change, that it's out of context with the design/style of the rest of the golf course, and as such, needs to be undone.

It's not exactly a mystery, Patrick, at least not to me. Maybe it is to you, but don't fret, as I've always realized you need me to explain everything to you and for you!

Could you explain it to me again, I seemed to have fallen asleep during your initial explanation.

[TEPaul]

"I'd be interested to see the numerical breakdown of pre and post-WWII changes to golf courses that weren't financially motivated."


Patrick:

That's an interesting idea. Why don't you see if you can work something up for us on here instead of just asking endless questions so you can disagree with all the answers and argue endlessly with everyone supplying them?



"But, the things that went into the attic were preserved in their initial form, not modified to meet the emerging style."





Well, Yeah, Pat, things like Victorian furniture. Furniture like that abominable looking Victorian sofa that used to be in Valentine Farm where I grew up in Glen Head Long Island. But the difference between furniture, including Victorian furniture, even including that abominable looking Victorian sofa in Valentine Farm is the furniture is not designed or created to act as the playing field of an interactive sport like golf and golf course architecture is.

Well, let me modify that a tad. That abominable looking Victorian sofa once did act as the playing field of an interactive sport but I thought it was really uncomfortable and she said the same thing.