[Rob Bice]

I play at a course that somewhat recently went through a restoration.  I might be stating the obvious, but the intent of the restoration was to return the course to it's original design.  The architect used his knowledge of the original architects, old pictures, course routings, etc. to create his "design".  The changes were presented to the membership for a vote.  As you can imagine there was very heated debate about the changes.  Interestingly, the debate largely centered around how the changes were "clearly" to the benefit of low handicaps at the expense of high handicaps.  Fortunately the vote was and up/down on the project as is and not one in which members could cherry pick certain changes.  The restoration passed and aside from a few grumblings it has been mostly viewed as a success.

The entire process brought up a few questions:

1.  Do architects take into account the appeal of a course to different skill levels during the design process aside from length, constraints by the owner and commercial pressures?

2.  Does anyone have historical knowledge of how this was addressed/not addressed in the past?

3.  Has this changed with changes with technology?

[Tom_Doak]

Rob,

There Is often a divide at clubs between the low handicappers and the average golfers, and it rears its head in renovations when money is proposed for new back tees and new downrange bunkers, and nothing much new for the seniors or the ladies.

But, in a true restoration that wouldn't be the case ... You wouldn't be adding much in the way of tees, and the debate would revolve more around whether restoring "obsolete" bunkers that had been filled in was a burden on the high handicappers. So, I have to ask you to clarify the nature of your restoration before saying any more.

[Rob Bice]

Thanks Tom.  The debates largely revolved around the following:

1.  Restoring a number of cross bunkers.  Several of which were ~50 yards short of ~420 - 430 yard par fours.

2.  A number of bunkers had over the years become more what I call flash bunkers.  The faces of the bunkers were sand as opposed to grass.  The restoration made the faces of most bunkers grass.  An unforeseen problem has been that the grass does not release so there are a number of awkward lies that can be very difficult.

There were a few additional changes that sparked debate but it mostly revolved around the above two points.  Adding bunkers and seemingly making them more difficult.  At the same time, fairways were widened, trees were removed and a few greens were expanded.  For what it's worth the course rating actually decreased following the restoration.

The specifics of the restoration just sparked my question of how architects take into account the variety of skill levels during the design process, if at all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()