[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently Ron Prichard revised the 7th and 18th greens at Mountain Ridge.

The work on the 7th green was akin to a restoration as that green is the only green that represented a departure from the original Donald Ross field drawings.

The results are startling.
The improvement more than dramatic.

The new (sympathetically restored) 7 th green presents numerous, challenging hole locations whereby the prior green had but one hole area.

In addition a cross bunker was restored and the green side bunkers are deep, daunting and dramatic.

If you're results oriented, # 7 is a home run.

My only comment would be that I'd like to see the hole play at no more than 150 yards.

The 18th green presented a similar dilemma, namely,  that increased green speeds made the green unplayable.

Ron successfully rotated the green on it's axis and softened the severe slope, properly marrying the slope to the long incoming approach shot.
The green is now "puttable" and more.
It now permits reasonable recovery shots and rewards well executed approach shots, things that were lost as green speeds increased.

In addition, it appears that the 13th hole has been improved, but more play will have to occur before drawing a final conclusion.

So we have one restoration, one minor modification and one significant change.

But if you're results oriented, architecturally, does it matter ?

[Zack Molnar]

What would the alternatives be to being "results oriented"? Are non-results oriented people accepting of poorly executed renovations/restorations if the architect had the right intent in his restoration process?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What would the alternatives be to being "results oriented"?

That you're "process oriented"

Are non-results oriented people accepting of poorly executed renovations/restorations if the architect had the right intent in his restoration process?

I would imagine that some would be accepting, especially the proponents of the project.

[Tim Gavrich]

Pat--

Have these alterations taken place in the last year? I got to play Mountain Ridge last May and both 7 and 18 stand out in my memory as having been the severest greens on the course. Especially in the case of 7, it did seem that at full speed, gravity would see to it that many shots collected in a certain area. I know I only played it once, but I'd agree that a maximum yardage of 150 might make the hole more attackable, even with the green being as steep as it is (was?).

I think the vast majority of golfers would agree these adjustments are positive, especially since, given modern green speeds, they were more or less necessary in order to restore some of the general playing characteristics that Ross intended and that the holes had lost due to the "new normal" green speeds.

I think the argument that this belies a runaway of sorts in terms of green speeds has some legs, but then again that argument assumes that the game is necessarily somehow worse when played on greens faster than the Old Masters anticipated. I don't really buy it, personally, at least in MR's case. I might feel differently about a course like Yale or, say, The Old Course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Yes, the work took place over the winter and the holes are significantly better

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not sure if this is an answer to the question but wanted to respond since it has a clear and complete thread title.

For me a golf course is for playing. If I had played the hole before and after and if I liked the way it played "after" better than I'd consider it a successful piece of work.

So I think that's a "yes" if I understand the original question. The proof is in the playing.

[BCrosby]

Results aren't the only thing that should matter.

If the course is of sufficient historical importance, its history should also matter.

The relative weight given to those two factors should vary with the golf course.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick,  I left Mountain Ridge with the thought that you had 16 Pritchard greens and 2 Ross greens - 7 and 18 were clearly "different" than the other 16.  I can't help but wonder if Pritchard changed the greens based upon Ross' dramatic and romantic drawings rather than what was put on the ground day 1. 

Regardless, both were severe at today's green speeds with very limited / default hole locations.

Your 7th is very similar to Ross' 16th at Teugega.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  I left Mountain Ridge with the thought that you had 16 Pritchard greens and 2 Ross greens - 7 and 18 were clearly "different" than the other 16. 

Bogey,

Ron never touched the interior putting surfaces.
He merely reclaimed the lost perimeters.

# 7 and # 18 green are virtually unchanged since 1931 or earlier.

# 7, a severe punchbowl was not built to Ross's field drawing.

All of the other greens were built as drawn.

# 3 was altered somewhat, many years ago, but, was restored about 8-10 years ago.

I can't help but wonder if Pritchard changed the greens based upon Ross' dramatic and romantic drawings rather than what was put on the ground day 1. 

Ron didn't touch the greens you played.
What you played, other than # 7, was what was put in the ground on day 1.

Regardless, both were severe at today's green speeds with very limited / default hole locations.

# 7 had one basic cupping area and # 18 was overly difficult/penal at green speeds above 9.

Your 7th is very similar to Ross' 16th at Teugega.

That's the only green built other than as drawn.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure if this is an answer to the question but wanted to respond since it has a clear and complete thread title.

For me a golf course is for playing. If I had played the hole before and after and if I liked the way it played "after" better than I'd consider it a successful piece of work.

Brent, in general, I'd agree.

The problem is that you make that assessment only after the hole has been altered.

The second problem is that once you alter one hole, does it become open season to alter the others ?

I think you have to be incredibly cautious and thoughtful before making any alterations

So I think that's a "yes" if I understand the original question. The proof is in the playing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Results aren't the only thing that should matter.

If the course is of sufficient historical importance, its history should also matter.

Bob, it certainly shouldn't be ignored, but, when history conflicts with playability, I think you have to opt for playability.

The relative weight given to those two factors should vary with the golf course.

I think you'd better assess the issue in the context of all of the disciplines, architectural, agronomic, playability and historical, but, I think the weight must emphasize playability.

[Brent Hutto]

Bob and Pat,

I guess I'd say if the greens are really, truly, substantially "original" and the course has some meaningful history behind it then the decision of whether to make any alteration at all can't be taken lightly. Due consideration to the historical value would have to be given.

But I'll stick to my original answer that if you're going to modify a course, then the only thing that matters is whether it's more fun to play afterward. Worst case would be an alteration that results in different but not better.

I'll go out on a limb and add that I'm usually skeptical about how many historical courses at this late date are substantially as originally designed. It sure seems like it would be easy to get carried away "preserving" features that were not in the ground on the opening day of the course 50, 75 or 100 years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob and Pat,

I guess I'd say if the greens are really, truly, substantially "original" and the course has some meaningful history behind it then the decision of whether to make any alteration at all can't be taken lightly. Due consideration to the historical value would have to be given.

But I'll stick to my original answer that if you're going to modify a course, then the only thing that matters is whether it's more fun to play afterward. Worst case would be an alteration that results in different but not better.

Brent,

That's why intelligent thought and restraint have to be part of the process before the shovels are in the ground.

You should know, before the shovels hit the dirt, if the finished product will be better.

While the ultimate proof is in the playing, if you don't know the result before the shovel hits the dirt, you're just rolling the dice or you've followed the wrong pied piper.

I'll go out on a limb and add that I'm usually skeptical about how many historical courses at this late date are substantially as originally designed. It sure seems like it would be easy to get carried away "preserving" features that were not in the ground on the opening day of the course 50, 75 or 100 years ago.

Some courses are luckier than others in that they have the documented evidence that reveals the configuration of the course/holes on opening day.

Others are lucky if they have aerials and ground level photos from opening day.

Mountain Ridge is "substantially as originally designed".

Maybe some courses just have to be lucky in that regard.

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, did Pritchard perhaps take a little liberty with the back corners at 5 (where I made 2 btw), 6 and 8 for example.    While Ross used sharper edges than subsequent maintenance practices reveal, I don't recall seeing such pinnable tongues on any of the Ross courses I've been fortunate enough to play.

To your original question, even if such changes are less than fully restorative, I favor them as they generally result in better architecture on the ground provided they still evoke the original period and overall body of work of the architect, however subjective that might be.  This reflects a change in my previous opinion that such courses are museum pieces.

I'm not about to gut the electrical in my house and re-install knob and tube wiring.

Bogey

[Andrew Buck]

I tend to be process oriented in life, in playing golf, and even some aspects of professional life ... that is I find I achieve more when I lose myself in the process of living than focus on the steps/achievements. 

That said, with something like golf course architecture, with a final product that lasts, you can only judge the product by the results it leaves behind, even if those results were achieved by a process oriented person. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, did Pritchard perhaps take a little liberty with the back corners at 5 (where I made 2 btw), 6 and 8 for example.   

NO, not at all.

Those greens were just mowed out to the edge of the footpad

While Ross used sharper edges than subsequent maintenance practices reveal, I don't recall seeing such pinnable tongues on any of the Ross courses I've been fortunate enough to play.

Brad Klein spent a considerable amount of time examining those greens and felt that they were fairly unique.

To your original question, even if such changes are less than fully restorative, I favor them as they generally result in better architecture on the ground provided they still evoke the original period and overall body of work of the architect, however subjective that might be.  This reflects a change in my previous opinion that such courses are museum pieces.

I'm not about to gut the electrical in my house and re-install knob and tube wiring.

Bogey

[BCrosby]

Brent/Pat -

Whether to change a historic course ought to be understood as a nuanced and difficult decision. On such courses, even if a change "improves" the course (whatever the heck that means), that might not justify a change.

Which is why I think "results oriented" is a dangerous starting point for such discussions.

Bob

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent/Pat -

Whether to change a historic course ought to be understood as a nuanced and difficult decision.
On such courses, even if a change "improves" the course (whatever the heck that means), that might not justify a change.

Which is why I think "results oriented" is a dangerous starting point for such discussions.

Bob,

Due to the "domino" theory I'm always reluctant to make alterations to Golden Age courses.

But, if you're NOT results oriented, by what measure do you evaluate the prospective change/s.

I think the systemic changes at Aronomink should be exhibit "A"

The 7th hole at MRCC was so out of context with the rest of the golf course, that in conjunction with the lack of cupping areas, it mandated a change.   And what better way to change the 7th green than to be faithful to Donald Ross's original field drawings.

# 18 was becoming more unplayable as green speeds exceeded 9 on the Stimp.
Rotating the green on it's axis was in keeping with Ross's design of # 18 green.
Now the green is playable on the approach, recovery and putting.

These were never projects taken lightly nor were they knee jerk reactions.

The results are stunning, a huge improvement in playability, achieved while preserving the spirit and continuity of Ross's design.

[A.G._Crockett]

Great discussion, with much to think about.  Thank you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()