[TEPaul]

Let's say any course that's over 20-25 years old. Or let's say the courses that have generally been considered maybe in the top couple of hundred in the world. Is there a single one among them that's never had anything done to it? No yardage expansion, no redesign at all?

I'm not an advocate of change if a course doesn't have some kind of really recognizable problem. But for those that appear not to have a truly recognizable problem is there a single one out there that has not been architecturally altered.

Or which courses have been altered the least? And I wonder why that is. Max Behr once said a course that's designed naturally might tend to resist change more than one that's clearly man-made/artificial looking. I wonder if there's some way of analyzing if that's true.

I'm not trying to imply anything here--I'd just like to know.

There's a recent thread on NGLA that's getting pretty heated and although I don't really know the evolution of NGLA that well from what I do know it seems that NGLA may be one of the least altered courses in the world--that is after Macdonald stopped working on it. How about Chicago C.C.? I've never seen it but I've heard it's been remarkably preserved. Why did these two stay so well preserved all these years?

[A_Clay_Man]

Definitely an unanswerable question.

It implies someone would have to have not only played all of them but that they have been playing them for a long time.

Tom- Your last question was to why they stayed the way they are and I'd say the answer is probably through alot of hard work. So, the ones least changed may have had the most done? A diligent super who has had the opportunity to care for a place for a longtime will be considered succesful if the work he does appears to have been, not done. Does that make sense?

But as I read your post I thought of CPC, and then of course TOC. But, without the stipulation of top 100, I'd say the course with the most frugal of ownership would qualify first.

[BCrosby]

Among the courses I'm familiar with, the one that is the least changed is Peachtree Golf Club (1949).

I am unaware of any material changes to the course since it opened. I'd love to hear from others if there have been changes I don't know about.

P'tree is a good but over-rated course. No. 1 is its best hole. A lot of repetitive shot values thereafter.

But it sure hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

Bob

[ForkaB]

Brora

If they've changed anything there since Braid mailed in his routing 90 years ago it's been damn well disguised.  Certainly no changes at all in the 20+ years I've played there.

[T_MacWood]

The Golf Club has changed very little. I've heard reports that Pete Dye has voluteered to tweak the course, but the club has declined his offers.

[Jim_H]

I don't know for sure, but from playing it several times I would say Apawamis in Rye, N.Y. would have to be a contender.  I wonder what people on this site think of this course.  It sure seems to me that Travis would feel right at home with many of the quirky holes unchanged.  I am undecided about the course--love part, hate part.

[Ran Morrissett]

Westward Ho! - other than repairing damage from bombing practice in WWII  :-/, I am unaware of any major structural work that has taken place other than shoring up the dunes line. Has the 8th green been moved slightly from Fowler's day due to flooding issues/concerns? I'm not sure. I haven't read of a single new bunker or tee expansion that has occured in the past 40 years.

Rich,

Have some of the bunkers at Brora always been revetted or is that new in the past decade or so?

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Wow Ran, you ARE a purist!

My memory tells me the bunkers at Brora have always (last 20+ years) been revetted, but like just about all courses of any pretension for the tourist dollar, they've probably been re-revetted (word?) more frequently over the past 10 years or so.  No significant changes in shape that I can recall.

[Steve_L.]

They haven't stretched tees, pulled in the rough or moved bunkers on the par-3 course at ANGC lately have they...?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

This is strickly a guess, as I am sure you would know better.

Merion West ?

[Willie_Dow]

Mike

You're right.   Little has been done that would change play on the West course at Merion, with the exception of the 13th which was completely redesigned in the mid 80's.

[TEPaul]

Bill and Mike:

Merion West is probably a pretty good candidate. The course this year though is going to undergo and in-house bunker restoration--or maybe it could be called bunker repair/restoration--I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, though, the course just might have a network of cart paths installed on it too as the West course does have a lot of cart traffic and that's kind of taking a toll on the course and its agronomy apparently. Not great for a really interesting old golf course but what are you going to do?

Bill:

Frankly, the course least changed just might be Marion--George Thomas's first! It appeared to me to be one of the greatest "throw back in time" courses I've ever laid eyes on! If it's been changed I can't imagine how. I've never seen a golf course with more stonewalls right in front of greens!!

Ran:

Very interesting about Westward Ho! I'm going to post a thread on Fowler anyway, since Darwin implied he may have been the greatest natural talent in architecture of all the Heathland architects, but it would be interesting if Westward Ho! is very little changed since apparently Fowler was a real fanatic about not changing his golf courses!

JimH:

I don't know that I'd really consider Apawamis that unchanged. I'll look into it later this year as it's the home of the USSGA and their annual meeting tourney.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not sure I'd consider re-revetting bunkering change--that is if the original bunkering was revetted. Revetted bunkers sort of fall apart in around ten years so re-revetting original revetted bunkering would be considered maintenance to me not architectural change.

[ForkaB]

Thanks Tom

Brora also has lots of sheep.  Given that sheep will be sheep, every year new depressions are made by those lovely little critters just doin' what comes naturally.  Does this count as a restoration, renovation, remodeling or what?

[SL_Solow]

I have played Chicago Golf although I do not claim to be a scholar with respect to its history.  As I understand it from members, a little work has been done to try and restore features lost or softened by age and maintenance but nothing else of consequence.  I think Tom Doak has some knowledge which may be relevant.  I was also told that Dave Esler may have done a little work but I am not certain whether that is correct.

[TEPaul]

"Brora also has lots of sheep.  Given that sheep will be sheep, every year new depressions are made by those lovely little critters just doin' what comes naturally.  Does this count as a restoration, renovation, remodeling or what?"

Rich:

I don't want you to have to keep guessing. It's called evolution.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I'll go with Winged Foot East.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any substantive changes other than the tree on # 10.

[ian]

Here's the biggest problem, how do we really know. An example. At St George's in Toronto we have the original notes, photos from opening day, photos from the first tournyment. Avery early aerial photo from the same decade, but we have a writers account of how Thompson redid every green to soften the contour in the mid 30's. You look at the 32 photos and compare them with photos of today and you can't tell if this is true or not because many look exactly the same. So I put it to any of you, how the hell do we really actually know?

Aren't I just a ray of sunshine this morning.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ian Andrew,

You're correct.

Certain changes, especially green contours are very difficult to detect via photos.  Likewise fairway contours.

[TEPaul]

Ian asked;

"Every early aerial photo from the same decade, but we have a writers account of how Thompson redid every green to soften the contour in the mid 30's. You look at the 32 photos and compare them with photos of today and you can't tell if this is true or not because many look exactly the same. So I put it to any of you, how the hell do we really actually know?"

Ian and Pat:

That's basically what good and voluminous research is all about. You find out everything you think you possibly can and at that point you basically come to know the extent of what you will probably never know.

Those who rely on aerials for historical research and restorations and such should come to know (if they're any good at it) that basically aerials can only really show you two things about the way a golf course was at any particular time. Obviously that's basically length and width--and aerials can be excellent for that--really good for placement of things in other words.

What aerials can't really show you or only show you very slightly is the dimension of height. But there're other interesting ways to determine that. Certainly on ground photos can be helpful but obviously only their unique perspective but if you don't have that soil analysis and probing can tell you more than you think as long as something wasn't completely obliterated at some point as the fairway bunkering at Aronimink once was.

There's obviously another way but only if you're really lucky. That would be some of the things that architects may have left like Alison's green drawings at PVGC. He used exact dimensions in his drawings and written textual evidence of the same of both what Crump did in exact dimension and what he was proposing right on top--basically solid and ticked lines right to scale supported by numerical dimensions off of specific points. You can't do much better than that.

If you're lucky enough to have things like that a restorer has it knocked! And if he doesn't have all those things he has to do some very carefully considered interpreting.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I also nominate Newport.

[Mike Hendren]

I have shared these comments before, but remain astonished at the limited mention of Memphis CC on this web-site.  I suspect the club keeps a very low profile and likes it that way.

From "The History of Tennessee Golf:"  

"Memphis Country Club is one of Tennessee's oldest clubs.  The club was organized in 1905 and the members were playing a nine-hole course designed by James Foulis, Jr.  Tom Bendelow added nine holes and then in 1910 Donald Ross rebuilt the course that is being played today.  Memphis Country Club green superintendent Rod Lingle discussed the course's history:

'This course opened in 1905.  I would be willing to bet this course - for as old as it is - has had less changes than any course in America.  The main reason is we are land locked.  We are on only about 105 acres.  We have old aerials that were taken in the 1920's.  All our tees and greens are in the same positions they were then.  We would like to stretch our course, but we can't because we are land locked.

I think about two thirds of our greens are the original 1905, perhaps 1910 greens.  People can't believe that but it's true.  They think you have to rebuild greens every fifteen to twenty years because they won't grow grass.  That's not true.  It depends on how those greens are maintained.  The greens that have been rebuilt are the second, the third (in 1999 by Lingle), the eighth probably, the ninth probably, the tenth before the 1948 U.S. Amateur, and the eighteenth probably.'"

The text goes on to say that John LeFoy restored the bunkers in 1989, moving only two fairway bunkers at the 14th, and the fairways were converted to zoysia in 1999.  That same year, the greens were re-seeded with Champion Bermuda.  

It's been over twenty-five years since I've played Memphis CC.  The only hole I recall was a short volcano-like one shotter on the front.  I'll line up a return this summer and file a report.  

Regards,

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()