Architectural maturation

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba asked:

“Instead, I'd like to ask you both questions, based on observations I've noticed over time.

Tom Paul; Do you think over time you've become much more inclined to just acknowledge the "will of the membership" not only as a reality, but also as something to accept and even embrace? I mean, it's not like the historical precedent of member-stimulated changes to the classic courses has been all that positive. Why should we suddenly believe that our present-day contemporaries have been miraculously enlightened and are somehow beyond criticism and reproach?”

MikeC:

Perhaps one of the best and most welcome questions anyone has asked me on here!

You asked;

“Do you think over time you've become much more inclined to just acknowledge the "will of the membership" not only as a reality, but also as something to accept and even embrace?”

What you refer to as “the will of the membership” I sure do acknowledge more today as a reality than I did five years ago or even last year. I believe I’ve come to understand, which I didn’t at first, how much of a “will” a membership can have. Without it behind the things you’d like to do, and like to see happen, you’re never going to be effective in seeing the things you believe in happen anyway, in my opinion. That, I believe, should be pretty obvious to anyone, even those who don’t belong to golf clubs and never have to deal with a club’s membership.

But the thing you, and everyone else should understand, in my opinion, is the “will” of a membership should never be viewed as the same thing as the “first opinion” of a membership towards something like a really good course restoration. One can change the “opinion” or first opinion of a membership towards something like a good restoration, and all the little necessary details of it only if you go about it correctly. Those are the things I think I learned most and have been the best lessons of all. Nothing much good will ever happen if adverserialness continues and prevails between someone trying to effect a good restoration and their membership. You have to let them give you the opportunity to try to effect something first and then you hope like hell they like it and appreciate it. The only possible way, it seems to me, to get them to give you that opportunity is to somehow figure out a way to earn their respect first!

And if someone like Tom MacWood is under the impression I’m out to further destroy or corrupt the architecture of GMGC or some other good architecture, all I can say is you know me and you know that’s not so, and you also probably know a guy like Gil Hanse wouldn’t be involved in something like that anyway---most of you have seen the things he’s done and the results and effects of them on the ground and with many memberships (not all obviously, Gil has had his problems with some memberships as I’m sure all architects have).

But I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished at GMGC and the good news is the membership is too! Did we get everything I wanted, or Gil wanted? Was it as "pure" as either or us or even the entire committee hoped it would be? Of course not, and that’s the second best lesson I guess I learned! But we got a lot and most everyone seems to love it and it’s not as if they don’t notice a real change from the way the course used to be and had become and devolved into before we did this---and we haven’t even finished yet.

Because I didn’t get everything I wanted or Gil didn’t, or someone else didn’t, should we be disappointed and not have even done it? No way, although, sure, I was disappointed many times, really discouraged sometimes but I learned to live with it for something that was all in all much better than it used to be.

This is why I have an issue with someone who appears to be saying the things Tom MacWood now is. He seems to be implying that if you can’t get everything you want in some ultra purist mode you shouldn’t even attempt anything. I just don’t believe that.

You asked:

“I mean, it's not like the historical precedent of member-stimulated changes to the classic courses has been all that positive.”

No, the historical precedent of member-stimulated changes to classic courses has not been all that positive in the past, but you as well as anyone should certainly recognize that some really good restorations of classic course is a new and coming thing now where 15 or so years ago that was not even thought of---it wasn’t even a term or a philosophy! Redesigning and just plain altering was!

You asked;

“Why should we suddenly believe that our present-day contemporaries have been miraculously enlightened and are somehow beyond criticism and reproach?”

Because you should recognize how much things have changed now and despite plenty of bad course alterations, even in the name of restoration, there’ve been so many more wonderful ones than there ever have been before--and by a country mile! That’s what we all need to focus and concentrate on! And there’s not a single thing about membership enlightenment that’s miraculous. For some in clubs where good restorations have come about it’s been years of hard work, tough and tense communicating, but if it works well in the final result it seems to be worth the effort for those who did these things.

As for criticism and reproach, at some of these projects I guess I’m about ready now to leave the criticism and reproach to those who never were involved in the first place with these clubs that’ve undergone some of these projects.

As for people like Tom MacWood, TommyN, GeoffShac or even you, who I do consider really good at some of this stuff, I believe all of you can be far more effective working from the inside any way you can than singing from the roof-tops how bad or dangerous all this stuff is or can be!

This is definitely not going to win me any friends and will probably piss off some of those I have but; would Ohio State’s Scarlett course under Nicklaus &Co be better off if Tom MacWood tried to lend all his research material to their effort and even get involved if they asked him? Would Riviera have been better off if GoeffShac had answered Marzolff’s call for advice? Would some of the Cal classics be better off if TommyN could work from the inside or if Merion or whoever around here asked you for your opinion?

I don’t see how anyone can argue with that. But most of the time Golfclubatlas.com and its contributors don’t work from the inside, they just crow from the outside and that’s just not as effective, in my opinion. But the thing that just both amazes and also annoys me is some who may have the opportunity don’t even seem to want to try to work from the inside.

And when a guy like Tom MacWood continues to say above---“Who even cares what a membership thinks of their own course?”---you know Mike, I guess I’m never going to figure that out---nothing positive will ever come from an opinion or attitude like that, in my mind.

Again, great question and sorry for the long answer but you know that’s just me. I hope Tom MacWood answers his question and then maybe he’ll take a shot at mine and me at his.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
It depends on the golf course—the circumstance of each individual course should be weighed. IMO there are only a small number of well-preserved landmark designs that should be protected--protected from redesign and protected from restoration. That doesn’t mean tees cannot be moved to address modern pressures (if the new tees don’t have detrimental effect on some other important aspect of the design). When you begin recontouring greens and moving bunkers (on these courses) IMO you’ve gone too far.

Maybe Ross would be designing golf holes in a completely different way, then again maybe he wouldn’t.  We’ll never know. Maybe Van Gogh would be painting in a different manner today also. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the artist who had to decide which way he would be painting and then go about modernizing his work. Ross is one of our greatest designers, he left us a boat load of wonderful designs, why not try to preserve and restore his best work accurately instead of trying to figure out what he may have done differently if he were living today.

Most of the architectural transgressions I have observed have nothing to do with maintaining playability. They usually have to do with an architect interjecting his own style or restorations that ignore history.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

To take a crack at your question to Tom Macwood;

"Tom MacWood; As a preservationist, how does a course and club deal with changes in the game that are undeniable?  Even Pete Dye believes that Donald Ross would be designing courses in a completely different vein today than he did in his time of crude implements poorly designed for the game.  Is there nothing valid to the idea that one tries to maintain and preserve the basic intent of the playability of a hole while altering the details to account for such changes?"

How does a preservationist deal with changes in the game on classic architecture? Really carefully, and in any logical way possible that can work to find alternative solutions that'll preserve it and not touch it and keep it relevant to today's game. Such things as calling some holes a lower par without doing a thing to them architecturally or actually is one clever solution, in my opinion.

Tee length additions I can live with but only if;

A/ It really does return the shot values and the design and concept intent to any hole that was originally intended,

AND not or;

B/ It doesn't do anything invasive to another hole in the process and the architectural aesthetic can be somehow preserved.

I'd sure prefer not to get into the mid-body architecture, and certainly not the green and green-end architecture of any classic golf hole that used to work well if there is not tee length elasticity available but if there isn't the hole still does need to stay relevant somehow. That's when I think anyone really does need to be very careful with solutions and every hole needs to be looked at individually---there's nothing generally applicable here, in my opinion. There needs to come a point in decision making where it's recognized that any solution or even some apparently good solution isn't worse than the initial problem.

In the end, a lot of all this probably just comes down to who does the work and how well they do it.

But if some golf hole is clearly not working, and it seems virtually impossible to come up with a clever solution without really touching the architecture, I'm not a preservationist. I think the great courses and the best holes in most cases, despite changes in the game, maintain or have a way of maintaining their respect from golfers and therefore changing them shouldn't even be a question.

And lastly, I think all of us should keep working toward ways to influence the regulatory bodies to prevent the effects of increased technology, particularly distance increase, from making these questions and problems constant!

[T_MacWood]

David
I agree with you. About two weeks ago I made the decision to ignore all TE’s posts directed at me. It had become obvious he was hell bent on discrediting me in anyway he could….in fact he told me so. So I had a choice either stop posting or ignore him…I chose to ignore him. Unfortunately I fell off the wagon yesterday and engaged him. Several posts later I’ve got a ball-gag in my mouth and The Gimp is shuffling around in his leather mask. I’m going back to Plan A.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm not trying to discredit you or you personally, I'm trying to discredit what I view as a most negative influence you seem to be trying to float on here---eg the entire subject and implimenation of restorations is basically a negative or dangerous one.

If you don't have the sense to figure out the difference or the balls to answer questions related to some of the things you say on here about that then I don't see what your value on here really is. Do you really think you have some right to just state your opinions on here and not defend them because you consider yourself some ultra researcher? You've said on here a number of times you see your function on here as one who should just ask questions. Sometimes the things you say appear to be more than just questions and like anyone else on here you should answer questions directed to you about the things you say.

And why do you have to consider everything I question you on as some personal attack, and then think to go to some plan A or Plan B because of it?

Although we've spoken on the phone a number of times I hardly know you and I've never met you---so why would I have anything against you personally or attack you personally?

This is just a discussion group about golf course architecture, it isn't supposed to be one of those new fangled "support groups" where everyone holds hands and chants something in unison.

Get off taking everything so personally and just answer my questions on architecture. And the first one I'd like an answer to is;

Are you really such a backward-assed Indian, low-life, scumbag idiot to actually think Ross piled those mounds of sand in that bunker at Oakley in 1909 with the intention of having them be permanent?  

Sure, you're going to hear from me off-line and harshly when you accuse me on here of supporting some of the worst of the things that have happened to architecture in the name of restoration. I doubt there's another contributor to this web-site or anyone anywhere else who'd say something like that about me!