Restoration to when??? Nip and Tuck

[Mike_Young]

Talking about restoration makes me watch all my reruns of Nip and Tuck...  WHICH IS A GREAT SHOW FOR THOSE WHO ENJOY RESTORATION
I have heard the past talk of how Merion decided which years to try and duplicate in the work that was done there.....
Today most of the restoration talk is of say 50-60 years ago......stop and think 100 years from now...will they be trying to restore a Winged Foot to today or 60 years ago......or even some date in the future.....
As I watch Nip and Tuck...which is pure resoration/renovation....they seem to have the right attitude.....they restore to the era which best fits the subject at that time in their life....for example they don't give a 65 year old lady the breast of a 20 year old.....same should go for golf architecture.....
OT....TE Paul....I bet Nip and Tuck can change your mind about extensions...I don't mean the 8000 yard kind either...seems every restoration field has to consider length these days.......and width....WHICH ERA WOULD YOU WISH THEM TO TAKE YOU BACK TO...FIRST 10 YEARS OR?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Personally, I don't have a problem with tee length additon on classic courses if it can accomplish a number of things;

1. Attempt to maintain orignal hole concepts and strategies, or uncover and reveal interesting new ones that pass the test of time.
2. Be done in such a way that it does not invade contiguous holes and alter and compromise them somehow.

This is that tricky area of "elasticity" and unfortunately most all classic courses have a good number of holes that just don't allow for it to be done well.

I don't much like getting into the mid-bodies of holes and adjusting their hazard features but that sometimes can be done in such a way where the look of the hole isn't much altered.

Moving greens on classic courses in the name of length I'm opposed to, and I'm opposed to green recontouring and softening in almost all cases other than greens that simply don't work at all.

What is the best era to restore to? That to me is a question for each individual course but generally I find most of these great old courses seemed to be best, certainly in "look" in the late 1920s and into the 1930s.

I think this includes PVGC, Merion East, Cypress Point, Pebble, Shinnecock, NGLA, Maidstone, The Creek, Brookline, Seminole and my own golf course. The aerials alone seem to be pretty indicative this way.

And I'm also becoming intriqued by a new maintenance process that has apparently never been attempted before which I will call, for lack of a better term, "holding the look" (through applied maintenance practices).

On the latter subject, Gil Hanse showed us, just the other day, how to do that with our bunkering.

[Tim Liddy]

Don’t forget economics.  The majority of clubs look for a restoration or sympathetic remodel to attract new members and create the best value for their club.  What creates the best value for the members? It normally is a celebration and promotion of their history, playability issues and maintenance issues (tree removal and infrastructure upgrades). It is paramount to consider what is best for the membership and their investment in the club.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Some of the ultra-purists on this website don't consider things like economics and what's best for memberships. The reason they don't consider those things is pretty simple really---eg they don't have to consider them. Only clubs and members and architects do.  

[T_MacWood]

There are too many courses being redesigned in the name of restoration for that reason I'm less incline to recommend restoration, especially to truly historic designs. They are probably better off preserving and consolidating what they have in conjunction with a benign restoration which includes cutting trees, expanding fairways and greens. The benign restoration is usually the most economical too.

But if you've come to the conclusion your course is worth restoring, I think you need to figure out when the course was at its architectural high point (and that would be your restoration point)...which could be the day it opened or after third or forth redesign...each case is different.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

And who do you think it is who should come to those conclusions of what time in the evolution of any golf course to restore to?

Who do you think should come to the conclusion that some significant courses should be preserved?

If you are going to tell us again you think it should be a blue ribbon panel of people like you, Shackelford, Wexler, Morrissett et al you are just dreaming again.

That will never remotely happen until the time comes when all of you get out in the field and into those clubs and convince them in minute detail why they should do such a thing. If you don't do that or can't do that you should try a bit harder to face the realities the rest of us do, even given the fact we are out there trying to do pretty much just that a whole lot more than you are.

[T_MacWood]

TE
The club - with help of a qualified golf architect, and perhaps the help of historians or expert researchers - should make the decision. In the cases when the restoration of a historic design morphed into redesign or something else (Yale, Riviera, Bethpage, Aronimink, etc) one or more of the important components (qualified architect, research, historical imput) was not present.

Its impossible for Geoff Shackelford or Daniel Wexler or Ran Morrissett to be out in the field everywhere, nor should they. What is needed is an organization that recognizes the very best golf designs, the designs that should be preserved, protected and/or restored.  Something along the lines of the Society to Protect Ancient Buildings or the UNESCO World Heritage List.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You are right about that---I'm not disagreeing with that, at least in theory.

But if you really want that kind of thing to be effective you all have to stop just talking the talk and begin to walking the walk. That takes getting out there, unfortunately.

Sure, I know the guys mentioned probably can't do that but then you and they are going to have to understand that you just can't have some of the expectations you do, or at least  not to the degree you do.

And you are going to have to reassess an analogy like SPAD to a similar organization on golf course architecture unless and until you are far more capable of recognizing and admitting the inherent differences between the art form of golf course architecture and the building architecture art form.

If you can't manage to do that you may even get the opportunity of entre into some of these clubs to persuade and convince them and they will shoot hundreds of holes through your arguement for the simple reason it just doesn't make a lot of sense to the realities of golf today.

Those realities of golf today are not going to go away---I can guarantee it, and so we all need to figure out ways of accomodating them today into what we are trying to accomplish with the restorations and even preservation of some golf course architecture.

If you just continue to avoid this issue or fail to acknowledge it as you constantly have, you never will be able to take a next step with any of these clubs.

These are the realities that all these architects involved in restoration projects must deal with. I don't think you can credibily criticize them if you aren't willing to at least acknowledge those realities they just have to deal with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In theory, I believe that Tom MacWood is generally correct.

However, the process for determining the "High Water Mark" is extremely difficult within the framework of a member owned club.

And, each club is unique in how it functions.

The critical issue or question is:

How does a club go about determining its "High Water Mark" ?

For years I've championed 1936 as the target date for a restoration at GCGC, with caveats.  I selected 1936 due to the extensive amount of photographic evidence that exists circa 1936 and the historical significance of that date, which is not unlike Merion's.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Of course golf architecture and architecture are different design disciplines, but being allied design activities they also share similarities...just ask Macdonald, Simpson, MacKenzie and Behr.  

Golf architecture can learn a great deal about historic preservation from SPAB and related spin-offs like the National Trust, National Registry and UNESCO World Heritage List. They may have began as organizations focused on preserving architecture, but they’ve expanded to include the preservation of historic gardens, parks, nature preserves, monuments, historic landscapes and historic neighborhoods / districts.

Golf architecture fits quite nicely in that company IMO. You just need to tweak or modify the goals of golf architecture preservation organization to accomondate golf's unique aspects.

An interesting parallel: SPAB was formed to counteract shoddy restoration work.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Of course golf architecture and architecture are different design disciplines, but being allied design activities they also share similarities...just ask Macdonald, Simpson, MacKenzie and Behr."

I see. Have you asked Macdonald, Simpson, MacKenzie and Behr?    

"Golf architecture can learn a great deal about historic preservation from SPAB and related spin-offs like the National Trust, National Registry and UNESCO World Heritage List. They may have began as organizations focused on preserving architecture, but they’ve expanded to include the preservation of historic gardens, parks, nature preserves, monuments, historic landscapes and historic neighborhoods / districts."

Perhaps it can but no club is going to learn anything from you that way unless you get involved with them and convince them personally. You obviously just choose not to deal with that reality by continuously avoiding it.

"Golf architecture fits quite nicely in that company IMO. You just need to tweak or modify the goals of golf architecture preservation organization to accomondate golf's unique aspects."

I see. So now one just needs to TWEAK or MODIFY the GOALS to accomodate golf's unique aspects, huh? Well congratulations, it seems like you are beginning to see at least a ray of light of what I've been saying to you. Does this mean you're beginning to recognize that perhaps NGLA or GCGC's membership may look at their courses a bit differently than you do after walking around both once in your life for a couple of hours?

"An interesting parallel: SPAB was formed to counteract shoddy restoration work."

Does that mean they exactly restored the bunkering and refused to add tee length to some significant English cathedral?
 
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think the area you have difficulty understanding is the independent, self governing, self driven nature of individual golf clubs.

There isn't a governing body or a loose confederation that influences individual clubs when it comes to how they adjudicate internal issues.

There's the managers association, the superintendents association, etc., etc.., but, when it comes to running a club, each club has its unique modis operendi, its own culture.

And as such, it's difficult to impart wisdom, guidance or influence where the rubber meets the road.

I always felt that the USGA could have been a powerful influence in the architectural arena, springboarding off of their agronomic consultancy role.

But, where to start ?

I'd opt for clubs that have a historical connection to the USGA vis a vis tournament venues.

If the USGA had the department you seek, to offer historical architectural information, guidance and advice in conjunction with their turm management service, I think clubs would be well served, and that courses would be protected and restorations more likely to take shape.

However, there's an inherent conflict.

Course set ups for National Championships versus course set ups for daily membership play.

Resolving that issue would better position the USGA to offer the kind of consultancy you seek.

[TEPaul]

"Tom MacWood,
I think the area you have difficulty understanding is the independent, self governing, self driven nature of individual golf clubs."

No shit, Pat. I wouldn't mind if the guy at first didn't realize that fact and then learned to recognize it and deal with it but what's really maddening is no matter how much or how often we tell him that he just continues to avoid the subject entirely. He won't even discuss it---he just continually chooses to avoid it as if it doesn't matter or it doesn't exist. I wish the rest of us could do that and think we were getting anything done with the clubs we concern ourselves with.

Is the last 2/3 of the last post to me or Tom MacWood? I don't see Tom MacWood doing anything about any USGA effort regarding architecture. Do you?

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I think the area you have difficulty understanding is the independent, self governing, self driven nature of individual golf clubs.

There isn't a governing body or a loose confederation that influences individual clubs when it comes to how they adjudicate internal issues.

There's the managers association, the superintendents association, etc., etc.., but, when it comes to running a club, each club has its unique modis operendi, its own culture.

And as such, it's difficult to impart wisdom, guidance or influence where the rubber meets the road.

I always felt that the USGA could have been a powerful influence in the architectural arena, springboarding off of their agronomic consultancy role.

But, where to start ?

I'd opt for clubs that have a historical connection to the USGA vis a vis tournament venues.

If the USGA had the department you seek, to offer historical architectural information, guidance and advice in conjunction with their turm management service, I think clubs would be well served, and that courses would be protected and restorations more likely to take shape.

However, there's an inherent conflict.

Course set ups for National Championships versus course set ups for daily membership play.

Resolving that issue would better position the USGA to offer the kind of consultancy you seek.

Pat
I understand the independent, self governing, self driven nature of individual golf clubs. I understand the independent, self governing, self driven nature of golf architects. I understand the independent, self governing, self driven nature of the USGA. I understand what we've been doing to date has not worked.

IMO it is time we look elsewhere for ideas. Why did Morris's SPAB succeed? What did they do that was effective? Why has the National Trust and National Registry and World Heritage List worked? It may be time we try something new.

I agree the USGA could have been a powerful influence in the architectural arena...to offer historical architectural information, guidance and advice in conjunction with their turm management service, I think clubs would be well served, and that courses would be protected and restorations more likely to take shape.

But if you look at the USGA from a historical perspective its difficult to find a body that has had more effect upon the redesign of classic courses - some good, but mostly bad: Pebble Beach, Oakland Hills, Baltusrol, Scioto, Inverness, Oak Hill, Riviera, CC of Detriot, Baltusrol, Medinah. Cherry Hills, Merion, Broadmoor, Aronimink, etc. I support TE's initiative but if you were to form an organization trying to protect important golf architecture it might best to look beyond the USGA and the ASGCA.

TE's intiative and an orginization to protect golf architecture should be able to work in conjunction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The ASGCA might not be at arm's length.
They might have a vested interest.

I think the USGA could maintain an arm's length relationship with the individual clubs.
I don't think they would have a vested interest.

And, as such, I would think that the USGA would be preferable in initiating a program that would help provide the research and independent advice that clubs seek/need.

[T_MacWood]

I would agree the USGA archive would be preferable and more practical - they have a lot of resources and deep pockets. They also have a lot of baggage when it comes to golf architecture and the redesign of important courses. Do you anticipate they will alter their long-time tradition of redesigning championship venues or selecting courses that have undergone recent redesigns?

IMO a seperate independent organization to recognize and promote the pretection of the best of the best might be needed in addition to the archive.