Are modern courses

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

more prone to alteration ?

Has a mind set been established that classic and/or pre 1960 should be restored and not altered ?

Does that inherently imply that it's open season on modern day courses once their architects ascend to that great fairway in the sky ?

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I am interested to read that you think restoration is not alteration.  

To me, restoration implies that that a course has been altered in the past and is being altered again.  In a lot of ways, restoration is just a trend like any other redesign fads.

Form my experience, some courses have a culture of preservation and some courses have a culture of alteration.  Age of course is not generally the major factor in determining this.

[Powell Arms]

I would think modern courses are more prone to alteration, but that is not a measure of the qulaity of modern courses vs classic courses.  As we all know, many of the classic courses were redone early in their lives.

What this may suggest is that the design process is one in which collaboration yields the best designs.

I do not think there is a consensus on resotoration vs alteration of classic courses, and the redeisgn many clubs go through to attract a major is evidence of this.  Further discussion at the following thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=4555;start=msg542560#msg542560

And if a modern course needs alteration, why wait for the architect to die?  Fix it now.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I suppose you are right.  Some of the old architects, including Dr. MacKenzie, stressed that the benefit of hiring a professional architect was to get things right the first time so you wouldn't have to tinker with the course and your club could be on sound footing.

Today, though, the ASGCA party line seems to be that nothing is perfect and every club should have an ASGCA consultant on payroll.

[Steve Burrows]

Interestingly, Dr. MacKenzie noted that while a designer should "aim for finality," he also believed that courses were evolving things, and bunkers, for example, might be better placed after the course has opened and there is a sense of how individuals play the course and, therefore, where to place these types of hazards.

I also think there is an element of salesmanship in his statements.  Clearly there is an advantage in hiring a first-rate architect to get the job done right, but in their writings, MacKenzie and Tillinghast's tone (perhaps more so than others who documented their ideas) suggests that they are, quite simply trying to make a living.  By telling people that they need a first-rate designer, and confindently saying that they themselves are first-rate designers, they had a way of attracting clients for future jobs, whether it be new course creation, or renovation of existing lands.  

Tom Doak's statement about the ASGCA seems to follow along these lines as well.

[ed_getka]

Sometimes it seems there is a prejudice against making changes at courses as if the original designer were infallible. There are some pretty exceptional architects working today who I feel could make improvements at most courses I have seen.
   Unfortunately what we are usually talking about is some green committee people who want the ego gratification of bragging about how they spearheaded an effort to "improve" their course, or they just want their course to fit their perception of what a good golf course is.
   Look at the original course at Bandon Dunes that was the catalyst to that complex to become one of the foremost golf travel destinations in the country. There are a couple of holes there that have been changed (although I don't agree with the change to #1, I thought that was a good opener) and David Kidd hasn't even gone to golf heaven yet.

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:

By the same token, on a few of the courses where we've been called in to consult, the biggest mess of all is the one they are afraid to address for a while, because the previous green committee chairman just made that mess.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
   Very good point. That goes right back to the ego thing unfortunately.

[SL_Solow]

Interesting question.  Are we forgetting that most of the older courses were changed long ago and some continue to be changed.  It is only the "special courses" that have been preserved and are the subject of restorations.  Thus the current penchant toward changes may not be unique; it just may be that we are more sensitive.  For example, consider Tilly's tour in the 30s.

[paul cowley]

Patrick:

I suppose you are right.  Some of the old architects, including Dr. MacKenzie, stressed that the benefit of hiring a professional architect was to get things right the first time so you wouldn't have to tinker with the course and your club could be on sound footing.

Today, though, the ASGCA party line seems to be that nothing is perfect and every club should have an ASGCA consultant on payroll.

Tom....as you know I am a member of the ASGCA and I have never encountered what you are suggesting.....maybe I have been to the wrong parties.....but I have become curious of late about something I have to attend this year to become a full member.....some kind of 'Stepford Seminar', and our wives can't attend, which is unusual. Maybe I'll learn more about the party line there.

Professional conduct, education, and peer communication seems to be discussed more than anything.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

I just read an article in Club Management Magazine last week which was bylined by the ASGCA board of directors ... I can't remember which of them stated that every private club should have an ASGCA member on retainer, but it seemed a bit self-serving.  I'll try to find the exact quote for you when I get to the office today.

I extended the argument a bit because any time I speak here about preservation of old architecture, Forrest and Jeff are the first to poo-poo the idea and imply that I must have a big ego to think that I could build anything worth preserving, that everything changes sooner or later.  [Well, Mike Young does it too, so maybe it's not just a Society thing.]  I was just pointing out that the old boys didn't all feel that way and maybe that's why their work is revered more than modern courses.

[Doug Ralston]

more prone to alteration ?

Has a mind set been established that classic and/or pre 1960 should be restored and not altered ?

Does that inherently imply that it's open season on modern day courses once their architects ascend to that great fairway in the sky ?

Patrick;

I think many archis are well on their way to the 'deep rough down below' ...... of course, theirs will be the courses we keep!

Doug