Ron Whitten article arguing that they got the changes to Augusta Right

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Jeff

It seems to me that you're being fair-minded in this discussion (as usual), and you certainly know Augusta much better than I do, in every way.

My post was more a 'theoretical' one, and I was trying to relate it to any discussions we might have here about the renovations/restorations of ANY old/classic course, i.e. 

What value do we place on intentions, even 'failed' intentions?  What relationship do those intentions have with what's actually in the ground, and with what actually 'works' in the ground, and to the changing ideas/ideals about what 'works'?   

In this case, what the designers said was so clear and direct that it makes issues like why did Bobby Jones and Dr. Mackenize start changing things, and when, even more challenging. But it does seem like change was part of Augusta from very early on... 

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Those, of course, are the $1 Million questions for anyone working on an old course.  The question becomes even bigger if its old and NOT so classic.

Given Jones tweaked his baby, Ross tweaked his (PH 2), JN tweaks his (MV) and so on, all argue against necessarily going back to opening day as the be all end all of restoration.  Golfers point to ANGC as the exemplar of maintenance standards, and I gather many gca's use it as an exemplar of forward thinking rationale to change.  It will be REALLY interesting to see how ANGC changes if those SE water rations are truly imposed forever in the not too distant future.

Of course, the downside of not going back to old photos, etc. is that we are guessing to a larger degree what they MIGHT have done, whether originally or at the height of their career. 

The idea of intentions is also interesting.  When asked at Dornick Hills about softening the greens, I responded that I never read of Maxwell intending for members to putt off the greens, so I felt softening was justified.  Had I wanted to restore them (impossible by the way since they were bulldozed  by the members in the fifties) I might have reinterpreted his original design, but not his intentions. 

So, the question still remains, what is better?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -

I go back and forth on that question. On the one hand, the answer seems easy and obvious, i.e. the priority needs to be on playability and relevance for today's players, and not on treating a golf course as a permanent/fixed work of art. But on the other hand, the very definition of what's 'playable' isn't all that clear to me, i.e. I think the concept is maybe a lot broader (and less 'fixed') than it seems to have become. In other words, I think there are more kinds of golf holes and tests of golf than we imagine; EVERY golf hole or golf shot is playable in one way or another. 

Here's a poor analogy. Imagine if everyone who knew anything at all about golf course architecture suddenly disappeared, as did every book ever written on the subject. Now, when a group of new gca enthusiasts first encountered a short Par 4 on an old/classic course, might they not wonder how it ever could've been playable? Might they not assume (in the absence of all written records) that it was simply a hole that had not kept up with the times, and that for god knows what reason had not simply been lengthened so as to address changing technology? Would they be able to immediately intuit the strategic options/choices that the short Par 4 provided, and why architects of the past thought so highly of it? Could they intuit the fun it provided, and its rich variety of playability?

As I say, that's probably a bad analogy, but I hope you know what I'm trying to get at -- which is, if a hole 'worked' once, maybe we can trust that it will work again, albeit in a different way and in a way that might prove unpopular with today's player....until they 'learned' to appreciate it.  THAT approach/result seems one that would come out of a strict adherence to the written words and intentions of the original designers. 

But of course, that just brings up other questions...

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

The thing about the ANGC early changes is that they had a limited universe of players in the Masters who seem to be the driving force behind the changes. Some were quite pointed in the critiques.  That would seem easier to please than 300 members of varying golf games and ideas.

I will have to go home again tonight to read some of the early player critiques, but again, I get the idea that the valley of sin hole on 7 was clearly disliked and misunderstood.  Granted, they may not have played the Open in those days like Jones, but I am sure he and Mac could have explained it to them! (Well, Mac would have required a seance) The idea of the VOS apparently didn't resonate among Masters competitors when USA golf was only 40 years removed from its Scottish roots.

So, the question becomes, if they had already forgotten the value of those kind of holes, is it a question of us relearning the value, or the simple fact that American golf culture is THAT different.  Or, is it just not possible to attempt the VOS in Georgia and make it work the same, so why bother?

Again with the questions!

[Jason Topp]

Peter,

So, the question still remains, what is better?

I don't think you can give a general answer.  The advantage of a restoration approach is that it imposes discipline in an attempt to restore something that was special, but compromised over time by piecemeal decisions.  

The problem with the restoration approach is that some of the piecemeal decisions may have been good ones.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Agreed.  This from a gca who rarely is asked to work on the real gems.  As I say, when you get an old course, I think its generally best to keep the theme - if it is traditional looking it is probably pretty comfortable where its at whereas a new look may not be. 

After that, making changes, where they fit the land, but for today's dues paying members, makes a lot of sense to most people.

[Doug Siebert]

Peter,

I think what you describe in your hypothetical is how a lot of us non-GCAs got interested in the subject.  Since I had no knowledge of GCA, nor had ever read any books on it, I just figured out what I liked and didn't like by playing and seeing how various types of holes interacted with my game, and to a lesser extent that of others.  Combine that with seeing how stuff works for pros on TV, both on courses I'd played and those I hadn't, and I had some vague ideas about GCA.

Those notions have been fleshed out a lot over the past five years I've been reading and posting here, to where I've pretty much arrived at ideas something pretty much like those held by many experienced GCAs like Tom Doak.  Clearly simply knowing what I like/don't like, what I think works/doesn't work is as far from actually doing what Tom Doak does as understanding the golf swing and playing the game like Tiger Woods, so don't read more into what I say than I've intended.

Anyway, the point is that I don't think it would be very difficult to return to where we are today if some pogrom carried out by Donald Trump to exterminate all GCAs and burn all books on the subject was successful and we were forced to begin again.  There's a reason why we have the architectural ideas we have, and it isn't an accident of history anymore than the fact we tend to wear pants with two legs and shirts with two arms, even if we occasionally have outliers like Desmond Muirhead and leg warmers

Now if instead of wiping out architectural knowledge you wiped out all golf knowledge, so we had to invent the game all over again, then architecture could end up quite different since the game itself could be quite different, depending on what type of ball and clubs we settled on, and what basic rules for striking it we started with.  I find myself idly wondering how the game would be different if the ball were oblate (somewhat American football style though without the pointy ends) instead of perfectly round, for instance.  I think it that would change a lot about what we think of as a "green" and what designs for a green would work and not work...I wonder if it would be possible to modify the golf swing and/or design a golf club to allow one to hit a spiral?

[Peter Pallotta]

Doug - thanks, good post.  And part of me thinks your absolutely right, i.e. that starting from scratch, golf course architecture might well evolve in the same way all over again. I've often wondered out loud here about architecture's 'fundamental principles'. The way you descrbe it, I imagine those principles as literally the "roots" of a perennial plant; you can cut the plant right down to the ground, but next year it'll spring right back up, the same as ever. But when I take that idea and bring it to the concept of restoration/renovations, I suddenly feel compelled to become a purist on the subject...and I can't quite embrace that.   

Peter