So who do you call?

[Ben Stephens]

Ben:


My responses in blue, below.

Would you say that Augusta of 2020 is a better version of the 1934 course from all aspects of its design?
   I have no real opinion on that.  It is what it is.


Bearing in mind certain designs evolve over time and for some courses it is better and others not. Bel Air is not the exact copy which George Thomas started out with I can't say it's a perfect copy, but we tried our best  likewise for LA North. They are probably both better now design wise, more suited for the modern golfer also with much improved sub surface structure, irrigation, quality of surfaces and maintenance equipment.


We probably have better understanding how a golf course functions structurally and playability wise than the past great architects partially thanks to them and other new innovations over the last 100 years. Golf Course Design has evolved a lot over the last century.  Yes, that's Tom Fazio's view, everything new is better.  There's no doubt I have learned from all that's gone before me, but that doesn't mean you or I are better than George Thomas.


As Pete Dye was your mentor - I have not seen one of your course designs in the Pete Dye mould I suspect you have disagreed with Pete at times and think you can do a 'better design' or a design that is more to your taste.
   One thing Mr. Dye gave me was the idea that I had to have my own ideas if I wanted to succeed, and I shouldn't copy him or anyone else.  He had his own thing, and I don't think there is any way I could do his thing as well as he did.  I'm sure he would have done Pacific Dunes differently, but so what?  Different is different, which isn't necessarily better or worse. 



Variety is the spice of life.
   Yes, it is.  I would encourage you to go out and do something different, as Mr. Dye encouraged me to do.  Just don't do it over the bones of someone else's good work.  Starting from scratch is the real test of ability, redesign is a distant second.

Tom


Thank you for your reply and you could not have put in a better response. I had a similar advice from Will Alsop a great architect who is no longer with us. Architecture like golf course architecture has evolved a lot we always should strive to do something different which is a bigger risk rather than play safe and copy from others.


We are fortunate to have been inspired by or met great architects it is our responsibility to take it forward for future generations.


One of my recent favourite is meeting an Australian architect Richard Le Plesteurier at a Peter Stutchbury lecture at RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) HQ. Richard mentioned in a chat that he worked on the Sydney Opera House alongside the legendary Jorn Utzon who Richard said there is very unlikely be any other like him an one off, an absolute genius who really challenged Ove Arup an amazing structural engineer. I was astounded that I have met someone who has worked with Utzon likewise another who has worked with Pete Dye.

[V. Kmetz]

I guess I'm truly asking that if the routing is original and greens (or their bones) still extant original... what can the rearrangement of fairway lines, and hazard/bunker deployment really do?

Oh, I agree with you on that.  Routing is destiny.  If you're not changing the routing or the greens, or clearing out a course that's way too narrow, a renovation is not going to make a huge difference in the quality of the course.  Many of these restorations that people get all excited about are turning a 6+ into a 7, on the margins.

...I'm pleased you got that frame because the model thing on my mind was a hole at a course by a designer (who many even here have not heard about or whose work ever seen) that has a fantastic RTJ-style swelling behemoth green and a everyday distance of 335-365 yards.


But as it is bunkered (with 4 fairway bunkers on the inside and outside of the dogleg and triangle surrounding the green) it is a fucking bore...a damnation of pick up bunkers for the short, wayward, most senior or recreational female player...a 7 foot putt for par for average players... way too many tap in pars for good players, for whom the hole is birdied without much risk.


So I'm wondering that if:
1. I'm right that the green is a beauty
2. And I'm right that the hole is "generally" in the right spot and played at about the right yardage for the property and for the green...


Can the individual hole (and thus any number of holes on a course with such greens and good routing) be elevated to substantially higher levels by reno-storation work JUST on hazard/fairway/rough/turf properties?

[Sean_A]

I haven't replayed many courses which had serious work. Probably the few which stand out to me are Pinehurst 2, Old Town, Pine Needles, Mid Pines and Stoneham. I would say that none of these courses had any real architectural bones changed. Still, the work at P2 was completely transformative. Removing the rough created a course which is far more compelling off the tee. I know folks were handing out 10s for the course previous to C&C stepping on the property, but to me what was made of that Bermuda wreck is so much better that I am convinced the big wigs got their ratings dead wrong. That is unless the scale goes above 10 in rare circumstances.

I think my point is the marriage of design, presentation and maintenance is so closely related that to parse about what is what is pointless. If any of the three elements is not in step, a course can easily go from great to good. That said, I think P2 is the only course I recall which so completely changed that it made a huge difference in quality. Ya know what, I think the same thing could be done for TOC.

Happy Hockey

[Mike_Young]

Ben:
Variety is the spice of life.
   Yes, it is.  I would encourage you to go out and do something different, as Mr. Dye encouraged me to do.  Just don't do it over the bones of someone else's good work.  Starting from scratch is the real test of ability, redesign is a distant second.

And[/size] another TD quote :
[/size]"But most of us can get along just fine without talking to a surgeon, and a lot of golf courses would be just fine without surgery, too."
[/size]___________________
Follow the money....when new construction went away it signaled the end of many older courses as we knew them.  The industry saw this as the last frontier for $$$$ and the renovation cost was higher than you could build new.  But the industry also knew their customer was " the committee" and that was a license to steal. 
In the early 90's it was rare you saw one of the signature firms even looking at designing a public course but when private jobs slow they came up with the "upscale daily fee" slogan and the signatures came out.  When all hell broke loose a few years later the signatures were looking at reworks and all the contractors that follow them were right there.  And during all of this some guy comes up with the idea of the "Old Dead Guy expert" category.  And that was a winner for thee private clubs who didn't have to pay for a Nicklaus or Fazio name when they could hype Ross or others for free. 


there are exceptions but for the average place they can't justify the cost of a rework today...lot of stuff has been screwed up...

[Peter Pallotta]

The great Lester Young, a poet and an original on the saxophone, who inspired and influenced a whole generation of musicians, many of whom went on to great fame and fortune, late in his life (he died at 49) summed up his philosophy on jazz & creativity this way:
"You play your little songs, and let me play my little songs".