[BCrosby]

Niall writes: "...the focus should be about making the course the best it can be, who gets to judge on whether any new proposals will produce a better course than what's there now ? It seems to me that often those advocating conservation based on pedigree, do so because they don't agree with whoever gets to make the decision."

So Tom Doak and others favor the preservation of important historical courses because they weren't hired to do the renovations work? That if Tom had been hired he would be more likely to change the course?

That is a view so deeply cynical that you can't possibly mean it. Rather than the imputation of ugly motives, mightn't it be that Tom really believes that deference should be given to the work of acknowledged past masters of his craft? They they should benefit from a presumption (one that can be overcome in certain cases) that their courses should not be tampered with?  Do you find such ideas so far-fetched that there must be something else going on behind the curtain? Really?

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not long ago I sat down in a small office behind the R&A and got to see a PowerPoint presentation about the ever-changing bunkers at The Old Course. I had heard the document existed, but have never seen it. Hopefully it will be approved for public viewing later this year.

Wow...what an eye-opener. While I have known and studied the famous bunkers across The Old Course, I was not prepared for the dramatic change they have undergone. The presentation uses maps drawn since the 1800s to track bunkers, their shapes and sizes. Hell Bunker, as just one example, was first recorded about three times its present size, in a completely different shape and orientation, and — of course — not revetted or even formalized. The final progression is the current configuration.

Those who know me will recognize the question here: Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment?

Forrest,

It's a great question ........... ..........With a huge flaw.

And the flaw is the presumption that "change" is almost always for the better.

Yes, "change" will be different, but the critical issue or question is, "will the change be for the better ?"

And that leads to related issues/questions.

The first being, will the "change" preserve the continuity and integrity of the original design ?

That question becomes more significant with each and every subsequent change.

The next question is:  With ongoing/constant change, at what point does the course lose its pedigree ?
At what point does the original design intent evaporate ?

Shouldn't an original design be viewed in a similar light as the "Constitution" ?
One requiring very few amendments ?  One where any amendment requires a process inclusive of an exhaustive review of the change ?

My concerns with "change" have always been twofold.
"WHO decides on what changes should be made ?  And once the first change is made, will it inevitably trigger the "Domino" effect.
Once change is embarked upon, the course becomes open season for every succeeding green committee and board, and, given time, eventually the course will have lost its architectural integrity, it's architectural soul, that which distinguished it from every other course.

"Change" will make the course different, but will it make it better ?

"Change", can be a "Pandora's Box".
"Change" constant, ongoing change will eventually eradicate the original design integrity of the golf course, leading to "quilt like" architecture.

Remember, local courses aren't under the microscope like TOC and your premise is based upon change over centuries, not decades.

Years ago I put forth a idea regarding "change".

That changes to a golf course should have to be presented to a committee of architects, just like an attorney has to go before the Supreme Court and make his legal argument.

All to often "change" is the embodiment of a fad or the personal preferences of a few golfers with an agenda.
Rarely is the concept of change rooted in "what's better for the golfers other than me".

End of rant 😀

  

[Mike_Young]

Niall writes: "...the focus should be about making the course the best it can be, who gets to judge on whether any new proposals will produce a better course than what's there now ? It seems to me that often those advocating conservation based on pedigree, do so because they don't agree with whoever gets to make the decision."

So Tom Doak and others favor the preservation of important historical courses because they weren't hired to do the renovations work? That if Tom had been hired he would be more likely to change the course?

That is a view so deeply cynical that you can't possibly mean it. Rather than the imputation of ugly motives, mightn't it be that Tom really believes that deference should be given to the work of acknowledged past masters of his craft? They they should benefit from a presumption (one that can be overcome in certain cases) that their courses should not be tampered with?  Do you find such ideas so far-fetched that there must be something else going on behind the curtain? Really?



Bob  

Bob,
I have seen first hand the renovation of a bottom 200 that should have been a preservation.  It is what it is but it was not needed but it was wanted unknowingly.  BUT this brings up the importance of one word in Niall's  comment: "  ....the focus should be about making the course the best it can be"....  IMHO that charge has led to so many issues with golf today when if we just replaced the word "can" with "should" we would have had better product.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, we do know from life that change is inevitable.  We can argue that change isn't always for the better, and most would agree.  As long as humans are in control, there will be a mix of results from genius to mistakes. I would have to guess that since we have survived as a race, most of our results have not been catastrophic.  I would assume, unlike some here, that the same is true in golf course renovations.  Most are pretty darn good, but we also have "nightly news syndrome" where only the mistakes get attention.

We should also acknowledge that golf courses are here for humans and human enjoyment, not to exist in their own world, so the desire or fear of change should probably be factored in to whatever is done.  That is a funny dichotomy. Most of us do fear change to some degree.  On the other hand, most renovation results I see show that courses post renovation actually pick up play, suggesting they were successful, unless of course, you consider the opinions of a few of golfs supposed intelligentsia to be more important than those that actually foot the bills in these real world enterprises.

Short version, but true preservation in as near their historic configuration is really only for a select group of courses.   Most others have dues and greens fees paid in 2015, and should be designed for whatever conditions exist for their users now.

Since their is no real governing body to decide which are the select few, we need to trust the custodians of the course to do the right thing.  You would think, of course, that TOC would have been one of those on most anyone's select list.  Its not truly a great tournament course anymore, other than the impact of playing something near its form of over 500 years ago (or at least 125 wen Old Tom made his mark) but even that turned out NOT to be the case with its caretakers.  They apparently believed that keeping the Old Course relevant to todays Open Championship was more important (and I would guess overall best for the course) than keeping it in an older state so we could see it as it was (disregarding the constant change that had already gone into the course over the years)

Short version, I am with Forrest to a degree.  Preservationists are probably fighting a losing battle.  That said, if they didn't exist, someone would have to invent them just to keep folks honest. Certainly, an important part of the discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall and Pat great posts.  Pat, I am curious about that too.

I do agree with you that the restoration of Ross's bottom 200+ courses is silly, but those are easy sales for these guys who are making their living out of being Ross experts, and about the only guys who would stop them from trying are those who want the same job themselves.

Tom,

Can you elaborate on the bottom Ross 200-375 courses?  Is it feasible for a club/public Ross track in that sector to do a small restoration in house(bunker/tree removal) and have a ROI pay off.  In house, young unproved archie working for the experience.  Understanding that the sector might not appreciate architecture but they usually appreciate better playing surfaces which tree removal would assist.  Not every restoration has to be $2+ million.  Would a Doak 4 pre restoration turning into a potential Doak 6 be worth a $300k-750k restoration iyo?  I'm guessing location and site would need to be taken into account.

I have not seen it, but from what I've heard the restoration of the Wilmington [N.C.] muni is just that.  I think it cost even less than your low number.  That's one thing that makes me suspicious about many restorations ... most of them should be fairly simple, unless the course had been formally redesigned previously.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,
I toured Wilmington and put in an unsuccessful proposal.  In its pre renovation condition, I could feel that I was playing way back in the old days.  Conditions were about what I recalled from my early muni playing days in the 1960's. A few greens had been redesigned, but most seemed pretty original.

I guess the question is whether anyone could renovate just the greens and tees and have golfers stand for the weeds in the fairways, etc.?  If you could, it should be a sub $2M renovation.

[Tom_Doak]

Wasn't disputing your expertise or experience, although I would suggest that Colt and MacKenzie at least likely had mortgages at some point in their gca careers and didn't always get it all their own way either with the critics or in terms of dealing with clubs.

However the point of my post was really twofold, firstly to illustrate the difficulty of knowing for sure who did what. From my experience of digging through archives its evident that very often the journey from how a course first appeared to what it is now was a gradual one rather than architect A laid it out in 1896, architect B redesigned it in 1926 and architect C did a bunkering scheme in 1956, sort of thing. I think that largely holds true for classic UK courses and while I don't know if that's the case in the US I suspect it might be too. So if you really don't know who's work you are seeking to protect, is their any point in making a case for not doing work to a course because of its supposed pedigree, particularly if there are some glaring problems with the course in terms of the modern game ?

The second point is if we agree (which I think we do, correct me if I'm wrong) that the focus should be about making the course the best it can be, who gets to judge on whether any new proposals will produce a better course than what's there now ? It seems to me that often those advocating conservation based on pedigree, do so because they don't agree with whoever gets to make the decision.  

Niall:

The key terms to our difference of opinion are right there in your post:  "glaring problems in terms of the modern game" and "making the course the best it can be".  Both of these are completely subjective.

My feeling is that the classic courses we all revere, are so popular today because you and I [as single digit handicaps] can play them as Bobby Jones played them back when they were built.  A lot of them don't have the extra property to try to preserve their challenge for today's Joneses [I use the term loosely], but with our newfangled equipment, we drive the ball as far today as he did then, and neither he or we hit wedge into the greens from 160 yards.

Those old courses don't work the same at the scale of today's pros, because they were designed to fit the terrain, as much as a certain degree of challenge.  I think that's what golfers who aren't designers tend to miss.  Even if you have room to drag the tees back to make today's pros play a long approach shot, you are stuck between having them miss the intended landing area, or having them play a much easier approach into the green from the same distance as before.

"The best it can be" requires all sorts of assumptions about who you are designing for.  Designers and golfers insert their own ego into the decision of whether to make changes, and that's where things go awry.  I feel strongly that there should be some check against the forces of deliberate change, because in the sum of 1300+ courses, I've seen at least as many examples of bad changes as good ones.

Perhaps I should send you the USGA report from the 1960's that suggested changing the 10th hole at Riviera to make it into a proper par 4.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Riv 10 makes an interesting case.....

The guys in the 1960's were so arrogant in believing they had the one true answer to everything - Modernization!

I haven's seen that kind of arrogance since...ah, well, I started visiting this website!  Our answers will surely be the be all, end all to golf architectural dilemmas, no? LOL

[Sean_A]

I am very suspicious of design change because inevitably some love it, some hate and some could care less.  10, of 20 years later when different fads prevail, people ask "what in the hell were they thinking?" Its a very subjective matter it seems unless we talk about adding yards to course...most seem in favour of this....not me mind you.  I am not saying most courses should be treated as sacred, but when a widely acknowledged master of design puts his thumbprint on a course folks should think long and hard about changing it...even adding yards.  Well, that would be my attitude if stuck in the position of having my opinion matter.  I would instead try to convince the powers that be to first focus on making what is in the ground as good as it can reasonably be before going off on wild goose chases...especially when comms are chasing rankings or rankings via professional tournies. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I almost hate to say this out loud, but the fact is, when I look at most old courses, particularly of Ross, Bendelow, and a few others, I don't see a lot of masterpieces. Wilmington Muni was a solid Ross course, but he didn't really show the flare of Pinehurst or Seminole there.  For me, Mac and Tillie are different stories, although there is a great variety of Tillie styles.

So yes, it is subjective!  As TD says, when you look at something that is (or has become) average, you can't help but think you could improve it, give it a little more pizazz (a technical architecture term......)

I agree the old masters, even if not a masterpiece, did use the ground well, and no changes should create a longer hole at the expense of a good one, but then, every hole is different.  Some can easily extend a tee, others can't.

The problem with the last sentence in your post is, there is still some variation in thought as to what the right path ought to be.  Not to mention, no one will ask you or me to assist them in the decision.  So, it is what it is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean A,

One of the major problems I see, in the real world, is:  WHO makes the decision to change and to what degree.

Tom MacWood had an expression and a premise that courses should be restored to their "architectural high water mark"

While I agreed with him in principle, I disagreed with him in the context of the reality of the golf course/club world.

Who at a given club would make that decision ?

The Green Chairman ?  The Green Chairman who rotates office every two or three years ?

The Board ?

The President ?  This year ?  The President 3 years from now ?

All of the above ?  ? ?

Once you subject the course to one change, it becomes open season for an infinite number of changes.

And what impact would fads have on the desire to change ?

Would change be generational in terms of Green Committees and Boards ?

Remember, not too long ago, Arbor committees littered the golf/country club world.

Today, the trend is the reverse.

Scalloped fairways versus straight fairways ?

Three layers of rough versus two layers, or one layer ?

Six sets of tees, or better yet, a tee for every member, or one, two or three sets of tees ?

The problem with "change" is that everyone has their own ideas, their own sense of what needs to be changed, and as those individuals go in and out of power at a club, "change" begins to make the course look like a quilt or patchwork of architecture, absent an overall sense of continuity.

Once you tumble the first domino, all the others will fall in time.

A perfect example is the 12th at GCGC.
A great hole that was disfigured for all the wrong reasons.

Fortunately, it only took about 50 years to correct the error.

Change should only be considered after exhaustive research and professional consultation with several professionals

Who amongst us wouldn't seek a second opinion if given a dire diagnosis ?

[Sean_A]

Once you subject the course to one change, it becomes open season for an infinite number of changes.

This to me is the real issue...and the lack of trust I have for people at the helm making changes. 

Change should only be considered after exhaustive research and professional consultation with several professionals....Si, and I would add that all that can be reasonably done to make the course play as good as it can should be done first. 


Jeff

I am not saying coures can't be changed, though I think there are some courses designed by certain designers that should be changed only to hit a high water mark which may be long in the past.  I am saying if Ross or another acknowledged master designed a course, great care should be given as to the hows and whys of that design and what the club hopes to achieve before considering change.  For instance, there has long been a mad rush to add yards so a course can achieve a certain overall length to suit a certain sort of player. Instead, the course should be viewed as to how the designer intended the course to flow...the actual yardage may be a rather limited way of viewing the design. 

Change is often an expensive proposition which often can have dodgy/mixed results.  Use the same care and attention with cub money that you would do if you were going to spend £100 grand altering your house.  I  think club officers often aren't diligent in making sure the club's interests are best served.   

Ciao

 

[Niall C]

Bob

My comments weren’t aimed at Tom and indeed weren’t aimed at any particular individual. With regards to Tom, he’s more than capable of articulating his own views and therefore I don’t see any point us debating what those views might be.

That said, my point was that courses have evolved and that the course may have changed significantly since the original ODG was involved, and perhaps for the better although I do take Tom’s point that some changes haven’t always been for the best (but then who decides if they have turned out for the best !). Therefore preservation for the sake of preserving some ODG’s work which might not actually be his seems to me to be bogus.

Furthermore what we now take to be good architecture may in part be the incremental changes made by humble greenkeepers and greens committees. To take one example, Carnoustie has a roll call of GCA’s including Allan Robertson, Old Tom, Willie Park Jnr., James Braid, Tom Simpson, MacKenzie Ross and more latterly Martin Ebert. Yet, the design of the last 3 holes is largely the work of James Wright and his colleagues on the greens committee back in the 1920’s. What would Carnoustie be without its famous finish ? In more recent years, John Philp who until relatively recently was the head greenkeeper, made numerous significant changes before and after the 1999 Open. Many of those changes (where noticed) have been applauded.

Personally I think it good practice for any club to take professional advice from a gca before making substantive changes, but I think we should recognise that it was largely the constant tinkering, not always by gca’s, that made those courses what they are today. It seems somewhat ironic therefore to declare no more tinkering in the name of preservation.

Niall     

[Niall C]

Tom
Absolutely, the problems of the modern game and what’s best in course design are subjective, that I think is my point. But just because they are subjective doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the issues and deal with them as we see them rather than ignoring the issues in the name of preservation.

Your comment on Bobby Jones and classic courses brings to mind one of the many essays I’ve thought of writing for this site but never got round to, and it was about how advances in technology have actually made classic courses better in a lot of instances, and one of the reasons for that is as you say, we are now hitting the ball as far as the better golfers that those courses were designed for even if not with the same finesse. So in that regard I’m with you.
 
However my ideas on where change may be required/desired/warranted (take your pick) weren’t based solely on length. To cite another example, Tom Simpson tinkered with Cruden Bay for decades yet it took Frank Pont/Martin Ebert to make changes to the 9th and 10th which I think most would agree will make much better/more interesting/challenging/fun (again, take your pick) holes, and those changes weren’t based on gaining length.

In essence I don’t see the point in handcuffing the present or future generations in what they can or cannot do. I think it a better idea to promote good design, from whatever era, in the hope that those making the decisions will pay heed.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()