[Tom_Doak]

Wouldn't that be a great legacy for future generations to study what the architect REALLY built?  We wouldn't need our esteemed historians to tell us what those old classics were really like, we could see for ourselves.

Wouldn't it satisfy those who want to preserve some great architecture, while not making too much sacrifice toward the evolution of the game?  Surely there are many courses where having the ability to add back tees in fifty years won't really matter much.

Wouldn't it stem the tide of "sensitive restoration" work on a multitude of courses that don't deserve it?

Would not the increased pride of being designated one of an architect's top three, balance or even outweigh the "handicap" of not being able to make changes to the course?

Would Forrest and Jeff and Mike Y really not designate ANY of their own work for preservation on the grounds that everything will change over time?

I'd be happy to pick three of my own courses which would be zealously protected against future renovations.

[George_Bahto]

I'll repeat my post on the other thread ......

Tom Doak:

....... from what I've gathered about Seth Raynor it sounded like he thought Camargo and Yale inland and Fishers Island along the water, would be the ones he thought were "his" better designs.

Camargo might surpise a few people about his thinking I think but you don't really "get" Camargo early on.

I think it was you who told me Camargo and Shoreacres may be the two best courses of his that might well be restored as originally built.

Interesting he never spoke (wrote) about Chicago re-do a lot.

[paul cowley]

Tom ....I fear that kind of covenant would doom these courses forever, sign their passport to extinction, snuff the life out of them and at the same time forever mark them with the big red letter 'A' for archaic....I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it would be a good idea and I'm surprised you advanced it given your knowledge of how even the best courses have had to evolve to stay relevant with the times.......besides, I don't want anything to preclude me from future renovation work in my old age

[Adam Clayman]

It should be a given that the archie knows more than the owner/developer, or, future green committeemen/lady.

However, I do believe that you could charge more, just for the consideration of inclusion in your three.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

If architect's original works aren't preserved, how are future architects to learn from them ?

How is the genius of their designs to be preserved and recorded for historical purposes ?

Think how much would have been lost if NGLA had been altered 15 to 20 times over the last 100 years.

One of the reasons that marriages fail is that one party, upon finding an ideal mate, wants to change that mate after they make a lifetime committment to one another.

Sometimes leaving things as they are, with minor fine tuning, is the best bet.

[TEPaul]

"I'd be happy to pick three of my own courses which would be zealously protected against future renovations."

Tom Doak:

Great offer.Then pick three of your own and post on here the reasons why you think they've passed the "test of time", and will continue to, to be preserved exactly as they are into the future. Give your reasons on all three courses hole by hole because that's the way golf clubs look at their courses, and what to do with them over time---eg hole by hole.

It's about high time the contributors on here stop just talking the talk and do something concrete. Your offer sounds like a great first step to try in this direction of architectural preservation, not the least reason being you've got a name now and the influence to actually do something like this.

Don't just say it---go for it. Make it happen. If Stonewall is one of them I'll sure try to do my part around here to help in the effort.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

You have always said it is hard to pick favorites in deference to your clients feelings, so I presume that list would be in your last will and testament so you didn't deal with the fallout, no?  And, wouldn't be hard not to pick your last two courses and your next one as your best?

Many such instructions cause a lot of grief, and I truly would hate to saddle what would be complete strangers with my wishes from the grave.  If reincarnation exists, I hope to come back as a goat mowing one of my fairways....if I don't like what's going on, I can just buck em!  If I am buried on one of my courses six feet deep, I may leave instructions to only aerify to five feet...

Its important to document your designs with extensive ground level and aerial photography, perhaps contour maps of the as builts, and then perhaps write a few words about how much caffeine intake was during the design process and other randome thoughts to help others learn if they wish.  

Then you have to trust that your courses will be in thoughtful and reasonable hands, or that your grandkids or fans will take up for you.   If not, in the big picture of life, golf course design ain't that damn important.  I am not sure what happens in the afterlife, but I have a feeling I won't give a damn.  

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

I'll make 3 suggestions for Stanley Thompson:

Highland Links (the photos are all available)
Jasper Park (still pretty much intact)
and Capilano (needs some research and minor work)

Banff and St. George's have had too much work for preservation.

[T.J. Sturges]

So Tom, what are your 3?

TS

[paul cowley]

Paul Cowley,

"If architect's original works aren't preserved, how are future architects to learn from them ?"

Patrick.....I never suggested an architects works should not be preserved....on the contrary, my fear is that by suspending their natural evolution they stagnate and then become lost.

"How is the genius of their designs to be preserved and recorded for historical purposes ?"

Patrick....as others have suggested, if the design is strong enough to stand the 'test of time', then it becomes preserved by acclamation, not artificially as the result of an architects personal designation.
I could not begin to imagine the legal ramifications concerning how this restriction would be set up or enforced for posterity....especially if the chosen few happen to be part of a club or municipality. The only way I see things preserved in other sectors is by an endowment or a foundation that funds and oversees the asset if it is to be keep in a certain state.
This idea is about a 2 on the Doak Practicality Scale.

"Think how much would have been lost if NGLA had been altered 15 to 20 times over the last 100 years."

 Patrick ....I could not tell you as I have never been there, but something tells me there surely have been some changes and adjustments over the years in response to the the forces of nature and the needs of man.


"One of the reasons that marriages fail is that one party, upon finding an ideal mate, wants to change that mate after they make a lifetime commitment to one another."

Patrick.......on the contrary, I think one of the prime reasons marriages fail is because one of the party fails to evolve, or their evolvement is at dissimilar rates in this great game of life.
I would hate to see this process transferred to a golf course, least it loses it relevance and starts to gel.

"Sometimes leaving things as they are, with minor fine tuning, is the best bet."

Patrick.....I do agree that if a course is good enough then all it needs is fine tuning..........but not life support.

[Jim Nugent]

Wouldn't that be a great legacy for future generations to study what the architect REALLY built?  We wouldn't need our esteemed historians to tell us what those old classics were really like, we could see for ourselves.

Wouldn't it satisfy those who want to preserve some great architecture, while not making too much sacrifice toward the evolution of the game?  Surely there are many courses where having the ability to add back tees in fifty years won't really matter much.

Wouldn't it stem the tide of "sensitive restoration" work on a multitude of courses that don't deserve it?

Would not the increased pride of being designated one of an architect's top three, balance or even outweigh the "handicap" of not being able to make changes to the course?

Would Forrest and Jeff and Mike Y really not designate ANY of their own work for preservation on the grounds that everything will change over time?

I'd be happy to pick three of my own courses which would be zealously protected against future renovations.

With cameras and videos, isn't it pretty easy for you to show future generations what you want all your courses to look like?  Can't you make a video report, so to speak, that tours the course, and shows your thinking on each hole?  

You could explain exactly what you want with angles, strategy, trees, firmness, rough, whatever is important.  People later on would not have to guess or try to divine your intentions.  

[T_MacWood]

I'd be interested to find out which three courses Pete Dye would choose. IMO The Golf Club should be preserved, it may be the only course from his early period that he did not subsequently remodel.

[Tim Liddy]

My guess is Mr. Dye would say his best three are still ahead of him. He is only 82. I predict Tom Doak’s best three are also ahead of him (his work continues to get better).

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Very nice of you to say, but if I get two more sites as good as Pacific Dunes, I will have to go into hiding afterward!

Jeff:

In my dream, the architect could reserve the right to take protection off an older course for one of his newer ones if he so chooses.

Ted:

I would personally choose which courses to protect, based partly on what I know of their possibilities for expansion.  At Pacific Dunes, we considered pretty much all of the possibilities for added length and decided against them because we thought adding further tees would destroy a lot of ground for no great gain ... so I wouldn't have trouble putting it on my list, if Mr. Keiser agreed.

High Pointe would have been on my list from the beginning; today I would have to fix it before listing it for preservation.  And I may just get that chance.

The third pick would be a tougher one.  There are a lot of candidates, and I know Paul C. is drooling over the chance to work on the ones I don't pick.  I'll take the fifth for now, until somebody gets this program moving forward a bit.

[tonyt]

This thread/thought doesn't HAVE to contradict Forrest's ideals. We are talking a small sampling of works (though three courses for all would be too prolific), enshrined not to preserve against evolution and progress, but to allow a full living insight into an architect, his ideals, and a point in time (perhaps the most telling reason of them all). Those pieces could be better learnt from in some instances than anything that has evolved magnificently.

A take on this idea of Tom's was one I had in a drunken state if I was a squillionaire (and had already fed the poor etc etc). I would love (in addition to all my other private courses) a museum club of half a dozen courses on a few thousand acres, perhaps four to six great contemporary designers to do the six tracks and then lacquering the finished product for eternity. Through fastidious photography, GPS and other technology, they would be mapped in a manner so that there could be no misunderstandings or accidental changes made by those coming years after. Extensive writings and visual interviews and comprehensive detailed tours with each archie would complete the picture. Perhaps taking up to a half an hour per hole in their fullest unedited form for the most interested, but also condensed greatly for a more general consumption.

The archies would get just a few initial years well within the first decade to tinker only if strongly desired after seeing them in play. Then the time capsule gets frozen. The Museum Club would eventually become just that, and in eighty to a hundred years time, some thirty something GCA-type student of the game could blow in their pants at the concept of what they are seeing. The club would allow public access (perhaps the members having two courses each day all to themselves) so as not to deny the opportunity to study and learn that it was originally intended for.

I have no illusions that each track would carry their age in a manner that would still make each of them at least as good as they were when opened. But their purpose is far grander than that. Which of us wouldn't pay a princely sum to study fifty golden age courses via a time machine each at a chosen point during construction or soon after their opening, each with the architect on site?

[Tim Liddy]

George,
Your knowledge of Raynor is incredible.  Did you inherit his papers or documents? How do you come across all this great information? May I visit with you sometime and review it?
Thanks,
Tim

[ed_getka]

Tom,
    If you do some work at High Pointe, please let us know when you are able. I would love to see what you would do there. I might have the chance to go see how your work at HP is holding up next month when I come out to Michigan.

[T.J. Sturges]

To Tom Doak:  Are you hinting about some upcoming news at High Pointe?  Also, how much would be required to "fix it"?

To Tim Liddy:  Pick up a copy of "The Evangelist of Golf" by George Bahto.  He is without a doubt, the best Author/Dry Cleaner/Golf Architect I have met in my life.  

TS

[George_Bahto]

Tim - you are welcome at any time

you asked: "Did you inherit his papers or documents?" - are you kidding - this guy Raynor left next to nothing behind .....

a "short visit" to my home office will take a lot of your time

Ted - I do not miss the dry cleaning business ( ) - 45 years dealing with wealthy old ladies  ........ yikes

by the way the picks I gave early one were basically Raynor's - not mine (although they might be prfetty close)

[Chris_Clouser]

I think two of Maxwell's are fairly easy.

Dornick Hills - his home course for a large part of his adult life and the one he built on his own property.

Prairie Dunes - not so much a preservation but just a completion of his original design by his son.  Which wasn't done.  That is a shame as I have a feeling it would be a top 10 course in the world if that had happened.

The third would probably have been Lake Hefner or Southern Hills.  He was immensely proud of Southern Hills and felt it was his way of contributing to Tulsa and Oklahoma in a civic manner by giving them a championship course to put them on the map.  Lake Hefner was perhaps his most unique routing and he called it possibly his best work in an interview at the end of his career.  Fortunately we still have much of Southern Hills to enjoy, but Lake Hefner is no more as a 36 public layout has been plastered over the original design.  But if you play part of the course in reverse you will get some of the feel for what he laid out there as the person who came in after just basically reversed much of the original routing from tee to green on many of the holes they built.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — That is an interesting question, "Would Forrest and Jeff and Mike Y really not designate ANY of their own work for preservation...?"

It is certainly tempting.

But it conjures up something that Jack Snyder often said to his clients, and to me, "We are not building monuments to ourselves, we are here to build enjoyable and fun golf courses."

I suppose you could do both. But what I believe Jack was saying had a lot to do with his days at Oakmont and his father's tenure there. It was always a work in progress. And, as a greenkeeper, and son of a greenkeeper, Jack recognized that golf courses are supposed to change. As I have said here many times: By nature, the hand of man, and the golfers who decide their fate on a daily basis...through play, decisions, crafty shots and new equipment.

Let me think about this some more. I am interested in Ian's thoughts...and Paul's...and Tim's...gentlemen?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forest,

So true. We are building landscapes to be used and enjoyed, not static monuments.  And, anyone building such a monument probably would build a collosal failure of design by not considering the human element.

Every design changes - Central Park had shrubs taken out when crime became an issue, train depots became hair salons when the trains stopped coming by, etc. etc. etc.  Why do we think golf courses are so damn important to keep as is, defying both nature and human nature?  

Side question - could a gca designate someone else's course, a la Forrest being a proxy for Jack Snyder, since he is no longer here to make a pick himself?

[Forrest Richardson]

I do not know anything about hair salons.

[tonyt]

Jeff, Forrest,

In the hypothetical world of this suggestion (as opposed to practical reality),

Is it not possible to see it as a museum project instead of being lumped with a monument? We don't renovate a Ming vase to make it more practical for home use today?

Referring to my previous post, I see it more as a living learning and study tool, and a fascinating insight. My example did of course too conveniently circumvent the issue of member needs in the meantime.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

The only two courses I have played where I immediately thought they should be preserved as is are the Old Course and NGLA, and used the term "museum piece" to describe them (to myself)  I am sure others would include a few to the list, and several are damn close to untouchable on my personal list.

NGLA was sort of a monument to its creator, but even TOC is the ultimate example of the gca craft meant to be a treasure to be enjoyed by the common man by using it, not looking at it.  Such is the nature of our art.

So yes, I agree with those who think a select number of courses ought to just stay the way they are, even if those playing them must use hickories to make them relevant.  
they would be learning tools. That, as you say, is the hypothetical world. How we make it happen in the real world of private property is another question altogether.

Related question - even with numerous changes over the years, is the Old Course still not the ultimate learning tool?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()