About seven years ago I wrote a design evolution report for my golf course tracking basically everything that was done to the course architecturally from its beginning in 1916 until 1999.

The design evolution report or architectural history of the course was probably 30-40 pages complete with hole by hole evolutions, the architects involved over the years with a brief bio of them and some of their significant courses and a good stagger of aerial photos of my course.

Nobody asked me to do it, I just started doing it one day after being transfixed by some old aerials I found of the course. The president of the club saw the report and had it published for all the club's members. It may've helped inspire our restoration and it seems to have regenerated an interest in our architects and our course's architecture.

It was only about the evolution of the course's architecture, nothing more.

I haven't really thought about it but I don't think I can recall seeing anything quite like that anywhere else or of any other course.

Can any of you?

In any case, the USGA may be interested in fostering the creation of these kinds of design evolution reports or complete architectural histories amongst clubs of some significant courses or maybe courses generally.

Who's interested in getting involved and what would you be interested in contributing?

All I can guarantee you is the pay will totally suck.  

Doing similar things with Penn State and hopefully helping out with Glen Ridge's.

I'd be interested in being a hired gun, that's for sure. Any sort of research or groundwork.

Tom,

My research covers most of the mid-Atlantic and while it is nowhere near as deep and detailed as yours for GM, it does cover the architectural attributions of a hell of a lot of golf courses, both renowned and unknown.

I've been looking for a home for this stuff for a number of years, and originally sent it off to both Ron Whitten and Geoffrey Cornish for inclusion in later editions of "THe Architects of Golf".   Although both were very nice in response, I did get the feeling that there wouldn't be any further updates to that tome.

So, as we talked about prior, count me in.   My 12-hour workdays should be over by October and I'll be able to help to a far greater degree than in recent months.

I've written one for GCGC and Quaker Ridge, and sort of a devolution of Ohio State. There would be a certain irony in having the USGA initiate studies of famous courses seeing that they have been involved - directly or indirectly - in the redesign of so many.

"There would be a certain irony in having the USGA initiate studies of famous courses seeing that they have been involved - directly or indirectly - in the redesign of so many."

Tom MacWood:

You may look at that as 'a certain irony' but I look at it as an excellent opportunity to get things moving in a better direction both within and without the USGA in the future.

This is all part and parcel of what I sometimes feel is a modus operandi on this website.

The time for just complaining about what happened in the past needs to cease and the time to actually get involved and do something positive about it in the future is both here and now.

I have basically done ours at Old Town and Roaring Gap -- haven't made a cent on it ....in fact they've both cost me a lot of time.....and I'll be glad to contribute these to the USGA or whomever is interested.

Tom MacWood:

Does the architectural report you did for GCGC reflect when and why various things were changed architecturally over the years?

There is a old photo hanging in the dining-room at GCGC that shows quite clearly that the rolls in #12 were not greenspace (when that photo was taken).

Tom MacWood:

Well, then I just can't imagine why that photo hanging in the dinning-room shows those rolls not as greenspace. Maybe it's just a fake and someone hung it in there just to confuse people.  

In any case, I'm pretty sure Mel Lucas would know all about them and what they were used as at any point in time.

A comprehensive design evolution report should hopefully also track the reasons the club changed that green. In your couple of hours at GCGC were you able to find that out?

TomD:

Go into the dinning-room and over to the far left side and take a look at that old photo of the old 12th for yourself.

If one wants to truly understand the history and evolution of the old 12th green it would probably be wise to talk to the man who was responsible for blowing it up, as you say, don't you think?  There's no telling what one might learn. I rather doubt he blew the thing up on his own without someone from the club, like the membership, encouraging him to do so.  

But who the hell knows, perhaps architectural purists just don't want to know what he might have to say about it, such as perhaps those "greenspace" inline rolls may've become virtually unmaintainable as greenspace.  

Jason
I remember that thread...it was enlightening.

TE
If and when they restore #12 I hope they make the mounds part of the green-space as Travis intended. It may not be practical to cut the mounds at the same height as the main green surface but even a fringe-like surface would work well IMO. That is probably what the greens were like in 1906 anyway.

Something to consider for whoever works on these. They MUST write these in a non-judgmental, antiseptic vein.

For example, editorial staements that judge the quality of the work will taint the veracity of what is being reported. None who work and develop these will want a future researcher to ignore the facts that are recorded because they believe the recorder had a hidden agenda. We find comments of this nature quite often on this site when conflicting views of work that has been done is discussed.

Personal interpretations as to reasons for changes should also be guarded against. Only where an architect has recorded this information should it be included.