[TEPaul]

Now that a number of American golf courses have really come of age with a number of them already over the century mark, there seems to be an interesting phenomenon afoot about them.

Mel Lucas who was the simultaneous superintendent for a time at GCGC and Piping Rock (his father was the super at Piping Rock) is most definitely an accomplished historian on golf architecture but it seems he, perhaps more than anyone, has gotten into an area that might be called architectural archaelogy.

Mel is working on an old course in North Carolina that has been evolving over the years with no redesign change. Apparently he took apart a few sections of some greens and bunkering and exposed and photographed a remarkable layering that precisely chronicles the varying maintenance practices and perhaps evolutionary play results over the years. He said he was amazed how distinct and perfect this vertical layering was.

What could this mean in the end for architecture and particularly restoration architecture?

For one thing many of us are concerned with the length and width dimension of old architecture and restoring it because basically that's all we see or are aware of by comparing things like old aerials to new aerials or to courses today. Changes in length and width is very easy to see on old aerials but changes in the vertical dimension is virtually impossible to see.

So what do we know about the vertical dimension in old architecture? Since it's not really visible, I'd say not very much at all except in some notable cases like the front bunkering and green fronts on holes like Merion's 8th and 13th which have clearly grown over the years not by inches but by feet (evolutionary sand kick).

In a few greens Mel actually found obsolesced sprinkler heads a foot and two feet below the putting surfaces of a few greens. Imagine that!

Mel's "Architectural Archaeology" is obviously going to lend a lot of understanding in the future to the third dimension in golf architecture that most of us have been little aware of----eg the third dimension of verticality and how much it gradually changes architecture over the years.

This isn't just incidental or aesthetic, it can have a real effect in play too. And certainly in the understanding of old architecture and its restoration. Perhaps it will also lend more understanding to agronomics as well, or at least its history.

[wsmorrison]

I know when I first started looking at the comparison of modern aerials with old aerials and architectural drawings, it was easy to see the extent of lost green space, bunker relocations and alterations and the like and I thought equally easy to restore the lost green area.  

However, the verticality change component is a vital factor to take into account.  You are absolutely right that detailed on-site assesments need to be made to determine the expansion of greens in the restoration process.  Decades of sand splash, top-dressing and other remediation efforts on the shrunken greens that differ from the surrounds may make the restoration of green space not nearly so simple.

I'll post some photos of the 13th at Merion from 1930 to today to show the extent of the elevation change.  I do like the evolution and think it works very well given today's green speeds, balls and implements.

[JESII]

Shivas,

Do you think your opinion of that hole would change much if you realized that the green surface was not originally mostly obscured by the front bunker face? Imagine that fronting lip being about 3 or 4 feet lower, now you can see all of the green, what do you think now.

[wsmorrison]

Dave,

Here's a photo of the 13th from 1924:



Here's a modern photo of the 13th.  The depth is at least 3-4 feet greater and the slope off the topline of the bunker extends into the green making for an appropriately more precise shot requirement and a thrill to reach the green and see if the green was held and if so, how close to the pin.  The choice of removing the evolutionary sand build-up versus leaving the evolution alone is not an easy one.  I am certain the right decision was made at Merion.  By the way, with today's greenspeeds, we were told that putts from back to front would easily roll into the bunker.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I was at Fishers Island when Donnie Beck, his crew and Gil Hanse expanded the front of the green out to its original dimension. The amount of top dressing removed was incredible and it is doubtful that we even reached the orginal green level in some spots. It was proof to me that the idea that what we see now on putting surfacces, in many cases, bares no resemblance to the original. That is why I have a hard time believing one way or another that Ross, for instance, created the domed greens at Pinehurst No.2 and Sara Bay. Without definitive proof, such as cutting away the green to see the strata, any opinion is pure conjecture and not based in fact.

Anthony

[TEPaul]

"That is why I have a hard time believing one way or another that Ross, for instance, created the domed greens at Pinehurst No.2"

Anthony:

Ross did not create those domed greens at Pinehurst #2, at least not the way they are now. It's a long story.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Are the greens you pictured, the same green, in the same location, played from the same angle ?

[wsmorrison]

Yes.  My modern photo is taken from the tee and is left of the player in the 1924 photo.  You can easily determine the angle by considering where the golfer is relative to the green width which has not changed.  Admittedly, the right side of the bunker is slightly shallower than the middle of the bunker--more sand splash must be a significant factor.

You see a lot of architectural evolution between the two photos--in the clubhouse   and the green.  The teeing angle has not changed though the tees were combined and reworked to add tee space.  You may recall that there was a large tree (or two?) between the two tees on different levels.  Now there is a single larger tee with much less elevation difference.

The changes to the golf course prior to the 1924 Amateur were quite recent with the acquisition of land that currently contains the 10th tee, 11th green and 12th tee.  Holes 10-14 were completely redesigned.  I don't think the green was as flat as stated in the caption used in the Merion history book but the front bunker was certainly much more shallow than it is today.  I think it is mostly due to sand splash, but not entirely.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom,

That's my point. There can be an number of theories on the Pinehurst No. 2 greens from Ross did it himself to an over-zealous superintendent, but until their is definitive proof, all that remains is speculation.

Anthony

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Didn't Flynn redo the bunkers on the course in 1925 or 1926? Are there any photos of the hole after his work?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

This hole, in addition to holes 10-12 were built in 1922 in preparation for the 1924 Amateur.  These were designed by Flynn and surely with oversight by Hugh Wilson, who was to die in the beginning of 1925 after being chronically ill for many years.  They continued to refine, along with Valentine, the course, including the bunkering through the mid 1930s up to the 1934 Open.  A few minor changes were implemented afterwards.

There were significant changes to the course between its opening and the 1916 Amateur.  Even if the holes were conceptually maintained, numerous changes to the bunkering were done.  

I'll try to post photos of the 1930 Amateur, but I don't recall differences made in 1925 or 1926.

"One look at the dopey trees behind your photo of today's 13th green demonstrates this."

Sean,

Please do not jump to conclusions.  The trees are rarely in play (though I've overshot the green into them on occasion) and serve a purpose that you are not aware of.  Prior to the famous first hole being altered for the 1930 Amateur, the tee was located near the clubhouse near the tree to the right of the pointed roof.  Flynn redesigned the hole for the 1930 Amateur moving the tee to the other side of the clubhouse creating a fabulous dogleg right rather than the former dogleg left to a different green site.  The entry road to the clubhouse was moved from the side of the current 1st and14th tees alongside the current 13th hole around the clubhouse which was directly in view from behind this green.  The trees hide the drive into the clubhouse.  The trees aren't at all "dopey."

"Where do you stand on the issue of restoration to fulfill archie intent VS restoration to carry archie themes forward if not in exact (or near enough given circumstances) detail?"

I am much closer to following the original intent.  As someone that has written dozens of architectural evolution reports (following the model that Tom Paul established), I like to see them used to restore golf courses.  Sometimes it doesn't make sense.  But this can only be concluded when a careful and exhaustive study has been made.  There are times I believe that evolution of a golf course, as a result of natural causes or the result of play, should be maintained.  I am not dogmatic either way.  If there is improvement in a golf course that enhances the play for modern players with modern equipment, I don't think there's a problem with going with the flow.  But it has to be characterized as such.  The cost of taking down evolutionary sand splash, correcting green contours, etc. adds greatly to the cost of a project and removes a natural defense of the golf course built up over the years from play.  I kind of think that is an interesting evolution.  It doesn't always make sense.  In the case of the holes at Merion, I am convinced the right decision was made.  It is fun to have a delay in seeing how the ball ends up and it requires a much more precise shot.  I have to take the dog out in the rain---I'll try to address this further later.

[wsmorrison]

Hey, this is Quaker Philadelphia; those RRs and Bentleys probably have NY license plates.  You're just as liable to see old white Honda station wagons with lots of rust and PA plates

[Tim Copeland]

McDonald and Sons did some work to enhance some brows of bunkers prior to the 2005 Amateur



http://www.mcdonaldgolfinc.com/construction/services_main.html

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Your post #25 to Wayne states the fundamental dilemma here and the fundamental question of all restoration architecture (actually for all golf architecture)---eg what can and should be done to make for the greatest enjoyment for the most golfers?

Pat's "slippery slope" theory apparently contends that no one should even attempt to ask this question about classic architecture much less answer it and act on it because there is too much danger that something might go wrong.

Tom MacWood seems to constantly contend that some of this old architecture is so artistically valuable that it should never be touched. Of course one must ask----so artistically valuable to whom? To just Tom MacWood and some others interested in classic architecture or to the club's membership and those who play the golf course?

There just can be no higher goal in architecture than to create the greatest enjoyment for the most. No golf architect in history has ever contended otherwise and probably never would or will. How can there be a higher goal than that?

So why should people like Pat Mucci or Tom MacWood contend otherwise? Why would they contend that the membership of a course they own should not be able to determine what it is they enjoy?

Obviously Pat Mucci may say what he does because he doesn't even trust anyone to make the right decision on what a membership may like and enjoy. I know he doesn't trust a whole membership to state what they like and be able to actually do something about. As for Tom MacWood he doesn't seem to even concern himself with the opinion of a membership on a course he views as valuable artistic architecture. He seems to say that's not his interest.

But it must be the interest of anyone concerned with this subject of golf architecture and particularly restoration architecture for ultimately what higher goal is there in architecture but to create the most enjoyment for the most people.

I feel that the slippery slope theory is not appropriate because I feel if enough thought is given to what makes the most enjoyment for the most people a good enough way to do that can and will be found. And with classic architecture of real artistic value the fact of that alone is an important enough factor that a membership will come to appreciate, respect and enjoy it, particularly if someone can help them understand it's history and its artistic value.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood seems to constantly contend that some of this old architecture is so artistically valuable that it should never be touched. Of course one must ask----so artistically valuable to whom? To just Tom MacWood and some others interested in classic architecture or to the club's membership and those who play the golf course?

There just can be no higher goal in architecture than to create the greatest enjoyment for the most.  

TE
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Its my feeling that there are a realtively small number of special designs that should be preserved and protected...many of which got to their special design status through redesign and remodeling.

I also think that historic restoration should be reserved for a select few and the majority of courses could use improvement of some sort.

As far as creating the greatest enjoyment for the most, history is littered with courses that were altered in the name of greater enjoyment. How many architects have remodeled Gulph Mills over the years? They all thought they were improving the course....maybe they did...but seems like the last guy was brought in to sort it all out.

The reason restoration is such a hot topic today is because we now have disapprov'en of the improv'en.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Thanks for putting words in my mouth."

Tom MacWood:

I'm not putting words in your mouth, only reiterating what you've said on here numerous times. If you didn't mean what you've said on this issue numerous times perhaps you shouldn't have said it in the first place.

[TEPaul]

"As far as creating the greatest enjoyment for the most, history is littered with courses that were altered in the name of greater enjoyment. How many architects have remodeled Gulph Mills over the years? They all thought they were improving the course....maybe they did...but seems like the last guy was brought in to sort it all out."

Tom MacWood:

That's right, the last guy brought in did a restoration on as much of the course as was feasible. The fact is it was the first and only RESTORATION the golf course has ever had. What happened to the course in the past was not restoration but redesign. Restoration was not something that was even thought of until perhaps 20 years ago at most, not just at my course but anywhere. But perhaps you don't see or understand the difference. It would seem you don't, since you seem to condemn restoration on certain golf courses.

[Tom Roewer]

TEPaul:  Could you help me get in touch with Mel Lucas?  In 2 weeks I'm planning on attempting to "find" some sand greens @ a course NLE and want to ask him a few questions that I think can help.    Thanks for any assistance.  

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Please check your IM regarding Mel Lucas.  Good luck with the golf course archaeology!

[Tom Roewer]

Wayne:  Thanks so much.  I just spoke with Mel's wife and he will be home the same day I arrive in St. Augustine so hopefully he can be of help.  I'm going to try and locate any greens possible at the old course that included one green inside the outer fort walls and one hole that went across another outer wall(great cross bunker!)  I've got a core sampler from my superintendent  as wel as the plat drawing that was on G>C>A> in August so we'll see.

[wsmorrison]

Best of luck to you, Tom.  Mel should be a great help.  Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your findings with us on the site.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()