Part I

In reading Brad Klein's article on Architecture in Golfweek, one article entitled, "Nips & Tucks" referenced work at Prairie Dunes.

Some of the work mentioned was the addition of five (5) new bunkers.  The work was done by Dave Axland, one of the fellows who crafted one of my favorite courses, Wild Horse, and, according to Brad Klein, the work was done seamlessly.

The golf course was also lengthened.

One of the issues/dilemas facing many courses, especially those with no room for lengthening, is the adding of features/bunkers in the new DZ's, that have been effectively moved due to hi-tech advancements in I&B.

Some are philosophically opposed to this method of alteration, stating that it changes the original golf course and opens it up to the eternal process of architectural surgery.

Others feel that it's the only alternative for land locked holes that have had their architecture rendered obsolete.
These are holes that are no longer capable of providing the interfacing of the golfer with the architectural features, as intended by the original architect.

A hole that faces this dilema is the 16th at GCGC where the bunkers off the tee no longer interface with the better golfer.

I'm sure other holes will come to mind for you.

Most agree that the original bunkers should be left as is, however, at some clubs, relocating the bunkers has been proposed as a viable option, one that I would oppose were I a member.

So, that's the dilema.  How do you restore design features meant to interface with the golfer off the tee when there's no room to lengthen the hole ?

Part II,

Since Dave Axland enjoys "MFN" status, acceptance of these amendments to the golf course have received the stamp of approval.

But, I wonder, if Fazio or Rees or others implemented these changes, would they have received the blessings of the cognoscente ?

Part III

If increased distance continues thru hi-tech developments, will the DZ's for the better player become the LZ's for the higher handicap player's second shot, thus introducing excessive features to the play of his game ?

The same edition of Golfweek highlighted a 17 year old golfer, Jhared Hack, who flies it 300 yards.

Eight ( years from now, when he's 25 and more hi-tech advances allow him to fly it 350, won't his DZ of 300+ to 350+ be exactly where the second shots of the higher handicaps land ?

Then what do architects do to forge and present a reasonable, balanced, unbiased challenge to the various levels of golfers ?

Pat

Excellent points.  I have used the Prairie Dunes example for Tom MacWood when he derides the work done at Engineers but it has been to no avail. If Coore and Crenshaw/ Dave Axland can add bunkers that were not part of Maxwell's plans to Prairie Dunes and add new tees at novel playing angles that seems to be OK with everyone. Only a few choice architects get such a free pass with classic golf courses.

Adam

So its OK to remodel a classic golf course like Prairie Dunes if you pay attention to the details and get your pants dirty?

That may be your interpretation but I doubt that is what Tom MacWood has been preaching on here.

Isn't Prairie Dunes a landmark course worth preserving?  Don't you have any respect for The Maxwell's and their legacy?  Shouldn't we respect what Maxwell put in the ground and not alter it?  

Agree with the sentiments here.  It's all about sensitive modifications that update the course thoughtfully.  Geoff, you and I agree that Engineers looks nice and plays great.  Same for Prairie Dunes.  Unfortunately, there are other courses (both Yale and Stanford) where the modifications fail to preserve the aesthetics of the original design.

I onky half know what I'm talking about here, and expect someone to jump in and flame me.

JK

John - I agree with you. No flames from me.

Adam - There were apparently 5 brand new bunkers put in that are new and not from any Maxwell plan either in written plans or ever put in the ground by the original architects.  Additional tees that alter the Maxwell lines of play were also built.  This is obviously a remodeling of a classic landmark golf course.  I'm sure its good and even great work and may in fact improve the golf course but its NOT Maxwell. If the club and the membership approves its fine with me and I guess with you as well.  Will the ultra "purists" also give their approval and if so why this time and not Engineers, Bethpage, Aronimink?

edit- Pat - I see your post and I agree.

Were these changes made to attract the games protector?

Who is the game's protector ?[/color]

Pat, No, No and No.

If Pine Valley can modernize why shouldn't everyone?

Because Pine Valley hosts a Major Amateur Tournament every year and most clubs don't, hence the need to challenge the best amateur golfers in the country doesn't exist at most clubs,  hence the need to modernize is muted or non-existant.[/color]

I did see the old Nelson match that aired recently.

I was intrigued by how the 8th hole was altered with the addition of the alternate green. It may be good work, and may have been a necessity.

But that area was so natural looking and now it's not.

That's not true.

It remains natural looking, as does the 9th hole green complex areas.[/color]

I'd assume it enters the peripheral vision of the golfer on takeaway, but I'll leave it to you to tell me how that works.


It works great, just like it does on # 9.

On his approach, the golfer focuses on the green with the flagstick, not other areas.

And, the greens not in service blend in like any other green.
[/color]

The real solution to the dilema is a competition ball and limits on implements.

TEPaul,

Those bunkers were fairly deep and had steep faces, topped off with above ground berms to accentuate the impediment to advancing the ball.

They were definitely to be avoided, as were many fairway bunkers.

You may recall that some were deemed so difficult that tall warning flags, visible from the tee, are in place to tell the golfer to avoid that area.