TE,
Boy, you're not fooling around with those questions: IMHO, they get right to the heart of many of the subjects discussed on this board  (e.g. restoration-preservation; the impact of technology-elasticity of features; strategic-penal-natural design philosophies; the definition of quality architecture; maintenance practices; the economics of the game etc)  

It seems to me that if we want to honour the spirit of our Golden Age forefathers, we'd first have to be pretty clear about what that spirit ACTUALLY was?  

The Golden Agers don't seem to have been TOO precious about their designs, i.e. they were tweaking and lengthening and learning and changing their courses all the time, sometimes out of sheer necessity. But I think they WERE seriously wedded to some basic, underlying philosophies about what the game of golf was all about, and about what the courses that game was played on were all about.

The trouble is, I don't know what those basic philosophies WERE -- so, in short, I can't answer your questions.

But I think that if we could truly know what was MOST important to our Golden Age forefathers, i.e. what they REALLY believed was the spirit of the game, not just in theory or in books but in actual practice, right on the ground, then we could and should try to preserve our modern courses -- and then we could proceed with some comfort knowing that we had the right principles to guide those attempts at preservation.

I didn't really answer your question; and I'm just working out my thoughts.

Peter


   

No way, Jose!

There isn't a single bit of modern architecture that could not be improved by enlightened fiddling, anymore than any of the "golden age" architecture.  It's in the dirt and in the history.

Ricardo

OK, TomD, you are hereby requested to tell us all what three courses of your own (at this point) you would like preserved and why!

Can you imagine what it would be like if the old guys were told they really had to answer that question and they actually did answer it?

I'll tell you right now, from everything we know about the way he was, William Flynn would've categorically refused to answer that question. We once asked his daughter that question and she said he never would've answered something like that.

I like TD's idea, but three courses per architect is a lot of courses that will have to wear the straight jacket. Lots of clubs won't buy-in.

As a Plan B, keep detailed, 3-D computer iterations of modern courses of architectural distinction. Have the designer review the iteration to confirm that it was for him the optimal design. Or at least a rendering he finds acceptable.

Clubs that want to restore things in the future will have a definitive design to base things on. Or not. As they choose. But they will at least know whether or not they are "restoring" anything like what the original designer wanted.

Bob

TEPaul,

I think the cultures are different.

Today, we live in a disposable society.

Pens, razors, marriages and golf courses are all expendible, some by design.

The number of practicing architects was also smaller, and with diminished numbers comes notoriety and respect for the FEW experts in the field.

Today, everybody thinks they're an architect.

So, I think the perspectives were different.

In addition, it's too early to tell, and, we don't know where the "distance" issue will max out.

It's not that a course or a hole can't be improved, it's the likelihood of disfiguring of courses and holes borne of indescriminate and frequent attempts to improve them.

Mike: It's interesting what you've said about evolving golf courses as I recently saw Justice Breyer and Scalia sit down before an audience and discuss their differences about the law.  The area of the law which they disagreed about the most was whether the constitution is an evolving document or should be strictly construed as it was originally written.

It can be argued that when golf courses evolve they lose the character and intent of the designer; some might say that is necessary because of the change in equipment, etc., while others might argue that the course loses much of what is good about it when it is allowed to evolve. I would suggest that the great designs of the first half of the century have withstood the test of time and if anything, they are better when they are brought back to their original designs.  

Set aside? I am interested in knowing what will be the Pinehurst #2 for Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye, etc.

Set aside? I am interested in knowing what will be the Pinehurst #2 for Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye, etc.

Garland, please explain what you mean.

Mr. Paul,

I do not know if this was said already (I immediately responded without viewing the other responses), Greatness is usually not realized until decades after death.  Yes, some well known architects have great products already, but the general golfing public will usually not realize the architects greatness of the design until it is too late.  Today we cannot sit idle and must create change too often.  There is too much of "the grass is greener on the other side" in the industry for a layout to sit "preserved".  It's too bad isn't it.

Troy

Garland, please explain what you mean.

Donald Ross spent a lifetime refining and improving Pinehurst #2. I believe it is not possible to create the best possible course in the time allotted to a typical design and construction. Therefore, I would like to see what Tom Doak, for example, would do if he went back to Pacific Dunes every year to tweak it.

I understand that Pete Dye has actually done some of this perhaps at Crooked Stick and the Pete Dye Club and perhaps some others.

But probably none of the moderns have done it to the extent that Donald Ross did.

Come on guys, let some of the new big jobs go to young lions, and show us what you can really do with a lifetime of work at some of your better designs.

Thanks James,

I naturally extended the later half of the 20th century to 1999. Perhaps that is a bit more modern than Tom intended!

TEP: There are many who feel that most of the courses of the 1950s and 1960s were uninspired and it really wasn't until Pete Dye came along and was willing to take chances that modern golf course architecture bloomed.  Do you feel that is true and are you suggesting that some of those courses should not be preserved and need to evolve?