"I'm always wary of an architect who says, 'Show me the old Ross plans, we'll rebuild it just like that.' Well, Ross himself late in his life was involved in rebuilding some of his earlier courses because he knew they were outdated. So you can't go back to a 1917 plan and say, Ross would have wanted it just like that. No he wouldn't have. He knew that, once steel shafts and balata balls came in, it was a different game.

So all you can do with restoration is try to sympathetically restore and yet make it work for today's equipment and today's game."

So, I guess Ron is not a Richardson Lemming, but he is a Naccarato Lemming?

The thing I don't understand in this debate is that last quote about "make it work for today's equipment and today's game".  What exactly doesn't work on many of these old courses?  Just because there are 20 members out of 300 who drive it past the fairway bunkers doesn't mean the design doesn't work ... in fact it probably works BETTER for the other 280 members.

Tom,

Under your criteria should the A flight champion get the best parking spot at the club because his old worn out game fits the design intent of the course?

Tom,

If there are 20 out of 300 members who can carry the bunkers, how many members do you suppose are so horrible that nothing about the length of strategic placement matters...My guess would be 250.  Does the typical club really even have 50 out of 300 members whose game can be influenced by the placement of a fairway bunker?  I'm thinking the course would be more enjoyable for the general membership if only the best players have to worry about hitting driver into a fairway bunker...Let the lesser players swing away and the better ones lay up or challenge the trouble.

Tom,

Possibly as good a save as any goalie in the SC playoffs, but then again, perhaps not.

When I hear the words "sympathetically restore" I hear "don't change the basic style (i.e., add a bunch of mounds, etc.) but don't be hamstrung by a plan, or even an exact bunker placement.  

He specifically says he finds restoring "intent" to be the most important criteria.  I don't know if Ross bunkers challenged only the best, the average, or a mix of both on any particular course, but that would still open up a bunch of interpretive questions.

And, I think that was Forrest's "Lemming" point in a nutshell - no matter what you do, there is interpretation.  There are a lot of ways to consider restoration and make it a valid solution - but you favor one thing or another and probably won't please everyone.

JES and JK,

In essence, placing fw bunkers for the good player only was the single item that made Augusta the preeminent course in the course and influence in the country, replacing Oakmont when it opened, no?

Whereas Oakmont penalized every bad shot with a bunker, Jones and Mac figured out that if someone was hitting it about 140 yards and couldn't hit the green anyway, why punish him?  He will make bogey and why does he need to make a double or more?  

For that matter, they tried to encourage certain lines of play as much or more than punish others for the better players.  Even the Ross "top shot" or other carry bunkers at about 120 yards went out of style, and that set the pattern for design for the next 70 years or so, basically continuing to today, with some exceptions.

I have heard older players say they pay their dues/greens fees, too and they deserve to hit into bunkers as well.  But, they can hit into greenside bunkers on nearly every hole, and we usually leave them a few bunkers that serve as optional carry bunkers for better players and lateral bunkers for shorter ones.  

Its not really all or nothing, its a matter of degrees - I would only want a few shorter distance fw bunkers on my courses, just as some gca's favor more greenside bunkers left than right (perhaps at a 2 to 1 ratio) on the theory that those come into play more often for good players and less often for poor slicers, so they are "perfectly located" in all respects.

BTW, as JK notes, rough is usually present every where down a fw, whereas a fw bunker takes up just 2000 sf typically.  The chances of hitting rough on a wayward shot is 100% for all players under the typical set up.  The chances of hitting the fw bunker, even if placed very logically to play, are still remote.  

Everyone hits a slightly different distance, AND we all hit it different distances on every individual hole, so we place fw bunkers at slightly varying distances, rather than always at 290, etc.  (Of course, this is influenced by landforms, wind, elevation, etc.)  While probable chance would even out the number of times any one player would hit a bunker, it is possible that even a good player hits it longer where the gca put a shorter bunker, and shorter when the gca places a longer bunker, etc.  Or, the other way around on a bad day!

The thing I don't understand in this debate is that last quote about "make it work for today's equipment and today's game".  What exactly doesn't work on many of these old courses?  Just because there are 20 members out of 300 who drive it past the fairway bunkers doesn't mean the design doesn't work ... in fact it probably works BETTER for the other 280 members.

Hear, hear!

An aside.

Don't you hate reading those online articles that spread themselves over several 'pages' for no good reason other than banner exposure?

I just hit the 'Print' 'button'  above the Whitten interview and Lo! the whole article with a single banner above. Don't know if this will work on all sites, but I'll be experimenting this week.

I just joined Wyckoff Country Club in Holyoke, MA, an old 'Ross' that used to be Mount Tom GC (commissioned by Mr. Wyckoff. How much Ross is left?? not much according to Brad K, I see what I can find out..).
It's 6000 yrds from ther tips! (including an uphill 240 yd par 3) I need every shot in the bag and I must move the ball if I'm going to challenge par.

I liked this part

The hot new thing now is to go to North Dakota and play the big three there, which are Stephen Kay's course, The Links of North Dakota, Jim Engh's Hawktree and Mike Hurdzan's Bully Pulpit.

I guess that makes Jay Flemma and I trendsetters.
Mollydookers rule!

I think we know by now that Ron is through answering Burbeck questions.

Mr. Cirba:

I nominate that for post of the year ... especially since I thought about it but was too tired to bother.