Just ran across this on Geoff's website where he leads of with this mind numbing quote:

"Restoration is the narrow-minded substitute for imagination."

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2007/09/gw20070914whitten


Rather than actually address the points or lack of points he made in this horrendous article, could we talk about why he is writing this in the first place.

What are his motives in writing this piece?

How does he benefit?

Who is his audience?

And if anyone can tell me the relevance of the bulldozer paragraph to the rest of the article I will award you an e-gold star!

The point of the bulldozer paragraph is to respond to the previous paragraph where he discusses the person who used a horse to restore a bunker because thats what Ross would have done.

I was generally confused by the article as he leads with all restoration being bad and ends up complimenting Silva for his version of Ross restoration.  

So is all restoration bad or only restoration that doesnt take into account the modern game?  Not sure if that is his point but it is certainly an interesting query for this site.

JC

You are right, the article is not well organized and doesn't do a good job of flushing out the main point.  The article reads like it was banged out in half an hour.  However, the main premise of the article seems to be that Ross was a dynamic designer who welcomed necessary change.  This is probably true of all ODGs.  It may even be said that some ODGs were the engine driving change.  

Sean

I agree.  In fact, a recent read of Scotland's Gift supports this point as CBM indicated that National was a work in progress and that all great courses were a work in progress.

I will say that if the point he is trying to make is that the restoring architect should take into account the original "intent" of the designer as opposed to the original blue print of the designer, then he does a terrible job at arriving at his point, if he arrives at it at all.  And the quote at issue is totally misleading and pretty much off point.

That being said, if his supposed point is as I've inferred above, I cant say that I disagree with him.

Jeff, but isn't the premise a bit of a straw man? Is anyone really saying they want the kind of restoration that would force the membership to play it with Haskells and hickories? It seems to me that people want to capture the feel of another era and translate that to work well with 21st century technology.

It also seems to me, judging from the photos posted in the thread regarding the restoration of Sleepy Hollow's short hole, that the act of UNDOING some modern architects' changes would require considerable imagination.

Golf course architecture is all about fitting the game of golf to the natural features of a particular piece of ground, and those features haven't moved, so changing the relationships between the hazards and the ground features is not good practice.  Maybe some players hit it a lot longer than the elite players of the 1920's, but most don't, so all those courses are still "relevant" for the 96% of guys who are the backbone of the club, and really not all that bad for the other 4%.

Interesting comment.

Tom,

To me, this statement implies that you think architects in the "golden age" focussed their efforts primarily on the low handicapper - "elite player" - much more so than today...is this the case?

By the way, it's just a coincidence that I've recently found two posts of yours that peaked my curiosity on architects and their primary focus in the building process...

He's probably mad because Brad makes money consulting on restoration jobs and Ron does not.

As for his premise, he's partly right and partly wrong.  He's partly right in that the scale of restoration has gotten ridiculous in the past five years; most clubs are pursuing it mainly because they think it helps their designer-label status and image, being sold on the concept by architects who otherwise would have nothing to do.

But he's wrong that exact restoration is never a good idea.  Golf course architecture is all about fitting the game of golf to the natural features of a particular piece of ground, and those features haven't moved, so changing the relationships between the hazards and the ground features is not good practice.  Maybe some players hit it a lot longer than the elite players of the 1920's, but most don't, so all those courses are still "relevant" for the 96% of guys who are the backbone of the club, and really not all that bad for the other 4%.

Tom D -

That is a fascinating perspective.  That the current state of the game should not dictate the golf course, rather, nature should (assuming I'm interpreting your statement correctly).

How then does your statement marry with CBM, who constantly tinkered with National and (I cant quote without the book in front of me) stated that courses are always a work in progress.

Is it your opinion that there is a certain point where a course reaches its best and it should be maintained to that extent forever?  If so, how does a club know when they have reached that point?  Certainly it cant be the day the club opens, can it?

I'll give an example.

Let's say that Dr. MacKenzie built one of his holes at The Valley Club with Bob Jones in mind.  He put a fairway bunker 250 yards from the tee which Jones would have to carry to get the best angle to play his approach directly into a slope on the front half of the green and get it up to the back tier.

And now Fred Couples hits it 40 yards over that bunker on the fly and is hitting an 8-iron into the green.

But MacKenzie's bunker is into a rise in the ground which exists in a certain spot.  He placed his tee and the green in relation to that rise.  Yes, it would be nice if there was room to build a tee 40 yards further back so Freddie can play the hole as Jones was supposed to -- although his second shot will still look a LOT different than Jones' approach -- but that room probably isn't there.

So what?  There are still a lot of members who will play the hole just as MacKenzie envisioned it for Jones if everything stays as it was.  Moving the bunker 40 yards downrange will destroy the relationship to the ground features, and Freddie could play short of it if he wanted and STILL reach the green no sweat, or even knock it in the bunker and hit an 8-iron out onto the green, so it has no meaning for him.

So what?  There are still a lot of members who will play the hole just as MacKenzie envisioned it for Jones if everything stays as it was.  Moving the bunker 40 yards downrange will destroy the relationship to the ground features, and Freddie could play short of it if he wanted and STILL reach the green no sweat, or even knock it in the bunker and hit an 8-iron out onto the green, so it has no meaning for him.

TD I doubt that you or any of the rest of us are designing courses for Freddy and Tiger and company. In working with Lee Trevino, he surmises that equipment has really only help the pros and very low handicappers.

On new courses it is so much easier to add tees in case Fredy shows up. But on Old courses, If you want to make a course tough for Freddy, just narrow the fairway and let the rough grow to 4 -5 " and it will stop any of the pros.

But none of this addresses the real reason for preservation of great courses, which is that once you open up the door to tinkering with the golf course to "restore Donald's intent", you are empowering a bunch of people who aren't as smart as Donald Ross to mess around to their hearts' content for all sorts of different motives.

I would agree with Jerry Lemons that Ross himself would design things differently today.

I would not trust anybody who thinks they're as good at making those decisions as Donald Ross was.

Exactly. The only good reason to restore a course is because  it would be a better course for most golfers as restored. (If it's not going to be better, don't restore it.)

In making that decision, wide berth ought to be given to architects like Ross, MacK, etc. They have earned the presumption that they are better archies than the guy that was hired last month to "upgrade" the course. (That presumption can be overcome in some cases. But it needs to be overcome as a first step.)  

Bob

It doesn't seem like he's mad at anybody; at best he's tweaking the alleged purists who would wear WWDD? bracelets.  Of course, anybody who thinks that a 2007 golf course should look and play like a 1908 golf course is out of his mind.  If anything, Whitten is quite properly placing praise on the thoughtful restoration architects out there.  Having seen the work of a guy like Ron Prichard, I can say unequivocally that a great restoration architect has to respect the soul and the art of the work of the man whose work he is "restoring", but he has to use his modern day knowledge and architectural know-how to do the job right.  Merely reimplementing Ross plans from long ago isn't architecture, it's xeroxing.

Jerry:

If you don't think there are some members at elite clubs who want their courses designed for Freddy Couples you're mistaken.  However, I used the example because Fred Couples is actually a dues-paying member at The Valley Club.

Adam:

I'm sure the story you shared has nothing to do with any of this.  Ron doesn't put himself in the position of recommending architects for jobs because he knows he shouldn't do that.  It would cause a firestorm considering his position with GOLF DIGEST.  He did recommend Bill Coore to Dick Youngscap, but that was before he worked for DIGEST I believe, and it wasn't a bad recommendation.

JC:

I can't answer your question because I have not been doing any of the work at Belvedere.  Bruce Hepner, one of my associates, has been going there for several years, and occasionally asks my opinion on stuff; but I've only gone up to there once or twice and it was to play, not to work.  However, we are working for the club and not the GAM, so we would only address issues for the GAM to the degree the club thinks they are important.

Scott W:

I don't know how to answer your question, except to observe that 10-15 years ago not every golf course in America needed a consulting architect.  Most of the work being done is in my opinion "tinkering around" -- some of it good, some of it bad, all of it a matter of opinion.  My opinion is just that all that work costs money and if I were a member I might not think it was worth my money.  

But the work goes on, so I guess there are a lot of members of golf clubs around this country who disagree with me (or who are quite gullible).  Which is fine I guess, except when you are talking about the best courses in the world and then I don't think just anybody who talks a good game should be in there tinkering.

What a good thread, and fine posts. I think I’m getting a better understanding of the renovation-restoration question.

But, without sounding like an impractical purist, I have to admit that what I find myself thinking is "First, do no harm".  

From what I can tell (and I have a lot to learn) the history of some of the great old courses is a mess of hasty decisions, ego-and-money driven renovations, and a basic disrespect for the original work. Old and vintage CARS seem to be held in higher regard, judging from how they’re restored.  

I just think that the legitimate argument to make from now on is that more care and time should be taken before starting a renovation-restoration, not less.  

To paraphrase that song Francis of Assisi sings in the movie from the 70s: “If you want to do things well, you should do them slowly”.

Peter

Francis of Assisi?

Didn't Mr. Bean sing a hymn (poorly) in one his episodes, that was written by Francis of Assisi??

Alleluia.....