Time after time I hear references to "Classic" golf courses being:

Butchered
Altered
Modernized
Disfigured
Scarred
Ruined
Etc., etc..

By an architect,
but, rarely by the club, or its membership.

If their memberships valued them as classics, why would they invite an architect in to alter them ?

Why would they pay a consulting fee, a design fee and incur the cost of construction if they thought that their golf course was a "classic" ?

What inadequacies did these memberships feel their clubs possessed ?

Were these "classic" courses viewed as obsolete ?

Was Television and its clear preference for medal play largely responsible for these alterations ?

Did the memberships at these clubs feel a need to modernize their golf course due to the influence of Television and the new fad, "Championship" golf ?  Or golf made for TV, like the CBS Classic, The Big Three, etc., etc..

Or, have these clubs only become categorized as "classics" in recent years ?

Shivas,

Is "fly on an elephant's ass" proverbial..

Your point is well taken - these are unique in context & location.  

Interestingly, it seems that Prarie Dunes was an example of renovation gone very well (albeit not a recent example).  Unfortunately, many good renovations get less recognition than the bad ones.  

Are there examples of "classics" which have been renovated for the reason's Pat contemplates which have been done very well...?  

Pat,

Your thought just proves that golf is an evolving entity. A course cannot stay the same for it is unnatural and not pleasing to the soul. Whether by weather, mankind, betterment, destruction, ego or by design — a golf course changes for the "better" because it is its destiny to do so.

The real question, at the heart of this thread, is whether or not "stupid" memberships at clubs with great courses can and should have their desire for renovations vetoed in the name of golf's greater good. Patrick, if I'm remembering his history of posts at GolfClubAtlas correctly, is always speaking up in favor of the golfing equivalent to States' Rights - if a club wants to do something, and if it likes the way it gets done, who are we to criticize? Others take a wider view and agitate against the sort of costly faddishness which so dominates many modern renovation projects. I don't think either position is wrong per se, but as a golf club is the only body with the power to effect change to its golf course, any bitching about this or that bad redesign is always going to be pointless bluster unless you can convince someone with real power that you're right...

Cheers,
Darren

CDisher,

Does "improve the playability" equate to, "make it easier" ?

Is it the quest for fairness, as perceived by the group in power, that is the fuel for change ?

Darren Kilfara,

It's not that I'm speaking up in favor of "the club's rights",
It's just that that's the reality of the situation.
It is the club's that seek out the architect, not the architects who seek out the clubs, in the name of alteration.

Tom MacWood,

What was it about the era that caused clubs to seek out RTJ, Wilson and others, to alter their golf courses ?

Was TV, a new medium, a factor in promoting "championship golf", exposure of and to other courses, and these changes ?

Tom MacWood,

But those weren't the forces that created the climate that brought about the perceived need for a club to change their golf course.

As for salesmanship, RTJ wasn't that big of a name or a factor in the 40's and 50's.

There have to be other factors that coalesced to create the atmosphere that changes to the golf course were acceptable and in fact desireable.

Even GCGC fell prey to this phenomenon.

It would be interesting if we could obtain club documents that announced the proposed changes, and commented on the finished product.

Pat -

Having done some digging in the archives at the Athens CC (Ross, 1925) and having talked to the key person involved, changes made in the 1950's to the course were done for the following reasons:

1. Beautification. Thousands of tree were planted because of widely held views that they improved the look of the course. The more trees the better. That is a view still held by many.

2. Budget. Planting trees killed two birds with one stone. People thought the course looked better and the new trees meant they could take out 35 or so fairway bunkers and the related maintenance expenses.

3. Course softening. Each club president in the 50's and into the 60's seemed to have a bete noire bunker or two. So they had them removed.  Some of the best of Ross's greenside bunkers and green contours were removed for this reason. These were ad hoc decsions made and implemented by powerful members without discussion.

4. Green diseases. Some greens did not get enough sunlight, died, and were completely rebuilt without regard to the Ross originals. In fact one green was intentionally rebuilt to be a RTJ green (no. 17).

There was never any consideration that I have uncovered as to how any of the foregoing changes would impact Ross's design for the course. In fact, I don't think many people knew at the time what Ross's design for the course looked like.

None of these decsions was irrational, evil or stupid. (Though they might have been lazy and/or unreflective.)

Nor are these changes surprising.They were consistent with how most people viewed old golf courses during those years. They were similar to changes made at hundreds of other courses during the same era.

It is my hope that now, 60 years on, we have learned a lot more about what treasures these old courses are and that many of these changes will be seen as mistakes. If there was a time when having a Ross course didn't mean much, maybe it will start to mean something in the next couple of years.

Dunno. It can be awfully disheartening sometimes trying to get that message across.

Bob

P.S. Philosophical question:

Do all threads start to sound like Yale threads if they go on long enough?

However,

Some tree planting has been good. An example is when the planting screens the unwanted noise and bother of adjoining and encroaching property and uses. And...also when such key and magnificant specimens are now living on courses, overlooking the land with a stately experssion.

Yes, "long term consequences" are evident from tree planting. Both good and bad.

Patrick,

You are right that in many cases, a club's membership simply does not know what it has.  At quite a few of the places we consult, the key has been to convince the membership how good the course really is!

Camargo Club comes to mind ... they were convinced in the 1960's that they had to change the course to "keep up" with their neighbor Coldstream.  Most of the members had no idea that their course was, is or had been "top 100" caliber.  The same goes for Yeamans Hall, Holston Hills, and The Valley Club.  (For that matter, when I first saw Crystal Downs 21 years ago, there probably weren't five members who thought of it as one of the best courses in America.)

Fortunately, I had enough credibility in that area to convince them toward restoration instead of redesign, but in most of those cases another architect could have taken them in another direction.

Another factor not discussed relates to the views of the classic designers from the golden age.  In their discussions these designers, perhaps most notably Thomas, shared a view that the art form would continue to develop and that future courses would surpass anything previously designed, just as their designs were viewed as improvements on much of the earlier work.  As such it was hard for them to perceive that their works would become classics.  We have rehashed many times the factors that led to a reduction in course building and changes in the style of architecture so that their vision was not realized.  I think an additional factor was the post war belief that progress was inevitable and good and that all things could be improved.  Hence the "keeping up with the Jones" (no pun intended) attitude cited by Tom Doak at Camargo.  In the Chicago area, the 60's and 70's saw one club after another run to Killian, Nugent, and Lohman to update their courses lest their neighbors outstrip them.  Much of that work is being undone today but, consistent with Pat's views, many members prefer the altered courses.

RTJ and television (primarily of the Masters) in about equal measures. I wonder how gca would have evolved in the last 40 years if there had been a once-a-year "major" tournament televised at Pine Valley.

Patrick -
My reference to playability mainly referred to course conditioning. Poor playing conditions are what bring many clubs to hire an architect in the first place - not a desire to restore a "classic" design. Kelly Blake Moran summed it up well.

My club could have gone either way. We were afflicted with tree overgrowth that stunted grass on many greens and fairways. We also had a hard time attracting new members because of the persistently bad conditions. A few architects hammered on the idea of restoring the original plans. However, the appeal of a modern design (the DC area is flush with them) similar to what the members were familiar with won the day. The logic was difficult to refute - if modernized courses were attracting members, how could we compete if we offered a recycled antique, designed by a dead guy no one had heard of?

"Fairness" was also an important issue - later, after we had decided on the architect. Fewer bunkers, flatter, faster greens, "having it all there in front of you", were very important to a small group of influential golfers who were controlling the process.

"Being someone that works with Greens and Golf Committees on a daily basis I can tell you that most of the fine gentlemen on these committees are absolute morons..."

Wow! You wouldn't be working with those people long if you were my employee.

(And, it's GREEN Committee, not GREENS.)

A couple of points on "classic" courses.  I've been fortunate enough to work with many courses on their centennial and other club histories.  As such I've gone through the minutes of the club almost from the inception.  (1) making the course longer has existed almost from day one
(2) the inane manner in which clubs allow greens chairmen to apply their often limited skills to the course - bunkering, greens, tees, etc. is absolutely amazing
(3) Length (once again)
(4) keep up with the Jones'!  Or, the new club on the block has this, so we need it also to keep/attract members.

Some of the posts are dead on ..many times the club simply doesn't appreciate what they've got.  I also believe that during the 50's and 60's there was such a lack of interest in "historical" that many clubs took that opportunity to really destroy/terrorize what was, up until that time, a true classic layout.