Original Architect's Intent ... Hogwash

« **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2006, 08:52:14 AM »

Jim,
There are hundreds of examples myself and others could show of good intentions gone bad. Restoration of the original design intent is just one way to try and improve on the current situation. Sometimes it makes sense, other times it does not. However, I contend that if you don't take the time to study what was once there, you'll never know if it was better than what you have now or not.

The other point you seem to be missing (or brushing over) is that there is often a big difference between restoring the original design and restoring the original design intent. I trust that is understood.

History and tradition are powerful forces in the game of golf and they can play an important role when it comes to differentiating the playing fields (especially in a very competitive marketplace where most courses are trying to survive).

I still stand by the point I raised earlier - I would be very hesitant to restore a hole just for the sake of restoration. My approach is more to determine and then present what was once there and then compare it to what currently exists. From that point on, the owners/members can generally figure out what is a better design. As Pat and Dan stated above in the example I presented, the picture almost speaks for itself.
Mark

« **Reply #26 on:** March 01, 2006, 08:56:39 AM »

Quote from: Philip Young on March 01, 2006, 08:47:12 AM

When Tilly made his tour of courses for the PGA from 1935 - 37, he visited hundreds of courses with the express aim of seeing how the course(s) could be improved.

He made recommendations that work be done on over 400 of them and, in many cases, recommended LOCAL architects for the work, men who didn't have a national reputation or were considered major forces within the architectural community.

In visiting one of his courses, he recognized the problems inherent in the original design and said that he had to take "a good portion of his own medicine..."

I think all architects recognize their works are imperfect and that these become clear as the course itself evolves through time.

Not all changes are necessary because of the technology of length... many are simply because it makes the hole better.

Hi Philip,

Is it possible to divorce Tillie's work for the PGA which involved a suddenly austere Tillie removing thousands of bunkers from the bleak times he was living in as the Great Depression was in full swing and golf course architecture work of any type had largely dried up?

This is the guy who designed the brilliant bold bunkers (and MANY of them) at SFGC and Bethpage, who conceived of the Hell's Half Acre concept which involved vast stretches of bunkering and employed it at many courses, and who seemed in love with courses where mucho bunkers were employed such as TOC, PV, Garden City, etc.

To suddenly decry the "overuse" of the bunker as clubs started to look for ways to cut maintenance costs seems to me to be less of a "design decision" or evolution in what he believed constituted a good golf course than a simple pragmatic marketing move to attempt to survive in rough times.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:21:21 AM »

Excellent thread and posts, Jim

Very many of the experienced and well-intentioned people on this site have the propensity to focus on the renovations/remodelings that went "wrong" rather than those that went "right." Amongst the latter are:

Shinnecock Hills
Muirfield
Pebble Beach
Dornoch
Augusta National
The Old Course

They seem to want to see the glass as half-empty rather than half full. This continually amuses me.

It also amuses me that people (including me--see immediately above) make judgements on how holes have changed based on old photographs or drawings and are CERTAIN that they and only they are right! Mark Fine has presented a fine set of aerials, but even Pat Mucci isn't old enough to have played Cherry Hills in 1937 to be able to knowledgably say that the 17th better or worse then than it was in 1963 or even today. You (and I) can guess, but we will never KNOW.

Pat is also wrong when he speculates that changes cannot be unmade. I have seen bad changes made good in my relatively short lifetime. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense, patience and a sense of humility that is required. Along with a love for the course. I feel sorry for Pat if he has been so unfortunate to play only on courses run by people without common sense or love.

I also ask Bob Huntley whether or not it was a good idea to bring in Mike Strantz to make serious renovations of what was a very good course at MPCC? Or even to bring in Rees Jones to make smaller, but also ameliorating, changes to the other MPCC course?

Welcome, Jim, to the sub-cult of GCA that actually believes that golf is a game played by people and for people,and that golf courses are just the medium and not the message. If GCA were an art form, we should be lobbying for Christo-like walls to be erected around places like Pine Valley and Western Gailes and Pacific Dunes, not allowing anybody to step onthe hallowed ground except curators. Now that's a great idea!

Cheers

Rich

« **Reply #28 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:28:05 AM »

In a perfect world, it would be fine to make improvements to old and new courses, as long as everyone agreed they would indeed be improvements. But the world is not perfect, and there is no unanimous agreement on anything in this business.

Jim C., your argument fails to take account of human nature. It fails to account for the many architects who are trying to do work in good conscience but who are pushed into going along with a green chairman's idea for changing a hole even when they don't think it's the right thing to do [it's even happened to me once or twice, and I'm as stubborn as they come]. It also fails to account for all the architects who are out there today in need of work, and the temptation to make changes for the sake of change (and an income), believing that their modern ideas are better than those of yesteryear. Mark Fine's set of plans of the same hole speak well to that.

Yes, as architects grow personally and professionally, it is inevitable that there would be some personal second-guessing of past decisions, and no course is perfect. There is always the potential for improvement: and that's the Devil's contribution to the business.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:37:38 AM »

Mike Cirba hits it on the head, kind of. We are in a similar position today - the extravagant who cares what it cost designs (whether from the 90's or whenever) are under pressure to cut costs to merely stay alive.

When we talk about what "they" should do, as if we are stakeholders in any particular golf course, we forget that "they" must pay the bills. And, unless the members are paying dues from 1928 (and the collection committee is surely derelict!) then they have the right to make the course fit their needs in 2006 and beyond.

Should they maintain bunkers built by architect X at 120 yards off the tee, for example? Even with the best of intent, restoration is a matter of degree. The bunkers shown in Mark Fine's great Cherry Hills presentation above aren't exactly what is in the photo from the early days? Why not? Did they have to consider cart path access that Flynn didn't? Did they consider moving them back a bit or using some of the rebuilt bunkers over the years to save some money? If so, those are all reasonable decisions made by a reasonable group of people.

I have told this story before, but I consulted at Prairie Dunes early in my career. When we were discussing whether the 12th green should be flattened for modern play we actually got Press Maxwell on the speaker phone. You could hear him trying to recall which was the 12th green, and then he blurts out, "Oh, I never liked that green!" It has never changed, but that is some proof that the old guys weren't necessarily as in love with their own stuff as we presume.

I have already had several courses tweaked in minor ways, usually elimination of bunkers for speed of play and maintenance, or redesign and softening for maintenance. That is what the current course owner deems necessary to compete in today's market place, and who am I to tell him he should go broke maintaining a design I did anticipating $75 greens fees when he can't get the same amount of players at $35? I haven't lost sleep over those dozens of bunkers (some pain me more than others) but I might if I caused someone to lose his shirt.

How about you guys? Would you have any remorse over that? Or how about losing the course to a developer altogether rather than make a few cosmetic changes to improve the bottom line? Without Tillie, perhaps many of the courses we are debating today wouldn't be around to complain about?

« **Reply #30 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:39:56 AM »

Mike,

Tilly didn't do his tour for the express purpose of eliminating one type of bunker, i.e. "duffer's headache," nor was he given a dictate by the PGA to do so.

His recommendations ranged from bunker removal to bunker additions to green relocations to redisgning entire series of holes to... do nothing.

He was asked to do complete course design (e.g. Hungry Mother State Park as an example) to answer questions regarding maintenance practices to turf and conditioning problems to... well, to most everything that an architect could be asked.

Take a look at the appendix in the bio under the title "PGA Course Consultation Tour." It lists every recommendation that he made in his reports to Jacobus.

« **Reply #31 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:42:14 AM »

Quote from: Mike Nuzzo on February 28, 2006, 08:52:37 PM

Jim,
I understand your points...

How would a great architect make the 17th at TOC better?

Tear down the hotel. Or as that's not too likely, move the tee so you don't have to hit over a building. Move the green further away from that pesky road. Better yet: transplant the entire 17th and 18th so it's not like they are part of some 19th century housing development.

« **Reply #32 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:46:30 AM »

Jim,

Thank God Rolling Green has hired some outside experts to advise us on changes we make to the course. The good ones have done their homework about Flynn's original intent. It is the only way we can undo incorrect work done by green committees of the past. And the only hope to avoid green committee dominance of future changes.I think our committees work hard but I respect a process that uses our knowledge of the course in conjuction with an architectural expert. What is wrong with that process? How would you improve on it ?

Who do we appoint as the Grand Determiner of what is Good ? Since I feel there exists no such person the only thing that makes sense to me is to TRY to figure out what Flynn would do and then check that with an expert we trust. Although we can't be sure we are right the alternative is chaotic.

While I don't agree with all they recommend I don't see how a classic course can make decisions about changing a course WITHOUT divining the original intent.

When you say no one can know exactly what Flynn would would do if he came back today you are obviously correct. But, attempting to figure that out is a better process than the alternative of using the fad of the day.

For a classically designed course that has been highly regarded for a long time it is absolutely necessary that some people are willing to do the homework to understand the original intent. Without these historians of the course's architectural history the alternative is scary.

Jim, I need your help. Could you find out whether Flynn was involved in the changes made to the course within the first few years after construction. That would be helpful since I see those changes but can't say they were his work for sure.

« **Reply #33 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:19:48 AM »

One other thought I have.

There are changes made to a course that appear to be so far away from the original intent that it is relatively easy to say with close to certainty that the original designer would never have made those changes. This is where the restoration efforts should focus first, particularly if affects playability significantly. If you also can show that the cost of that restoration is relatively inexpensive that is another reason to proceed.

For example, I feel I am on firm footing when suggesting that evergreens planted incorrectly in the 70's on my home course are a perfect example of this. Just take them down and voila! the intended course is uncovered. This should be the easy part but trust me....

When we discuss placing a bunker on a hole where Flynn had not placed one and not done so on later visits it gets very complicated. At this point consulting makes great sense.

Even at this point I don't see how we can know "what is better" without researching Flynn's work and concepts.

« **Reply #34 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:34:55 AM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on February 28, 2006, 09:54:59 PM

Jim,
Here is one example I've shown before of the evolution of a golf hole. You tell me if it has gotten better or worse?

These changes were made because someone believed they were making the course better. They would not have done so if the felt otherwise. One thing to remember is that without some extensive research, few would ever have known what was once there. Did you?
Mark

Mark,

Thank youf or this depiction. Particularly insightful given your involvement there. That said, an open question for everybody:

Is the Flynn hole really "superior?" Does the answer change if we shuffle the deck, so to speak. That's one busy golf hole, but it does look cool on paper!

Curious, not critical.

Mike

« **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:36:18 AM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on March 01, 2006, 09:40:19 AM

Quote from: Mike_Young on February 28, 2006, 09:33:53 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 28, 2006, 09:31:07 PM
Quote from: Shivaschmidt on February 28, 2006, 08:05:29 PM

Who said anything about a quiltwork? I certainly didn't. I asked what the difference is if the original architect does the changes or some other guy, not multiple other guys.

Didn't you read the part about continuity ?

Could you list five (5) classic or "Golden Age" golf courses that have had only ONE (1) additional architect work on them since the original architect completed his design ?

Your "what if" is a hypothetical, let's deal in the real world.

It is a given that quiltwork, serial changes are bad, which is why I didn't raise the issue -- there is no issue. Yet, Pat's response presumes it. The answer is a red herring.

No, it's reality.

First of all, Pat, if there's anything predetermined, it's your PREDETERMINATION that I view the process "from a predetermined vantage point". Where in the world do you derive that conclusion based on my simple question? Let's just say that BOTH facelifts would suck -- that by the original designer and that by a new guy ....the question still stands: what difference does it make??

Because your hypothetical stated that the works of the original and additional architect turned out well. The reality is that most don't and the the process continues over and over again until nothing distinctive is left from the original golf course.

And if history shows that most facelifts destroy the golf course (a conclusion that I share, BTW, but not necessarily for the reasons you cite), how do you know that the original designer wouldn't have wreaked equal destruction?

It's called common sense and finances.

Name five (5) classic or "golden age" golf courses where the original designer came back and redesigned the golf course.
Name me two (2) where the product was worse than the original.

The simple answer is that you don't. The only thing one can point to is the multiple facelifts-type destruction, and how do we know that if the original architect had done every change over multiple decades that the result wouldn't be equally bad? We don't.

More of your absurd hypotheticals ?
You know because history has shown that the original architect didn't come back over multiple decades and make bad changes. One only has to look at Donald Ross's work over three to four decades at Pinehurst to see the reality and the continuity retained in the golf course through the original architect.

Now, as to my retrospective monday morning quarterbacking, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion from a simple question. And the statement that "you tell us the course is better...", well the simple fact is that I said no such thing and I implied no such thing. Pat, I know you know what a straw man argument is, and you just made one. I never said one is good and one is bad. I asked: how you know know which is better?

No you didn't, you stated that the results were the same, and history and reality show, time and time again, that the results aren't the same. History shows that courses get disfigured and that it's a repetitive process once the initial domino falls.

Pat, you know darn well that there are lots of courses that look to restore themselves as a result of NATURE'S EROSION of the original course -- green creep, evolution of bunker edges and fairway lines from imprecise mowing practices, tree growth, etc. You make this statement as if the only reason for a restoration is man-made destruction, but as best as I can tell after listening to everyone on here for years, the majority of the reason for restoration is to undo natural destruction, not man's.

That's absurd.

The changes you list above are simple to fix and don't require altering or disfiguring a golf course.

Most destruction comes under the guise of "improving" the golf course, and not from restoring natural alterations that have taken place over time.

What if the original designer has has a serious change in philosophy since he did the course?

So what ? Does he call the President of the club and say that he's had an epiphany and wants to redesign the golf course ? If the golf course has merit, noone will touch it, and if it lacks merit, the overwhelming odds are that another architect will be called in to alter the golf course.

You keep coming up with absurd, hypothetical situations that are predisposed to your conclusion.
Stick to reality

IN that case, woudn't the original intent be better carried out by a design associate who continues to share the original design philosophy?

If he did, he wouldn't need to alter the golf course, would he.

Blanket statements, Pat, get you into deep logic traps. You know that.

That's why I'm surprised that you keep making them, especially in a hypothetical, totally non-realistic sense.
Stick to reality, not phony scenarios.

What you and others fail to understand is the repetitive, domino like effect that the first alteration usually triggers.

Few courses stop at one bite of the apple.
Hence the destruction of the original design is lost forever.

How do you know that I fail to understand this?

Because you presented your query in the context of but one alteration to a golf course, and that's not the reality of the situation.

On what basis do you make this statement?

See my answer above

And even assuming that I do not understand, if the first domino falls at the hand of the original architect, how do we know that the results of subsequent dominos falling might not be equally perniscious?

Because the reality is that most architects will only fine tune and not totally alter their work.

The great majority of alterations by architects other than the original have a much broader scope.

Why don't you take a look at a golf course that's close to you, Medinah, and then get back to me with your thoughts.

And now, the grande finale: how do we ever know what the original intent was from the original design?

Because it's in the ground, permanently, for all to see.

Is the original design the only determining factor?

No, but it's a good start.
Have you missed the part about fine tuning ?
But, fine tuning is a far cry from alteration, and that's the distinction you fail to understand.

Can you look outside the "four corners" of the design to the architect's writings, for example? What if the guy writes that he intended for the course to be lengthenable as technology progresses? What then?

More absurd hypotheticals ?

Almost every architect incorporated the theory of elasticity into their designs, however, if a tee backed up to a green, you can be sure that the architect's intent was not to lengthen that hole.

How do you look only to the original design to determine original intent if the original intent was future flexibility ?

It's simple.

At the time the golf course was built, the original design represents the original intent of the architect.

However, architects realized that additional length might be required in the future, hence they allowed for elasticity in their designs.

If they wanted to design and build a 600 yard par 5 they would have, but, they didn't because that wasn't their intent.

In the future could you avoid using hypothetical situations structured to arrive at predetermined conclusions.[/color]

« **Reply #36 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:46:40 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 01, 2006, 09:21:21 AM

Pat is also wrong when he speculates that changes cannot be unmade. I have seen bad changes made good in my relatively short lifetime.

Could you identify the golf courses and the features that were changed and then restored ? Could you also insert the time line ?

It's not rocket science, it's just common sense, patience and a sense of humility that is required.

You forgot the most important factor .... MONEY.
And, that's not so easy to come by when a golf course has just spent a good some of money to disfigure the golf course.
And now, you want to ask the membership for an equal amount of funds to restore the golf course ?

I'm curious, what clubs are you talking about where they so casually fix these disfigurations shortly after they occur ?[/color]

Along with a love for the course. I feel sorry for Pat if he has been so unfortunate to play only on courses run by people without common sense or love.

If the golf clubs you've played had common sense and love for the golf course they wouldn't have disfigured them in the first place and restored them shortly thereafter, would they ? [/color]

« **Reply #37 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:49:56 AM »

Quote from: Philip Young on March 01, 2006, 09:39:56 AM

Mike,

Tilly didn't do his tour for the express purpose of eliminating one type of bunker, i.e. "duffer's headache," nor was he given a dictate by the PGA to do so.

His recommendations ranged from bunker removal to bunker additions to green relocations to redisgning entire series of holes to... do nothing.

He was asked to do complete course design (e.g. Hungry Mother State Park as an example) to answer questions regarding maintenance practices to turf and conditioning problems to... well, to most everything that an architect could be asked.

Take a look at the appendix in the bio under the title "PGA Course Consultation Tour." It lists every recommendation that he made in his reports to Jacobus.

Philip,

Thanks for the info.

Didn't Tilly boast about removing hundreds if not thousands of "useless" bunkers during his stint working for the PGA during the Depression?

I can't imagine they were all "Duffer's Headaches", but more a part of helping clubs manage their overall costs in a tough time.

« **Reply #38 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:53:34 AM »

This entire thread is surreal because few of us have any control over what happens at clubs. So why worry about it? Additionally, it seems to me that there are many reasons for changes. Among them are:

attract a major, safety, drainage, ego, improve maintenance (quicker, cheaper), misguided "improved" playability and well though out "improved" playability etc.

There isn't much point in talking about renovations carte blanche because it is meaningless. Discussions need to focus on specific courses, specific work done and why before a discussion about renovation/restoration has any relevancy. It is very easy to sit in the judge's chair when one doesn't know the course like the back of their hand and pay the bills.

Ciao

« **Reply #39 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:54:51 AM »

Mr. Doak says

"there has been a lot of favor for restoration here in the past couple of years, but if those clubs(and sometimes their consulting architects) had not changed the original design years ago there would be no need for restoration".

The problem is that many changes are going to get made by a club regardless. I don't know how prior changes were sold to the clubs but it seems now that the best "marketing" ploy is to say you are doing a restoration and paying homage to the original designer. Members like to hear that regardless of what goes in the ground. Sadly, most don't know the difference.

I would argue that many of the "restorations" being done are not because people did not like the changes made over fifty years but rather work needs to be done and oppurtunistic architects have figured out the most effective ploy is to use the restoration salesmanship job.

I certainly would not accuse any of the architects that frequent this site as guilty of this but how many guys looking for jobs are walking around saying they will not "honor" Flynn, or Tille or Raynor.

Of course, the actual plans may be quite different and we rarely gain any insight into this. And then when an archtitect really screws up we say the "members may have decided".

I belong to a few clubs and have restoration plans that have either been enacted or are being contemplated. Someday, I will post them. Again, they are all "restoration plans". Of course I know we only will get one or two replies because their seems to be more interest on food and cart girls and access. But we can give it a try.

« **Reply #40 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:06:15 AM »

Hamilton,

I think that members who have done some homework with the same research used by the consultants can help their clubs. They have a stronger interest in getting it right than a consultant. This can bring that "restoration" closer to the ideal.

This interaction between consulant and informed member doesn't guarantee success but can have positive results. I haven't seen any examples of restoration architects selling themselves . My experience is that their work sells them.

« **Reply #41 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:07:27 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 01, 2006, 09:21:21 AM

Pebble Beach
Augusta National

I'm curious to know how you think these two were improved. Which version of Pebble are you talking about?

-----

Me, personally, I hate the "I can make it better, and if not, I can put it back the way it was" attitude. Seems like there are more examples of mistakes like Inverness, Oak Hill and many others than substantive improvements, but I will readily admit to a bias against hubris. Just a personal pet peeve, I guess.

« **Reply #42 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:24:57 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 01, 2006, 10:46:40 AM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 01, 2006, 09:21:21 AM

Pat is also wrong when he speculates that changes cannot be unmade. I have seen bad changes made good in my relatively short lifetime.

Could you identify the golf courses and the features that were changed and then restored ? Could you also insert the time line ?

It's not rocket science, it's just common sense, patience and a sense of humility that is required.

You forgot the most important factor .... MONEY.
And, that's not so easy to come by when a golf course has just spent a good some of money to disfigure the golf course.
And now, you want to ask the membership for an equal amount of funds to restore the golf course ?

I'm curious, what clubs are you talking about where they so casually fix these disfigurations shortly after they occur ?[/color]

Along with a love for the course. I feel sorry for Pat if he has been so unfortunate to play only on courses run by people without common sense or love.

If the golf clubs you've played had common sense and love for the golf course they wouldn't have disfigured them in the first place and restored them shortly thereafter, would they ? [/color]

Pat

The first one that springs to mind is the 3rd at Dornoch. I'm sure there are others. I've posted this before (a lot of it is even on the siderbars to your left) but will repeat it, for the memory challenged and the newbies.

The 3rd at Dornoch used to have a tee at the same level as the 18th, and after you walked through the gorse from the 2nd green, it presented a magnificent view of the core of the links. In the mid-80's a homeowner (who had built his home a few years earlier) up on the ridge to the left of the hole complained that golf balls were occasionally getting into his garden and endangering his children. For reasons that only a lawyer or insurance professional could love, the club agree to alter the 3rd to solve his grievances. And so.......

.....they dug a deep trench at the site of the tee and lowered it by 20-30 feet so that you drove out of a bunker with high walls on each side. They angled the bunker tee to the right. They dug up the middle of the fairway and placed huge flat Myrtle Beach type bunkers to further dissuade players from going left. They removed one or two of the pot bunkers down the right that defined the strategy for the hole.....

All in all it was NOT a pretty sight.....

Then, 5-10 years later, they came to their senses and raised the tee (to about 10 feet short ofwhere it originally was), got rid of the sandy amoebas in the middle of the fairway, restored the bunkering on the right, and the hole plays nearly as well as it did 25 years ago.

Financial Cost. Don't know but probably in the low tens of thousands of £££ for the whole cycle. Not much for a club with Dornoch's finances.

Other Costs. More significant, in terms of having a carbuncle on one of the finest holes of one of the finest courses in the world for 5-10 years.

Were there more more questions?

« **Reply #43 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:31:20 AM »

Quote from: George Pazin on March 01, 2006, 11:07:27 AM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 01, 2006, 09:21:21 AM
Pebble Beach
Augusta National

I'm curious to know how you think these two were improved. Which version of Pebble are you talking about?

-----

Me, personally, I hate the "I can make it better, and if not, I can put it back the way it was" attitude. Seems like there are more examples of mistakes like Inverness, Oak Hill and many others than substantive improvements, but I will readily admit to a bias against hubris. Just a personal pet peeve, I guess.

George

Vis a vis Pebble, I take for granted what the Mackenzieheads say that the good Doctor made the 8th what it is today. That's enough for me, although I also think that the previously "alpinized" 7th (from the photos I have seen) was an abomination....

As for Augusta, I think it gets better and better every year. This is not to say that the origninal course was not also a great one, nor that some of the changes have not been my cup of tee. Since Bobby Jones oversaw most of the most significant changes, I'll defer to the big guy. Also, it is comforting that the powers that be seem to be willing to reverse bad decisions (viz. the mutilation of the 8th some years ago).

Hope this helps!

« **Reply #44 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:31:39 AM »

Quote

Seems like there are more examples of mistakes like Inverness....

Quote

Yeah, we should have really restored Ross' original intent of a 17 hole golf course, don't ya think?

« **Reply #45 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:54:23 AM »

Geroge P

Not to pile on, but without "hubris" there would never be progress. Ayn Rand and Howard Roarke would have known that, as did the Greeks.....

« **Reply #46 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:55:09 AM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on March 01, 2006, 11:31:39 AM

Quote

Seems like there are more examples of mistakes like Inverness....

Quote

Yeah, we should have really restored Ross' original intent of a 17 hole golf course, don't ya think?

At least my score would be lower.

Thanks, Rich. Someone did a little computer thing awhile ago of the original ANGC, and, not surprisingly, I thought it was more interesting.

« **Reply #47 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:17:21 PM »

Mark,

Awesome example, probably one of the best sets I've seen.

The planting on the island strikes me as much as any of the bunkering changes. The open view would have a far greater effect.

I wish you luck getting it all done.

« **Reply #48 on:** March 01, 2006, 01:07:17 PM »

My problem with the original post is the underlying premise that merely because we have greater technology and more years of experience, modern architecture is necessarily better than the classics. Shades of Alexander Pope! When he said "every day in every way we are getting better" he was incorrect and that sentiment is not correct today in many fields. While we have a greater ability to move earth and grow grass, the element that separates great architecture from the mediocre is the artistic vision of the designer. There is no evidence that this vision has improved. I will concede the liklihood that the average course has improved. But at the top of the profession it would be hard to argue that even our personal favorites produce better products than Thomas, Flynn, Mackenzie, Raynor, Tillinghast etc. Moreover, the liklihood that those altering the classics will be less than the best is great. In my hometown (and on my home course) some wonderful courses created by outstanding architects were defaced in the name of modernization by Jeff Brauer's first employers among others. While some of us have tried to repair the damage, it is not as easy as posited here, particularly when the repair costs money and the members paying also paid for the initial changes. In short, we can build courses that work better from a technical point of view due to advances in earthmoving, drainage, agronomy,and maintenance equipment. But no one has invented a better creative process and it is best to be careful in tampering with the works of truly creative people. Finally, regarding the music analogy, technical advances may allow us to hear more clearly the notes played by Miles, Trane, Bird, Dizzy, Louis, Bags and my other musical idols. But we are still listening to the notes that they played and we continue to marvel at the creative genius that allowed them to construct the solos for which they are famous while lending their own distinct tone to their instruments. I doubt that anyone would suggest that we would improve their work by allowing a modern player to " improve" their recordings by erasing part of a solo and dubbing in new notes. Again, the technical tools may be better but its the creatve process that makes the difference.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:46:07 PM »

Mike,
Is #17 as it was a "busy hole" as you put it, yes it is. Is it better than what is there now? That answer might vary from person to person. The reason I presented it here was mainly to demonstate the value of taking the time and effort to present such research. If there was no regard for "restoration", this research work would not have been done. The club would never know what they once had and how it evolved. The member who pulled me aside one day and said, "Mr. Fine, I don't understand why you think we should consider putting in those fairway bunkers and taking all those trees down on the island?" That same member later apologized to me after seeing my presentation. He never realized how that hole had evolved to the point where nearly all of the interest and strategy was sucked right out of it.

As Jeff pointed out, some alternations needed to be made but again the idea is not necessarily to "restore the design of the original hole", it is to try and restore "the design intent" of Flynn's original hole. This is the goal on all the holes and the chronology story for most all of the others is just as compelling (or should I say interesting).

Rich,
What courses have improved and what ones have not, is very subjective. I tried to point this out earlier. In some ways, I look at what I am doing more as an educator. In the case of Cherry Hills, I'm not going to be playing their course every day. It's the members there that ultimately need to decide what is best for their club. Sometimes the decision what to do is obvious. Other times it takes more study and effort to make a decision.

Ian,
Thanks for the comment. You should see some of the other holes and how they have evolved. It is fascinating.
Mark

News:

Mark_Fine

Mike_Cirba

ForkaB

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Brauer

Phil_the_Author

Jim Nugent

mike_malone

mike_malone

Mike Hendren

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

Sean_A

HamiltonBHearst

mike_malone

George Pazin

ForkaB

ForkaB

Jeff_Brauer

ForkaB

George Pazin

Ian Andrew

SL_Solow

Mark_Fine