The Restoration Lemmings

« **Reply #50 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:37:39 PM »

The reality of this subject can be seen at a Tillinghast course that I will not name.

During the 50's a major architect was hired to redesign the course and did so, supplying the club with a complete set of plans. Since they apparently decided not to pat him, he refused to do any further work.

Flash forward to the late 1980's when many members were much older than in years past and all agreed that the "problem with the course was that the greenside bunkers were too close to the putting surfaces and too difficult to get out of..."

The decision to re-do the bunkers came down to someone remembering that the course was redesigned in the 50's and so wasn't a real Tilly course anymore. The proof? The set of blueprints in the files provided by the other architect.

And so they changed and redesigned and built all new greenside bunkers.

Late 90's and a fresh new group of members wanted to find a way to restore their Tilly heritage and so they began to restore one bunker at a time, doing so slowly so as to not upset some of the older members.

In the early 2000's, they consulted with a "Tilly expert" to see how much of their course remained Tilly's handiwork after the 1950's redesign. They were stunned to learn from the expert that not only had he found documents in their archives showing that the 1950's work had never been done, but that the "blueprints" that everyone assumed represented the course showed holes on property where houses now existed!

The moral of the story?

Club memberships need to be educated in order to properly care for and make correct decisions regarding their course. It also shows how by consulting with a truly informed "dead guy expert" that not only can necessary plans and documents be found but, and maybe more importantly, they can be properly understood.

So much work and study is put into finding the proper architect for a golf club to use, yet many times it is the lack of doing this in choosing the club members who have the responsibility to care for the course that leads to poor renovation/restoration/changes...

It might turn out that the unknown individual who came up with the first "master plan" for maintenance and long-term growth of a golf course will have contributed more to the growth of the game than most, if not all, of the architects of the last 20+ years.

« **Reply #51 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:45:44 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on May 24, 2007, 09:44:00 PM

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 24, 2007, 07:59:40 PM
Re - Pine Needles.
From the Fought website, from his own trumpet, and obviously a dream project. But note the subjugation of ego. Admirable and rare IMHO.

"In 2004, John and his team completed a widely acclaimed restoration of Pine Needles Golf Club in Southern Pines, North Carolina, where the goal was to maintain the intent and integrity of the original Ross design from 1928, and restore the shot values that have been changed by today's technology. Moreover, John spent countless hours at the Tufts Archives in Pinehurst (N.C.), conducting exhaustive research on Ross and his timeless approach to designing a golf course. There, John compared aerial photography of Pine Needles over a 30-year span to determine how the course had evolved from its 1928 debut.

"My job was trying to figure out exactly what Mr. Ross was trying to do," says John, keenly aware that restoring a classic course requires an architect to resist imposing his own views. "I love his work so much, and I studied it so closely, that it wasn't a problem for me to try to think what he would have wanted to instill.""

Lloyd,
That is a great way to put it......same thought process I would use...
BUT I don't consider that restoration.....do you?
Mike

Mike ,

The key is

"the goal was to maintain the intent and integrity of the original Ross design"

Pure restoration, no. As that would be exactly as it was, in whatever year one chose. Restoration of design intent? Maybe. I'd love to coin the phrase that we might use in the future...

BTW - Golfing at Pine Needles (after JF's work) was as much fun as I've had with clubs the last few years.

« **Reply #52 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:57:21 PM »

A line in the quote Lloyd provided seemed particularly relevant: "Restoring a classic course requires an architect to resist imposing his own views."

I don't know about anyone else, but I find it a challenge to truly 'resist imposing my own views' on the world around me. In order not to, I have to make a constant effort to remind myself that nothing exists for MY sake, but for its own. Luckily, we have laws and ethical standards designed to help us remember that, and to guide us towards respecting 'the other'; in short, to act as counter-weights to our natural, self-interested tendencies.

It might be a poor analogy, but it seems to me that the original plans and drawings of classic courses that someone like Wayne Morrison so carefully searches for and studies serve the same function as do laws and ethics: they help us to 'resist imposing our own views' and serve as guides on how to genuinely respect 'the other'.

But for laws or original drawings to function effectively, we must first genuinely WANT TO respect 'the other', and genuinely WANT TO use those laws/drawings as helpers, guides, and counter-weights to our natural, self-interested tendencies.

I’d never presume to guess who amongst us genuinely wants to (or not), but I’d never disparage someone who tried to make that his goal.

Peter
PS - excuse the wordiness please; my pen tends to run away from me, especially at night.

« **Reply #53 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:17:21 AM »

Peter
The key, for me, is the subjugation of ego. The subjugation of a healthy, vibrant, secure ego, is, I suspect, an easier task than the reigning in of the frustrated, unfulfilled one.

« **Reply #54 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:30:47 AM »

Lloyd,
I would think it would be more of a question confidence in one's abilities to execute a product with no telltale signs....that satisfaction should satisfy the healthy ego.

Quote re pine needes"
"My job was trying to figure out exactly what Mr. Ross was trying to do," says John, keenly aware that restoring a classic course requires an architect to resist imposing his own views. "I love his work so much, and I studied it so closely, that it wasn't a problem for me to try to think what he would have wanted to instill.""

RESTORATION OF DESIGN INTENT....yep..we agree and "what he (donald ross) wanted to instill today"....yep....that would be myline of reasoning.....AND one would have a much better appreciation and understanding of DR intent if he had done his own projects imposing his own views.....IMO. JF had done this and I would interpret his quote to say that he was doing what he thought DR would do today if he were around....
And BTW I also think it turned out great.

Let me ask you a question in a musical sense....
If you had a song that needed a little work a few years down the road would you trust it to someone that had only written a few lines to a song and thought they new how you would want it or would you rather have someone like a Bernie Taupin trying to decide what you wanted?

« **Reply #55 on:** May 25, 2007, 05:35:12 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 24, 2007, 01:23:43 PM

Forrest
I just got the job of supervising the remastering of Highway 61 Revisited (Bob Dylan 1965). It's a fantastic album but upon close inspection I have found quite a few elements that could be better. Some of the guitar is out of tune, with the technology available to me (that wasn't around in 1965) I can fix that. Desolation Row goes on far too long, I've managed to bring it down from 11 and 1/2 minutes to 6. I've tightened up a few fades and intros and the overall flow is much better. I'm sure Bob would approve wholeheartedly if he were still alive.

Dylan died?

That's what I get for going to Italy for 10 days!

Signed,
Clueless in Lucca

« **Reply #56 on:** May 25, 2007, 06:23:50 AM »

I saw Dylan last month in Glasgow, and he performed completely new (up tempo, louder and more musically complex)versions of "Like A Rolling Stone," "A Hard Rain's a Gonna' Fall," "All Along the Watchtower" and a few more I can't remember.

They all worked, although in very different ways from the originals.

I love the original "A Hard Rain...." but I would have a very hard time explaining that love to my 14-year old daughter. The early-mid 60's was a different time with different people and different technologies and different standards. I think, howver, she could relate to the new version (hope it comes out on a CD so I can test the theory).

Why are golf courses any different? Dornoch is very different and far better than it was in 1936. So, probably, is Augusta. So is the Old Course with the new tees and the improved agronomy. Why not Merion or Shinnecock Hills or even Sand Hills? Other than "just because" I haven't yet read a convincing argument on the side of the status quo.

« **Reply #57 on:** May 25, 2007, 07:38:00 AM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on May 25, 2007, 12:30:47 AM

confidence in one's abilities to execute

That's what I'd call a secure ego.

Sounds like we're on the same page.

« **Reply #58 on:** May 25, 2007, 07:46:33 AM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on May 25, 2007, 12:30:47 AM

Let me ask you a question in a musical sense....
If you had a song that needed a little work a few years down the road would you trust it to someone that had only written a few lines to a song and thought they new how you would want it or would you rather have someone like a Bernie Taupin trying to decide what you wanted?

Mike,
If I thought Bernie had his ego in check, of course, I'd choose him. I do think that Nick Cave could be trusted with a Dylan idea, and I'd feel confident I could work on a Cohen one, in fact I may be doing something along these lines with some Tim Hardin tunes. What Billy Bragg and Wilco did with Woodie Guthrie's lyrics was worthwhile, I think.

« **Reply #59 on:** May 25, 2007, 07:48:08 AM »

Quote from: Richard Farnsworth Goodale on May 25, 2007, 06:23:50 AM

I saw Dylan last month in Glasgow, and he performed completely new (up tempo, louder and more musically complex)versions of "Like A Rolling Stone," "A Hard Rain's a Gonna' Fall," "All Along the Watchtower" and a few more I can't remember.

They all worked, although in very different ways from the originals.

I love the original "A Hard Rain...." but I would have a very hard time explaining that love to my 14-year old daughter. The early-mid 60's was a different time with different people and different technologies and different standards. I think, howver, she could relate to the new version (hope it comes out on a CD so I can test the theory).

Why are golf courses any different? Dornoch is very different and far better than it was in 1936. So, probably, is Augusta. So is the Old Course with the new tees and the improved agronomy. Why not Merion or Shinnecock Hills or even Sand Hills? Other than "just because" I haven't yet read a convincing argument on the side of the status quo.

Rich

Did he play guitar? I've herard his arthritis is so bad he can only play piano, these days. He's a great pianist, so maybe no bad thing.

« **Reply #60 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:00:34 AM »

Reading the paper this morning, on line, BTW, each article is now accompanied by a blog and response area.

Politicians always say the most vocal zealots on a single issue are the ones that drive public policy, and that struck me today that the blog answers made it seem like everyone was in favor of this particular issue, when in all likelhood, the "Nixon silent majority" probably wasn't.

Is it very possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

« **Reply #61 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:08:45 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2007, 11:25:46 PM

Lloyd Cole,

The concept of making the golf course more fun and interesting is probably responsible for the bulk of the disfigurations, especially if you add challenging to the list.

Fun and interesting often results in the dumbing down of courses.

How can you assume that the architect didn't design the golf course to be fun and interesting to begin with.

Fun and interesting are often words that camoflage the words, "more fair", and therein lies the danger.

Pat nails it above.

If you are thinking about changing a historic course, all possible changes should not get equal weight.

If the dead architect has an established reputation for good work, there ought to be a presumption that he knew what he was doing. The default choice ought to be his design choices.

That presumption can be overcome. Members might elect to disregard the dead architect's intentions. But that choice should be made only if there are clear and covincing reasons why his design intentions should be disregarded.

Launching into changes to a historic course based on things like "fun" or "fairness" or "beauty" is a cop-out. Those are empty concepts into which you can pour almost anything. They have been the beginning of the end of many very good holes.

Bob

« **Reply #62 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:13:07 AM »

But Jeff..so many clubs don't understand that they don't understand.....my club did not until they joined a "dead guy club" and then overnite they professed that "they had been shown things about golf courses that we would never understand".....

« **Reply #63 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:15:32 AM »

And did your whole club march through the walls once it was discovered, or was the charge led by the few who bought those memberships to the Ross society?

« **Reply #64 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:16:30 AM »

Many of you guys don’t know Forrest. Sometimes you just have to let him rant

Actually Forrest and I work well together because we both don’t always think the same way. I test him with ideas and he tests me and we have some fun with it. This usually leads to something interesting e.g. our hazards book.

We currently have a joint project in Berkeley CA. We are not doing pure restoration of this Hunter/Watson design but we are investigating what was there, why it was there, and how it has evolved. From this research along with careful study of the past architects, the design in the field, and close interaction with the club, we are making recommendations that will substantially “improve” the golf course and meet the needs of the club membership. Some of the recommendations will be “restoration” and some will not. But when finished, the course at least will retain many of the original ideas, the feel and the routing of the golf course built by Robert Hunter. We owe the club as much as this was Hunter’s only original design.

Though I may be much more of a purist than Forrest, I surely don’t believe every golf course should be “restored”. But I do STRONGLY believe that every golf course deserves a good look before bringing in the bulldozers and tearing it up. I also don’t believe in restoring poor design even on a great golf course. For example, from all I could find from very detailed research at Cherry Hills, two of the greensites were “less than ideal”. They had already been torn up and redesigned in the 1960’s and the last thing we would want to do is restore them back to what they once were. But they still deserved study before recommending improvements and those recommendations will help them fit in much better with the rest of this great design.

I have a Ross project underway in New England. We will seek to recommend “improvements” to the golf course but they will be along the lines of what Ross did and the course will still look like Ross if and when the works gets done. By all accounts so far, this is a great Ross design and is one of those that "deserves" some form of restoration.

On the other hand, Forrest and I did a master plan together for Colonial CC in MA. Here is an example of how we did research and investigated this old Bill Mitchell design and concluded that it had changed dramatically, was not all that exciting to begin with, and was not “restoration worthy”. So we put together a plan that in our opinion would improve it.

The issue I have is where someone comes to a course and just doesn’t care a bit about what was once there and whether or not it was any good to begin with. My often told story about Lehigh fits well here – As the architect hired by the club rolled in the Lehigh entrance gate with his “completed Master Plan”, he looked over at Lehigh's superintendent and said, “So who was it that originally designed this place?”

Mark

« **Reply #65 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:21:08 AM »

Lloyd

Just the keyboard.

That being said he had a GREAT lead guitrarist who did a very credible imitation of Hendrix in "Watchtower." Accoustic the concert was not......

« **Reply #66 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:26:51 AM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 25, 2007, 08:15:32 AM

And did your whole club march through the walls once it was discovered, or was the charge led by the few who bought those memberships to the Ross society?

It was bought by the few..fortunately they are no longer in power....

« **Reply #67 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:32:05 AM »

Quote from: BCrosby on May 25, 2007, 08:08:45 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2007, 11:25:46 PM
Lloyd Cole,

The concept of making the golf course more fun and interesting is probably responsible for the bulk of the disfigurations, especially if you add challenging to the list.

Fun and interesting often results in the dumbing down of courses.

How can you assume that the architect didn't design the golf course to be fun and interesting to begin with.

Fun and interesting are often words that camoflage the words, "more fair", and therein lies the danger.

Pat nails it above.

If you are thinking about changing a historic course, all possible changes should not get equal weight.

If the dead architect has an established reputation for good work, there ought to be a presumption that he knew what he was doing. The default choice ought to be his design choices.

That presumption can be overcome. Members might elect to disregard the dead architect's intentions. But that choice should be made only if there are clear and covincing reasons why his design intentions should be disregarded.

Launching into changes to a historic course based on things like "fun" or "fairness" or "beauty" is a cop-out. Those are empty concepts into which you can pour almost anything. They have been the beginning of the end of many very good holes.

Bob

Bob,
Agreed, pretty much.
Please note that Pat is reponding to Forrest's words, not mine, even though he thinks they're mine. I was quoting Forrest.

« **Reply #68 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:34:17 AM »

""The issue I have is where someone comes to a course and just doesn’t care a bit about what was once there and whether or not it was any good to begin with. My often told story about Lehigh fits well here – As the architect hired by the club rolled in the Lehigh entrance gate with his “completed Master Plan”, he looked over at Lehigh's superintendent and said, “So who was it that originally designed this place?”

Mark,
I don't actually see anything wrong with that statement in 99% of the cases.....that is the problem here on this site.....they only weigh the industry on less than 1% of the course out there.....
BTW...who was the architect at LeHigh....
I know they won the Class AAA state championship twice in the 90's.....
Mike

« **Reply #69 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:36:38 AM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 25, 2007, 08:00:34 AM

Is it very possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

Jeff

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with stuff like this?

« **Reply #70 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:57:34 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 25, 2007, 12:17:21 AM

Peter
The key, for me, is the subjugation of ego. The subjugation of a healthy, vibrant, secure ego, is, I suspect, an easier task than the reigning in of the frustrated, unfulfilled one.

Lloyd, that sounds about right to me. But then, does it mean that it's the most acclaimed and successful architects who'd also be the best restorers, since they have the least to prove? (Not wholly a rhetorical question, I don't think.)

And maybe we should add the purest of amateurs to that list, since they'd be happy to defer completely to the wishes of the original designer, out of love and respect.

Of course, that assumes a certain notion of what a succesful restoration is. And I think we can afford to be purists here: there are many fine new courses being built all the time, and there are thousands of very good existing courses that aren't on anyone's list for restoration; I don't see the problem with trying to be a purist about the restoration of a (relatively) very small number of classic courses.

Peter

« **Reply #71 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:04:01 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 25, 2007, 08:36:38 AM

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 25, 2007, 08:00:34 AM

Is it very possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

Jeff

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with stuff like this?

Lloyd,
There is a lot of truth in what Jeff is saying....he just keeps using specific numbers or percentages and that gives more license to the guys that want to argue with him.....there are others besides the three of us....and IMHO most here have good intentions...
But take a minute and think about this site....let me ask a few questions
Look how many experts it has developed, or given a pulpit, without them having ever done any of the hype they speak....
Do you think that the dead guys would want experience or "hobby knowledge" to be involved in working with the courses they left?
AND....do you think most on the site can tell if a course is good if they don't know the architect AND if they know the architect does that determine the course values to them?

Sory if some of this seems "smartass" but there is a lot of stuff on here where guys know just enogh to get in trouble and i am sure it is the same in your business.....

Mike

« **Reply #72 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:26:50 AM »

Mike,
You might be right about the 99% number. I won't argue. But the key, however, if knowing which 1% or less are worth doing some kind of restoration/preservation on. If you don't take the time to study a course's history and evolution of change, you'll never know in which category it falls into. The architect who came into Lehigh didn't do any study but had a great resume of previous course work under his belt. Just so you know, Lehigh CC is not associated with Lehigh University. It is a Flynn design and one of his best. It would now be a re-routed celebrity architect design were it not for an astute committee member who thought something doesn't sound right that this guy they hired didn't even bother to do any homework about the history of their golf course.

Do you have a problem with the approach Forrest and I have taken on some of the "restoration/renovation" projects I mentioned above? Our view is balanced and we ultimately try our best to do the right thing for the course and the golfers who will play there.

« **Reply #73 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:31:47 AM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on May 25, 2007, 09:04:01 AM

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 25, 2007, 08:36:38 AM
Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 25, 2007, 08:00:34 AM

Is it very possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

Jeff

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with stuff like this?
Lloyd,
There is a lot of truth in what Jeff is saying....he just keeps using specific numbers or percentages and that gives more license to the guys that want to argue with him.....there are others besides the three of us....and IMHO most here have good intentions...
But take a minute and think about this site....let me ask a few questions
Look how many experts it has developed, or given a pulpit, without them having ever done any of the hype they speak....
Do you think that the dead guys would want experience or "hobby knowledge" to be involved in working with the courses they left?
AND....do you think most on the site can tell if a course is good if they don't know the architect AND if they know the architect does that determine the course values to them?

Sory if some of this seems "smartass" but there is a lot of stuff on here where guys know just enogh to get in trouble and i am sure it is the same in your business.....

Mike

Lloyd,

Your comment also strikes me as something in the political realm - instead of discussing actual ideas, you dismiss them with a "everybody knows that......" kind of statement, which isn't proven, documented, or whatever. Let's just shout down the opposition by broadly questioning their intelligence, shall we? What is the point of that in a discussion group?

All I asked was simple question. History shows that clubs DIDN'T care about their architecture. History shows that ANY group of activists can effect change, and that most people are in a silent majority. Recent history may show that club members now do care about their gca lineage, but the "movement" may prove to be a fad, pushed by a few and not a long term trend.

No one knows, do they? Or does EVERYBODY know that it is a long term trend?

Mike,

My inbox has some emails which would lead me to reduce my somewhat tongue and cheek 1497 number, but it isn't worth the time to edit the post.

« **Reply #74 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:44:46 AM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on May 25, 2007, 09:26:50 AM

Mike,
You might be right about the 99% number. I won't argue. But the key, however, if knowing which 1% or less are worth doing some kind of restoration/preservation on. If you don't take the time to study a course's history and evolution of change, you'll never know in which category it falls into. The architect who came into Lehigh didn't do any study but had a great resume of previous course work under his belt. Just so you know, Lehigh CC is not associated with Lehigh University. It is a Flynn design and one of his best. It would now be a re-routed celebrity architect design were it not for an astute committee member who thought something doesn't sound right that this guy they hired didn't even bother to do any homework about the history of their golf course.

Do you have a problem with the approach Forrest and I have taken on some of the "restoration/renovation" projects I mentioned above? Our view is balanced and we ultimately try our best to do the right thing for the course and the golfers who will play there.

Mark,
I agree regarding the 1%....
And as for LeHigh I was playing.....
Mark,
Unfortunately I have never met Forrest or yourself bt I am sure i don't have a problem with the approach. If I was doing resto/redo work I would always align myself with a historian that wa familiar with the work of the original....As a matter of fact I dont have a problem with anyone's approach to this stuff as long as it is legit and proven.....the fairytale BS is where my problem comes in......because i don't think anyone knows what the dead guys were thinking.....i is scary how many books are written now on some of this dead guy stuff and they will become fact when if you dig a little it is just opinion.....all one can do is interpret....JMO
Mike

News:

Phil_the_Author

Lloyd_Cole

Peter Pallotta

Lloyd_Cole

Mike_Young

Bill_McBride

Rich Goodale

Lloyd_Cole

Lloyd_Cole

Lloyd_Cole

Jeff_Brauer

BCrosby

Mike_Young

Jeff_Brauer

Mark_Fine

Rich Goodale

Mike_Young

Lloyd_Cole

Mike_Young

Lloyd_Cole

Peter Pallotta

Mike_Young

Mark_Fine

Jeff_Brauer

Mike_Young