[T_MacWood]

In her new book, Alice Dye presents the case that old courses (Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie) should be updated, arguing that if these men were still alive they would be updating these courses themselves--considering the advancements in modern equipment and modern green speeds, etc.

But the fact remains those architects are dead, and not only won't they be updating, they won't be adding to their finite portfolio. In fact haven't the Dyes been greatly influenced by the work of Ross, Raynor, Tilly etc. (one might say that was the secret to their success in the RTJ era) and shouldn't they be preserved so others may benefit?

She also makes the point that she and her husband have remodeled several of their own designs (Crooked Stick and Harbour Town) and makes it crystal clear that she hopes none of their designs are ever restored. What do you make of her comments?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I need to get a copy of her book as I'm sure it will be insightful.  

Question - How does she define "update".  What specifically does she recommend be done to these courses?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Alice Dye (as usual) seems to be telling obvious truths.  I think the Golden Oldies would be laughing their collective heads off if they rose from the grave and saw all this "restoration" tripe that is posted on GCA and elsewhere these days.

As brilliant as these guys were, they were not stupid.

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
I agree, however, the key to good restoration is to truly determine/assess what once was there and compare that to what exists at present.  If you do that properly, you can then decide if "restoration" makes sense.  

There are many times when the golf course you are studying, has changed/evolved for the worse.  Those are the situations when reverting back to a "better design" makes sense.  You have to admit, many great courses have not "aged" as well as they could.   Some because of purposeful change, others because of varied maintenance practices, others because aborhists needed some place to plants all their trees,...and so on.  

Every original design deserves at least some consideration before bringing in the bulldozers and ripping it up, however, probably less than 10% should be "restored".  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Moving tees...redesigning annd rebuilding greens due to modern green speeds...moving bunkers...etc.

[ForkaB]

Agree, Mark, except you omit technology.  Even those courses that "we" would want restored (e.g. Cypress, Merion) need to be also be "improved" to accommodate all elements of the modern game.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Interesting conjecture....would Michelangelo, Olmsted and Saarenin be laughing too?

If they were brillant shouldn't we be preserving their work?

[JakaB]

Tom,

I may have preferred the Sistine Chapel without all the obnoxious wing dings in my face...it was better pre-restoration.

[ForkaB]

Tom

You, if anybody, should know the difference between static and dynamic art/architecture.  I think we've "debated" this topic long ago, and I was right then too!  In fact, since then, I've come to learn more how much static architecture needs to become dynamic in the modern age.  It is not for nothing that the key financial institutions in Edinburgh are leaving the static buildings in Charlotte Square and elsewhere in the "New" Town for more flexible and "modern" buildings on the periphery of the city.  Lovely as the buildings in Charlotte Square are, they are outmoded in relation to the modern "game" of finance.

Vis a vis "brilliance" and "preservation."  If it is all about "form" yes.  If it is all about function "no." In between it depends.  For me, GCA is much more about function than form, but you may differ......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Ross tinkered with Pinehurst # 2 for 26 years.
CBM did the same at NGLA.
Pete Dye has done the same at Crooked Stick.

But, somehow, I view fine tuning in a different light from modernization.

To me, fine tuning implies subtle architectural improvements, whereas modernization conveys an alteration to catch up wtih the quantum leaps made through technology, almost solely in the context of distance.

I was fortunate enough to talk to Pete Dye as he was in the process of tinkering/altering the 14th hole at Crooked Stick prior to the PGA.  He had previously tinkered/rerouted the creek and was building a new tee further back and at a more cumbersome angle.  When I asked him why he was making this particular alteration, he asked me, when I play Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Shinnecock and other courses if I hit my two and three irons into any greens.  I responded, yes.  He said, well so are these guys, (PGA Tour Pros) on this hole.

He then went on to explain the angle off the tee that he wanted to achieve that would leave them with a 2-3 iron into a green that would be difficult for them to get to the cupped quadrant.

Pete was also asked to design and build PGA West as a supreme challenge to the PGA Tour Pros.

His stadium course in Florida was altered a number of times and came under heavy fire from the Tour pros for an extended period of time.

There seemed to be a rivalry between Pete and the Tour Pros for some time, perhaps even today, so, Alice's comments may be in the context of keeping one step ahead of the greatest golfers in the world, and not necessarily in the context of country club golf.

I doubt she would advocate modernizing Prestwick, NGLA, Maidstone and other courses, but, I'd have to read the book and probably have a conversation with her before I understood exactly what she was trying to say.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Olmsted...Central Park is not dynamic? Are you familiar with the gardens of Kyoto? Many have been preserved for hundreds of years. Aren't they dynamic?

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I think you made Tom's point for him. Sticking to your Charlotte Square analogy, no one has proposed reconstructing the classic buildings there to suit the needs of modern financial institutions. A proposal like that would be met with howls of protest. And rightfully so. Build new, more functional modern buildings outside the city and put the RBS computer back offices there. Leave Charlotte Square alone.

Ditto for Prestwick, NGLA, N Berwick. Leave them alone. If you want a test for Tiger, Ernie and Phil, conduct those tests at other sites.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I agree.....Ross and Pinehurst #2, Macdonald and NGLA, Fownes and Oakmont, Dye and Crooked Stick, Roberts and Johnson (and the next guy) at ANGC. Some good examples, some not so good examples. I would not advocate restoring Crooked Stick, when the time comes that the Dye’s are done ‘improving’ , the course should be preserved IMO.

In some ways it will serve as a living history of their architectural evolution. It also serves as a comparison, weighing the pros and cons of continual modernizing. We are able to contrast the benefits of the Crooked Stick model vs The Golf Club model.

[michael j fay]

Peter Dye has said that if Donald Ross were alive he would move the first tee of the # 2 course into the parking lot.

He may be right!

CCA might have some objection to moving the Members Club to accommodate that move.

Most older "Classic" courses are landlocked. Many of them have already moved tees back to the outer perimeters of the property. Short of buying and knocking down housing the ability to make these courses longer is rather limited. Without the ability to acquire additional land a Club is limited to what it currently has. Redesigning internally (changing bunkering and greens) is mostly an exercise in the display of a lesser Architects ego, usually fueled by the ego of a Green Chairperson. I have seen literally hundreds of these attempts and cannot help but laugh at the results.

Here is an example. The fourth hole at Point Judith in Rhode Island was originally a short par four (310 yards). It had a severly sloped green that was tiny (in line with the Ross pattern of matching the green to the size and difficulty of the hole). In the '60's Geoff Cornish was brought in to update the course. He moved the tee forward about 80 yards and made the hole an absolutely stupid par four, as the green was much too small and much too difficult to be used as a green for a par three. Eventually, the hole was reinstated to a 340 yard par four and the green was replaced with one sympathetic to Ross styled greens. Unfortunately, the new hole does not have the character or the interest that the original hole had. It is just another blah, where previously there was risk/reward and multi-dimensional strategy.

This happens over and over with renovations of Classic courses. The renovating Architects change the basic strategy of a hole, usually severly limiting options. When the greens are tinkered with, because they are too sloped for purposes of todays mowing patterns they end up Myrtle Beach.

Horsefeathers I say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ForkaB]

Bob

By your logic, Prestwick, NGLA, N Berwick, etc. should be preserved to satisfy the whims and current "games" of geezers like you, me and MacWood, none of whom could have broken 100 if we had played them as they were designed then with the equipment of the day.  I think this is very short-sighted and selfish.

Tom

Yes, parks (e.g. Central--which I saw 10 days ago, BTW) and gardens do evolve over time--but not in relation to their function.  In that regard they are relatively static.  It is here where your analogy to golf courses breaks down.

OH, and Bob--have you been recently into any of the offices in Charlotte Square?  There are a lot of financial services companies still operating there and you would not believe the mess of electrical and other gerrymandering which is required to bring modern services to such old and stately buildings.  Even at the various company headquarters, which still try to project airs and graces.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Fay,

I wonder if the 4th at Point Judith will be altered again.
It seems cumbersome or out of place, in the context of the rest of the golf course.

Do aerial and ground level photos of the original hole exist ?

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I'm open to ideas, but I can't think of how those courses can be made to stand up to the modern pro game without profoundly changing the nature of those courses. It's not a matter of a tweak here or a pinch there. We are beyond that.

The game has become well and truly bifurcated. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is where we are. And one of the consequences of that fact is that some courses - like the buildings in Charlotte Square - will be left behind.

Perversely, perhaps, I think that is a blessing, not a curse.

Bob

P.S. I hope to get to Charlotte Square sometime next year. I actually have some clients located there. I confess that during my golfing ventures to Scotland, I've never saw it.

[michael j fay]

Pat:

I would have to believe that there are aerials of the entire course from a number of decades because of its proximity to the Naval bases in Rhode Island.

I do believe that there is really no practical means by which the original green could be reinstated.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Has the function of Prestwick and the NGLA changed over the years....they still play golf there? They continue to draw students of golf architecture, don't they? Central Park still attracts millions of park-goers. The gardens of Kyoto are still sanctuaries for meditation.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Prestwick has been renovated and improved substantially over the past 150 years, as you should know.  Yes, they still play golf there, but of a very different different sort than the one YTM played when he won the Open there.

[Brad Klein]

Three cheers for market segmentation. Don't hire Pete and Alice if you want a restoration, that's all.

[T_MacWood]

Katsura was improved hundreds of years ago too...but now it is recognized for its historical and artistic value....and has been preserved and protected. When was the last change to Prestwick or the NGLA? All three still function beautifully.

Outstanding examples of art...even living art...should be preserved and protected.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, Alice is a realist, just as the old architects we revere on here were. There's nothing at all to indicate they were interested in preserving exactly their courses when they were alive. They were changing each others courses all the time. Simply look at the "remodel" or "expand" section under each architect's bio in Cornish and Whitten! In some cases that list is half the size or more than that architects original work.

Redesigning, improving, rennovating and restoring is never going to stop. The only difference today is so many courses are actually looking into master planning to bring many of the greens and features of these old courses back more in line with what they once were. This new fad is something that's really hit a critical mass now and was virtually never thought of or done up to about 10-15 years ago. It's like massive "deferred maintenance" craze has started to put much old architecture back as close to what it once was as is logical in this day and age when the ball and equipment side has changed so much.

In my personal opinion, I think tee length additions are OK if it doesn't mess up that hole or another hole. I hate the idea of moving features around on the mid-bodies of holes and tee length addition is a semi-solution to that.  Greens, I think should be left alone or restored as they once were and should not be altered due to increased greenspeed.

Face it, greenspeed today on those old original greens and contours makes the game far harder today than it was when those greens rolled at 5 instead of ten. This fact alone can compensate for the extreme technological advances in balls and equipment.

But put a golf course into a complete preservation timewarp of exactly how it was 90 years ago? No way, that'll never happen on any golf course, and I don't think it should.

Restorations are good, there are so many courses out there now that have proved it to the delight of their memberships. The only thing is when a club does a restoration they have to do it right!

There's no golf course that'll be preserved like the Mona Lisa is behind glass that let's nothing in except the viewing public's vision. They don't play a game on the Mona Lisa like they do on every active existing golf course in the world. It's a big difference but I think respected what those old courses were and can be has come a long, long way in the last 10-15 years!

And I also think what Tom MacWood may be suggesting as to preservation---which seems like a return to the beginning of what these courses were on opening or something or sort of putting them in a preservation time-vault somehow is absolutely dreaming!

[T_MacWood]

Rich  
I’m all for re-use of an old warehouse at Charlotte Sq. or anywhere else for that matter.  If  the warehouse or old building adds interest or architectural diversity to the city, I’m all for adapting it to a new function (urban renewal was a very destructive and dark period IMO). But an old warehouse is not Notre Dame de Paris. And even Notre Dame has electricity…I’m not suggesting Prestwick should replace their modern mowing equipment with sheep.

[T_MacWood]

TE
There is a difference between recognizing the reality that courses have been redesigned, improved, renovated and “restored” and promoting it…she appears to be promoting redesign.

I understand the old architects were keenly aware (the good ones anyway) of the importance of flexibility (normally through the movement of tees).  But it is also true, from what I gather, MacKenzie was proud of the fact his courses were not in need of redesign (I believe he noted the same with Colt). As a general rule, they (and I would include Darwin in the group) were quite respectful of the greatest links courses….like St.Andrews. I can’t imagine any of them promoting anything other than preservation of the Old Course.

The Mona Lisa was created in 1500, do you believe it looks the same today as it did in 1500? I'll assure you it has not been residing in a time-vault for the last 500 years. One of the reasons it is admired and considered beautiful is due to the patina of age that it has developed. The idea of restoring a masterpiece to day one (1503), which has aged so gracefully and beautifully,  is unthinkable.

Regarding great old golf cousres, I'm beginning to lean more toward preservation, as opposed to restoration. There have been a number of 'resotoration' that have been quite destructive IMO. I do not believe all courses are candidates for preservation, only the very best of the best. And identifying the canidates for restoration requires tremendous amount of thoughtful consideration and research...in the absence of one or the other, I do not believe restoration is a good idea.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()