The need for amorphous architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

In threads about the 10th at Riviera and the 10th at ANGC the origins and evolution of those holes were discussed.

Both hole are configured differently or have different features then their original versions.

Both evolved holes are considered better then the original model.

Some purists posture that once designed and built a golf hole should never be touched.

There is some merit to that position as evidenced by the ruination of an inordinate number of holes and golf courses over the years.

On the other hand, some holes, such as the ones described above, are superior to their original predecessor.

Elasticity has been recognized as being a constructive element in architecture, until recently, when some thought that it was being taken to extremes.

Should architecture remain static ?
Should architecture be amorphous ?

And, the most difficult question of all.
Who should decide ?

And, if the decision is to alter a hole or golf course, who is best qualified to preserve the original design integrity of the hole/course ?

Lastly, do those who decide a hole/courses fate have any inkling of the hole/courses architectural pedigree ?

And, another important question.
Do they care ?

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

I don't think architecture should remain static, simply because I doubt one single person can bring any 18 holes on a particular patch of land to perfection.  To think otherwise is surely arrogant or misguided, isn't it? If Donald Ross was the sole person responsible for Pinehurst number two, he refined it over a number of years, and from what I have read of him, was an unusually humble person, especially for someone who was so skilled at his particular craft.

All designers obviously have their own ideas and biases, which may subconsciously, if nothing else, influence why any one hole comes out as it does.  

Have any of the revered golf courses been the sole product of one, or even two, people?  Maybe NGLA?  But that resulted from one man's studies overseas, and sole determination to construct the ultimate course.

Royal Melbourne may have been designed by Mackenzie, but Russell and Morcom brought it to fruition, and later Crockford, and club member Ivo Whitton, modified or built other holes to make it what it is today.  In particualr the 135 metre par 3 7th West, and moving the green on the 425 metre 12th West.

Time, and therefore cost, must also be a consideration on how much time anyone can spend on a single project, lovingly crafting it to completion.  

Who should decide is probably the hardest part of all.  I would think someone who is interested in the art of architecture, and has made some sort of study of great courses, and who can elucidate exactly what is 'lacking' in any current hole, and can demonstrate exactly why their proposed solution would engender a better result, as opposed to someone doing it specifically for the money. Someone who is also open and eager to discuss and share ideas with others. That word humble again, perhaps?

Sorry to use another Sandbelt example, but Commonwealth here in Melbourne was designed by one bloke, modified by a secretary/manager who travelled abroad to study architecture, and indeed built some of the features himself, and was then further refined and finished by another longtime secretary/manager.

In recent years, the course has undergone many contentious changes by a club committee apparently obsessed with increasing the difficulty of a relatively short course, and engaged several architects who had no idea or interest in making their work fit in with the existing condtruction.  Result?  A wonderful course partially decimated.  I don't know the committee people responsible, but I would doubt any of them had a real interest in great courses and great architecture, and humble would probably be the last word to describe them.

Given the results, they obviously don't care.  Admitting you've made drastic mistakes in the past is a human frailty no one generally wants to be responsible for.

[ForkaB]

I am still befuddled by the people who want to stop the wheels of progress by declaring some golf course architecture as sacrosanct.  Many if not most of the great courses have evolved over time, some signfiicantly, some many times and often from fairly primitive designs.  One's I can think of off the top of my head are:  The Old Course, Muirfield, Pebble Beach, Dornoch, Merion, Shinnecock Hills, Carnoustie....

Muirfield was good enough 100 years ago to host 5 Opens and 5 Amateurs, but the club chose to bring in Colt in 1920 to radically change the course, and he did.  And did well.  Thank god that nobody asked Colt to "restore" Muirfield to what it was in 1892........

Why today, do we revere "restoration" over remodelling.  If Pasatiempo, say, wanted to improve their course (yes, it could be improved!) would anybody on this site doubt, say, Tom Doak's ability to do so, if he were so asked (and would accept the commission)?

We talked several years ago about palimpsests (pieces of paper, when paper was a rare commodity, on which old works of literature were overwritten by newer works).  Many old paintings were painted over previous ones in order to recycle the canvas.  Why shouldn't great golfing land be seen as a canvas, regardless of what work resides on it today?

I wonder what would happen in 2040 if there was new ownership at Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes, and they wanted to "modernize" those two layouts (both have more than enough land to do this).  Why shouldn't they be able to?  And, if they produced something better than was previously there, wouldn't this be a plus for the world of golf?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That's a most level-headed response for the "other side of the argument" from the traditional "purist position" on here! (of course your response will still make a self-proclaimed "purist" like Tom MacWood ill!   ).

But here's an interesting question for your opinion, Rich;

There are some who actually think that it was a good thing given all that PVGC is considered to be now (#1 in the World) that George Crump died when he did because there's little question he intended to go on and change and improve that golf course (had he lived). Do you think it's a good thing that he died when he did and consequently didn't have the opportunity to make more changes to it?

And alternatively, it's fairly well documented what Crump did intend to do there had he lived. Do you think those changes that he intended to make should be put into effect now or do you think at this point the golf course has more than earned the right to be left alone?

[ForkaB]

Rich:

That's a most level-headed response for the "other side of the argument" from the traditional "purist position" on here! (of course your response will still make a self-proclaimed "purist" like Tom MacWood ill!   ).

But here's an interesting question for your opinion, Rich;

There are some who actually think that it was a good thing given all that PVGC is considered to be now (#1 in the World) that George Crump died when he did because there's little question he intended to go on and change and improve that golf course (had he lived). Do you think it's a good thing that he died when he did and consequently didn't have the opportunity to make more changes to it?

And alternatively, it's fairly well documented what Crump did intend to do there had he lived. Do you think those changes that he intended to make should be put into effect now or do you think at this point the golf course has more than earned the right to be left alone?

[ForkaB]

Tom

I can't really answer the PVGC question, since I've never played there.  I do, however, believe that some courses are so close to "perfect" as they are now that they should not be "improved", even if they could be.  PV is probably one of those courses.

[A_Clay_Man]

And, the most difficult question of all.
Who should decide ?

Not sure if it is the most difficult, as it is the most important.

Wasn't this the crux to Rand's socialist experiment in "Atlas Shrugged" at that car company in Wisconsin?

Hasn't the past taught us that those who espouse "for the public good" are spurious? Same is true in GCA.

Rihc, Can you imagine changing one hair on the head of Paineswick? Other than some infrastructure issue that would technically help the course.

Appreciating what's there versus what could be, allows the ever present dis-satisfied to have a soapbox and a voice. Otherwise, How else could the Democratic party have survived these last few years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why today, do we revere "restoration" over remodelling.

Possibly, because of the overwhelming number of holes/courses that turned out worse, rather then better, in the name of remodeling, modernization, renovation and restoration.[/color]

If Pasatiempo, say, wanted to improve their course (yes, it could be improved!) would anybody on this site doubt, say, Tom Doak's ability to do so, if he were so asked (and would accept the commission)?

I was hoping that you were going to cite the 12th at GCGC as your example, rather then Pasatiempo.  And, GCGC is just off the highway that runs from JFK and LGA to Southhampton.

I don't think anybody doubts his "ability".
And, with the current level of scrutiny I would imagine that he would strictly adhere to AM's design principles.
But, many's the slip twixt the cup and the lip, and as such,
you'll never know until the final product is completed.[/color]

Why shouldn't great golfing land be seen as a canvas, regardless of what work resides on it today?

Usually because the power and the perspectives of those  holding the power, that decide to undertake that effort, changes every 5-10 years.  It would be unusual to see a painting that covered 20 previous paintings, which is what you see in golf courses.

In addition, with a painting, the original is still there and in many cases can be "restored" since it was never inherently altered.  The same cannot be said for a golf course.[/color]

I wonder what would happen in 2040 if there was new ownership at Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes, and they wanted to "modernize" those two layouts (both have more than enough land to do this).

I think the word, "modernize" is too nebulous, and often that's what gets great golf holes/courses into trouble in the first place.  In many cases, those responsible for being the curators of the golf course don't know what they want, or what they want to accomplish, they just want to put a fresh, modern looking face on their golf course without understanding the irretreivable impact to the golf course.[/color]

Why shouldn't they be able to?  

Because there's a good chance they'll ruin what is recgonized as great, so why take the risk, unless the original architects are involved, and, not "directed" to accomplish someone else's vision or goals, which is the case in many alterations.[/color]

And, if they produced something better than was previously there, wouldn't this be a plus for the world of golf?

Yes, but that's a hell of a risk to take, isn't it ?

How would you feel about that undertaking if Palmer, Player, Nicklaus or Fazio was selected to do the work for the new owner ?[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat, Are you implying that design principles cannot be restored after 20 disfigurements?

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I would not be likely to suggest any material changes to Pasatiempo, because I would have to argue the merits of them with a bunch of members, and that is an argument which cannot be won; it's all a matter of opinion.  It's more fun to design new courses and to hope that someone else will have the courtesy not to second-guess my best work in forty years' time.  

With restoration you are honoring the work of a past genius, and there should be no arguments, though some use the mantle of restoration as a shield to make their own changes.

PS  I had lunch this afternoon at Muirfield.  One of the conversation points was Tom Simpson's consulting report of 1930 and how a couple of holes had evolved since then; it isn't all Mr. Colt, either.

[Michael Dugger]

As living, breathing things, golf courses must evolve and change.  This is not optional, it is fact.

Some remodels...good
some bad.

[Mark_Fine]

I believe that one of the prime reasons you try to "restore" a golf course is because you believe that what was once there, was a better design then what currently exists.  This is often a "matter of opinion" but sometimes the situation is quite obvious.  

Furthermore, some courses improve with age, some don't.  Some improve only until a certain point in their existance than start to fall off.  Not every course should be restored, but every course deserves at least a good hard look at what the original designer first created and at how the course evolved.  Sometimes the best restoration is back "to a point in time" rather than all the way back to when the course first opened for play.  For example, you wouldn't want to restore some Flynn courses back to when they first opened.  The reason why is because sometimes Flynn didn't bunker his courses until several years after they were opened so he could see how they were played.   You might want to know this if you are doing restoration work on one of his designs.  

Finally, it takes time, effort, and careful study to make the best determination of when and what to restore.  There are no right answers as you will always be second guessed.  However, as long as you avoid the temptation to "leave your own mark" you have a pretty good chance of at least "restoring something".  I believe this aspect is one of the keys to success and one of the things many architects have trouble holding back on.  The evidence is out there!

Just my opinion,
Mark

[rgkeller]

Rich:

 It's more fun to design new courses and to hope that someone else will have the courtesy not to second-guess my best work in forty years' time.  

Yeah, like being critiqued in a book written by some upstart golf architect.