Original Intent v. Post Facto Playability

[Matt_Ward]

One of the trends I have witnessed over the last few years is the desire by the ownership of any type facility to make major modifications / changes in the name of "playability." The usual excuses you get is to make the hole(s) more playable for the broader masses. If a gentle tweaking is done such a situation can be a major plus.

But, what really annoys me is to return to a first rate layout and then see the handiwork of ill-considered decision-making. In some cases to make the hole(s) playable you get the flattening of contours on fairway and greens; the removal of bunkers and in other cases the elimination of tees for other positions that completely compromise the playing angles originally intended.

I've posted before the changes made at the Geronimo Course at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale. Here the 13th and 14th holes were completely altered and the "original intent" of the architect was changed to soothe the fears of members -- many of whom objected, in all likelihood, because the holes did demand a high level of playing skill. It amazes me because I always found the original holes to be utterly unique and striking in their overall presentation.

To be clear -- I'm not saying the every original design and the intent that was behind it is perfect and beyond some sort of change. However, a tweaking is not hacksawing. I'm sure there are architects here who could speak about this.

What concerns me as well is the changes being carried out at Bandon Dunes. I've heard that several holes are being altered. Are those changes really for the better? How far does one go in order to get post facto playability?  Clearly, I am aware there cannot be blanket statement that eschews all type of future modifications -- but I don't believe an ill-considered dumbing down to be helpful and usually it's more of knee-jerk reaction than anything else. I wonder how others see this. Thanks!

P.S. Sometimes the people advocating dumbing down need more help with their games than changing the course to suit their inherent limitations.

[Tim Weiman]

If anyone knows the detail about changes at Bandon Dunes, I'm sure there would be widespread interest

Matt, it sounds like you haven't yet heard these details, but would you care to speculate what changes might be made for the sake of "playability"?

Not that you support this, I understand, but it might be interesting for you to guess.

[Bob_Huntley]

Matt:

For any number of years, I was as vehement as you regarding changes on classic designs. However, as the length of my drives decreases with the increase in my age I find that some carries are just too severe. One can say, use the forward tees, but that in itself does not obviate the carry over cavernous cross bunkers etc.

I find it interesting that the hardest hole for the short hitter at Cypress, is the eighth, quite possibly the shortest (as the crow flies) par 4 on the course.

[Tim Weiman]

Bob Huntley:

Matt and I have kind of debeted this point before. No need for us to do so again.

But, I am interested in whether you would seriously propose any changes to #8 at Cypress Point. My guess is that you wouldn't.

I don't feel every course can be all things to all people all the time. There will certainly come a day when I can no longer play on my favorite piece of land in the world - Ballybunion New - but I hope changes to the course (some are coming) will never change the fundamental character of the place. Ditto CP, I'm sure you would agree.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I won't speak for any classic courses, but I have always worked under the theory that if it is difficult to maintain, or slows up play, or is deemed "unfair" by the right (or wrong) person, it will be changed sooner or later.  Given the economy, things are getting changed sooner!

I recently found out from an occaisional poster here that one of my mid level public courses will have some modifications.  On one hole, I created a driveable par 4, with an alternate fairway over a large waste bunker.  That bunker probably loses a ton of sand a year to wind, and since its on the slice side, it seems it slows play.  Lastly, as the budgets are cut, it takes too long too rake.  I made the "triple dipper of mistakes, I guess!  So, they are changing it to meet their very "here and now" needs.  They are not consulting me.  Am I upset?  Of course not.  I understand their needs.  I did suggest a way that bunker could be reduced and maintain the same strategy, which I hope they implement.

So, while the course I am discussing is certainly not a classic, it does illustrate that the forces that have caused renovations still continue, and those forces are mostly economic.

Designs continually evolve before and after grassing.  I'm sure the architect went through several iterations of both the routing, and once settled, the feature design, before settling on the "final".  In fact, the final was probably an evolution itself, with last minute bunker changes, green contour floating etc.  You have to grass it some time!

So, who says the first design is the right one?  Just as you evaluate a course after playing it a few times, so does the architect and owner.  Sometimes, problems come out only then.  We all try to balance the design for the "design triange of strategy-maintenance-aesthetics.  Sometimes, you only know the maintenance and strategy ends after a few years of experience.

Then, as the story above illustrates, who says there is one right answer for all time?  Things happen.  Longer shots, new maintenance practices, changing clientele, these all happen.  In another thread, we discussed Cedar Crest in Dallas, going from ultra private, to public, to low end public, and perhaps, back to upper end public, during its 70 year lifespan.  it also needs to distribute effluent water for the city of Dallas in an acceptable way, something Tillie couldn't know, but is now necessary.

So, maybe, the architect was the one who made the "ill considered decision" in the original design, by not properly considering all sides of the design triangle.  Or maybe, things beyond his control happen, or things happen over time, and the course must evlove and change to fit the here and now.

Of course, I'm sure every case is different.  

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff --

When I speak about "original intent" it's very possible that a course may change certain aspects because of how technology has changed. That's why I'm not sold on all the hoopla attached to "pure restoration" because bunkers originally envisioned as having some sort of strategic quality are really nothing more than cosmetic points when held against modern clubs / balls.

I don't doubt the "original intent" may not be so superior. However, I have often see changes made where the ownership believes it truly understands shotmaking and therefore out comes the hacksaw and before you know it the carefully considered strategies of a hole become a dumbed-down version. Sometimes the claim is made that such "changes" will be a benefit but the reality is a bit different -- sometimes the management doesn't want to spedn the $$ to maintain all of those interesting features.

I can remember playing my first course, Passaic County in Wayne, NJ and the original layout had some interesting holes and bunkers. Management then decided to "speed up play" and most of the fascinating aspects were destroyed. Did slow play speed up so much? Not one bit -- but the character of the course took a big time hit on the chin and has never fully recovered.

The reason I raised this discussion is the talk about what is happening at Bandon Dunes. I have not played the course since the end of 1999 and did not play it when I ventured back to the facility and played Pac Dunes in '01. When I hear talk about adding "playability" I believe you have very smart people spinning the discussion in lessening the very qualities that made the course so well received. For example, the high grass tunnel that one faces at #5 is a pivotal element. If the fescue was cut down dramatically the qualities of the tunnel approach becomes less initimidating.

Jeff, you are right -- there is no hard and fast situation that cuts across all examples. All I can say is based on my travels it really bothers me when well received courses -- not those that were poorly done when originally built / designed, have been compromised due to stupidity. In your own situation you have a perfect case whereby the facility made changes WITHOUT reaching out to you to get your comments. Clearly, that's their prerogative but such thinking, in my opinion, leads to the knee-jerk responses you often see.  

Tim W:

To answer your question -- I think playability is a factor because the game encompasses so many different types of golfers. I would certainly like to see less "forced carries" for those unable to do so, to name just one example. I have plenty of friends who are up there in age, however, I can tell you this Tim -- they don't want dumb down golf. They may not fire a tee shot or land a approach like they could 20-30 years ago, but they still value the "teeth" that those holes had. When people scream about playability it's usually tied to the selfish sense of making sure they can score on that particulart hole(s). The answer to that is a simple one -- move up to the next tee box, but don't throw the baby out with the bath oil.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

My recollection of #5 at Bandon is that it could be too intimidating for many people. What I don't recall is where all the tees were. Perhaps the tunnel could be left alone and another tee built for those who really can't handle it.

By the way, most of the course struck me as high on the playability scale.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I think we agree on those things.  One danger is when club pros or whoever start making changes, they don't consider balance to the course.  Even working with tour pros, or the owner during design, they will sometimes come up with the "Oh, I saw this here...yada, yada, yada idea."  One thing they don't consider is that we already have that on antoher hole, etc.  A little knowlege can be dangerous, as they say.

If a hole has been in play a few years, and the pro shop continues to hear the same complaint, it probably needs changing for playability.  Is the fifth at Bandon too daunting for average players?  I don't know, but if they seem to hear a consensus, they should probably change it.  The question at a private club is how broad is the consensus?  If you put any change to a vote, it would be so close to an even vote in most cases, with some of the no votes really against spending money, rather than endorsing the hole as is, that it is hard to get that real consensus.

Another type of change that bothers me (which has been discussed here often) is the single mind change.  I have told the story of a club remodeling a particular green because the President's wife couldn't carry a particular hazard, but her main rival for the club championship could.  He runs for the board to change a perfectly good bunker.  Someone else runs to change it back, etc.  If a hole keeps getting changed, it is either really bad, and band aid changes are tried but don;t help, or those in charge just can't be satisfied.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tim:

You are quite right, I wouldn't.