[Patrick_Mucci]

On the Del Paso thread there were differing opinions on the value of classic or "Golden Age" golf courses.

Some felt that all courses had to change to reflect the will of the current memberships.

Others felt that these same courses should be preserved and that any proposed change should be carefully examined and only made while preserving the original design integrity.

Others felt that courses that had undergone changes should be restored, while others felt that they should be redesigned and modernized.

If NGLA had suffered a fate similar to Lido during the war by being turned into a military base, and the golf course was essentially obliterated, only to have the property sold or returned to the membership after the war, who subsequently redesigned and constructed a new golf course, only to sell it again in 2006, would it be worth restoring today ?

Should it be restored or should a modern design be produced on the property ?

[Peter Galea]

You're kidding, huh?
There's a modern design right next door.

[Hunt]

Pat,

My thought is you bring back the original design but factor today's technology.

Why have a bunker or carry that was based upon 1900 technology installed when almost assuredly the architectural intent would call for current standards?

As mad as CBM was when his grandson drove the first green at NGLA-it would be hard to imagine his desire would not be to account for modern technology when recreating his work.

[Mike Nuzzo]

It is up to the members...

If someone else wants to have it restored - there are pleanty of opportunities to do such elsewhere or create a new masterpiece.

Let it go.  It will come back if it wants.

The will of man is more important than the game.  The game was created by man for man.

[Peter Galea]

I gusss we could paint over the Mona Lisa too. I mean, after all, the colors are fading, her hairstyle and clothes are very outdated. And just think the canvas and frame must be worth something.

[Hunt]

Sarcasm aside-

I doubt a membership would not account for ball and club improvements when rebuilding.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hunt,

Would the members be rebuilding it for themselves or for PGA Tour Pros who never play there, officially ?

[SPDB]

I would think that - if it were, as you say, obliterated - that NGLA would be among the toughest course to restore while staying true to the original design. There is far too much going on there to replicate.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I gusss we could paint over the Mona Lisa too. I mean, after all, the colors are fading, her hairstyle and clothes are very outdated. And just think the canvas and frame must be worth something.

IF you want to restore the Mona Lisa when would you take it back to?  100 years ago before some of the cracks that appeared after it was stolen for a few days?  Or say to the first 50 years after it was painted when the colours used by the artist were at their most vibrant and true?  The version that exists to day has a patina of age that we sentimentally add value to.  Have you ever seen a really old building which has been given a complete restoration sitting next to one of a similar age that hasn't been touched?  The 'new' one looks out of place even though now it is often the more authentic.


Pat when would you restore NGLA to?
5 years after it was built?
Long grass on the greens and no automatic irrigation, what membership would ever vote for that?
Or some later version that you particularly like?

[ForkaB]

Should they not be restoring the 1st green, which has recently been altered?

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Different times, different attitudes. In the late 40's, nobody was talking about restoring old courses. Nobody. Quite the opposite in fact. There was a rush to modernize.

The membership at NGLA today, 60 years later, if confronted with the same issue, would probably some up with a very different answer.

Princes is your hypothetical. Before WWII it was often ranked in the top 10 in the UK. After serving as a RAF bombing range, my understanding is that no thought was given to restoring its original design. They brought in new architects and built, essentially, a new course of three nines. I suspect it never crossed anyone's mind at the time to do a careful restoration of an important historic course. That's just not how people thought about gca in the late 40's and 50's.

Bob  

[Hunt]

Patrick-

For themselves but lengthening the back tees to account for the pro game where applicable

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Muldoon,

What does mower height and the method of watering have to do with architectural features ?

SPDB,

Fazio and Wynn proved that moving dirt is no big deal today.

Only they did it 3/4 of a century after CBM and SR did it at Lido.

Hunt,

You can only lengthen what the land allows for.

[T_MacWood]

Tony
Has the Mona Lisa been damaged?

If it were no doubt they would call in a restoration expert. Art restoration is as much science as art....including the use of microscopes, chemicals and modern technology...it is painstakingly slow and skillful work. From what I understand they try to minimize the intrusion upon the art object...focusing on the damaged part while attempting to leave the rest intact, matching the repairs to the evolved portion as best they can, including the patina and other signs of age.

Your question regarding the elimination of automatic sprinkler systems is a little wacky. Should the Mona Lisa only be viewed by natural light or candle light? A little reactionary aren't you?

Regarding the target date for rebuilding a destroyed NGLA...I'd recommend the last years of CB Macdonald's charge of the place.

Bob
Princes was a little different case. The course was first damaged in the 30's by a natural disaster...at that point they did try to restore it...with a few changes to help prevent future problems. And then it was destroyed again during the war...this time much more severely.

I think the degree of damage has as much to do with it as anything. Turnberry was a similar case. But there were other courses with limited damage that were restored.

I agree with you I don't think they ever comtemplated buidling a replica of the course that was destroyed...but that might have as much to do with their technical capabilites as it did with their attitude toward restoration.

[SPDB]

SPDB,

Fazio and Wynn proved that moving dirt is no big deal today.

Only they did it 3/4 of a century after CBM and SR did it at Lido.

Pat - Fazio and Wynn weren't trying to replicate anything.  Moving dirt isn't what I was talking about. If NGLA were obliterated, I don't think it could be resurrected, or replicated, at least not to the course it was (the one I know today).

[Gib_Papazian]

The very thought of NGLA being razed gave me instantaneous nausea.

After the Redhead and I put the pile of legal feces aside last night, I opened "Scotland's Gift." It sits on my nightstand, not in that disorganized mess I call my "golf library." No matter how ma ny times I read and reread its contents, something new - or forgotten - presents itself. Some of the stuff that has slipped my mind is just pure mental fatigue (or the onset Altzheimers), but really stands as a demonstration of how enormous the topic of Macdonald and NGLA.

Last night I pulled out the course drawing - included in the 1985 reprint. Bought it from Mike Muller in 1994 on my 2nd visit there. He sold me about $300 worth of stuff in the Pro Shop for $100 and sent me on my way.

The last time out, Neal and I played the 12th from the location of the original tee, which as I have said before, makes enormous sense. If we are to continue with Karl's brilliant restoration work, I say (at least) put the member's tee in that general vicinity to bring those gorgeous bunkers back into play.

Another element that has puzzled me for years is the putting surface. On the plasticine models hanging on the wall in the Super Shack, there is a "punchbowl" within the confines of the uper portion of the green. There it is on the course drawing also.

If I have to pick a "least favorite" hole at NGLA (picked my favorite on a different thread), then this would be it due to the lack of original strategies. No idea if the green ever had the punchbowl, but if i were the Super, that is what I would do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I meant obliterating the golf course features, not removing millions of yards to flatten the property.

Gib,

I too like the staggered presentation of bunkers on # 12 from a tee left of the 11th green..

With the proximity of the 13th tee, I wonder if a green large enough to accomodate the sizable punchbowl or horseshoe feature within the green was ever built.

Do we know if it ever existed ?

[SPDB]

Pat -
The features are what I'm talking about. The thing I love about NGLA above all others is that it is a visually stimulating course. I love navigating the myriad bunkers that litter the property, almost like they were tossed about the place from above. Many of these features are extraneous (something I usually rail against), but contribute to the character of the course. Ditto, the numerous humps and hollows. I don't think its an outrageous statement to say that NGLA possesses more internal, man made features than any other course in America, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

My opinion is that those features, if lost, would be very difficult to replicate sympathetically. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worth it to try, but I do think it would be very, very difficult to replicate w/any degree of accuracy, the course that we both know (you better than I).

[Tony_Muldoon]

First Gentleman let me assure you that should some disaster happen to NGLA I would be shocked at the loss of such a major piece of American golf history. I’ve got Bhato’s book on Macdonald, I always look at the reports on it here and it’s a matter of regret to me that this is one of the greatest and most interesting of courses that I know I’m unlikely ever to see or sadder yet, play.  But if it were to be ‘restored’ I see so many difficulties that I don’t think you get ever get the old spirit of the place back and the best you could get would be a Las Vegas or Disney version (an approximation).  

Pat

I do think the way maintenance has changed over the past 150 years has made profound changes to the architectural features known as greens.  I would argue that on this site green speeds are second only to bunkers as a subject of debate on architectural features. This deserves a thread all of its own.  I’ve referenced this before but Bobby Jones’ ‘perfect’ round at Suningdale had 33 putts.  Most weekends the winner of a PGA tournament has what 28 putts per round?  This has more to do with the changes to the maintenance of the green than equipment or training.  I believe that if you went back a further 30 years before Jones, the greens added at least a further 5 shots per round.  That is why I ask if you want to restore NGLA will you go back to the maintenance practices of Macdonald’s days.  If you don’t, I believe you are playing a different course to the one originally conceived. For a start I think with the ground game it was easier to attack the pin when the greens rolled slower.

Tom

You would like to see NGLA as Macdonald knew it.  Would you like to see the Mona Lisa as DaVinci knew it?  The damage done by time has not been repaired and it looks nothing like it did to him. Today we view it through a bullet proof screen.  I know some professional art restorers and they admit that their work is full of value judgments.  But when they are dealing with a masterpiece they are extremely careful to use materials which are made in as close as possible a manner as we can to the original method.  Lead in the paints etc. The industry is notoriously bitchy, an English restorer has nothing good to say about the work currently being done in Italy (‘far too garish darling’). There are many arguments about this work and every time a significant work gets the treatment you can guarantee critics will split right down the middle as to the appropriateness of the work done.   If the Victorians had restored La Giaconda they would have brightened those colours right up as that was the fashion at the time.  That fashion will come back again one day.

Thank you for saying which version of the course you would restore to, others would no doubt prefer slightly later versions when the course resembled what they know and are comfortable with.

Add to this the changes in the way the game is played and that’s why I fear restoration would only be useful if you wanted to create a museum piece.

[John_Cullum]

Tony Muldoon,

What does mower height and the method of watering have to do with architectural features ?

Pat,

Have you learned nothing from Tom Paul? He has this thing he calls the "ideal maintenance meld," and reltes stories of his rounds with Nick Faldo where they focused on green speeds.

[Garry Cox]

Resore NGLA?

No!

Adore NGLA?

Yes!

[T_MacWood]

Tom

You would like to see NGLA as Macdonald knew it.  Would you like to see the Mona Lisa as DaVinci knew it?

Sure why not. If the Mona Lisa was destroyed in a fire and you have the technology to replicate the painting exactly as DaVinci painted it...I say go for it. It would be better than no Mona Lisa. If you don't have the technology...we're both out of luck. If the painting was damaged, not destroyed...I say restrore it using the approved restoration techniques (techniques that preserve the paintings evolved patina and age).

If the NGLA was completely leveled, and you had the technology to replicate it...I say go for it (with Macdonanld's last years as your goal). If it were damaged, repair it, being sensative to its evolved look and feel.

I am advocate of Viollet-le-Duc's priniples: "it is better to consolidate than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to rebuild, better to rebuild than to embellish."

There is a big difference between restoring 3 X 4 500 year old painting made up of delicate brush strokes, sitting in a frame on a wall, untouched for decades at a time and restoring 200 acre golf course built upon a natural site (incuding plants which grow and die), utilizing the existing terrain, exposed to the elements, that evolves (we hope gracefully), walked upon, chopped upon, maintained and utilized by hoards of men every day, every month, and every year. I think yours is a very poor analogy.

Add to this the changes in the way the game is played and that’s why I fear restoration would only be useful if you wanted to create a museum piece.

Believe me, the well preserved (and sensatively restored ) NGLA of today (incuding modern sprinklers and modern maintenance techniques) is not a museum piece.

[Sean_A]

Pat

I do think the way maintenance has changed over the past 150 years has made profound changes to the architectural features known as greens.  I would argue that on this site green speeds are second only to bunkers as a subject of debate on architectural features. This deserves a thread all of its own.  I’ve referenced this before but Bobby Jones’ ‘perfect’ round at Suningdale had 33 putts.  Most weekends the winner of a PGA tournament has what 28 putts per round?  This has more to do with the changes to the maintenance of the green than equipment or training.  I believe that if you went back a further 30 years before Jones, the greens added at least a further 5 shots per round.  That is why I ask if you want to restore NGLA will you go back to the maintenance practices of Macdonald’s days.  If you don’t, I believe you are playing a different course to the one originally conceived. For a start I think with the ground game it was easier to attack the pin when the greens rolled slower.

Add to this the changes in the way the game is played and that’s why I fear restoration would only be useful if you wanted to create a museum piece.

This is the second post in which Tony has linked maintenance practices to architecture.  He is absolutely correct.  I don't know if NGLA should be "restored".  That is the members' call.  However, restoring the course to some former version is not really complete unless the course is set up the way the archie intended it to play.  There is no point in restoring unless the course plays as it would have before changes.  

Ciao

Sean

 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I am advocate of Viollet-le-Duc's priniples: "it is better to consolidate than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to rebuild, better to rebuild than to embellish."

Believe me, the well preserved (and sensatively restored ) NGLA of today (incuding modern sprinklers and modern maintenance techniques) is not a museum piece.

Tom like you I admire the restraint with which NGLA and other courses that continue to garner respect: consolidate, repair, restore and rebuild.  But with every step they also loose something - that indescribable something. And this process by definition will not stop but must continue with time.

If this group were, for the sake of argument, to really put it's mind to it and agree another rating, a list of 100 important classics and define the year at which each course was in it's peak condition, would we then have  a responsibility to argue for keeping those courses at this peak?  NGLA is one of the top 10 (IMHO) of these courses, and yet you seem to be happy with it as a course today and as a course 5 years after Macdonald designed it.  For a grade A example of what we are talking about both can't be valid, can they?  Surely a top 10 on this list deserves scrupulous attention to detail, every effort expended to maintain it’s key values and an end to compromise and staying with the times?

What changes already made are acceptable and what changes in the future can not be, before too much is lost?  In other disciplines the current thinking seems to me to be to restore using original methods back to, as near as we can identify, to the original, particularly for important examples of an art or craft.

I fully accept that NGLA today is no museum piece but I also believe she is not the same as seductress who challenged the golfers of 1914.

Is it important to look at what we've lost and how they’ve changed or just to celebrate that the old beauties still have charm?  I just believe that with golf courses there’s no real chance of going back and there’s no future in trying to hold the fort.  I think we agree on the need for sensitive development of courses but disagree on whether restoration is desirable or even possible with a golf course.

The questions in my mind remain, why would you want to resore and to what would you want to restore?

[T_MacWood]

Sean
I think you and Tony might be on to something. In fact you could convert this into money making venture...I'm confident most will agree with you that restoration should never take place without properly restoring the original maintenance practices.

I say you two should become specialists in the removal of automatic sprinkler systems. In addition you could breed horses, which would obviously be needed to pull the old rotary blades, blades you two could produce and sell. You might want to get into Peruvin guano, fish guano, meat guano, malt galms and dried blood as well. I'd also suggest you invest in rabbit warren, for those courses maintained by our fury little friends.

This might be pushing your luck, but perhaps you could convince some of the older clubs to do away with their indoor plumbing and electricity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()