Research and the Golf Course Architect...

[Phil_the_Author]

On Richard Mandell's thread he mentioned some work he is doing and how for a project he was not intending to change the routing because he ahd found two aerials from the 30s & 50s.

Since so much of golf architecture today is work involving renovation and restoration, I was wondering if some of the archies out here could enlighten us as to how they go about researching, what sources they use and maybe give a few examples of where research may have changed their thoughts or actual plans for a hole or course.

[Mike_Young]

I think if someone finds old aerials and wishes to use those for part of the planning process, fine.  
But as for researching these old dead guy courses, I find much of the rambling/dissertation/research to be nothing more than opinion.  I would assume that most architects could emulate a so called Ross bunker except probably better.  
I just can't understand the fascination that has developed whereby the dead architect is put ahead of a good old golf course.  
This dead guy stuff has become a cottage industry and clubs realize that it is much cheaper to market off of a dead guy even if he was only in town for a few hours during the design/construction than it is to hire a "signature".
In summary, for me, you go to the club, analyze the project and do what is best for that club TODAY and in the forseeable future.  You don't give them a bunch of hype about what dead guy wanted because he probably wasn't around there long enough to really care.  JMHO.
Mike

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I'm not surprised with your answer and philosophy on this. In fact, as I was posting the question the thought occurred to me that the "dead guys" also did a lot of renovating to existing courses and yet they never seem to refer to the original design/designer being of importance.

You do have to admit that some of these "dead guys" definitely did get it right, and the values that they built into these courses need to be protected and preserved.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I'm not surprised with your answer and philosophy on this. In fact, as I was posting the question the thought occurred to me that the "dead guys" also did a lot of renovating to existing courses and yet they never seem to refer to the original design/designer being of importance.

You do have to admit that some of these "dead guys" definitely did get it right, and the values that they built into these courses need to be protected and preserved.

DEFINITELY many got it right.  And they are what they are.  And in many of those cases they don't need a lot of "dead guy restoration expertise" to keep it in line.  I see more courses in this area( I think you are in GA) where once they open up that can of worms, it never stops.  JMO.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not surprised with your answer and philosophy on this. In fact, as I was posting the question the thought occurred to me that the "dead guys" also did a lot of renovating to existing courses and yet they never seem to refer to the original design/designer being of importance."

Phil:

Please name me a single instance of where or when one of the "dead guys" (Pre-WW2) did any "renovating" of existing courses---either their own or another architect's??

There was a lot of design work done by many of the "dead guys" to golf courses of other architects (Pre-WW2) but almost without excpetion they were not doing "renovation", they were doing their own "redesigning" of the courses of other architects.    

[paul cowley]

...good point my friend...

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
Take a guess at how many courses Donald Ross added nine holes to?  Do you think he always left the other nine holes alone?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you asked, "Please name me a single instance of where or when one of the "dead guys" (Pre-WW2) did any "renovating" of existing courses---either their own or another architect's... almost without excpetion they were not doing "renovation", they were doing their own "redesigning" of the courses of other architects."

Renovating or redesigning, you are looking at what I stated semantically rather than with the idea that whatever was behind the new work, it wasn't with an idea to preserve, but to either change &/or improve, therefor they usually didn't "research" the earlier work.

Oh yes, Tilly did do a great deal of renovating on courses he was not redesigning. A good example can be found on the recent thread about the Wee Burn CC. After a complete examination of the entire course, he recommended changes to 3 holes only. He recommended leaving the rest of the course as originally designed. That, my friend is a renovation and not a redesign. The year was 1936.

They are in the process of restoring the course and are researching both the original design and the Tillinghast work on those three holes so as to preserve both.