National Landmark Golf Courses

[Tom Doak]

As suggested in the thread about National Golf Links, I believe there are a select few courses which ought to be preserved, as they are, for generations to come.

Of course, most or all of these are private clubs which can do as they choose.  But perhaps being designated as "landmarks" would help convince their members they have something worth preserving which is more important than what Phil Mickelson shoots there.

I will start by nominating The National Golf Links of America (C. B. Macdonald), Myopia Hunt Club (H. Leeds), and Garden City Golf Club (W. Travis).

None of these are perfectly preserved, but they are about as close as we get among the masterpieces of golf in America.

I would think there should not be much more than a dozen landmark courses, so that it is truly a special designation.  If you include courses which have been "restored" for large $, it undermines the status by inviting others to do the same.  Best of all, the smaller you keep the group, the more other clubs will be encouraged to tailor their own policies to keep up with the elite.

[Chris_Hunt]

Tom:

I believe that Oakmont is presently designated as a State landmark of some sort.  I don't know if this distinction should allow them to cut down all of their trees, or stop them from doing so, but clearly it is still up to their membership.

Cypress, Shinnecock, and Pine Valley obviously come to mind as courses of idealic beauty, worldwide reputation, and importance to the game.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom D

Noble idea.

However, what if Teddy Roosevelt had had the same brainwave at the turn of the last century, and decreed that Shinnecock, Chicago, Newport, etc. were National Parks and could not be altered or changed.  And lets assume that he also convinced Balfour (or whoever was PM at the time) to do the same in the UK for Muifield, TOC, Prestwick, Dornoch, Sandwich, etc.

Would we be happy today if all those great 4500-5550 yard courses were preserved as they were?  Would be play them?  With hickory shafts, perhaps?  What would be the point other than to say that we did?  What would be next?  The restoration of Ebbet's Field?  The regeneration of the Gorbals in Glasgow with their outdoor toilets and 3 to a room sleeping arrangments?  Reading Wordsworth rather than Eliot, becuase the former is accessible and the latter takes skill and time and training to understand?

And, what about the members, who own the courses in question...........

Dyslectic anti-Luddites of the world, Untie!

[A_Clay_Man]

In theory you have a good notion, but to put into practice would have to be done by some independant society who's prestige would basically use psychology to insure adverse alterations weren't made, or something to that effect.

Making it Law "for the public good" is a dangerous road and will ultimatly stiffle the flexibility of those who's resources keep and have kept the place alive.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

There was nothing unique or historical about any of those courses at the turn of the century. Nor was there anything unique or historical about lower Charleston when it was built in the late 18th century.

But both have survived - for a number of different reasons - as unique, historic representatives of what once was. None are pristine, all have been changed to one degree or another. You take what you get.

But it is the fact of their survival over all these decades that makes them worth perserving now.

Bob

[ChipOat]

Sorry, Tom.  I refer back to my post on the National thread and combine it with Dr. Goodale's point about T.R. and timing.

I'm not necessarily suggesting changes to any of the courses you mentioned or are considering as bona-fide national treasures.  And I do understanded the risk of bungling any such effort.

But I believe that just about any golf hole is worth considering for possible refinements every 25 years or so.

The great routings endure.  The great greens complexes endure.  However, shot values erode as equipment and, to a lesser degree, talent becomes more effective.  Also, not all the good ideas are thought of by "date X" or by the original genius that built the course initially.

Nobody's more aware of that than your peers and you.

I'm not in your business, but it seems to me "The Open Doctor" has the ultimate kid-in-the-candy-store job when he is preparing a great course for a major.  Imagine - he not only gets to restore but to revise (which hopefully improves), as well.  To overlay one's own poetic license on top of an already-masterful effort - talk about nirvana!  We armchair architects can only turn green with envy.

[JamieS]

Sounds like an interesting idea...but...

If Garden City was to be tabbed with the "Landmark" title, shouldn't the 12th hole be restored to something similar to its original design?

Some changes, such as proper tree removal have improved the quality and condition of some of the classic designs, can we have a list of changes/improvements that are allowed?

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

You have fallen victim to two pyschological aspects of the golf technology arms race:

A) the deception of reasonable sounding arguments

B) the frog who didn't jump out of boiling water because the heat was slowly turned up

More about that later!

I find your reference to 4500 yard courses interesting. It wasn't long ago that someone here criticized me for suggesting we were headed to 8000 courses.

What could be wrong with preserving 6500 yard courses as they are unless you believe that expanding them to  8000 or 9000 yards would be an improvement?

If 6500 is better than 4500 yards, why isn't 8500 even "better"?

[Steve Lapper]

It occurs to me that the few public courses that might earn this designation need any protection it may afford. The capitalists that control the likes of Pebble, Pinehurst, and Bethpage would likely have the most compelling reasons to use marching orders given by outside organizations to change their courses. The quest for capital efficiency will also likely come to bear from time-to-time on these timeless masterpieces. Already there are crys to move, shape and reform spots in many places to continue to afford the experience higher fees.

The argument about spending high $$ to "restore" will always be present in considering several of these public domains. Interestingly, could anyone declare a "cut-off" point for such "restoration?"

These public "masterpieces" will likely deserve this type of designation, but will obviously attract, rightly so, significant discussion about the nature of "landmark" designation. If just maintained at present conditions, would present prices be justified? Higher prices? Who knows?

[George Pazin]

The fact that Tom D. stated that private clubs are allowed to do what they choose & that "landmark" designation is meant to persuade members they have something worth preserving implies to me that he is not looking for a legislative designation, but rather a designation from some other organization, though I certainly could be wrong in my interpretation.

Tim -

I like the frog analogy, but it seems like they've turned the water WAY up in the last 5 years. Hopefully, he'll jump out soon.

[brad_miller]

Tom Doak, how about Crystal Downs, if not why? TY

[Jim_Kennedy]

We start to think about saving the Spotted Owl when there are only a few left. I would assume that at the turn of the century there was less of a mindset to preserve the courses talked about, especially when a construction boom was happening.

As for the process of preservation, who says a course has to go back to its 1900 configuration? Through old aerials, ground photos, member recollections and diligent research efforts by enthusiasts we can "see" many courses as they have evolved through the years. A course may not wish to go back in time with all its holes but having the evidence from bygone eras on display either on the ground or hanging in the clubhouse can do no harm. . No one has advocated an abridgement of the rights that any of these courses enjoy, have they???  

I ask this question: Why on earth would anyone who loves playing courses from this era have anything against the pursuit of their preservation  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tim

You are right.  8500 yards IS better, all other things being equal.  I don't see why we should stop the clock at 6500 anymore than the old masters had any interest in stopping it at 4500.  Golf is a sport, which should demand excellence at the highest levels.  The fact that geezers like you and me happen to be able to fool ourselves from time to time that we can play the game, just because we can shoot low numbers on these 6500 yard legacy designs, doesn't mean that we should deprive the best players in the world the chance to play these precious bits of land at or near their optimal design limits, for the equipment and player capabilities of the time.  If you, or Tom Daok, or anybody else thinks that 6500 yards represents those limits, on any of the courses mentioend, you are suffering from collective delusions.  In my very humble opinion......

Rich

PS--you (and George P) should know that the boiling frog parable is an urban legend.  A good one, but an untruth, just the same.....  

[Guest]

Mr. Goodale- I don't believe you've ever had a humble opinion in your whole life. As for this idea of yours, its full of crap.

If you want 8500 yard golf courses to test the best in the game then get your current crop of architects to build them to their hearts content.  Leave to freekin old gems alone!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Golf as a popular sport is fairly young, about as old as American football, perhaps a little younger. Golf architecture is a very new discipline as compared to the other arts. Prior to 1900, most golf courses were very crude and primitive. I can't imagine why or who would have wanted to preserve these courses. In fact the birth of golf architecture as a professional field was in reponse to the bad work. Many of these old links that we now consider the ancient work of guys like Old Tom Morris in most cases actually owe their current state to those first golf architects - guys like Colt, Fowler, Simpson etc. After 100 years of golf architecture, it seems reasonable to me that we start recognizing, preserving and protecting the game's most important designs/courses.

I'm not sure courses that are very well-preserved should be the determing criteria, some courses have evolved over time and are currently at their zenith - for example Rich's Dornock which dominates his very narrow perspective.

I would suggest there be far more than a dozen courses  worthy of designation. But I would also create a number of different disignations - Landmark designs for the GCGC and NGLA type courses; a designation for greatest works of the master architects - Camargo, The Golf Club, Seminole, Shinnecock, Hirono, Jasper Park, etc; a designation for courses that have evolved over time - TOC, Dornoch, Ashdown Forest, Woking, The Country Club, Ballybunion; a designation for courses that were landmarks or master works at one time but are now in a state of distress or altered for the worst - Yale, Timber Point, Riviera, Bel-Air, ANGC, etc. (perhaps acting as an incentive to get their act together). And I'm sure there are other posibilities/criteria that should be considered.

Obviously you can not force a private club to preserve/protect their golf course, but this elite recognition would hopefully be a point of great pride. As a side benfit it could act as a tool to educate the membership of these clubs, to explain what they have (had) from architectural view and why their course is so important from an architectural perspective. I would also suggest that when a course that has been recognized contemplates a change, that those changes, and the indiviuals carrying them out, be closely scrutinized by the same organization - don't you think Merion would have benfited from such advice?

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I'm long past fooling myself about being able to play golf. If I can just hit a couple decent shots each time I go out - and do that for the next 30-40 years or so - I'll be quite happy.

Actually, you remind me of a former USGA champion I once talked to when a very beautiful young lady walked by.

"Pretty nice", I said to this 75 year old gentlemen.

"Oh, what the hell is the difference. At my age, I can't......" he replied.

As for the substance of your comments, I'm going to hold off responding for the time being......but I sure won't forget them.

P.S. Sorry for the Jaka B like diversion!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mr Guest

How's CZ these days?  Why, again, should we preserve NGLA at 6500 yards?  Why not 5500 (or whatever), as CB 1st designed it?  Or at 7500, as some clever architect might be able to do?  Do you have a point of view, or just a nom de plume and some borrowed ideas?

Tom MacW

I hear you and I respect your ideas.  We'll possibly never agree on the need to preserve golf courses at some point in time, but let's hope we can keep on arguing honestly and openly and not sniping from the cloak of anonymity, as others seem wont to do....

I will say that in terms of Dornock (sic) it is hardly at its zenith.  I suspect that it will be much better when I am on my deathbed than it is now.  It is, all things considered, much better than it was when I first saw it 25 years ago.  Also, please do not mistake of assuming that because I often refer to it as "narrowness."  The frequency of these refereneces is rather because I find it a useful point of reference, as it is such a great course and because I know it so well.  As you must know, I have played many courses of its standard, and factor my experiences in those places in when I occasionally pontificate.......

......such as Merion, where I think you will find that the consensus (at least in this DG) seems to be clearly shifting to the point of view that I have mostly expressed, i.e. "hate the LOOK of the remodeled bunkers, love their influence on the strategy for the course, love the other improvements (tree clearings, tee extensions, fast and firm, etc.)."

I don't know about you, but when I played from the tips at Merion last year, I think I enjoyed the new 18th tee, where I had to carry the drive 240-250, much more than if I had played from the member's tee.  From the back, I got a sense of what Hogan must have faced, even though his golfing skill was not on the same planet as mine.  In a few years or so (if I'm ever invited back!), when I can't make that carry anymore, I'm NOT going to hold a sit-in on Ardmore Avenue to ask that the back tee be dynamited, I'm just going to move down to the members tees and enjoy the hole just as much as I did last year.

In my obvously non-humble opinoin

rich

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I love this idea and am using this concept with some of the Lehigh membership to help move forward our fairway restoration and continuous tree removal programs.  Our Master Plan done by Ron Forse calls for expansion of the fairways (it's going to be really impressive   when completed).  The club is starting to understand the quality and historic significance of their golf course (not tournament significance but architecture significance).  My guess is that five years ago, most of the membership didn't even know who William Flynn was!  Having seen the original plans that Wayne Morrison has, it's amazing how much of the design is intact!
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Indetifying, preserving and protecting outstanding architecture does not prevent change. But hopefully it will prevent unecessary or ill adivsed change. For example removing trees and expanding options is good, trampling on  the handywork of Wilson, Flynn, and the Valentines is bad.

[Phil_the_Author]

I believe that what you propose is not only proper but immensely important to bring about.

There are too many important courses that have been lost over time that should have been preserved at all costs.

I forsee two very real problems though in bringing this about. The first is who chooses and the criteria that would be used in awarding this designation?

The second, and I believe a most dangerous problem, is the reality of what "Landmark" status buildings face when they need even reasonable and normal maintenance to them. Imagine having to appear before a governmental committee made up of locally elected politicians who can't swing a passing vote on an important bill without their own interests being taken care of no less than being able to swing a golf club! If Bethpage Black had to go through all the steps that landmark buildings in New York must, they would still be debating what shade of green the new grass seed must produce!

[Tom Doak]

Phil,

Before my post, I did think about the frustration of dealing with buildings which have "national historic" designations; in fact the broken-down barn we are now dealing with at Stonewall Two has historical status that has delayed construction of the 18th hole!

I don't want much bureaucracy.  I was just thinking that if a club which accepted its Landmark status designation had to get five experts to agree on proposed changes, it would do much to preserve the status quo.  Just imagine getting Tom Paul, Tom MacWood, Tommy Naccarato, Patrick Mucci and myself to agree on anything!

As to Rich Goodale's previous point, if you never stop the clock, you'll never preserve anything.  I would love to see a couple of the old links preserved as they were 100 years ago; whichever ones you chose, I think that having them would be a great benefit to the understanding of golf and to the debate about preservation which goes on today.

But, as I said, I don't think it should be very many courses at all ... just a handful, for the reasons Rich cites.

I did not list Crystal Downs simply because I don't think this should extend to more than a couple of courses by any one architect -- and for MacKenzie, I would choose Royal Melbourne and Cypress Point first.  Besides, Crystal Downs doesn't need such designation -- so far there aren't any members hell-bent on changing it, perhaps because Phil Mickelson hasn't been by.  Lehigh might be in the same category.

I do understand the problems associated with my proposal, particularly in regard to any kind of enforcement.  But I think it's worth a shot.  We have all seen just in the last few years how susceptible clubs are to the pressures of change if left to face them one at a time.

[ted janeczek]

here's an interesting twist on this subject matter - the owners of sand hills have  recently placed restrictive covenants (filed with the county register of deeds) that prohibit substantive changes to the course, except for improvements related to advances in turf grass development. that will settle one issue before it can even get started!!

[Slag_Bandoon]

Here's a hypothetical quandery...  

  If Pebble Beach is designated as a National Landmark, and the 18th fairway is being gobbled up by langoliers and crashing waves, does the government pay for the rip rap to save it or does it let nature take its course?  If taxpayers, and most are non-golfers, are footing the bill for preservation of an already elitist-imaged venue, this might create some outrage, no?    
   I would hate to see any of the great layouts vanish but their survival should be self-reliant and not subsidized.  What if NGLA went bankrupt?  Who'd maintain it? The tax payers?  Are golf courses artifacts or variable exercises in land use theories?  In the end it's all rote as the land will reclaim itself and we'll all be worm food.

[Tim Liddy]

National Landmark Golf Course? Sounds like an elitist communist plot to overthrow golf courses. It is not the American way to tell people what they can or can not do with their property. It is a noble thought, but a bad idea.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Who said that these clubs would not have the freedom to do what they wish? Oakmont is the only golf course that is a true National Landmark and they are free to alter their course.

Its a way to recognize outstanding golf architecture and to help educate these clubs as to what they have or what they had. And to bring attention to changes that might degrade historically important architecture. Its not going to prevent a Crooked Stick or ANGC from being over-hauled every couple years.