[Sean_A]

I must admit to being a little shocked by the above quote spotted on another thread.  So much so that I read it three times to pass the Mucci Test of Reading Comprehension.  Do folks really believe that aspects of architectural design have merit because the original designer says so? If so, how much weight does this merit carry?  What changes can or cannot be made because of the original intent?  Real examples would be appreciated.  

I have never been one to approve of changing courses much, but it mostly depends on the reasons for change.  I certainly don't think change can't happen, just that there needs to be a good reason and don't think hosting such and such tournament is a good reason for change.  

Sticking to the tree chute example; from my perspective, I don't like them because they limit a player's ability to shape the shot.  However, before changing them, I would like to know the reason they exist.  If no good reason can be found and most don't care for it, I would be in favour of widening the chute.  Beau Desert has two holes that from the medal tees have chutes, the 8th and 13th.  Both of these back tees create angled tee shots to the fairway and the chutes accentuate this angle, but the angle is still there without stifling one's shot shaping options - there is still a better and less dangerous shot shape to choose.  

Ciao  

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

    I wrote that. I think that IF you have a classic course that is wonderfully designed then the best frame of reference for changes to the course is research into the VALUES that the original architect used.  Whether the tee shot was to be "open" or "constrained" would be such a value to me.

   For example, the hole that was discussed in that thread was never intended to have trees affect the tee shot. The two suggested for removal were planted improperly some years ago. Originally, one could make the ball move left or right as one chose. The real challenge came as one tried to approach the green .  When the only tee shot option is straight then the hole has been redesigned.

        When amateurs attempt to "make a hole harder" they often lose focus on what was designed into the original course. I think they sometimes don't see the entire hole when they suggest "just moving the tees back" or "planting trees to punish mishits". BTW   I'm an amateur, so that's why I try to figure what Flynn intended ( realizing that this is an imperfect science).


         My statement was intended to  say that ON THIS PARTICULAR course the smartest and best person to advise on changes is William Flynn. Unfortunately, he's dead !

    But, fortunately, we have a historical information like the original design , aerial photos from the beginning and throughout the next 75 years , along with  several fine courses done by the same guy nearby.

  Even with that data there are disagreements about what should be done. So, I think it makes sense to hire a professional who has studied someone like Flynn.


        I guess I should have said if "Flynn planned for these chutes " instead of "the original designer", because that is the reason for the course's greatness; it was designed by Flynn and not just any original designer.


   I have seen first hand what can happen when we stray from  his vision for the course.

   

[Bill_McBride]

It's possible the original designer didn't take into account the lateral growth of trees over the decades!  A good example is the California Club south of San Francisco.  I haven't played there for 20 years, but last time I did, some of the back tees had such big limbs of the big trees lining the tight chutes that it didn't take much of an off line shot to hit one.  When it did, boom, straight down went the ball and bogey became a good result.

To anyone who has played there recently, have those chutes been opened up?  I sincerely hope so....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Most of the chutes I've encountered were not original.

In many cases they've been created due to the lengthening process.

The extreme back tee at # 18 at ANGC might be a good example.

If a chute was original, I would guess that the architect wanted the golfer to pass a specific test with his drive.

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

    If you could expand a little on your questions it would be helpful.

  What do you mean by the "aspects of architectural design"?

   When you say " what changes can or cannot be made because of the original intent " , the word "because" confuses me.


     I believe there could be a good discussion about the when and why  of "original intent" .


    For me, the first determination is whether the particular course is worth restoring and then preserving or not. If the answer is "yes" then I think referring to the original intent becomes essential.


        When the discussion centers around "what was the original designer's intent?" I find the disagreements to be intellectually challenging and eventually it leads to a good decision.
   When people want to forget about the original design intent and do it their way (after it has been determined that figuring out the original intent is the best way to go!) then I find it just deteriorates into a power struggle and lacks intellectual rigor.

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

    The hardest thoughts to critique are the ones that seem obvious.


    So, when it comes to "preserving" I fall back on the pornography defense that I know it when I see it. (Although , to be honest, I'm not sure I know porn when I see it!)


    I think the critical hurdle is --   Is the entire course worth preserving ? That's a high hurdle that few courses can jump.


   If we limit the discussion to those gems then it becomes a little easier to proceed.


   I am actually thinking of a different course than my own that is a classic Ross. It uses an intriguing piece of land; it is routed in a pleasing way; the green complexes are fun filled and varied ; the par threes provide varied lenghts and challenges.  I have played it and all the other Rosses in the area. I feel comfortable saying it is the most fun of all of the others in town. A restoration to the original angles of play would place it among the best in town and by extension one of the best classic courses in the country.  Also, it has not been substantially altered EXCEPT for massive tree plantings.

   So, it's a Ross with some outstanding bones that could easily be restored to the original intent without disturbing the course itself.

     But, really it is just a feeling I get when I play there.

  The entire course can and probably should be restored based on the original intent of Ross. Where changes must be made they would be very few and absolutely necessary.


   I got this feeling when I saw the 1926 photos of my home course for the first time  " I want THAT course back!".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

It was "obscenity" not porn.
We all know what porn is.

Sean raises several important issues.

Who decides on change, and in what context ?

What was unpopular 3 decades ago on a golf course built in 1920, may be in or out of favor today.  If an alteration was made three decades ago to counter that unpopular architectural feature, and another one is being made today, to remedy what's perceived as a flaw, does that mean that today's change will be revised again, two decades from now ?

This is why I tend to favor retention of the original, which was one of Sean's options.

That's not to say that improvements can't be made, but, at most clubs, those alterations that at the time were deemed to be improvements, disfigured the golf course.

So, context becomes vital as does the decision making process.

From another viewpoint:

Can that mean that the alteration made 3 decades ago had no merit, that the alteration was only a fad ?

And, can it mean that the proposed re-alteration today isn't more of the same  ?

The reason I favor retention and restoration is the enormous number of disfigurations I've witnessed in the name of improvement.

I not a believer in "architecture by committee vote"

Lengthening, or vertical elasticity, I accept in most cases.

But, deviating from the original work, altering the architectural integrity of the design, is something I generally oppose, because I don't trust the wisdom of a vote by those in attendance at a committee meeting.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

    I wasn't sure of the spelling so I went with "porn".



    This reminds me of an instant message exchange I had with one of my daughters a few years ago.

   I had started a topic at my office which was 20 miles from my home. I stopped by my home on my way to Rotary to see if I had gotten any replies.

     As I signed on to my wife's computer at home , my daughter queried "Is that you , mom?"

   I told her it was me (that's how she knew it was me, because her mother would have used "I" ).

     I told her I was watching "porn".

   She writes " I know you're on that golf architecture site; you can't fool me".

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

   I arbitrarily chose "the whole course" as the hurdle to limit resortations/preservations to a small number to start Hopefully, this will create a beginning list of courses worth preserving. Also, when one selects "the whole course" you don't need to make the tough decision about which holes aren't worthy of restoration.


   I agree with Pat that restoration provides the best standard for how a course should play. Once a different route is selected all hell breaks loose and one man's opinion is as good as another's. The result then becomes--who has the power and wants to leave a mark on the course?

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

   You would be pleased with the Ross course I mentioned. They love their greens even though they can be unplayable sometimes.

    But, they may give in to a master plan that recommends moving their bunkers to the present fairway widths as opposed to removing the trees from near the existing bunkers. My feeling is that this will eliminate their chances of restoration possibly forever. That would be a real shame,IMO.




       Other factors that I think are important in determining whether to stick with the original intent are


            Can it be done economically?

            Do you have enough archival information to make good decisions?

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

    This "restoration" stuff can get very convoluted, so I want to go back to the beginning.


    The reason to use original intent as a guiding principle for taking out trees that go from an annoyance to a hindrance when the tees are moved back is because it gives you the best framework for a decision.

   
    We know that many trees needed to be removed to allow the routing of about six of our holes originally. So, we know Flynn made some decisions about how the remaining corridors of trees would impact play.

   We know he had trees on his plans to be planted . We know hundreds were planted before our first 1930's photo or within ten years of the course being opened.

  We know Flynn was alive at the time and living in the area. We know he wrote about trees and those planted before the second photos are in harmony with his ideas.


     We know no significant additional plantings took place until around 1960.


     So, it becomes rather easy to establish that the two trees in question were not planted with the original intent in mind and now that the tees have been moved back people can recognize it.

     So, if we have decided that original intent is the best guide for this particular course and examination of the research confirms these trees as contrary to it then we take them down.


     I guess what I was trying to say to my fellow RG member this morning was that if Flynn had planned for these trees to be there, I would try to see why my idea is wrong. But, I'm confident that he would not want them there because they eliminate everything else he did on that hole forward to the green.


    Now, Jim Coleman wanted to take them down because of some strict yardage requirement. This I totally disagree with since it lets one avoid the research work necessary to use the original intent argument.

   You can't use original intent and talk off the top of your head; you need evidence. This may be the real reason it is shunted aside; it is too hard to do and may not align with one's opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()