[wsmorrison]

"Launching into changes to a historic course based on things like "fun" or "fairness" or "beauty" is a cop-out. Those are empty concepts into which you can pour almost anything. They have been the beginning of the end of many very good holes."

"Wayne — I was referring to another 'Wayne'. Lighten up."

Give me a break, Forrest.  I completely agree with my friends Lloyd and Bob.  Friendship aside, you were obviously referring to me or rather someone you think is like me.  Since you have no idea about either, I'll just ignore your offense and your attempt at passing it off as humor.  

 I have a very thick skin and can take what you dish out and a heck of a lot more.  No need to worry about my feelings.  

"Now, back to the question. Frankly, I think it a good cause to debunk the notion that drawings of old, dead architects can accurately show the path to exactness in restoration. Intent? Yes, of course. Old drawings are great for this."

Suppose that the old drawings were drawn to scale and accurately reflect the course as built?  You should consider the Flynn collection and method of design and construction.  If you studied it carefully, you would know that his drawings were precise and precisely followed.  You could overlay the drawing on an old aerial and a modern one and see that for yourself what was drawn, what was built and what was changed.  

Craig Disher did that for us and he, myself, Tom Paul, Bob Crosby, Cascades, Shinnecock and a host of others know the truth of such accuracy.  It was certainly not the norm but it certainly provides a process that is indisputable by informed individuals.  It does provide all the information necessary for a faithful restoration.  The extent of the restoration is left to the club to decide.  I'm an historian, not an architect.  I present information to be used as the club sees fit.  It is their course and their right to do as they please.  It remains however, that you are absolutely wrong to suggest all archival information can merely provide intent.  You simply do not have all the facts and your generalization reflects just that.

[Mike_Young]

I think much of the premise of the initial posts is wrong and set the thread on a misdirected tangent, although I must concede, an interesting one.  First, I think it is wrong to suggest that anywhere near a majority of regular posters believe that a significant number of courses should be restored to their original state.  Most of us agree that as courses evolve and as the game evolves, courses need to be adjusted to reflect the fact that they are not static (trees grow, turf changes) and the game is not static (e.g. equipment changes).  There are a few purists but they are in the minority.  There are also a small number of courses that many of us believe should be preserved both because of their historic significance and because they continue to work so well.

Where the conflict arises is that many of us have a greater respect for the work of the "old guys" than the general public and than some of our other contributors, particularly a few architects.  We refuse to assume that newer is necessarily better and insist that the change be judged critically in terms of how it fits with the overall strategic and aesthetic philosophy of the course in question.

To suggest that those who are complaining are "amateurs" doesn't cut it because its not a substantive comment.  Its a label.  Most critics of any field of endeavour are educated amateurs.  Music critics don't have to be world class musicians, movie critics don't make movies and art critics don't need paintings hanging in museums to state their opinions.  They place their ideas in the marketplace and face the court of opinion to determine whether their views have influence or not.

Now if some of us amateurs try to tell the pros about plotting drainage, or the feasability of moving dirt or several thousand other technical issues we will usually be out of our league and we should be shot down.  But regarding issues of strategy, playability and pleasurability we can stand toe to toe with the "pros" even if one is willing to ignore the fact that we are the consumers.

I hesitate to suggest that many of the "old guys" who we revere were really amateurs.  CB MacDonald was self taught and never earned his living in golf.  George Thomas was the same.

Moreover, some of our own have done some very good work in assisting their clubs to get on the right track.  A prime example is the work of Geoff Childs and George Bahto at Yale who took a lot of heat to push Yale to bring back the glory of that great course.  Others of us have had more modest successes in moving older clubs to undo some of the bad renovations of the 60s - 80s.

This doesn't mean "we" are always right.  First there is no "we", the heat of many of the exchanges on the board belies that suggestion.  But to the extent there is a prevailing view it can be wrong, just like any form of criticism.  But skip the polemics against meddling amateurs and focus on individual problems.  Each of us who provides a service must deal with critics; those who create something consumed by the public that lasts such as art or architecture or golf course architecture simply face more critics in a more public way.  Accept that as a fact of life and deal with the criticism in a reasoned and focused fashion.  Then maybe we'll be able to identify where our real differences and similarities lie.

L,
I think you bring up very good points.....and I agree...

In all of our different busineses  99.9 percent of the problems can be handled and are considered the norm but that .01 percent is what you are hired for..whether it be an airline pilot....surgeon...banker..broker or golf architect.....and I am sure most here could pilot the aircraft if the computer is working or do an appendectomy if we had too....and probably easiest of all design a golf course.....HOWEVER some on here don't know the difference....and thru such ignorance have convinced themselves that they are architects....which they are if they printed a business card.....BUT wait until they grab hold of that project with that .01 percent problem.....AS FOR the majority fo the "amateurs" on here I enjoy and appreciate their input and I respect the historians even when we disagree ...I just think the B**L S**T boys have no clue....

[Forrest Richardson]

David E. — You make a great point. On one hand we agree that it is practically impossible to restore to exactness, yet we do hear this word "restoration" and many green committees, golfers and whomever take this to mean that a course is somehow being returned to a point in time.

I wonder how Oakmont will be portrayed in a few weeks? Do you think the emphasis of the media will be how the Fownes were 100% committeed to tinkering and improving their "baby"...making it more maddening (read: fun), more engaging (read: alluring), and more interesting (read: interesting)?

My guess is that the primary emphasis will be on how it got returned to some condition of years past, how the club and Fazio "went back in time". How the tree removal has now "returned the course to its former glory."

While emelents of the above are true, the constant is that (and Tom D. says it very well) the course must change. That is, after all, the nature of golf, both in its connection to the living/changing environment and also to the game and the play that takes place upon its courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — I owe you replies. I like the idea that my reference to 'Wayne' was someone like you, but not you. Let's go with that.

Yes, when old drawings are to scale and they were made after a course was shaped and grown-in, the drawings would be useful. Still, these drawings are only as good as the limited surveying methods available.

We are working with a 1922 survey at this time. Comparing it to digital terrain modeling created a few months ago shows that roads and natural features that have not changed in 90 years are off by more than 20 feet in places. While we can use the old survey to locate ideas and features, we need to keep in mind that a bunker or green edge could be way off in terms of accuracy. A green shown to be 8,000 s.f. might actually have been 4,000 s.f. — that is a big deviation. By the way, the topo surveyed in 1922 — in places — is off more than 10-feet, even in natural, undisturbed areas of the property.

Mark Fine has helped educate me on Flynn's great drawings. I look forward to one day seeing more of this collection. Mike Hurdzan shared a lot a few years ago, but I know there is much more. Again, I am looking forward to your book on Flynn.

I have had drawings precisely followed. At The Links at Las Palomas we built three holes entirely by using an integrated GPS attached to the blade of a D-8 dozer. Tim Taynor, our shaper on that work, took our detailed 1-ft. contour/shaping plans and moved sand in a flat area exactly as we drew it. All horizontal and vertical data was followed to the letter.

Today, three years later, the as-built drawing shows where we made adjustments and, also, where wind, irrigation work and other activity (grow-in, settling, etc.) have significantly changed the work. The greens have taken on a slight shift due to mowing, some paspalum has creeped out further and in other places, the turf simply has not done well causing fairways to shrink slightly.

Now, that work was done using 21st Century technology — and we end up with perhaps 85% of what we designed in detailed plans now still evident. (Many of the changes, by the way, are great!)

So, I remain of the opinion that — even with Wm. Flynn's great detail and control — it is only a guide that we will find in his collection of plans and as-builts. Some areas may be spot-on, while others may be way off from what was there originally. The danger you have, using the approach I hear you describing, is that you may well be suggesting changes that appear as deviations....when, in fact, they may have been what Flynn wanted. I do not think you can ever be certain — so why try? Why not just do your best and then allow change to unfold as appropriate and with a degree of leaning toward what makes the golf better — regardless?

At Leheigh Mark showed me several subtle contours in greens and just off greens. I think many of these, in Mark's opinion, were Flynn's masterful work. While I agree that some probably are, I also am of the opinion that some are probably the result of decades of topdressing, and other causes; such as sprinkler breaks and resulting spongy ground (settled areas and soil disposition).

The interesting question is what we "restore" or "change"?

My opinion is that the restoration movement is often a guise for getting work and playing into the ideal that we can somehow justify a large percentage of change in the name of history.

Maybe it is a matter of where each of our ideals rests. Mine, as I have stated, is in the joy that comes from making changes — when appropriate and it leads to better golf. This is why I create golf courses and work with existing courses. As Mark says, beginning with a decent history and background is always called for.

But, in the end, I think the designers of today need to think more like the Fownes. Tinkering, experimenting and adjusting is part of the playing board of the game in most situations — a few chosen courses, with no list ever to be agreed to, are "certain" exceptions. To close this door (to change) entirely is ultimately a dis-service to the game and its followers. — and, of course, the art of golf course architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

When you hear the word "restoration" you have to remember that a great number of clubs have had their golf courses altered/disfigured in the past, and as such, the club is interested in undoing the damage and reverting to the original hole, and when they undertake that project, they call it a restoration even though there may be a few added nuances.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, Pat. I agree — and I have had meetings along those line, too.

Just as there is a growing movement to educate against "green-green-green", perhaps there needs to be a movement against "restore-restore-restore". At least when either is done at all cost.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
Your last two post sum it up....
Mike Y

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne — I owe you replies. I like the idea that my reference to 'Wayne' was someone like you, but not you. Let's go with that."

Please do not feel obligated to reply to me, especially considering the nature of your replies.  I think it insulting regardless of how you want to go with it.  It is very revealing about you and meaningless in any other usage.

"Yes, when old drawings are to scale and they were made after a course was shaped and grown-in, the drawings would be useful. Still, these drawings are only as good as the limited surveying methods available."

You have no idea what you are talking about as it relates to Flynn or the projects that consist of a faithful restoration.  Please be informed when you make conclusions rather than perpetuating mistakes.

"We are working with a 1922 survey at this time. Comparing it to digital terrain modeling created a few months ago shows that roads and natural features that have not changed in 90 years are off by more than 20 feet in places. While we can use the old survey to locate ideas and features, we need to keep in mind that a bunker or green edge could be way off in terms of accuracy. A green shown to be 8,000 s.f. might actually have been 4,000 s.f. — that is a big deviation. By the way, the topo surveyed in 1922 — in places — is off more than 10-feet, even in natural, undisturbed areas of the property."

That's too bad.  It has nothing at all to do with my examples.  I would hope you would realize this.

"Mark Fine has helped educate me on Flynn's great drawings. I look forward to one day seeing more of this collection. Mike Hurdzan shared a lot a few years ago, but I know there is much more. Again, I am looking forward to your book on Flynn."

Up until recently, Mike Hurdzan had the drawings for a week.  If you saw them several years ago, you were lucky the timing was right.

"I have had drawings precisely followed. At The Links at Las Palomas we built three holes entirely by using an integrated GPS attached to the blade of a D-8 dozer. Tim Taynor, our shaper on that work, took our detailed 1-ft. contour/shaping plans and moved sand in a flat area exactly as we drew it. All horizontal and vertical data was followed to the letter."

Interesting but not relevant.  

"Today, three years later, the as-built drawing shows where we made adjustments and, also, where wind, irrigation work and other activity (grow-in, settling, etc.) have significantly changed the work. The greens have taken on a slight shift due to mowing, some paspalum has creeped out further and in other places, the turf simply has not done well causing fairways to shrink slightly."

You are trying to relate the effects of the practices of today with those of 80 years ago.   There are some commonalities but not all as you seem to indicate.

"Now, that work was done using 21st Century technology — and we end up with perhaps 85% of what we designed in detailed plans now still evident. (Many of the changes, by the way, are great!)"

Your methods are not the same as Flynn.  Why do you keep comparing yourself and your methods to his?  I'm glad you think your changes are great.  I would be surprised if you thought otherwise.

So, I remain of the opinion that — even with Wm. Flynn's great detail and control — it is only a guide that we will find in his collection of plans and as-builts. Some areas may be spot-on, while others may be way off from what was there originally. The danger you have, using the approach I hear you describing, is that you may well be suggesting changes that appear as deviations....when, in fact, they may have been what Flynn wanted. I do not think you can ever be certain — so why try? Why not just do your best and then allow change to unfold as appropriate and with a degree of leaning toward what makes the golf better — regardless?

Again, your opinion does not match the facts.  You are completely wrong when it comes to the examples I posed.  Why don't you study the matter before drawing conclusions.  This process of yours is very flawed.  By the way, Mark Fine does not have a mastery of the subject so anything he imparted to you may not be wholly correct.  You follow whatever process you want to build or restore.  The market place will decide how your methods are received.

"At Leheigh Mark showed me several subtle contours in greens and just off greens. I think many of these, in Mark's opinion, were Flynn's masterful work. While I agree that some probably are, I also am of the opinion that some are probably the result of decades of topdressing, and other causes; such as sprinkler breaks and resulting spongy ground (settled areas and soil disposition)."

Mark Fine maintains that many of the greens are no longer Flynn.  I don't know the specifics he claims nor the examples he cited to you.  I hope Tom Paul returns the materials he's had for so long.  They belong back at his club.

"The interesting question is what we "restore" or "change"?

My opinion is that the restoration movement is often a guise for getting work and playing into the ideal that we can somehow justify a large percentage of change in the name of history."

I think this needs to be considered on a case by case basis.  I fail to see how important your generalizations are.  There are so many variables that specifics are what should be considered.  

You stated very clearly that faithful restorations and the research to document same are a waste of time.  You have never given a single example of this.  You mention that a guy named Wayne digs up drawings of mistakes and urges clubs to restore them.  You don't give any examples.  Your presentation is to date fanciful and lacks substance.  Until you cite real case histories that back up your statements, I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

"Maybe it is a matter of where each of our ideals rests. Mine, as I have stated, is in the joy that comes from making changes — when appropriate and it leads to better golf. This is why I create golf courses and work with existing courses. As Mark says, beginning with a decent history and background is always called for."

You are clearly biased.  You say that you achieve joy in making changes.  Tacitly you indicate they are of your own design.  I don't know how talented you are but you sure are confident.  

"But, in the end, I think the designers of today need to think more like the Fownes. Tinkering, experimenting and adjusting is part of the playing board of the game in most situations — a few chosen courses, with no list ever to be agreed to, are "certain" exceptions. To close this door (to change) entirely is ultimately a dis-service to the game and its followers. — and, of course, the art of golf course architecture."

Flynn reworked a number of his courses throughout his life.  Merion, Rolling Green, Philadelphia Country, Lancaster, Cascades and others.  I would rather accept his end result as something to restore than your changes.  But if you give specific examples of improvements you would make (and I asked this of you many times) then I can gauge your competency and evaluate your proposals.  You counter that you get paid for that and you wouldn't provide them on this forum.  Fine.  Your point remains unsubstantiated and I quit this thread.

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — Thanks for your remarks, you make some very good points. And, you are right, I am in no way as familiar with Flynn as you.

I did think some of my comparisons were relavent, but I understand that it is truly impossible to compare two situations and expect them to be have the same conditions and influences.

Even though this thread really isn't about Flynn, the references to Flynn as we debate show the diversity of how people look at this important topic. As for making improvements to any Flynn courses, my opinion is that the appropriate approach (if and when anything were to be done) is that it should balance what Flynn intended, to what is there now, to what might be better. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that anything would be changed. From what I know of Flynn's work, much of it is great the way it is.

By the way, I would rather be "clearly biased" than merely biased.  

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,
Thank you for being a gentleman in your respnse.  If I pushed the matter too hard, I apologize.  Best wishes to you.
Wayne

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest and Wayne,
I see you are both having a fun little chat     I suggest we re-discuss some of this at Fox Chapel on June 14th.  Maybe Wayne can bring some of the Cascades stuff.  I know he is of the opinion that Flynn was so precise with his drawings that he didn't make any changes in the field.  I'm sure Forrest needs to see this to believe it.  

I'm also not sure any of us will ever have a "mastery of the subject" but will all do our best to offer educated and informed opinions.  I'll hold more of mine (if I have any) until the 14th    

Enjoy the holiday weekend.
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

I will still buy your book.  

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Forrest.  If you pay retail, I'll make sure Tom Paul signs it for you

Mark,

When did I ever say that Flynn didn't make changes in the field?  I said he designed to scale on paper and that was to be the way the course was meant to be built.  In the case of the projects where we were/are involved in faithful restorations, he built according to his drawings.  If you don't believe me, as it seems to be the case, ask Craig Disher or Tom Paul.  If they are willing to discuss the matter with you, so be it.  

"I know he is of the opinion that Flynn was so precise with his drawings that he didn't make any changes in the field.  I'm sure Forrest needs to see this to believe it."

I am not of the opinion that Flynn was precise with his drawings.  It is a fact.  If Forrest needs to see this to believe it, I am not inclined to bring the proof.  He's buying the book and it is in there.  If you or he wants further proof, I suggest you and he look for it.  It is not my job to satisfy his needs and he isn't asking me to.

Of course Flynn adapted to issues in the field.  How do you know he didn't draw the changes that resulted?  We don't have every one of his drawings so there are some cases where the answers aren't complete.  Some of the drawings show the 7th iteration of his plans.  We don't know if there was an 8th and we don't know what the previous iterations look like.

His customary method was to iterate on paper and have the course built exactly to his plans and detailed construction instructions.  Were there exceptions?  Out of 52 designs and other redesigns with more than 1000 holes, I would expect there were some changes, but rarely.  Given that we do not know if the drawings we have on a given course represent the final plan, it is sometimes hard to say if these represent the final plans.  

Where we have serial iterations, such as at Cascades and Shinnecock Hills, it is a lot easier to determine.  The final drawings match exactly to aerial photographs.  If you do not believe me, it doesn't make it not so.  If you saw the work that Craig Disher did, you would be amazed.  Not only regarding Craig's ability to do what he did, but also how accurate Flynn's drawings were.  The proof exists.  You just haven't seen it.  That doesn't make it non-existent.  If I choose not to share it with you, it remains true none-the-less.  

Again, you have not studied Flynn to the same extent as Tom and I.  We have spent years devoted to studying the historical record and the courses.  The amount of archival material we have amassed on Flynn and the courses he worked on is comprehensive.  I would think you would reserve conclusions until you know the subject matter better.  At least be courteous enough to give us the benefit of the doubt unless you prove otherwise.

And in that vein, I don't see any value in discussing this at Fox Chapel or anywhere else.  It is not my intention to change your mind or provide proof to you.  If you challenge what I say, I see no need to counter further.  Believe me if you like or not.  It makes no difference.  I wrote a 1600 page book on Flynn.  If that doesn't answer your questions, I don't know that a conversation at Fox Chapel will.  

Perhaps some of the clubs will share the information about their restoration with you.  However, I have no intention to divulge details of the processes or decisions made about their courses without their permission.  I would not be comfortable with that.  I said what I have to say and I see no need to bring examples with me to Fox Chapel to back it up.  Frankly, I didn't know you were going to be there.  I want to study Fox Chapel and enjoy time with my hosts.  There's no need to discuss Flynn there, I'm sure my hosts would find the subject suitable for another time and place.  I look forward to discussions that pertain to the club we're visiting.

[Forrest Richardson]

I was not aware that Tom had anything to do with the book. Maybe I will just pick up a copy at the library.

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,

It will be privately published as a 3-volume set.  I doubt you will find it in a library.  We would be pleased (as will our benefactor) to publish and sell 300 sets or so.  That should recover the costs of printing.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
You already showed me the Cascades stuff, did you forget?  I was just suggesting you show it to Forrest.  No need to always get defensive!  Lighten up, geez!

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

I don't recall showing you the Cascades material.  Was it at Hidden Creek?  If so, that was an early version that is far short from the final analysis.  I don't believe anyone other than the Cascades group, Craig Disher, Tom Paul and I have seen the final work.  The Shinnecock Hills material is equally convincing; the course was built as drawn.  The drawings show a serial progression from preliminary plan to final.  It is fascinating to consider how close the first plan was to the final.

But if I did show you the results and you still were not convinced that the drawings match the construction, then what more is there to say?  That should provide all the information you need to convince Forrest.  It is as conclusive as you can get regarding the accuracy of Flynn's drawings.  Unlike Forrest's example, the roads, buildings, and architectural features are accurately represented in the drawings.  When the drawings and photos were overlapped, they matched perfectly well.  Of course, some streams moved over time and we were able to discern exactly how this took place.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
You brought the final plan to Lehigh and we went through it (Mike was with you).  It had all the overlays that were done by Craig, etc.  

And actually I have seen the final work.  I was down to the Cascades for three days, played and photographed the course, and studied what was done.  Last I talked to you, you had not even been down there since before they started construction.  When did you get down to see the final work?  I'm not even sure Tom has see it?

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

That could not have been the final plan as that visit preceded our work at Cascades by many months.  If it was, then you should be able to convince Forrest of its accuracy.  If you still do not believe it, I don't know what to say.  Shinnecock Hills was equally accurate.  It is simply an undeniable fact.  He accurately drew what was to be built.  This and a comprehensive photographic record allowed us to provide the information necessary to faithfully restore.

Do you deny that we had the information to realize the possibility of a faithful restoration?

By the way, there was one building on his prelim plan of the CC York that was slightly off.  He did not get the job or else I feel certain that would have been corrected in a later iteration.  Even still, it was not in the field of play.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Read all the posts.  I am not the one questioning the accuracy of the plans.

By the way, what did you think of how it turned out?  Has Tom seen it yet?  I don't think he has but I could be wrong.  I have lots of photos.  Didn't I send them to you?
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Thanks, Forrest.  If you pay retail, I'll make sure Tom Paul signs it for you. "

Then who's going to pay me the usual premium for my signature? You Wayne? If I do any book signing gigs the price of the book doubles, by the way.

I did see the bunker work done at Cascades. Coming up the mountains from the South I actually got behind a "WIDE LOAD" that was going about 3/4 of a mile and hour and I had to make a detour west and north through California to circle back around and come in over the mountains from the North to the Cascades.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

"I was down to the Cascades for three days, played and photographed the course, and studied what was done"

Yes, I know, you did send me some photos.  Again, thank you very much.  It looked like you and your boys were having a lot of fun.

"Last I talked to you, you had not even been down there since before they started construction.  When did you get down to see the final work?"

No, I haven't even been down to see the work.  Why?

"By the way, what did you think of how it turned out?"  

As I said, I haven't seen it.  What did you think?  You studied it for three days.  What did your study reveal?

"Has Tom seen it yet?  I don't think he has but I could be wrong."

You are wrong, Tom has seen it.  Why do you ask and speculate?  Is there a point you'd like to make?

I have not seen the work since completion.  I saw a construction stage but have not seen the final product.  I will be going there later this summer with the family.  Jim Finegan's comments about the work are enough for me.  He knows the course intimately as he has been going there regularly for decades.  I am pleased that he considers the work excellent and the best he's ever seen the course.  Of course, we'd all like to see 14 green and 15 tee faithfully restored.  Well, maybe not everyone  

Tom,

With your entourage and deluxe hotel accomodations on the book signing tour already creating a loss for the project, there is no premium left to give.  You and your rock star list of demands at every hotel make the concierges go nuts:

Tynant water at 55 degrees (still only and not one degree off)
Red M&Ms only (I'm the one that has to pick through them all discarding all the other colors)
Marlborough hardpacks (softpacks are for sissies)
Red Bordeaux (at least we can be cheap with the Cabernet since you can't taste the difference after you go through a pack of smokes)
Diet Coke with the icecubes made of diet coke (can't dilute the flavor)
Dual Core processor laptop (to connect to GCA.com at any time)
Swedish and Korean masseuses on hand (depending upon your mood and whether you need a frip)
Hair stylist
Wardrobe assistant
The latest edition of Gentleman Farmer magazine
The latest Kubota tractor catalog
Rolodex of 18,000 American golf course superintendents and 18,000 green chairman

It is no wonder the signing tour is a huge loss leader

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()