The Restoration Lemmings

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lloyd,

For the record, I have several posts on this web site saying that there are a small number of courses that deserve perfect restoration to their original or at least peak status (like Merion in 1930) so enthusiasts could study them and they could be treasured.  

However, when either Forrest or Mike or I talk about not restoring other courses, we are speaking of other gca's or even second tier Ross courses.  Of his 400, what if you belong to one that most would rank as 398 or higher?  Would that affect your decision on whether to restore it 6298 yards rather than pick up some length?  For many, it would.  Just the truth, based on our experiences.

As to the bigger "zealots" issue here on gca.com, I also addressed the role of this group in architectural style years ago in a thread titled "tastemaking" which generated quite a bit of discussion, none of which I recall as dismissive as your reaction to my current post in a thread started by others.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Is it very  possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

Jeff

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with stuff like this?

Lloyd,
There is a lot of truth in what Jeff is saying....he just keeps using specific numbers or percentages and that gives more license to the guys that want to argue with him.....there are others besides the three of us....and IMHO most here have good intentions...
But take a minute and think about this site....let me ask a few questions
Look how many experts it has developed, or given a pulpit, without them having ever done any of the hype they speak....
Do you think that the dead guys would want experience or "hobby knowledge" to be involved in working with the courses they left?
AND....do you think most on the site can tell if a course is good if they don't know the architect AND if they know the architect does that determine the course values to them?

Sory if some of this seems "smartass" but there is a lot of stuff on here where guys know just enogh to get in trouble and i am sure it is the same in your business.....

Mike

Lloyd,

Your comment also strikes me as something in the political realm - instead of discussing actual ideas, you dismiss them with a "everybody knows that......" kind of statement, which isn't proven, documented, or whatever.  Let's just shout down the opposition by broadly questioning their intelligence, shall we?  What is the point of that in a discussion group?

All I asked was simple question.  History shows that clubs DIDN'T care about their architecture.  History shows that ANY group of activists can effect change, and that most people are in a silent majority.  Recent history may show that club members now do care about their gca lineage, but the "movement" may prove to be a fad, pushed by a few and not a long term trend.  

No one knows, do they?  Or does EVERYBODY know that it is a long term trend?

Mike,

My inbox has some emails which would lead me to reduce my somewhat tongue and cheek 1497 number, but it isn't worth the time to edit the post.

Jeff

That was not a simple question. It was clearly a suggestion. But if you'd like it to be be treated as a question then - the answer is no. I for one take exception to the suggestion that my thought process might be akin to that of a zealot. You do not do yourself any favours with this type of post, and if you were to study my input here, you'd find that I try to argue my point and I'm the last person to suggest that someone 'just doesn't get it.'. That isn't debate.
However, when BS is forthcoming, I believe it should be called for what it is.
You may not have noticed, but your friend Mike and I seem to be in rough ageement on this thread.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Is it very  possible that this website of 1500, of which 1497 (Forrest, Mike and I excepted!) probably are zealots for "pure restorations" are forcing restorations on clubs that don't really want them, much the way the political zealots often drive the important issues facing us?

Jeff

This is what you wrote.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lloyd,

I think I excel at keeping my posts BS free, perhaps (and here we go again with the percentages) in the top 1% here on golfclubatlas.com!  

Frankly, I view that as my role here, since there are so many hobbyists with opinions but no real world experience in gca to back those up.  I also don't mind playing the role of iconclast or agitator (esp. on rainy Friday mornings) from time to time. I do enjoy golf architectural discussions and have NEVER required that anyone agree with me.  Also, with rare, and much regretted exceptions, I try to keep my posts light and humorous, in keeping with the true importance of the discussions here.  

I checked my original post, and it started with the words "Is it possible....and ended with a question mark.  I think that constitutes a question and not a suggestion.

It came from a real world convergence of reading Forrest's post, reading a local newspaper article, and recent conversation with a local politically involved person (the latter two totally unrelated to gca, of course) talking about how the "vocal minority" unduly influences political opinion.

That convergence made me put those possible items together in my mind.  I thought it was worthy of lively discussion on this thread.  

BTW, I have also offered on a few occaions to allow the group to "vote me off the island" (how dated that reference is shows how long I have made this offer) if you think I am too full of BS to be here.  I don't really benefit at all from posting here, and if no one else does, it could be a divorce made in heaven!

Make it a great Memorial Day weekend everyone!  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Peter
The key, for me, is the subjugation of ego. The subjugation of a healthy, vibrant, secure ego, is, I suspect, an easier task than the reigning in of the frustrated, unfulfilled one.

Lloyd, that sounds about right to me. But then, does it mean that it's the most acclaimed and successful architects who'd also be the best restorers, since they have the least to prove? (Not wholly a rhetorical question, I don't think.)

And maybe we should add the purest of amateurs to that list, since they'd be happy to defer completely to the wishes of the original designer, out of love and respect.

Of course, that assumes a certain notion of what a succesful restoration is. And I think we can afford to be purists here: there are many fine new courses being built all the time, and there are thousands of very good existing courses that aren't on anyone's list for restoration; I don't see the problem with trying to be a purist about the restoration of a (relatively) very small number of classic courses.

Peter    

Peter

Not all, would be ideal, some have made it clear that they think they can improve on the Mona Lisa given access to it. But having established their own aesthetic, or 'stamp', they may feel less inclined to leave it where it would not be appropriate.

I see no difference between pros and amateurs. I think the concept of the purity of the amateur in golf is bogus and insults the likes of Hagen and Braid who worked for a living whilst glorifying Jones and Stranahan who frankly really didn't need to.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I checked my original post, and it started with the words "Is it possible....and ended with a question mark.  I think that constitutes a question and not a suggestion.

Jeff

That is not what you wrote.
There was a 'very' between the 'it' and the 'possible' which made all the difference.
If you didn't notice it when typing then it was unfortunate because words have meaning even when you might not intend them to have...

I am not in favour of voting anyone off the island unless they are consistently abusive and disrespectful.
And I do hope you have a great weekend, too.

[Mike_Young]

Guys,
Would most agree that advise is worth what you pay for it???  Whether giving it to a club in some formal document or writing on this website?

I woud think we agree on that.....

Thus all of this is entertainment.....
Happy Memorial Day....

Jeff,
I think it is more of a peninsula where you can come and go but still be surrounded by.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lloyd,

I could be political in the Bill Clinton sense and say "It depends on they very definition of "very"!

But, I won't. This isn't a word parsing discussion board.......

If your weather is like ours wherever you are, it will make for some very soggy golf or cookouts this weekend......

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I have to run but I wanted to tell you that Forrest just called.  You made his day calling him a "historian" in your post

"If I was doing resto/redo work I would always align myself with a historian that was familiar with the work of the original"

I only bring him in when I need him (which is rare  ) but he loves it when I do  

Have a good weekend.
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

The problem with comparisons to the Mona Lisa is that the Mona Lisa is static, whereas golf courses are interactive, and, the forces of interaction are in constant change.

Would the Merion's, Winged Foot's and Pine Valley's of the world better serve today's golfers by playing to their original yardages ?

I don't think there's anyone who supports restoration to that configuration.

Should a large carry bunker that originally sat at 180 off the tee be relagated to eye candy ?   Or, should the tee be moved back to preserve the design integrity ?

And, if the land to move the tee back is not available, should:

1     the bunker be moved to a location where its function can
       be served

2     should the bunker be left where it is and a second bunker
       added that would restore the original design function.

As you go through a golf course you can come upon an inordinate number of situations which create multiple decision paths.

I think you have to give consideration to the original design integrity, but, you can't ignore function, the interfacing of the golfer with the architecture.  And, since that process has changed considerably, it creates a conflict.

Unfortunately, in many cases, individuals/committees are incapable of understanding the conflict and the best way/s to resolve it.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I have to run but I wanted to tell you that Forrest just called.  You made his day calling him a "historian" in your post

"If I was doing resto/redo work I would always align myself with a historian that was familiar with the work of the original"

I only bring him in when I need him (which is rare  ) but he loves it when I do  

Have a good weekend.
Mark

You da man....as I said earlier not familiar with ya'll set up.....
Mike

[Adam Clayman]

 I don't really benefit at all from posting here, and if no one else does, it could be a divorce made in heaven!
 

You haven't benefitted from this DG?

You have never heard any comments from those who have played your courses and thought they added input to your overall thoughts and opinions?

Sorry about the delay Jeff, I had a misclick and then phonus interuptus.

[Jeff_Brauer]

......A majority of the work was in response to enormous advances in technology and agronomy. ........

.........Why should they have been respectful of their predecessors when most were obsoleted..........

Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place...............The result being that they began to think for the future.  

These forward thinking architects designed better courses, for the most part more natural courses that weather the test of time..........

.........Are there some cases where improvements can be implemented?  Sure there are.  Not even the most forward thinkers could have imagined the extent of technology in turf grasses and maintenance equipment and practices.  

.......Are there some courses that were not designed so very well and can be improved?  Of course.  

.......generalizations aren't really called for........

Not to step back in the doo doo on this one, but I think Wayne summarizes the situations of both the Golden Age, and to a lesser extent, the situations right now.  Or, as Pat calls it, recogizing that courses are interactive with many things and in constanct change.  

My question is this: If the best and brightest of the Golden Age are given a free pass philosophically to improve what went before, why aren't todays best gca's given credit for being able to do the same thing?  Or do we stand meekly by, accepting the notions of a few that we are all basically idiots compared to those old drunks who came before us?

While I agree early American architecture didn't pass muster, the basic GA philosophy of "we can do better given what we now know" is certainly still valid.  They had some courses in the GBI, like TOC that they probably recommended never be changed, at least much.  We have those and a few more of their very best courses that couldn't be improved enough to bother making the effort.

For all other courses, it may not even be a case of making them better, as it is adapting them to todays conditions.  After all, if a member pays his dues in 2007 and moving forward, he should have a 2007 golf course - whether one of the ones that did pass the test of time (with or without minor tweaking) or one that needs major overhaul to be relevant.

That some courses are great as is isn't the argument here.  Perhaps how many is, but it seems we are really arguing over which type of generalization ought to be operative until facts or value judgements based on facts come to light in individual projects.

I think all anyone opposing Lemming like rush to restorations is saying is to avoid generalizations that go too far in the opposite direction of the also false generalization of "All courses should be modernized."

[Jeff_Brauer]

 I don't really benefit at all from posting here, and if no one else does, it could be a divorce made in heaven!
 

Adam,

And your point would be?

[Jeff Goldman]

Doesn't anyone think it is important to preserve some select work of the dead guys because they are dead?  G.W. Thomas isn't building any more greens, and I think it would be a shame if his best-preserved work were changed to make it more "relevant to today's game" or even to "improve" it.  I have posed this question to a few architects:  If you KNEW you could improve 15, 16, 8 and/or 9 at Cypress Point, or 10 at Riviera, and EVERYONE (whoever they are) agreed that what you wanted to do was an improvement, would you do it?  On a couple occasions the answer was basically, "no, because we need to preserve Mackenzie's [or Thomas'] best work", and if I can build a better 15, 16, 8 or 9 on Cypress Point I'll find somewhere else to do it."  That seems dead on right to me.  

In reviewing and thinking about the work on the South Course at Olympia Fields, I think the committee that was organized first tried to be Hippocratic (with a little encouraging):  First, DO NO HARM.  It isn't easy to adhere to that philosophy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

See my posts above. I think most people would think the best work of the most famous gca's should be preserved as is.  I do.

We only have to define best work.  Is it Ross top 10 or top 100?  One Thomas course, five or ten?  

[SL_Solow]

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.

[mike_malone]

 Wow! I love that post. I only want to add one other thing amateurs can do. Elementary research of archival material is within their capability.


    I have modest expectations for my own abilities in this regard. But, if I see an original design and an early photo with an understanding of the original architect's view on trees and then see the course completely overgrown with trees running down each side of narrowed fairways on interesting terrain even I can tell you that is a problem.


     There is an enormous amount that can be done before you get to the sticky issues.

[Kirk Gill]

Note, I fit into the category of "hobbyist," so disregard my comments as desired.

Golf courses aren't museum pieces, and can't be treated as such, but some lessons coming from the restoration of museum pieces might be instructive.

When it was decided some years ago to restore the Sistine Chapel ceiling (yea, sorry, I'm whipping out Michelangelo again), those who performed the restoration set out a set of guidelines that they would follow, and I believe that some of those rules, if followed by an architect undertaking the restoration of a course, could be useful.

In particular, they mandated "Detailed scietific and technical research before, during, and after the restoration," which seems like a no-brainer, but this notion has apparently not always been followed in some golf course restorations/remodels. Also, they specified "mandatory documentation of all procedures including filming, before, during and after, and archiving of the data on the work carried out." Thus, if later generations of gca's decide to "undo" the work of the current restoration, they have a specific roadmap of the changes that were made. Other goals for their project might or might not apply (transparency of the process, availability of restoration info to other architects, journalist, etc.). Lots of art aficianados (hobbyists?) are still hacked off about the results of the SC restoration, proving it's impossible to please everyone.

Perhaps this doesn't speak to the question of whether or not a "restoration mentality" is the right one, but for those courses that are deemed worthy of restoration...........there it is.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd Cole,

The problem with comparisons to the Mona Lisa is that the Mona Lisa is static, whereas golf courses are interactive, and, the forces of interaction are in constant change.

Would the Merion's, Winged Foot's and Pine Valley's of the world better serve today's golfers by playing to their original yardages ?

I don't think there's anyone who supports restoration to that configuration.

Should a large carry bunker that originally sat at 180 off the tee be relagated to eye candy ?   Or, should the tee be moved back to preserve the design integrity ?

And, if the land to move the tee back is not available, should:

1     the bunker be moved to a location where its function can
       be served

2     should the bunker be left where it is and a second bunker
       added that would restore the original design function.

As you go through a golf course you can come upon an inordinate number of situations which create multiple decision paths.

I think you have to give consideration to the original design integrity, but, you can't ignore function, the interfacing of the golfer with the architecture.  And, since that process has changed considerably, it creates a conflict.

Unfortunately, in many cases, individuals/committees are incapable of understanding the conflict and the best way/s to resolve it.

Pat,
I'm sure some could argue that I'm pedantic at times, but this is a little silly.
Clearly I'm just using 'improving on the Mona Lisa' as something that clearly cannot be done and only a supremely vain person would suggest they were capable of it.
As to the rest of your post. Have I suggested in any of my posts that I might disagree with your position? It was me that raised J Fought's work at Pine Needles as a example of what I'd call a great success.

[Forrest Richardson]

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

Wayne — Yes, I do seriously doubt most archival research on pre-WWII courses for use as an exact restoration basis. Aerial photos are the best, and so, too, ground photos. Probing can be fun and interesting. I have done it a lot and found bunkers, sand piles and old dumping grounds.

The comments here about "faithful" restorations — rehabilitations, renovations, etc., are very thoughtful. Mark's point about making sure —initially — about the history, and giving this a chance, is on target. It would be silly to ignore the past in looking at ways to improve, etc.

I disagree 99% with the notion that making courses (golf) more fun and interesting is some sort of cop out to make changes. If there is a better aim in our profession than interest, fun and intrigue, please tell me.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Forrest

You write this

"It may take 100 years for someone (let's call him 'Wayne') to ride in and find a long-lost drawing of the original mistake and spend years convincing a committee to re-build it exactly as it was changed originally."

and then this

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

As there is only one Wayne in this debate, who is known to unearth long lost drawings, who did you think we'd think you we're alluding to?

I call BS on this.

Really. You start this thread in a provocative tone, it goes exactly where one would expect it (with plenty of very interesting debate along the way, thank you)  then you try to side step the responses to your own words with the Mucci "Lighten Up". It doesn't work for him when he's being obnoxious. It's not a good model.

[Forrest Richardson]

Lloyd — I thought it was an attempt at humor. If you or Wayne (whichever Wayne) was offended, please accept my apology.

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.

As for Pat...have never known him to be obnoxious. Smart, witty and full of vinegar...yes.

Look — In a dialectic, especially a good one, people argue, debate, call each other on the carpet for their remarks, and generally go back-and-forth with jabs, nabs and stabs. We should all be able to take each other and have fun. I fully expected this. You are welcome to take aim here....but be advised, I may have to respond!  

 

[David_Elvins]

Forrest, Mike, Jeff,

I am beginning to think that these "Restoration Lemmings" are some sort of phantom menace.  

I find the idea that someone is willing to try to restore a course exactly to how it was 80 years ago a little bit silly.  However I am interested to see the results of this type of approach and change my opinion if neccesary.  Yet no examples of courses that have had exact restoration  appear in this thead.  And even those that I have PMed for information on these courses have declined to list examples out of some sort of percieved professional courtesy to these phantom architects.  

Taking away preconcieved notions from previous threads, Forrest's first two paragraphs in his original post seem like common sense that most on here would agree with.  Yet Forrest, Jeff and Mike like to make out that they are some sort of minority of realists on this site.  Not something I agree with.

Seriously, I would be really interested to read about courses that have done an exact restoration.  I would love to hear about some examples.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff Goldman:

I suggested in a post a year or two back that every architect ought to have three of his best courses preserved so that others might learn from his actual work -- as opposed to questionable restorations of his work, or old black & white pictures of what was there before Forrest's daughter came up with a better idea.

I was ripped by several architects for that, mostly on their belief that my ego insisted that my own best work ought to be preserved in some sort of vacuum.  If you listen to Forrest or Jeff carefully, they'll tell you that ALL golf courses HAVE TO change and that nothing is really sacred in our business.

I do see their point that the restoration movement has gone too far -- there are lots of architects now making a living doing nothing but putting new lipstick on old courses and calling it "restoration", whether it's an actual physical restoration, or a restoration of the original designer's intent (which depends entirely on the interpretation of the modern GCA and which some are better qualified to make than others), or major changes masquerading as a restoration.  It bothers me that these are all lumped together in the effort to sell the projects to gullible members.  But, I do agree that there are certainly courses being restored today that really weren't all that special to begin with, and which would be better off if the club hired a good modern designer to make something more of them.

The notion that preservation is impossible strikes me as a bit too certain -- but if you accept it, then restoration is folly because the course will begin to change again immediately once you're done.  Perhaps there is some truth to that, but there is also some truth to the notion that today's golfers would get a lot of enjoyment out of many Golden Age courses exactly as they opened, and in many cases, more enjoyment than they get after all the subsequent "improvements".