[George Pazin]

I've started more than a few threads over the years on tinkering/restoring/renovating/remodeling golf courses.

The principal question, however, remains unchanged:

When is it okay to tinker?

And why do it?

It's always amazing to me to read many posters espousing the benefits of restoring, generally via "sympathetic restoration" (maintain the original architect's intent and look).

Similarly, the same posters generally criticise "restoration" architects who make major changes to holes.

Yet time and time again, the same folks look at a course and immediately know that X number of holes are bad, completely wrong, out of character and should be redone. Sometimes it's after many plays, sometimes it's after one (I find the latter particularly amusing, but sometimes the former makes sense).

Then you have more prominent people like Ron Whitten, who in one article both rips unnamed restoration experts and nominates other restoration experts as qualified to restore.

If someone can explain this all to me, well, you're a better man than me.

I'd love to hear from architects as to whether there's a breaking point that nudges them to remodel one of their own courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

It's a balancing act. Walt Disney tinkered, yet paid great respect to history. He created a journey for his customer so the customer would be entertained in an array of ways. The unfortunate part of golf archietcture is that many fail to view it as entertainment — take it way to seriously. While, some others, forget all the past and plod on without even taking the time to research it.

Your welcome.

[Phil_the_Author]

Donald Ross spent his life "tinkering" with Pinehurst #2... He inderstood that he was among the best at his craft during the years he worked, yet he saw that his best work needed improvements for a number of reasons.

Tilly tinkered with a number of his courses, as did other prominent architects.

I am of the belief, expressed by a number of others through the years, that golf courses must evolve and grow in porder to be relevant to current games.

For all of their considerable greatness and how well everyone thinks of them, hasn't there already been some "tinkering" out at Bandon?

It is time that we recognize that there is a need, but that the most important aspect of rstoration/revision to courses need be that a light touch is the best touch.

In next month's Tillinghast Illustrated, there is an interview with Keith Foster who said, "I hope that when I've finished my work that no one will be able to tell I was there while they also love how the course now looks and plays..."

I was deeply impressed by this philosophy...

[Tommy Williamsen]

I belong to three clubs and all of them have done or are doing some tinkering.  
CC Woodmore.  A few years ago they felled trees all over the place.  Two years ago they regrassed and redesigned the 18th hole.

Musgrove Mill.  Over the past five years they have regraded a number of the greens complexes.  Most of the work was done to discoursage the river from doing damage to the course.  A coupe of new tees were made and some trees were felled.  A new short game area was installed.

Four Streams. They have killed long and thick rough between holes and are regrassing them with a golden fescue.  They have cut down trees around a number of the greens and tees for air circulation.

As I have traveled most of the tinkering involves trees felled, grasses changed, and greens complexes reworked.  Most of the changes have been slight but good.

I was at Dismal River this summer.  According to the pro there has been some significant changes made in the past year and number 18 is going, according to him, to be "blown up."  And it is only a couple of years old.  My guess is that they will tinker for a few more years until they get it the way they want it.

[Scott Szabo]

Tommy,  

What was the issue with the 18th at Dismal River?  I had heard about all the rework on the 13th, but hadn't heard much negativity about the 18th.

Scott

[David Stamm]

Donald Ross spent his life "tinkering" with Pinehurst #2... He inderstood that he was among the best at his craft during the years he worked, yet he saw that his best work needed improvements for a number of reasons.

Tilly tinkered with a number of his courses, as did other prominent architects.

I am of the belief, expressed by a number of others through the years, that golf courses must evolve and grow in porder to be relevant to current games.

For all of their considerable greatness and how well everyone thinks of them, hasn't there already been some "tinkering" out at Bandon?

It is time that we recognize that there is a need, but that the most important aspect of rstoration/revision to courses need be that a light touch is the best touch.

In next month's Tillinghast Illustrated, there is an interview with Keith Foster who said, "I hope that when I've finished my work that no one will be able to tell I was there while they also love how the course now looks and plays..."

I was deeply impressed by this philosophy...

Philip, tinkering by the original arch is only natural. Afterall, it is HIS design and HIS ideas are evolving all the time. The problems arise when other arch's come in and their design philiosophy is not compatible with the course (someone else's) they are working on. Some feel the need to justify their cost by making sure that the client feels that they are getting their money's worth by leaving a definite imprint of his on the course, no matter how it blends with the REST of the course.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David, I agree with you completely.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()