[TEPaul]

The more restoration projects I see and become aware of the more I see the dilemma of what to do with redesign work by other architects on courses over the years.

Most old courses have had redesign work done to them and the work that really interests me is from the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s of some of the old Golden Age courses. It seems like back then most all of the old guys got involved in redesign projects of other architects' courses.

I think restoration projects really have to give this particular issue some very close and specific attention as to why the redesign work was done in the first place. Even some original holes of some of the best architects had problems for one reason or another and it's important for restoration projects to research and find those things out, as there's no good reason to restore what might have been a mistake or a less than successful hole for one reason or another.

As an example, in our restoration at our 1916 Ross course, Gulph Mills G.C., I'm so glad we considered and preserved the three cycles of Perry Maxwell redesigned holes. They're some of the best hole on the courses.

Who else is running into this kind of dilemma and what are some pertinent examples?

[David Stamm]

Tom, if a restoration is to happen where there have been mutiple arch's, IMHO the course should be restored with the premise in mind "What is the best architecturally".  More times than not this means it usually falls into the era you describe.

[RSLivingston_III]

I have newspaper documentation of a Ross renovation of a Bendelow design here in GR MI. In short they opened the course before the bunkering was placed and allowed play for a few months. There were such big problems they shut it down and called in Ross who did a total redesign/reroute.

[TEPaul]

Ralph:

Well then, I guess that's one they shouldn't be thinking of restoring to original Bendelow. 

[RSLivingston_III]

I don't think the original routing exists anywhere, at least I was never able to find it.
The articles describe a few of the holes and where they ran in respect to the Ross routing. One of them included a tee shot carrying a pond at one edge of the course. Ross must have taken the pond out and I was never able to figure out where it even was. The topography doesn't give any clues.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

As you note, the process of restoration is not a lock step, mindless process. The goal is always to end up with the best course possible. The goal is never (or rarely) restoration simply for the sake of restoration.

But when you have a course designed by an architect of recognized, national standing, a club's decisions about what to restore and what not to restore ought to always give deference to the design choices of that original architect. It should not be anything goes. That does not mean that his original design choices will always prevail. It does mean that anyone wanting to alter those original choices has the burden of showing that his changes will improve the course.

That can be a messy process. We can disagree about what "improve" means. But I think those ought to be the basic rules of the road. To change an important historic course, you better have a damn good case for your changes.

Taking ANGC, I don't think MacK was given the benefit of that burden of proof. As it turned out, some of the changes probably made ANGC a better course. But many others changes did not.

In either case, however, an honest, careful consideration of what MacK might have had in mind did not take place. At least as far as I can tell. (And what he had in mind was pretty clear. He wrote a lot about ANGC.) With the more recent changes, something like bad faith was at work. People justified their changes based on a (knowing?) mistatements (I'm trying to be polite) of MacK's stated goals.

Bob  

[Chuck Brown]

True, they have never "restored" anything at ANGC.  From reversing the nines, to re-routing the creek, bridges and #16 pond, to the latest round of changes... it has all been in the name of moving on, correcting past issues and trying to make the course "better," not "restored."

The annoying things about the recent changes is that they had little to do with improving the golfing experience.  Rather, they were changes for one reason and one reason only.  To combat, scoring-wise, technologically-produced distance gains.

[Brad Klein]

Chuck, actually, ANGC did restore those wonderful MacKenzie mounds around the 8th green, after they had been inexplicably removed. I think the removal was undertaken by the club prior to the 1956 Masters and Byron Nelson & Joe Finger restored them for the 1979 championship.

[BCrosby]

Brad -

Cliff Roberts removed those mounds in the '50's and completely reshaped the green. The Roberts 8th green looked like a Short Hole green. It was circular surrounded by a circular bunker. It was a shocking eyesore. No one seemed to like it. A sign of Roberts clout.

As you note, Byron Nelson was the person who suggested the green complex be restored. After Roberts died in 1976 (no one dared to do it before then), Finger put back the MacKenzie green. I recall that Baxter Spann was involved as well.

It's the only restored feature at ANGC. Need I add that it is also one of the best?

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

Bob and all:

I most certainly haven't read all the ANGC history books or architectural history but would you say that Clifford Roberts was some kind of architectural out-of-control dictator who had perhaps zero concern for the integrity of the original Mackenzie architecture? It seems I've heard enough that even Jones just couldn't stand up to Roberts' decades long juggernaut that way.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

What the hell really was the deal with Bob Jones and ANGC anyway, architecturally or otherwise?

I mean wasn't the whole thing---eg the club, the idea, the architecture, originally his idea and brainstorm? The guy lived for may decades after the beginning. Did he believe what Roberts believed about the changes to the course? If he did what do you suppose Jones' problem was with the original concept and design? What's the deal with Jones and the constant changes to the original design? Was Jones wishy-washy in the final analysis?

Icons need to stand up to scrutiny like anyone else, at least eventually. It amazes me how perceived icons seem able to just finese controversy that others are held accountable for. Did Jones do that somehow? We saw this kind of thing happen recently with Palmer and his position with Callaway and the ERC2 driver. If anyone else did that their reputation would've been toast!

[Tim Gerrish]

Tom,

We all hope that a course or club will restore based upon the best architecture.  But the best architecture today might be too expensive to maintain.  i.e. maybe restoring all those bunkers that were removed (and I'm the first to want to put them back!) would  send the club into a tail spin. 

It also might be in the course/Club's interest to restore a course to claim its heritage/lineage for marketing purposes.  Whether the course was actually restored is one thing.  What the typical golfer is told and believes is another.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think Tom MacWood got it right, in theory, when he stated that the restoration should be to the golf course's architectural high water mark.

The difficulty in that premise, is determining where that is, and, who makes that determination.

Would anybody recommend restoring # 10 green at ANGC ?

# 16 green ?

I don't think that there's an absolute point, but, there may be a prudent or prefered point.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Believe me, I doubt Tom MacWood came up with the concept of a course's "high water mark" nor would he have much more idea how to identify that on any golf course than about 10,000 other people. Why would you assume he would? Would it be simply because he was good at finding old material? And if that's what it was did he offer cogent reasons why one thing or one time was really better than some other?

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob:

What the hell really was the deal with Bob Jones and ANGC anyway, architecturally or otherwise?

I mean wasn't the whole thing---eg the club, the idea, the architecture, originally his idea and brainstorm? The guy lived for may decades after the beginning. Did he believe what Roberts believed about the changes to the course? If he did what do you suppose Jones' problem was with the original concept and design? What's the deal with Jones and the constant changes to the original design? Was Jones wishy-washy in the final analysis?

TE - I'd been meaning to ask that for a long time but never had the nerve. I'm glad you did. My neat little diagram of practical genius Mackenzie and intuitive romantic Jones and sledgehammer Roberts probably needs to be shaken up a bit...and increasingly Bobby Jones seems to me the question mark

Peter

[Mike Tanner]

To me, the key word in the question is restoration. Until what is to be restored is defined, the how can't be determined. I would think that old redesign work that supports the restoration goal would be retained; any other old work else would be subject to further alteration or removal.

Interesting how quickly attention turned to Augusta National... Must be the season.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Believe me, I doubt Tom MacWood came up with the concept of a course's "high water mark" nor would he have much more idea how to identify that on any golf course than about 10,000 other people.

I think that Tom MacWood either came up with that idea, or, championed that idea.

Whether or not he could determine the architectural high water mark isn't the issue.[/color]

Why would you assume he would?

Where did I make that assumption ?[/color]

Would it be simply because he was good at finding old material? And if that's what it was did he offer cogent reasons why one thing or one time was really better than some other?

The issue isn't whether Tom MacWood could determine the architectural  high water mark, the issue is that the premise of restoring to the architectural high water mark is a valid one.  However, the difficulty lies in the practicality of determing the archtectural high water mark.

As you know, I favor restoring GCGC (with refinements, mostly length related) to 1936, due to the abundance of photographic evidence from that year, along with the historical significance of that year.[/color]

[Joel_Stewart]

I believe Oakmont found out every thing that RTJ Sr. did and reversed it.   I proposed the exact same thing at Olympic Club but they have decided to embrace it and modernize it even more.  Longer and bigger tees, smooth edge shapeless bunkers, and add more length.

There is no right solution to every course regarding your question.

[Wayne_Freedman]

THAT was admirably restrained, considering  your present sentiments...

I believe Oakmont found out every thing that RTJ Sr. did and reversed it.   I proposed the exact same thing at Olympic Club but they have decided to embrace it and modernize it even more.  Longer and bigger tees, smooth edge shapeless bunkers, and add more length.

There is no right solution to every course regarding your question.

[wsmorrison]

The successes and failures of golf architecture is determined by individual knowledge and preferences.  It is a subjective process.  What is required is informed decision making and the participation of expert architects, whether renowned or not.  Historians and researchers (the best researchers don't always make the best historians) should provide a club and their architect as much archival material as possible in order to make the most informed decisions.  There are numerous examples where historians, architects, superintendents and committees work together to create and execute the restoration plan.  I think this sort of process ensures the greatest probability for success in appealing to the various subjective viewpoints that make up a club.  The test of time does tell.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I too used to believe that the test of time was the ultimate test.

But then, how do you explain the continued existance of the 12th hole at GCGC, a hole that represents a hideous attempt to "improve" the old, world class 12th hole, a hole that Tom Doak called one of the greatest 19 holes in golf that no longer exists ?

The wretched 12th hole remains, almost 45 years after it replaced a far superior hole.

And, it remains despite Tom Doak's role as a consultant to the club for well  over a decade.

Is it an anomaly ..... or has it passed the test of time, thereby certifying its architectural worthiness ?

Inquiring minds want to know

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I still believe in the Test of Time even though there are exceptions such as the 12th at Garden City.  Frankly, the green contour that was removed is not my cup of tea along with similar artifices as found on Raynor and Banks greens.  I cannot speak to the remaining features of the early 1th green and since I've never been to Garden City, I don't know what's wrong with the current version.  Can you do a side-by-side pictorial so those of us that don't know the course can have a better understanding of what you refer to?

[TEPaul]

"Is it an anomaly ..... or has it passed the test of time, thereby certifying its architectural worthiness ?"


Patrick:

Golf holes that have truly past the test of times are not holes that people talk about changing! They are the holes that essentially no one would think about suggesting changes to.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I couldn't disagree with you more.

You'd be amazed at how many people want to change great holes.

Wayne,

Some time ago, Tommy Nacarato or someone else posted the two.

It's hard to believe that the old 12th could undergo such a radical alteration with a flawed design replacing it.

The front left quadrant of the green is uncupable and the front right won't hold a golf ball, the front left slopes toward you, precipitously, the front right slopes away from you.

And the flanking and rear bunkers are ill conceived and designed.

You have to see it in person to understand the inadequacy represents, along with the fact that it's totally out of context with all of the other green and green complexes on the course, breaking up a beautiful continuity.

[JESII]

It's funny, the people selecting the "high water mark" for the architecture of the course are the ones you don't trust to "do what's best for the membership" now...how has that worked out Pat?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()