When will enthusiasts embrace change — and not make fun of it?

[Forrest Richardson]

Not long ago I sat down in a small office behind the R&A and got to see a PowerPoint presentation about the ever-changing bunkers at The Old Course. I had heard the document existed, but have never seen it. Hopefully it will be approved for public viewing later this year.

Wow...what an eye-opener. While I have known and studied the famous bunkers across The Old Course, I was not prepared for the dramatic change they have undergone. The presentation uses maps drawn since the 1800s to track bunkers, their shapes and sizes. Hell Bunker, as just one example, was first recorded about three times its present size, in a completely different shape and orientation, and — of course — not revetted or even formalized. The final progression is the current configuration.

Those who know me will recognize the question here: Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment?

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

I understand that things change, but let me ask you something:  do you believe there is such a thing as a "better" design of a bunker?

If you do, then don't you think it's valid to try and preserve a really good one? 

And if you don't, then what drives you to be in this business at all?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

As I'm sure you have experienced many times in presenting remodel/master plans, the plan is rarely the real issue.  It is change itself that creates the problems.  It is a rare individual(maybe not on this site) who can visualize the future.  Without that vision, it is very difficult to drive change, whether it be the Old Course or average local private.

Individuals would rather sit with the devil they know than the one thay can't see.

[Adam Clayman]

Doesn't there need to be a distinction between evolutionary changes and those created by an accredited architect?

[Joel_Stewart]

I'll join the group and disagree with you Forrest.   Are you being objective?   If you don't change golf courses (remodel or restore) you don't eat.   

So with regard to the Old Course bunkers, are they better now or with the old photos?   I'll post some photos in the next day or so showing some great ragged edge bunkers that were bulldozed by RTJ Sr. for the smooth edge bunkers on a classic course.  They are horrible.

[Peter Pallotta]

Forrest -

that's just an excellent question.

I don't know the answer, and can't even guess at one.

It comes back to the question I tend to use to frame my thinking about golf course architecture, i.e. are there principles of great golf course architecture of such long-standing and proven validity that they can be described as fundamental and unchanging?

If the answer is no, then any kind of discussion about golf course architecture is just a moveable feast of changing times and tastes and opinions -- any any decisions made 'on the ground' are simply practical and wholly personal ones.

If the answer is yes, there is a standard and high-water mark to aim at (as designers) and to appreciate (as golfers and fans), and the possibility of meaningful and substantive debate...but then the nature and even possibility of change is limited and curtailed. Which would be fine for me, except that I notice that as in all things, change DOES come, whether I like it or not

Peter   

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — "Better" design is a matter of objectivity mixed with subjectivity. But, yes...in general, I would say that there could always be a better design. Whether it is prudent, that is another step and issue.

I think preservation is good, but on a selective basis.

What drives me to be in this business? I love golf and golf courses. Especially the puzzle of the game and how the course is such a big part of that. I also enjoy visualizing solutions to sites, existing holes and projects.

---

Joel —  "If you don't change golf courses (remodel or restore) you don't eat..." I suppose. But, I will submit that golf itself leads a boring and uneventful life if we allow our current generation to get caught in a stalemate of "no change!!!"..."Preservation first...always!!!"...and "What is old is nearly always better!!!"

---

Adam — The bunkers at The Old Course were certainly changed by the hand of man...not all were blown into their configurations by wind, erosion and rabbits. But, I do see the distinction you draw between natural evolution and man-made change. However, since all but a very few of our courses worldwide are now left totally in the hands of nature, I believe we are really looking at man made change as a constant in 99.9% of this discussion.

---

W.H. Cosgrove — You have hit upon the key. Visualization (or failure to be able to do so)  and the threat of change are the powerful duo at play in this question.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest:

I understand that things change, but let me ask you something:  do you believe there is such a thing as a "better" design of a bunker?

If you do, then don't you think it's valid to try and preserve a really good one? 

And if you don't, then what drives you to be in this business at all?

TD,
I have often fought with myself over the "better" design of a bunker.....and have thus used mostly flat sand bunkers with grass facing when placing bunkers in a soil that is not natural sand.....some may call this simplification....don't know ....

 I saw a course in a very wet climate with a lava base where all of the flashed bunkers that were the "style" of the particular architect would wash after each rain.....and they have continued to fill these bunkers with sand for 10 years.....ONLY because it is the original style and the worldwide style of the architect...

At the risk of pissing off half the DG.....this has always been my concern with Cuscowilla.....I really like the golf course and actually the bunkers...but are they the "better" bunker for the course.......will they prevail over time or will they eventually become a flatter, grass faced bunker.......I don't know if I am right or not but I do think the "better bunker" will always prevail in the long run.....

[BCrosby]

Forrest -

When working on a Golden Age course, how much deference ought to be given to the design ideas of an architect with an established reputation for excellence?

Or, as you say, is "there always a better design"?  And how do you decide that?

Bob

[Ken Moum]

I have played dozens of golf courses that desperately need the hand of a good architect. They were horrible in either conception or execution, and have miles of room for improvement.

What's unfortunate, is that such courses rarely have the resources to bring in an architect and make the wholesale changes needed.

Meanwhile, some of the best courses in the world are being worked on regularly simply because they can afford it, and someone wants to do it.

It's a little like plastic surgery. Which is better, "restoration" of an aging supermodel who can afford it, or doing reconstruction of someone who's been in a disfiguring accident, and can't afford it?

I know which one I'd choose, if I had the ability.

Ken

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Are you aware of any architect, living or dead, that was so perfect that he should be given deference for every course, hole or feature which he or she designed and/or built?

I'm not and so am with Forest.

Rich

[Sean_A]

It sounds as if Forrest was specifically thinking of bunkers for this thread.  If this is the case, I don't know how we can use the word "better" to describe old or new bunkers unless it is from a maintenance or money saving angle.  So far as I can tell, most of the time folks on this site argue about the aesthetics of bunkering as if there is a right or wrong answer.  Usually, I tend to like the least visually intrusive style if the site isn't sandy and sometimes even if the site is sandy - I am thinking of windy areas where there needs to be a load of room for sand to blow or the turf is at rsik.  Rarely do people get into the actual architectural elements of bunkering - most just accept that bunkers should be all over the place.  Folks even use the term "random placement" which has to about as far from what an archie wants to hear as possible.  I think golfers in general will embrace the change of less bunkering and more creativity for the future - at least I hope so. 

Ciao

[Davis Wildman]

"Those who know me will recognize the question here: Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment?"

Regarding the game; especially at the pro level and concerning changing courses...is it necessary to retain the size, shape, etc of all course features, similar to how a football or soccer field is the same regulation size (forgive me for the gross comparison) so that equal comparisons of players over the years can be made?

Perhaps this is a consideration on a course-by-course basis...those that host championship play vs. those that don't.

Thanks,

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

Love the topic, even if you are probably pushing the proverbial rock up that hill at least here.  Golf courses do change. I recall hearing the super at TOC tell me he had filled in several bunkers without anyone noticing.  The revetted bunkers certainly have to be rebuilt and have.  Hell bunker in particular looks like an artificial man made bunker more than any other on TOC.

I tend to agree with you.  In an evolutionary world, where its adapt or die (according to Darwin) why do we think that golf coruses are any different, whether adapting to their own weather and site conditions, as Mike Y points out, tournament conditions (in the case of TOC) technology (irrigation, fertilizers, you name it) regulations, and so on.

And why do we think an architect with a world wide style that tries to force the same look or bunker type on different sites should have his/her "vision" retained if it doesn't work for owner or golfer?

I say all this back from a trip to look at one of my own golf courses in light of economic, play and maintenance changes in the last 16 years.  Even I had to say "screw my original intent!" There is a better way, or a better way considering circumstances.  Always.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

You missed my point. By 180 degrees.

I asked the question - what deference ought to be given to the work of great, historic architects?

If Forrest's view is that "all designs can be improved," I take it that his answer to my question would be "none."

That's an odd stance (at a number of levels) for a professional architect to take.

You, however, I forgive.

Bob

[David Stamm]

Until this powerpoint is made available to the general public, one way for someone to see the change is simply to look at HH's British Golf Links book.

[John Burzynski]

I guess it is probably a case by case basis answer...there are so many variables for each example that you can't really generalize. 

Trees are planted, and they grow too big, are hit by lightning, etc., so some change is good (perhaps removing a tree that grew too big or was planted in the wrong place when not accounting for growth), and some change are inevitable (trees get hit by lightning and succumb to wind) so that change is natural and perhaps irreversable.

Bunkers can evolve, as I am sure that most of the bunkers on the Old Course might not have been there at all or in their present form 200, 300 or more years ago on the 'original' design.  Sheep, the wind, divots, orwhatever created those bunkers over time, as I am sure did some rework by architects or greenkeepers here and there, whether intentional or incidental.

Other bunkers on courses need to be redone due to inadequate maintenance over the years, or weather changes that made a bunker less penal (or maybe more/too penal) than designed. 

I would say you have to look at each bunker, tree, etc. and decide 1) whether the hazard is in line with the architect's original design and desires, 2)whether those desires were legitimate or apply to today's game, and 3) whether weather (try saying that quickly) or other extremes have caused the change in the hazard, and whether this has been a positive or negative change for the hole and course's health and playability.

[Bob_Huntley]

For those of you old enough to remember, have the changes that have been made to LACC and Riviera since the late sixties and early seventies improved these courses in any way?

Bob

[David Stamm]

For those of you old enough to remember, have the changes that have been made to LACC and Riviera since the late sixties and early seventies improved these courses in any way?

Bob

Or Bel Air, Ojai and La Cumbre?

[David Stamm]

Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment





Are we talking about the natural changes a course experiences from time and mother nature or the changes made by architects over the years to the course?

[Scott Macpherson]

Gentlemen,

As we are talking about TOC, this is a topic reasonably close to my heart, and without this sounding like an advert, I wrote a book on this subject called 'St Andrews, The evolution of the Old Course' - some of you know of it (thanks for your kind comments, Kelly, Forrest etc) . I believe the presentation Forrest is talking about is a study done by Peter Lewis from all the old R&A plans. I am sure this Powerpoint will come available at some stage- when Mr Lewis the R&A deem so.

Meantime, there may be value is distinguishing between the clay course or those built on sand. Sand courses naturally erode quite quickly. This is a part of their 'evolution'. Maintenance impacts this evolution by speeding it up or slowing it down. On a course like St Andrews, with all the people wanting to play it, they need a fairly rigourous maintenance regime to keep it playable (depending of your individual position on this, you will think they are doing a good job or bad job). Revetting bunkers was a solution to define the bunker edge and slow the natural degradation of a sand bunker- much the same way Old Tom 'invented' the tin cup to stop the hole from collapsing on the 11th green at TOC.

I guess I came out the end of my research thinking that things just change. Courses erode, equipment improves, expectations increase, costs go up, peoples enjoyment of golf has... (fill in the gap)  and some bunkers need move to keep up.

Lastly, can tell the quality of a thread my the level of discussion it gets? Nice job Forrest.


Scott

[Kirk Gill]

It's a little like plastic surgery. Which is better, "restoration" of an aging supermodel who can afford it, or doing reconstruction of someone who's been in a disfiguring accident, and can't afford it?

I always had a negative opinion of cosmetic surgery until I saw an episode of that "Extreme Makeover" show (before it started to be about houses). What I saw were people overcoming huge physical issues using surgery, and I realized that I was just ignorant of the needful use of "plastic" surgery, and just thought of it in terms of "aging supermodel(s) who can afford it," as mentioned above. I didn't know what I was talking about.

I've read many a thread on this forum where someone posts some pictures of a hole, and loads of folks hold forth on what tree ought to be removed, what bunker should be re-shaped, moved, enhanced, added, or deleted. These threads typically involve newer courses, so the infallibility of a classic architect isn't in question.

So the question becomes, when is it okay to make such changes, and when is it "wrong?" As someone who will likely never be asked to make such decisions, I'll freely admit that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I can't argue with the notion that some courses are so historically significant that keeping them as museum pieces seems appropriate. But who decides? Ultimately, it has to be the owner of the course or the members of the club. But even then, there is argument. I used to live in an Historic District that limited the changes I could make to my house (which, on occasion, hacked me off). Wouldn't the membership of an historic course blanch at being forced to limit changes that they want to make to their course? The whole "right and wrong" thing seems easy to assess.......from a distance. In reality, it can't be a one-note issue.

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest,

Love the topic, even if you are probably pushing the proverbial rock up that hill at least here. 

Nice tude, dude.

[RJ_Daley]

Those who know me will recognize the question here: Will enthusiasts of golf architecture, in the majority, ever embrace the reality that golf courses are supposed to change? Will enthusiasts recognize change as being essential to golf — that attempts to retain exactness to a particular era or look is perhaps not always the best for creativity, the game or the environment?

"supposed to change" is too absolute for me to embrace.  I don't think there is an absolute mandate that a course is supposed to change, architecturally.  Is it 'bound' to change, evolutionary in accord with time and weather, yes.  But, should it change architecturally beyond repairing the distructive age and use process, that depends....  Was the original product or design poorly conceived and manufactured?  Then, yes by all means do what is needed to make it a better course for the users.  Was the original design masterful, provided plenty of great golf, and yet aged so as to need repair, then no; restore as close or sympathetic as possible. 

There is so much grey area here.  I'm in the case by case camp.  Courses originally designed 'out of regional soil-weather conditions' that don't work functionally (particularly the bunker maintenance, drainage) no matter how artistic or well placed will eventually need to be redesigned or continue to suck the resources of the principle owner/memberships. 

Maybe Cucso that M.Y. brings up 'might' be the case. (I can't fully concede that because I don't know what the actual maintenance cost figures are)  They are beautifully placed and artistic, but if they are a drain on resouces, we might have to consider them "subject to change". 

Subject to change, is a variable, and there just are no absolutes, IMHO. 

But, strong arguments for sympathetic if not faithful restoration can be made for historically significant works, with such designation somewhat dependent upon a consensus of the course users, over many years.  We tend to know it when we see it... And we have to uncomfortably put our faith in good stewardship that the right decisions will be made.  Sometimes those decisions aren't made well. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob Huntley,

Good examples.

I'd ask Forrest which changes on which courses that were acknowledged to be great in say 1930 would he cite as having markedly improved the course?