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

[Rich Goodale]

bravo, paul

[Eric Pevoto]

One word:  palimpsest.

[TEPaul]

Very interesting recent posts. This thread is something of a "point/counterpoint".

It probably just goes to show that in golf, in architecture, and in maintenance there should not be a general tendency towards "standardizations".

[Mike_Young]

Tom Pal,
What is all this "holding" stuff.  Down here the expression is " I don't know if he is or not but he might have held one".....I ain't holding nothing.   you can do that up in Philly.  But the answer to the question is...the enthusiast will never embrace change and not make fun of it.....and the owners/doers/etc will continue to do what they think should be done and not worry about the enthusiast.....and it there will be good and bad.....some of it will stick and some will not and the world will go round
I will be in Philly next week....watch out....

[TEPaul]

Ahhh, come on Mike, you and Cowley can't fool me. You guys are architects and you want people to break things as often and as quickly as possible so you can fix them. You can fool some of the people all the time, you may even be able to fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time and you can never fool me!   

[Peter Pallotta]

....Any true designer out there is not at all concerned with holding anything.....much less trying to 'fix in time' their ideas and creations.

Its the opposite.

Its not about terra firma but the freedom to morph....versus gelling and calling it a life....

Paul - this reminded me of something I asked a while back. I asked if  architects have ever designed bunkers/features so as to factor in the effects of time and natural processes, i.e. so that, over time, a bunker/feature could become MORE of what it was intended to be and not less. The answer from one of the professionals here was that no architect has ever been that good, or at least demonstrated it.  And of that's true, isn't trying to 'hold the look' the best option left?

Peter

Hey, and don't knock stodgy old folks -- they're probably the ones keeping the game alive 

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Paul Cowley is a great guy but as you can see most of these good architects have a certain amount of schizoism-ian-itis-ism in them. It's also sometimes called "Dementia Praecox". It generally comes from an over-exposure to dirt and dust. For him to say what he did above which is completely the antithesis of architectural preservation he must just be having one of his "Bad Paul" spells. Matter of fact, I think I can guarantee he's having one of those spells. I think I called him last night and he said he couldn't talk because he was on a plane about to take off out of Mexico and he said he was almost certain Poncho Villa and his banditos were chasing the plane and shooting at it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Allow me to follow up at this point by offering a thought:

We need to be careful what we wish for in golf architecture. Consider today's technology — the ultra-accurate GPS systems that can pinpoint, exactly, what is where, how much fall, what shape, etc, etc, etc.

Beginning in about 1995, it is now possible to VERY ACCURATELY define, quantify and — here is the kicker — REBUILD WITH GREAT AND AMAZING DETAIL, THE EXACT REPLICA OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1995 OR AFTER.

So...for virtually any golf course constructed since 1995, we will never have the great debates about change, never have to ask the original designer, never have to guess, etc, etc, etc.

Quite simply, all of the dialogue about change, all the influences of nature, committees, superintendents, etc. will be of no grand concern — it will only be a matter of reverting to the GPS data to EXACTLY RE-CREATE what was originally built on opening day.

[paul cowley]

Peter:

Paul Cowley is a great guy but as you can see most of these good architects have a certain amount of schizoism-ian-itis-ism in them. It's also sometimes called "Dementia Praecox". It generally comes from an over-exposure to dirt and dust. For him to say what he did above which is completely the antithesis of architectural preservation he must just be having one of his "Bad Paul" spells. Matter of fact, I think I can guarantee he's having one of those spells. I think I called him last night and he said he couldn't talk because he was on a plane about to take off out of Mexico and he said he was almost certain Poncho Villa and his banditos were chasing the plane and shooting at it.

.....it was a close call until we cleared the big arroyo.....

Tom and Peter, I think evolutionary change is important and vital to any and all golf courses, even the great ones.....and yes, I do try to allow for this with my own work.

In fact I make a point of going back after a time to check with supers, operators and golfers that play one of my creations to ask what they like about them...but even more importantly, ask what they don't like about them.

Its all about learning and trying to improve my trade by studying my successes and my failures.

The bad thing about identifying something that you might want to change or improve is that you rarely have the opportunity to do so ......you get to see them standing proud out there for all to see.

I'm sure glad that we can't recreate Pebble circa 1930....or worse yet the Old Course circa 1854.
Both courses benefited immensely by the process of continual improvement.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

If you really have all that GPS data for one or more of your courses -- I'm not aware that any of it exists for any of my courses -- then you should undertake a 10-year and 20-year study to see what has changed on a course where nothing has been changed deliberately.  That would be a great exercise.  It would be somewhat inconclusive, since some golf course owners are more interested in preserving what they've got than others, but it would be a nice start in this debate.

One thing I have noticed is that the USGA Green Section's championing of sand topdressing has changed greens much more quickly over the past 30 years than they changed before that.

[Forrest Richardson]

It is not a matter of whether I and any of us has the data — very soon it will be there for anyone to use, peruse and misuse. Just look at the progress of satellite imagery in the past few years. Aerial imagery is now available, very easily, for nearly every developed locale in the world. And, just because images are updated, does not mean that older images are tossed away...rather, they are archived for comparison uses.

A quick check of most major cities and counties shows that GIS topographical data is available for about 15-20% of the entirety of the U.S. — it will not be long that topographical data will be readily accessible for nearly anywhere. And, justas with photographs, the older topographical data will also be archived.

The outcome and point is this: In the not-too-distant future, whatever you or I have done will not have to be discussed with regard to what was there. Maybe that is good...because the conversation can focus on what to change!   

[BCowan]

Forrest,

This is a great thread.  Did/do you ever consider that restoring a bunker as a superior or better outcome than change?  Now with many different sand types and crushed rock there seems to be more options.  Do you think many of the Golden age Archies would think little of some of the advancements in bunkering?  Such as crushed rock and bleached sand?  Do bunkers in golf have any connection to a bunker in war time?  Are there too many options?  With so many options, are there also too many trends.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ah, a blast from the past, when changing bunkers at The Old Course was a theoretical discussion one assumed would never be tested, instead of a fait accompli.

[David Davis]

While I didn't read every answer here in great detail. In order to evaluate this statement there needs to be a very clear definition of change. In some cases of course it could be for the better, if we look only to bunkering for example. There are currently and have been many original designs that could be greatly improved upon. If not from a pure aesthetic and strategic point of view, then perhaps from a cost savings and maintenance point of view. One example may be switching to revetted bunkers even when the club knows they must be rebuilt semi frequently. This could be a result of the wind blowing all the sand out of other bunker forms or even due to rapid deterioration as a result of the weather.

One eye opener in terms of natural change for me came at Pacific Dunes while receiving a tour from their Super. I love the bunkering there, that natural look and had kind of assumed it was just that, natural. When he explained in detail how much work they had to go through to maintain that look, how much natural damage occurred each year you can really forget about even thinking you could start to keep things exactly as they were when the course opened. I imagine it changes and grows like a living organism throughout every year no matter how much work is put into maintaining it and in this case I believe it's a really good thing.

Then there are the many examples of the club and greens committee's mucking things up because someone (non-expert) thought they should or wanted to put a stamp on their tenure. I imagine this has gone wrong more than anything else. On top of that they could utilize their own green keeping staff rather than an expert archie and shaper. Another example of change that often should not be embraced and is not for the betterment of the course. This happens all the time at a club far too dear to my heart. This is the worst change of all because it boils down to pure ignorance and non-experts thinking they can do the job of archies and shapers to save a few bucks.

Lastly there are many examples, at least a couple I can think of here locally where a modern archie came in to modernize a course, in one case a decent heathland course and shipped in white sand and reshaped all the bunkers to clover type shaping giving the course a totally different look. One that I personally fell for in 2011 without knowing what they started with but now believe was a huge mistake and not appropriate at all for a heathland course. Yes they did need change but just because you have white sand doesn't mean you've recreated Augusta.

[Josh Stevens]

Im not in the camp that sees change as inevitable and something that must be embraced.

I ask from a point of ignorance, how far and fast do bunkers change.  I note one of the practice bunkers at my home course.  After  a few years there is very noticeable change as the lip gets higher and further from the green as a result of the build up of sand from so many shots.  But that's a practice bunker.  How fast does a normal bunker retreat from the green?

I can imagine the extreme example being the road hole bunker where everyone lobs a ball in and has a hit just to try it, so perhaps 50-60,000 shots per year.  Would it retreat 6 inches a year as a result?

[paul cowley]

Interesting and still relevant blast from the past...and also interesting to see the changes that have evolved in GCAtlas, and to see some of those that are sorely missed.

That said, CHANGE is inevitable....it's how you manage it that counts. The discussion then becomes site or style specific using individual examples of how a course evolves or devolves. No blanket answer here.

TP...if you're out there I lost my flask!

[Mike_Young]

Enthusiast only embrace what enthuses THEM....   They will always make fun of anything else. 

[paul cowley]

Amen Mike...

[Niall C]

Here’s some questions for those who think that a course should be set in stone because it was designed by some ODG.

How do you know what’s there now was what was originally built or indeed what was intended to be built ?  Even if you were happy that you could answer those questions in the affirmative, what makes you think you know better of the custodians/owners of the course if they think it can be improved ?

What if restoring the course to what it was like produced an inferior course than what is there now, would you still do that to honour the ODG’s original architectural intent ?

Given the course might have been laid out close to a century ago, how would you propose to deal with how the course now plays given advancements in technology, assuming you don’t have the powers to make us play with hickories and wound balls ?

Given most classic courses have had makeovers, redesigns, tweaks, new bunkering schemes on one or more occasions, and on the advice of different ODG’s, which ODG do you go with ? Is there a league table for ODG’s or is the default position to go with the original architect even though he might have made a howler that had to be rectified in quick order ?
 
Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

My feelings on the subject come from having toured the best courses in the world in the 1980's and seeing so many examples of neglect or of awful remodeling by greens chairmen or subsequent architects.

Change may be inevitable, as Paul says, but it is not necessarily for the better.  Given that, I'd generally side with a master architect from the past, than with an architect who still needs to pay off his mortgage.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Everyone is so focused on the restoration of maybe the top 20% of the ODG courses, which has probably already been done by this point. I have always asked if Ross' 375th to 400th best courses need to be restored faithfully?

Also, I get the feeling that the restoration group will change its almost biblical adherence to "go back to the original" when we start renovation of the 1950's-1970's courses by that era's masters, like RTJ, etc., simply because they don't like the design style, and think THEY know better than the original architect.  To the degree that happens, I think the restore at all costs crowd will look a little hypocritical, even though, of course, they won't think so.

There really is no pat answer that covers all courses equally, is there?

[Tom_Doak]

There really is no pat answer that covers all courses equally, is there?

Sure there is.  Every new architect thinks he knows better than everyone who has come before.  [And we really should, because we are able to study everyone else's successes and mistakes.]  That's why there is so much restoration and so little PRESERVATION.  And that's why there ought to be some sort of check on the architect and green chairman; otherwise they will always be happy to spend other people's money to prove how much smarter they are.

I do agree with you that the restoration of Ross's bottom 200+ courses is silly, but those are easy sales for these guys who are making their living out of being Ross experts, and about the only guys who would stop them from trying are those who want the same job themselves.

[Pat Burke]

Some courses are changed, some evolve, and sometimes they evolve badly.

As a former player with a love of golf course designs, my question to the guys who have done work would be.

When you do a course, have a finished product, and are ready to hand the keys to the owner(s),
do you give report or description of what you designed and what YOU"RE vision for the evolution of that vision
would be? 
For instance, did you plan on the spray from greenside bunker shots to change the shoulder on to the green(s)?
IF there are trees planted, is there a clear vision for the future to keep greens committee trees from screwing things up?
When the next jump in distance come due to nuclear biogenics (or whatever) 20 years after you're gone, do you leave some time
of design legacy (long time master plan I guess) to help guide the next generation that so desires to leave THEIR mark on things.

WOuld be funny if there were notes from OTM that said he was worried about the slope on #11 on TOC,

Or funnier if there were notes that said if some idiot thinks there is too much slope in 11, tell the fools to not make the greens so bloody fast!

[Niall C]

Pat

I doubt Old Tom left any notes although Melvyn may dispute that, but from my recollection Old Tom did indeed do work to the back of the 11th green. Of course he didn't have to contend with todays green speeds.

Tom

Wasn't disputing your expertise or experience, although I would suggest that Colt and MacKenzie at least likely had mortgages at some point in their gca careers and didn't always get it all their own way either with the critics or in terms of dealing with clubs.

However the point of my post was really twofold, firstly to illustrate the difficulty of knowing for sure who did what. From my experience of digging through archives its evident that very often the journey from how a course first appeared to what it is now was a gradual one rather than architect A laid it out in 1896, architect B redesigned it in 1926 and architect C did a bunkering scheme in 1956, sort of thing. I think that largely holds true for classic UK courses and while I don't know if that's the case in the US I suspect it might be too. So if you really don't know who's work you are seeking to protect, is their any point in making a case for not doing work to a course because of its supposed pedigree, particularly if there are some glaring problems with the course in terms of the modern game ?

The second point is if we agree (which I think we do, correct me if I'm wrong) that the focus should be about making the course the best it can be, who gets to judge on whether any new proposals will produce a better course than what's there now ? It seems to me that often those advocating conservation based on pedigree, do so because they don't agree with whoever gets to make the decision.

Niall   

[BCowan]

Niall and Pat great posts.  Pat, I am curious about that too.

I do agree with you that the restoration of Ross's bottom 200+ courses is silly, but those are easy sales for these guys who are making their living out of being Ross experts, and about the only guys who would stop them from trying are those who want the same job themselves.

Tom,

Can you elaborate on the bottom Ross 200-375 courses?  Is it feasible for a club/public Ross track in that sector to do a small restoration in house(bunker/tree removal) and have a ROI pay off.  In house, young unproved archie working for the experience.  Understanding that the sector might not appreciate architecture but they usually appreciate better playing surfaces which tree removal would assist.  Not every restoration has to be $2+ million.  Would a Doak 4 pre restoration turning into a potential Doak 6 be worth a $300k-750k restoration iyo?  I'm guessing location and site would need to be taken into account.