The Dead Architects' Society

[Dan Kelly]

On the Pinehurst No. 2 thread (should the greens be lowered, if it could be shown that the years have elevated them?), Jim Lewis writes:

"I don’t know what the greens looked like when Mr. Ross died, and frankly, I don’t care. I also don’t know what Mr. Ross would think of the greens today if he were alive, and I also don’t care. While I am at it, let me add that I don’t care what Mackenzie would say about the changes at Augusta National. I simply reject the notion that we are to judge a course based on some speculation about what a dead architect would say if he were alive. I insist on judging the course as it is, not how it might have been."

A couple of questions (or maybe three):

What do you gentlemen (and ladies, if any) think of that statement?

What would those dead architects have thought of that statement? And should we care what they'd have thought of that statement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Two loosely related thoughts.  First, I just learned that there is a new website call deadarchitectssociety.com.  Did you know that when you labeled your post?

Second, I as a professional golf architect have alway devined from the readings of Tillie, Ross, et. al. that they were both aware of the need to remodel to suit changing needs (especially since the bulk of their work was remodeling outdated turn of the century courses, many of which were too short, and too difficult for the average player).  

I can't quote anything specific, before you ask, but I always sensed a pragmatic approach.  And, I believe that creative personalities are the most open to new ideas, almost by definition, so I doubt that any great architect would argue for the "status quo" even accounting for the personal pride certainly present in his greatest creations.  In fact, it wouldn't be too far out on a limb to suggest that those arguing constantly for the status quo are pretty small thinkers, at least in contrast! (Oh, do I expect some response to that theory!)

Lastly, I doubt they were (with the exception of perhaps Augusta with the Jones connection and CP, or any other dramatic property) consciously thinking of long term greatness over designing for the percieved needs of the clients in their "here and now."  For anecdotal evidence of how hard that is to do, think of any rock band that has a few hits, and then starts creating more "serious" music as a criteria.  It usually suffers in comparison to music created for fun, for its own unique sound, and spontenatity .

Just my .02

[Richard_Goodale]

Jim Lewis's thoughts are extemely heretical and should be expunged from this site before CardinalsTorquemada Naccarato and/or Woolsey MacWood catch wind of them.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

The Lewis statement sounds like it is coming from someone with both feet planted firmly on Mother Earth. (a compliment)

[Tim_Weiman]

Dan Kelly,

To paraphase Gary Smith, my feet are firmly planted in good old Prestwick which means I would rather see modern architects build new courses than screw around with classic courses.

It is very easy to protect the classic courses.  Either ban professionals from playing them or introduce a competition ball.

If that makes me a "pretty small thinker", I'm quite happy to accept such a label.  

[Dan Kelly]

I didn't know about the Dead Architects Society or its Web site -- which, I've just determined, is www.deadarchitectssociety.org (not .com).

A very quick visit showed that they are using the term "GCA" -- which I thought was trademarked here.

Calling David Boies!

[GeoffreyC]

Tim Weiman- you are my brother!

I second what Tim wrote with the small addition that there are a few sensitive modern architects fully willing to do enough research to preserve/restore classic work without leaving any evidence that they were ever there.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

He is entitled to his opinion. I wouldn't disagree with him out of hand, I believe that each situation deserves research and study. I don't think everyone enjoys the historical end of it and I don't think everyone has the same fire for architecture to say the least. (ironic on a site developed and devoted to architecture) Everyone looks upon these things differently from their own unique perspective. I respect other's opinion, no matter if I strongly disagree. And it has nothing to do with anyone having their feet planted firmly on mother earth or not. That is insulting.

[GeoffreyC]

I also believe that Jim Lewis is simply stating (I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth) that he believes that regardless of their character when Ross was around that the greens at #2 have either been beautifully maintained or have evolved into a set that works and are great in their own right. It's hard to argue with that but for the insane green speeds.

I believe this argument has been used several times in the past in discussions of the bunkers at Merion and Pine Valley in general.  Evolution with good care and respect from the members, superintendent, head pro, etc. can work too.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

Actually it is extremely petty of you to call Jim Lewis' statement and Gary and my general support for that statement "insulting" without saying why you feel that way.  

Please enlighten us as to why it so offends you for someone to express an opinion that apparently differs from your own.

This is an open book test, so take your time.......

[mike_beene]

i am  new to this site(there goes the law practice)so i may be rehashing old ground but here goes: jeffs coment makes me wonder how an architect would adjust to new grasses.coore crenshaw restored my home course using old pictures,etc.when the course was built bermuda was the grass,now extremely fast bent.the architect surely didnt envision the number of putters we would buy(see also 9and 18 at southern hills last year)

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike Beene:

As an old fart and purist in both golf and writing, please use capitals and punctuation, I would appreciate it if you would do so.

Thank you.

RCH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
I'm not offended by Jim Lewis's opinions nor do I find them insulting. Gary Smith's comment implies that if you disagree with Lewis's point you are some how out of touch with reality - that I find insulting.

I approach the subject from my own distinct angle being fascinated with history and having a keen interest in historical preservation and golf architecture, but I would also like to think that my sincerity is combined with a certain amount of objectivity and realism. I understand that others may not share my interests and might have a completely different perspective, but different views does not mean one of us is out of touch with reality.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I think Tom MacWood is exactly right.  There was nothing wrong with Jim Lewis expressing his opinion.  But, one could also interpret Gary Smith's comments the way Tom apparently did.

Personally, I don't get offended by views like Lewis expressed.  I just think the case for leaving a select group of classic courses alone is very strong.

Perhaps it will take a bulldozer being applied to Dornoch in the name of "imporvements" to encourage you a take a different view.  But, then, I suspect the Dornoch membership is too smart to go down that road.

Thank God!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tim and Tom

I didn't read Gary's comments as doing anything but complimenting Jim Lewis.  Why anybody would find that offensive or insulting is beyond me.  Does Jim have cloven feet or something?

Tim

As you know, the bulldozers were out in force at Dornoch after WWII and the course is substantially better for it.  Good as it is, the course could be improved further, IMO, but I really do not care whether this does or does not occur.  In either case there will be a great golf course there and the club and the town and my friends there will very much remain the same

In my golfing life I have seen significant changes made to a number of my favorite courses, inclduing Stanford, Troon and Western Gailes.  In all three cases the changes were probably delterious, on balance, but I still very mujch enjoy playing each of those trackss, when I am able to.  Life goes on.
Cheers

Rich

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Tom MacWood,

I was not trying to insult anyone. My "feet planted firmly" remark centers around the last two sentences of the Lewis quote, and also admiration for the plain-spoken nature of the quote. In keeping with my admiration for plain-speaking, I will try to make sure my future posts will not be seen as "implying" something. Best wishes.

Tim Weiman,

Is it possible for one to one to largely agree with the Lewis quote, especially the last two sentences, and still feel that a select number of classic courses should be left alone, as you do? If so, put me in that category.  

I have a hunch that a lot of the "untouched" classic courses out there are not as pure as we would like them to be. Things are always evolving and changing, sometimes on their own, and some by a little two-legged help. And once in a while, those changes might just be for the better. I guess if we are totally into the purity of things, we could always throw out any changes/additions Flynn made to Brookline, Merion, and Shinnecock, for example. Anybody for that? Hope I'm making some sense this a.m.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Rich,

Thank you very much for seeing my "feet planted" remark for EXACTLY what I meant it to be!