In renovation, should authenticity carry as much weight as progress?

[Sean_A]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.

Well placed bunkers, well placed features for that matter, are as much about what happens when someone avoids them as when they do not.  I would be just as concerned about a very often hit feature as much as I would about a rarely hit feature. 

Happy Hockey

[mike_malone]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.

Well placed bunkers, well placed features for that matter, are as much about what happens when someone avoids them as when they do not.  I would be just as concerned about a very often hit feature as much as I would about a rarely hit feature. 

Happy Hockey

Fairway bunkers can only be well placed for the few.

[mike_malone]

To get back to the original topic I believe that progress may be more difficult to define than even original intent. I believe that if you want original intent you need evidence of what was planned and done not just an understanding of the architect’s principles.

[Tom_Doak]

   I have seen what total fealty to original design looks like, and it is not very pretty.  Architects simply overlayed  vintage aerial photos and plans over modern aerial photos.  If a fairway bunker that is now say 250 yards off a tee was 190 yards off the tee 90 years ago, they proposed removing the new one and repositioning it to where it was.  This discretionless philosophy was applied on several holes, leaving the present day low handicapper with no challenge and the present day high handicapper with an unnecessary and silly challenge.  They also proposed to remove every single bunker that exists today but did not exist 90 years ago.  These are bunkers that have been added by highly regarded architects over the last 30 years, and which, in the minds of many, have greatly improved the aesthetics and challenge of course.
   Fortunately, the response of the membership to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly negative.  Yes, courses need to change over time to accommodate changes in the game, and a good architect is indispensable to accomplish this.  But the word "restoration" is too dangerous.  Renovation with an eye to the past is what is needed.  Sometimes a good renovation will undo changes that were improvidently made.  But a good renovation will also incorporate improvements made over time.  Making the course better should be the only goal of any project, not making it the same as it was.  Not all historical changes are bad.

Jim:


I missed this thread earlier, but I disagree as strongly as you believe in this.  Have you been to Bel Air or The Valley Club or Pasatiempo or Shoreacres recently?  They are all examples of the process you outline above as "directionless".


I think where we diverge is the idea that these courses should all be renovated with "the present day low handicapper" as the most important target audience.  Why do you put him on a pedestal?  Such players are outnumbered by "average" players in any club by somewhere between a 2:1 and 5:1 ratio.


More importantly, the thing that you don't understand is that those courses were laid out originally based on the topography, and not just how far certain players hit their drives, so you can't just move the bunkers downrange from the tee and have them fit like they used to.  Personally, I think that factor is more important to the greatness of a golf course than challenging you and your buddies.


By the way, is your handicap going down playing all of these courses that are too easy for you?

[Peter Pallotta]

More importantly, the thing that you don't understand is that those courses were laid out originally based on the topography, and not just how far certain players hit their drives, so you can't just move the bunkers downrange from the tee and have them fit like they used to.

An interesting -- but obviously not a necessary -- conclusion is that the better the original course the more difficult it is to meaningfully & faithfully renovate. The more skillfully a top golden age architect utilized the site and successfully incorporated its natural features into his routing, the harder it is for today's top architects to similarly utilize and integrate the site into the renovation. Yes? No? Meh, sometimes yes, sometimes no?

[Sean_A]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.

Well placed bunkers, well placed features for that matter, are as much about what happens when someone avoids them as when they do not.  I would be just as concerned about a very often hit feature as much as I would about a rarely hit feature. 

Happy Hockey

Fairway bunkers can only be well placed for the few.

Yes! In most cases this is true. The thing is, those few affected golfers should change on any given day depending on any number factors. I think one reason for the over use of bunkers is exactly for this reason. All sense of natural randomness is sacrificed the more archies try to achieve some form of equal treatment. It's a train of thought which will more often than not lead to less variety and therefore less interesting courses.

Happy Hockey

[Ally Mcintosh]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.

Well placed bunkers, well placed features for that matter, are as much about what happens when someone avoids them as when they do not.  I would be just as concerned about a very often hit feature as much as I would about a rarely hit feature. 

Happy Hockey

Fairway bunkers can only be well placed for the few.

Yes! In most cases this is true. The thing is, those few affected golfers should change on any given day depending on any number factors. I think one reason for the over use of bunkers is exactly for this reason. All sense of natural randomness is sacrificed the more archies try to achieve some form of equal treatment. It's a train of thought which will more often than not lead to less variety and therefore less interesting courses.

Happy Hockey

I think you are even lucky with many architects if you get equal treatment... it’s amazing how many still design by numbers, placing all hazards 260 to 290 from the tee.


When I see renovations eradicate unusually placed bunkers to replace them with bunkers in this range on almost every hole, it is immensely frustrating.


Design with the land first of all. Then ensure that land assists with a common strategic idea. That way, you will get both a natural looking hole and one that enables at least a couple of different options for a variety of players in differing circumstances. Homogenisation in bunker placements is a very real problem with our golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In a normal day of 150 golfers how many hit into a single bunker placed somewhere off the tee on an average hole?
Not enough to even bother with its placement or spend a nickel moving it.

Well placed bunkers, well placed features for that matter, are as much about what happens when someone avoids them as when they do not.  I would be just as concerned about a very often hit feature as much as I would about a rarely hit feature. 

Happy Hockey

Fairway bunkers can only be well placed for the few.

Sean, I think I've mentioned clients who say the same thing, disliking bunkers that don't see much action about equally to those that see "too much" action.  For the 150 golfers a day, what, just out of curiosity is in your opinion the "right amount of action?"  How many shots per day?


No one has ever answered that question for me, LOL.  I gather it would be somewhere between 5-25% of golfers, but who knows?  The USGA did their slope system based on 2/3 of golfers hitting fw and greens, but I doubt they would think a single bunker placed to catch the other third?


Mike,


I will partially disagree with you.


First, one of the big arguments favoring multiple tees is that you can make a single set of LZ hazards similarly relevant.  Tee shot distances fall pretty clearly into 20 yard clusters, centered on 290,260,230,200,170 and 140 yards (some rounding on my part). If you split tees about 30 yards apart, it works okay.  If you separate tees based on proportional distance of the entire hole, it gets harder to make one bunker relevant.



In addition, any fw bunker can be built at least 20 yards long, although I do think extending them longer works even better and makes even more sense as distance variations increase.  Then, in that 20+ yards, some can roll in, others fly in, etc.  Pete Dye strip bunker long?  Not sure but I suspect distance variation is one reason he built so many of those.


Ally,


My mentors sort of struck the middle between mathematical and random, natural placement.  Basically, yes, its wrong to lock on to one location.  If all my calculations say a bunker should be at, say 263, and a natural hill is at 252, I put the bunker at 252.  But, you start with math, and then break the rules when you see fit.  Break them too many times, and you get a goofy, or at least, unnecessarily expensive course with too many bunkers that don't see much play.  At $10 SF, that's a lot of unnecessary bunkers if you aren't careful. 


I just can't justify a philosophy of no philosophy, or one of designing purely for the land first.  I design for golfers, using the land the best we can.

[Jim_Coleman]

Tom:  Funny you should ask.  I played both The Valley Club and Bel Air within the last two months.  They are two of my favorite courses, and to a great extent, it is because of the beauty of the bunkering.  But, when a bunker is returned to where it was 90 years ago simply because that's where it used to be, I have a problem.  Moving a bunker that a good architect may have moved 30 years ago to make it relevant to today's game  because that's where it was 90 years ago, and which adds nothing to the aesthetics of the hole, and which merely punishes the high handicapper and removes a challenge for the low handicapper, is not a good change in my view.  Just because something was there 90 years ago is not a valid reason to do anything.
     I love almost everything you did at Bel Air.  But, I will offer an example of a change that just doesn't make golf sense to me.  The green side bunker on 4 has been moved to about 40-50 yards short of the green (I'm guessing with a 2 month old memory).  My host, a 9 handicapper who rarely can reach the green, commented that he often hits his ball into the new bunker.  That's my point.  Does a good architect really need to punish him for a pretty good shot, while the good player rarely has to think about a bunker 40 yard short of a par four.  Isn't it punishment enough that one is in the rough 40 yards short of a green in regulation?   Now, if that bunker adds to the aesthetic picture of the hole, like the fairway bunker on 10 at Augusta, then I suppose there is a trade off of beauty for proper golf challenge.  That's different than total, uncritical, fealty to "original design."
     I started a thread many years ago where I pointed out that Pete Dye made major, positive changes to Teeth of the Dog 30 or so years after he built it.  If the original architect can make changes that improve his course, why can't a different architect do the same thing?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Golf courses are living things that are going to cycle through changes for a zillion different reasons.  I don’t think anyone on this site believes in restoring crap but the problem is we all have different definitions and opinions of what is good evolution vs bad evolution/what is progress and what is not? I cited in one post on a different thread about Oakmont.  That course has been through so many changes most here would not believe it.  Good luck finding “the high watermark” for a restoration. 


I am a purist at heart and have said many times on this site, not every course deserves to be restored but every course at least deserves a good look to understand what was once there and how things evolved before bringing in the bulldozers and tearing the place up.  All the change does keep some of us very busy and what ultimately gets decided is very subjective. Much comes down to, 1) who willing be playing there, 2) who is paying for the work, and 3) who has been hired to do it!   

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark:  Agree.  The only thing you said that I am afraid may not be true is that no one here wants to restore crap.  Although no one intentionally wants to restore crap, the observation that the original work was “perfect” precludes examining the merits if a particular restoration.

[mike_malone]

   I have seen what total fealty to original design looks like, and it is not very pretty.  Architects simply overlayed  vintage aerial photos and plans over modern aerial photos.  If a fairway bunker that is now say 250 yards off a tee was 190 yards off the tee 90 years ago, they proposed removing the new one and repositioning it to where it was.  This discretionless philosophy was applied on several holes, leaving the present day low handicapper with no challenge and the present day high handicapper with an unnecessary and silly challenge.  They also proposed to remove every single bunker that exists today but did not exist 90 years ago.  These are bunkers that have been added by highly regarded architects over the last 30 years, and which, in the minds of many, have greatly improved the aesthetics and challenge of course.
   Fortunately, the response of the membership to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly negative.  Yes, courses need to change over time to accommodate changes in the game, and a good architect is indispensable to accomplish this.  But the word "restoration" is too dangerous.  Renovation with an eye to the past is what is needed.  Sometimes a good renovation will undo changes that were improvidently made.  But a good renovation will also incorporate improvements made over time.  Making the course better should be the only goal of any project, not making it the same as it was.  Not all historical changes are bad.

Wow.  There is so much factually wrong with this I won’t even begin to correct it.


I would simply restate that at our course the best idea is the original and we can respond to the changing game by adjustments in harmony with the original principles and not injurious to the actual original work.  Most every change we have made in the last 20 years that were returns to the original have been very good and loved by all even Mr. Coleman.
The only bunker work we have undone were bunkers that were modern mistakes .


I think he would respect the work done on the recent concept plan if he studied it more.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,


Of course I agree you don’t design purely for the land with no thought to the golfer. And on most sites the land doesn’t offer as many opportunities.


But I’ve just completed a bunker redesign where we repositioned every bunker, reduced from 63 to 48, and I didn’t measure one single bunker from the tee before I placed it. Sure, I learnt the course well enough to know where frequently visited areas were but I also knew the course could change with day to day conditions so let’s say they were placed equally with an eye on the land and eye on strategy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


I always thought my mentors perhaps under thought things, i.e., locked on to putting lateral hazards at the dogleg point without much thought.  Early in my solo career, I remember a criticism of a bunker placed too far out to be in play considering the headwind and uphill nature of the tee shot.  Both influenced me not to take fw bunker placement for granted.  Yes, if I was remodeling, i.e., a bunker reduction study, and could see where the divots were, I would use that as a general placement guide, but I do more new or total redo work (although also some bunker reductions like your recent project)


Short version is, given a German heritage, including some engineers exiled to America by the Kaiser (according to family legend, and perhaps referring to the railroad kind, as family legend is a bit fuzzy) is it much surprise that I use a more mathematical method than others as a first step in bunker placement.


I usually stick with a consistent dogleg point, but then estimate the true landing zone (carry and roll, with shorter hitters having more roll as part of total distance) from each tee for design purposes.  The yard for yard estimate for uphill/downhill seems pretty well known by good players.  Wind is harder to estimate, of course, but often a huge factor here in Texas.


But, I also know that average players hit their maximum distance less than half the time as well.  For good players, we presume a bit more solid contact and would prefer to challenge full length but off line shots.  For average players,  I hate to place bunkers that punish their career length tee shot, even if off line, but also hesitate to place them for their 80-90% distance tee shots, either.   And, I rarely put a bunker over say, 190-200 yards, from the green, where their semi muffs don't allow them to reach the green anyway.


Lastly, my bunker reduction projects in the last decade convince me that little used bunkers tend to go away, while multi-purpose bunkers, that catch some percentage of golfers, but not too many, but also perform other functions, i.e., target, separation, save, drainage, safety, etc. tend to be kept.  That experience has led me away from any romantic ideas about random placement being any kind of worthy design theory.  Yeah, fore bunkers look good to my eye, too.  My experience tells me they won't last long.


For that matter, I have had to (or had) long strip angled carry bunkers removed on my courses.  The powers that be just don't understand carry sand well short of the landing zone, preferring the 1970's mantra of placing them adjacent to the presumed landing zone.    I have also had tour pros question why a bunker would angle in towards the fw and require a carry.   

I don't like it, but don't think my clients should have to endure bunkers no one seems to like.

Changing paradigms is hard to do.  Seems like many of us have tried, and maybe its just me who failed, LOL.

[Tom_Doak]

     I love almost everything you did at Bel Air.  But, I will offer an example of a change that just doesn't make golf sense to me.  The green side bunker on 4 has been moved to about 40-50 yards short of the green (I'm guessing with a 2 month old memory).  My host, a 9 handicapper who rarely can reach the green, commented that he often hits his ball into the new bunker.  That's my point.  Does a good architect really need to punish him for a pretty good shot, while the good player rarely has to think about a bunker 40 yard short of a par four.  Isn't it punishment enough that one is in the rough 40 yards short of a green in regulation?   Now, if that bunker adds to the aesthetic picture of the hole, like the fairway bunker on 10 at Augusta, then I suppose there is a trade off of beauty for proper golf challenge.  That's different than total, uncritical, fealty to "original design."
     I started a thread many years ago where I pointed out that Pete Dye made major, positive changes to Teeth of the Dog 30 or so years after he built it.  If the original architect can make changes that improve his course, why can't a different architect do the same thing?

Jim:


I am well aware of Mr. Dye's thoughts on restoration, as I had more than one personal conversation with him on the topic.  That would make it very hard for me to go in and restore one of his courses . . . and it makes me nervous as I'm starting to hear that a couple of his courses are lining up consultants to do just that.


But, I don't agree with Mr. Dye on restoring other courses.  Did George Thomas say anything about it one way or another?  I am confident he never imagined how much Bel Air would be changed by Dick Wilson, RTJ II, and the Fazio family.




As to the bunker on #4, I will argue George Thomas' side of the equation, against your own.  It's kind of silly, thinking Mr. Thomas would have to defend his ideas against your questions, but here goes:


The bunker does not only threaten high handicappers [your friend who keeps going in it, is a 9], but I will agree that going in there is usually the result of a bad shot.  Brooks Koepka is probably never going to miss in that bunker, unless he smothers his tee shot in the left rough or clips a tree on the right off the tee, but I'd be willing to bet that you would be in it now and again, and all I know about your golf ability is that you aren't on Tour.


Placing a bunker right up against the green, like Dick Wilson did there, has minimal value these days, because club members are weenies who want the sand to be "perfect", which has made good players are so good out of the bunkers that they really don't care whether they are in them or not.  But there is no golfer I know who would want to have to play that 40-yard bunker shot from short of the green at Bel Air.


The players who are not confident about getting to the green in two, like your friend, should play safely left, to be sure they avoid the bunker.  Therefore it adds strategy for the majority of the membership.


Where we disagree, is that you have a modern view, like Jeff Brauer, that golf course architects shouldn't punish the medium handicapper, and bunkers should only be in places where the best players go.  This is what Dick Wilson and RTJ and Tom Fazio espoused, and that's the reason they all took turns destroying the original intent of Thomas at  Bel Air.  Because George Thomas wasn't thinking in terms of "hard par, easy bogey."  He was thinking about you and me playing golf, and one or both of us having to flirt with that bunker.  Go back to his book and look at the diagrams . . . I think you will find that a lot of them feature bunkers in places the long hitter of the day probably wouldn't have gone often.


You're entitled to your opinion.  But the members of Bel Air are entitled to George Thomas's opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I didn't say I wouldn't punish the average player, I just wonder what is the best way to do it.   I vividly recall a long ago master plan meeting (when I was with KN) where an older member stood up and said, "My dues are the same as everyone else's, and I deserve to hit in some bunkers, too!  That was in direct response to a statement about bunkering challenging only the good players, i.e., then modern theory.  And, in general, I think there is too much emphasis on designing for pros who won't ever show up, i.e, Brooks K.


But having accepted that, and in thinking deeper, I do go back and forth on the best way to do that.  I am influenced a bit by hearing some anguished cries from average golfers whose career long tee shot finds water they never thought of hitting, although granted that is rare.  Mostly, I recall a female golfer lofting a nice shot towards the green at La Costa, only to be caught by the lip of a fronting bunker.  Basically, she couldn't hit it any better, and Wilson trapped her very good shot (for her).  Doesn't seem right, either. 


And, adding a stroke when a short tee shot doesn't seem necessary under Mac's theory of not piling up a big score, no matter how good it looks, i.e., the balance of aesthetics, maintenance cost, and playability.


So, philosophically, the basic premise, knowing the wider shot dispersion patterns boils down to trying in most cases to punish a good shot 6-8% off line (i.e., at the edges of their statistical miss pattern, whereas better players would be 5-6%) at their normal driving distance, and maybe just a bit short (since miss hit shots usually go shorter).  And, while it seems I obsess about the math to start, in the end, we all know that overall, misses can be statistically average, but each specific miss can be almost anywhere.  So, moving a bunker or shaping it to look good, etc. while being a few % off any calculated norm is the normal result in my designs. 


Like I say, start with some math, basically to eliminate any unthinking gross errors, and then be intuitive in placement considering all the other factors.


Of course, this is a bit off topic for an authenticity thread and I don't do much historical restoration.  And, that said, I probably fall into the camp that says, absent some real historical interest, there isn't much future in designing for the past.

[Tom_Doak]

Mostly, I recall a female golfer lofting a nice shot towards the green at La Costa, only to be caught by the lip of a fronting bunker.  Basically, she couldn't hit it any better, and Wilson trapped her very good shot (for her).  Doesn't seem right, either. 

Jeff:


I spent more than enough time around Alice Dye to not want to "punish" women golfers too much.


However, if a golfer [even a woman] hits a shot that (s)he "couldn't hit any better", and it still comes up short, isn't the onus on them to have chosen a different approach?


Too bad she didn't have the same attitude of that older player you quoted at the start of your post.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sounds like it comes down to simply creating the best golf course you can -- and that architects will approach a renovation with the same philosophy they do with new builds. Which is to say: the main difference between Wilson-RTJ-Fazio and Doak-Hanse-C&C is not their approach to *renovations* but their approach to *design*. Which is also why I don't understand what people are judging/ranking when it comes to "best renovation". What they are actually judging, it seems to me, is the best design.
P

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mostly, I recall a female golfer lofting a nice shot towards the green at La Costa, only to be caught by the lip of a fronting bunker.  Basically, she couldn't hit it any better, and Wilson trapped her very good shot (for her).  Doesn't seem right, either. 

Jeff:


I spent more than enough time around Alice Dye to not want to "punish" women golfers too much.


However, if a golfer [even a woman] hits a shot that (s)he "couldn't hit any better", and it still comes up short, isn't the onus on them to have chosen a different approach?


Too bad she didn't have the same attitude of that older player you quoted at the start of your post.

Tom,


In this case it was a par 3 with a frontal bunker and no option forced carry.  Technically, if she carried the bunker she would probably also roll over the green.  I believe I have read where you keep open front greens for similar reasons I do, to accommodate those shorter hitting players.   I recall discussing the "Keep the Wilson intent" vs. making it more playable, and going with Wilson intent.  Seeing that shot, I sort of regretted it, but it hasn't changed. 


And, we did remove perhaps 20% of the sand on both courses while trying to keep the general look. We also got specific instructions on the second course (the one she was playing) to soften it up, after sticking to Wilson's original intend too closely on the first one, and members just not liking the difficulty too much.  And, they had made the decision not to pursue tournaments again, so that wasn't a consideration.


Overall, when preservation is a goal, there are always some value judgements that involve current players.  If form follows function, and a former tournament course now wants to appeal more to current guests and members, is preservation of original design intent really the right choice?  I dunno, but that is the crux of the debate here.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


You ask good questions above.


Funny, though, how those questions lead to more tough choices when you are talking about Dick Wilson's and RTJ courses, than when discussing George Thomas's work, or most of the ODG's.


Bel Air had 77 bunkers when we started, but Thomas had built only 40-something.  That said, there are two par-3 holes with bunkers clear across the fronts of the greens, at the 3rd and 5th holes.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,
Riverfront has under gone some bunker reduction due, I guess, IMO to the management desire to reduce maintenance cost.  Holes 3, 4, 5, 11, 14 & 16  have seen the most impact. 


Bunker maintenance, in general, has gone by the way, too.


I keep wondering which bunkers will be covered up next.

[Thomas Dai]

I didn't say I wouldn't punish the average player, I just wonder what is the best way to do it.   I vividly recall a long ago master plan meeting (when I was with KN) where an older member stood up and said, "My dues are the same as everyone else's, and I deserve to hit in some bunkers, too!  That was in direct response to a statement about bunkering challenging only the good players, i.e., then modern theory.  And, in general, I think there is too much emphasis on designing for pros who won't ever show up, i.e, Brooks K.

I've heard this line before too. Of course when folks with such an opinion, and I'm not knocking them, move up a set of tees or two they often find more tee-shot bunkers in play for them and are more likely to be reaching greens in regulation rather than coming up short and thus not even reaching the greenside bunkers.

Question - how do authenticity and renovation fit together when say the bunkers (or other features) are ones not built by the hand of man but located and created by mother nature and utilised as a feature by man, maybe with some shoring up eg ....



atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:


You ask good questions above.


Funny, though, how those questions lead to more tough choices when you are talking about Dick Wilson's and RTJ courses, than when discussing George Thomas's work, or most of the ODG's.


Bel Air had 77 bunkers when we started, but Thomas had built only 40-something.  That said, there are two par-3 holes with bunkers clear across the fronts of the greens, at the 3rd and 5th holes.

My guess is because RTJ and DW took it upon themselves (perhaps under public pressure) to make every course a championship course, at least after the 1951 US Open.  In the GA, most guys really didn't design for tournament tough, they designed for members.  Winged Foot and the direction to provide a man sized course, or PV being some of the few obvious exceptions. 


Many of them ended up being used as tournament courses anyway.  I guess I am not sure what had to happen to some of their mid level designs to make them tournament suitable, although I guess faster for the times greens and deeper roughs were the primary tools, as they were up to about the 1980 US Open.


So, I'm guessing that the decision to change the design of an architect really starts one level up, by declaring and entire era the dark ages, thus absolving any blame for the changes.

[mike_malone]

I believe renovations happen because the original intent isn’t known or the prestige of the original course or designer isn’t much.


In that case all bets are off. Renovate to some principles of the original course and designer or start over.


I grew up at DuPont CC. The championship course was rather boring and I was told that the Tull greens were flattened early on. It was renovated by Lester George and is my favorite renovation ever. He kept the routing but used his own judgement to redo the greens and bunkers.


We shouldn’t renovate the classics so it doesn’t matter about progress versus authenticity.


Most of the classic guys expected tees to be moved so that’s a no brainer for adjustment to the modern game.


Moving bunkers and changing green complexes is a waste of money unless it is to return to the original.

[Jim_Coleman]

   In Archie Struthers' thread re: architects original intent, today Jim Nagle reported on research he has done regarding Philadelphia Country Club.  In 1937 (more than a decade after it was built) Flynn was asked by PCC to make recommendations for the 1939 Open.  Flynn was troubled that advances made in equipment were negatively impacting play of PCC and other courses of his.  Nagle reports that Flynn recommended both moving and adding bunkers to make his courses play as he originally intended.   One can only imagine how Flynn would react to today's equipment.  To suggest that he would leave the bunkering on his courses, not to mention virtually every architectural decision he made, exactly as they were when they were built in the twenties, to me, is absurd on its face.  And if Flynn would be allowed to improve his courses were he alive today, so should another talented architect be so allowed.