[Mark_Fine]

As we all know, most of the dead guys took on a lot of "remodeling" work and some of it on the works of other noted architects.  

Wonder if they viewed "restoration" differently then we do today?  

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

I first thought of the artistic side of GCA, but I think the more things change, the more they stay the same. I would guess the dead guys worked on whatever they could get their hands on to make a buck.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

They didn't think about restoration at all.  Most of the courses they were remodeling were crude early examples of golf course design, done on extremely limited budgets.

However, several of the "dead guys" did debate whether St. Andrews or Prestwick should be further modified or preserved as they were.  Those were the only classic courses they had at the time.

[TEPaul]

I'd like to see even a single example of a golf course, even those that are most respected today that EVER used or even thought of the term "restoration" until maybe in the last 20-25 years, if that. Previous to that the idea of restoration did not exist as far as I can see. "Preservation" however may have been a slightly different matter but not by much! And mostly even "preservation" meant no more than lack of interest, inactivity or lack of money.

[Mark_Fine]

I realize many of the courses they were remodeling were very crude designs but still there were Ross courses being remodeled by Maxwell, Alison courses being changed by Langford, Tillinghast courses being converted by Banks and the lists go on!!

Are you suggesting all these courses designed by "noted" architects, that were being remodeled, were crude as well?  

Was there any mutual respect out there or just competition for work as there is today?  Talk is cheap but their actions seem to speak otherwise!

[TEPaul]

"Are you suggesting all these courses designed by "noted" architects, that were being remodeled, were crude as well?"

Mark:

Of course not. One has to try to understand these things in the proper light of the times they took place not through our own eyes and times. Many of those golf courses and architects were respected, perhaps not in quite the same way as now but they certainly were respected.

There was simply a very general attitude back then that golf courses could always be made better and that's what everyone--clubs, architects were doing. I've virtually never heard of another architect before perhaps 1980 who EVER basically did NOT do his own thing if asked to come in and "IMPROVE" another architect's course.

It doesn't mean those courses were crude or their architects didn't have some respect it was just looked at much much differntly back then than it is now.

It's very important to understand that.

[Forrest Richardson]

1 Remodel
2 Restoration
3 Renovation
4 Re-build
5 Reroute
6 Rehabilitation
7 Transformation

These terms can get confusing. For example, 2-7 can all be considered 1. And it may be said that 2 can involve 5, but only if it considers 6 in terms of what was there originally. Which brings up the technical definition of 2: does it always have to go way back to the beginning, or can it just go back to a particular point in time -- perhaps the point in a course's life when it was first 1-ed? And then there is 7; it can be undertaken for the purposes of 2 if all had been lost on previous matters involving 1 through 6. I'm in process of a 4 and maybe even a 7 right now and it is for no other purpose than creating a great "new" facility out of previous series of very ill managed 1's. I'm also in process of 5 that is being approached with as much respect for 2 and 6 as possible, although I'm sure to be criticized for not paying enough attention to 2.

[Mark_Fine]

What does everyone think the biggest change in perspective is from then and now?  

[RJ_Daley]

I think now, archies can let the sky be the limit in terms of their ideas to remodel any course.  Given enough budget, they can think big and do grandiose things, which is one of their marketing points to club membership-ownerships that desire to rework, remodel, and not necessarily restore old classic courses inorder to bring them up to the playing challenge of modern equipment and expectations.  So the modern archies do see it different because they have the means and tools to see the scope of modern work different.  

The old classic era guys probable saw the challenge of being employed to rework a course as limitted to what was possible with reasonable budgets and machinery at that time.  They probably first looked much closer at what was already given them in the details of the terrain to be reworked, or the original more rudimentary routing that pre-existed their contract to remodel.  They were probably more motivated to work with any little asset on the land that they had rather than just bust up what they don't like, scrape what is not wanted away and shape what they want to do to their hearts content.

[Forrest Richardson]

One, perhaps not "the", biggest change in perspective is that back then there were far fewer golf architects working and very likely a near "black and white" distinction between those knowledgeable and those not knowledgeable. Today there are many more golf architects and there are many shades of grey — some knowledgeable, some fairly, some not so fairly, some better in one specialty, some awful, some great, etc. Also, there are many more layers of decision-making at hand. This affects perspective as the entire process of getting hired may not be based on reputation or portfolio, but partially on politics, competition and marketing acumen.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine,

Is Tillinghast one of the "dead guys" you have in mind?

If so, my reading of trip reports from his famous PGA sponsored consulting tour suggests that he really didn't run around advising clubs to "remodel" their golf course.

Rather, it appears he typically made 1-3 minor suggestions on how a club might improve the golf course. If I recall correctly, Tillinghast seemed very conscious of the fact that club didn't have and weren't looking to spend very much money. Sensitive to this fact, Tillinghast usually offered just a few ideas on how modest improvements could be made.

I don't get the impression he spent more than one day on site at most of the clubs he visited.

[Mike_Cirba]

I believe the reason that thinking has changed somewhat in recent decades is that we now have the historical perspective to recognize that many of the changes done to courses built in an earlier era, particularly many of those changes done in the 50s-80s, were ultimately to the detriment of those courses.

The whole idea of "restoration", and even "preservation", seems to me to be reactionary in nature.  I'm not using that as a negative term...it's just the origin.  Uproars over changes at places like Inverness, Oak Hill, and certain other Donald Ross courses, in particular, raised enough eyebrows and ire to trigger discussion of alternatives.

Couple that with a major increase of iinterest, understanding,  and general awareness of course architecture among a greater amount of people in recent decades, and I think that explains the "difference" Mark mentions.  

[ForkaB]

My understanding is that the whole concept of architecture as something which was ideally static and requiring "preservation" is a fairly modern one--perhaps only really taking hold in the last 1/2 of the 20th century.  My guess is that it is not coincidental that this phenomenon arose (as a counterbalance) at the same time (roughly) that the concept of "progress" was really beginning to take flight.  My further guess is that the "dead guys" were more into "progress" and "continuous improvement" than we might want to believe.  If not, why did they "overwrite" the work of their predecessors so freely (e.g. Shinnecock, Muirfield, Lahinch, Gulph Mills) and tinker so much with the courses that were closest to their hearts (e.g. Pinehurst #2, NGLA, Dornoch)?

Just wondering.....

[BCrosby]

The Golden Age guys wanted to stamp what they worked on with their brand - including the existing courses they were asked to "update". They were looking to add to their portfolio. They weren't going to pay homage to anyone.

The idea of defering to a prior architect's design choices is very new. I'm not sure Ross would have even taken the idea seriously. I can't imagine him taking on a course "restoration" unless he had been the original designer.

It's even hard to think of non-archtects who took the restoration/preservation idea seriously. Until 25 or so years ago.

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

My research would tend to agree with Bob.  If an architect could leave their mark, they would, regardless of who designed the original layout.  I can't say I've ever come across writings (Pre-1960) suggesting that the architect was trying to bring back to life the design intent of the original architect.  

[ForkaB]

Bob and Mark

Thanks for confirming what I said above.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine:

It sounds like we need a reality check.

To my knowledge, Tillinghast did as much consulting as any of the famous "dead guys". Maybe more. Based on the trip reports I've read, there is very little, if any, evidence to suggest that Tillinghast had any interest in "leaving his mark" at clubs where he served as consultant.  

To the contrary, Tillinghast appears to have been sensitive to the economic realities of his day and of the need for most clubs to be frugal with any capital spending programs.

As far as I know, there is not as much documentation of Mackenzie's views, but that which does exist suggests Mackenzie was also sensitive to financial issues facing most clubs.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Check the number of courses Tillinghast is credited with "remolding".  It may surprise you.  My understanding of remodeling is - "changing the design of someone else to the point where you get the credit"!
Mark

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine,

There might be a list of courses where Tillinghast is "credited" with "remodeling". But, I would encourage you to be skeptical about that. His own trip reports document two key points:

a) Tillinghast usually spent very little time on site - a day or less in most cases

b) Very few changes were even recommended - Tillinghast knew full well that most clubs didn't have much money to spend

Perhaps with all the money we see spent today we have been colored to the point of not understanding what things were really like when the "dead guys" did their consulting work.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
You may be correct in that many times only a few changes may have been made.  I know much of the consultation work Tillinghast took on was for removal of bunkers.  

However, the short amount of time on site doesn't mean much to me though.  You can do a lot in a day.  Heck Ross designed two thirds of his courses spending less than a day or two on site.  


  

[Forrest Richardson]

I interviewed Floyd Farley, a Fellow Member of ASGCA, last year (95 years old then). Floyd met Tillinghast during Tillie's famous tour of Oklahoma courses in 1936. This was sponsored by the PGA. Floyd told me that Tillinghast spent very little time at each course, but was a "tremendous fellow". To my knowledge Tillinghast never took credit for any of the fixes he may have suggested during his tour in Oklahoma — unless any of you know of clubs there indicating they have a course "remodeled by Tillinghast". By the way, Mr. Farley is a wonderful man who, despite losing his eyesight, lives comfortably on The Oakcreek CC in Sedona, Arizona. His wife is pushing 100 and my delightful day talking with a man who had met Tillinghast was a tremendous opportunity.

[Mark_Fine]

I don't really know which one's Tilly personally took credit for and/or who it was who decided he should have credit.  But if you log onto the Tillinghast Society website, there are a lot of courses beyond his original designs that he supposedly had a hand in.  I stopped counting at 50!

[Forrest Richardson]

I decided to call Flyod about an hour ago. he is doing well and we spoke again about his brief time with Tillinghast. Among other things Floyd has been "bothered" lately by someone named Richardson -- not me. Apparently he's been getting calls about Donald Ross, whom he really did not know. (Bothered is a strong word. Floyd did not use that term!) Anyone know a Richardson who is involved with Ross research?

[Craig Van Egmond]

Forrest,

     Floyd Farley was a very prolific architect here in Oklahoma, I'll bet he had his hand in 40% of the courses in the state, maybe more at one point in time. His courses are very solid and are playable/enjoyable by everyone. I have played a dozen or so of his courses so far and look forward to playing as many as I can. He is an architect I would like to know more about.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine,

The brief nature of Tillinghast’s site visits is simply consistent with the fact that his consultations usually did not result in significant changes to the golf courses he visited.

His detailed trip reports made this clear. He typically made only a couple suggestions for changes and, when changes were recommended, emphasis was placed on minimizing the associated costs.

Bottom line: modern architects have probably done far more “remodeling” work than the “dead guys”. Whether this is simply a matter of available resources is beyond me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()