Restoration v Improvement

[Ben Lovett]

I have been fortunate to be a regular visitor to Trevose for years. Recently they have taken on a very good greenkeeper who is doing a lot of good work. I even think he may browse these pages at times. At the moment he is trying to return the course to fine fescue and I am sure when he has got the course back to the quality he wants he will start more projects.
I really like the course and find it fun to play probably even more in the winter in a strong breeze

[Ben Lovett]

As for the Princes vs Trevose argument I also spent  a bit of time playing Princes a few years ago when my father had the role of club manager. This was as they started their bunker project to add more definition. Both courses are very similar in the fact they are privately owned and are often over looked for their neighbors. Both have made great strides in conditioning and have good greenkeepers now who are pushing the courses forward.
I will wimp out a bit and say they are equal

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben your dad must be Mike?

The UK course that has had the recent 'Improvement' is Wentworth and whilst most on here shake their heads 90% of the world think it is much better than before. My personal opinion is that I don't think it was 'super brilliant' before, few new bits I don't like are 8th green and I am not struck by 18 though the re-redo is better. Overall I think it is better, though it is unplayable for fun as many championship courses are. It seems fairly full @ £365 per round so they are probably right.

We (Me & Ben Stephens) have three projects on the go that (I think I can speak for him as well) we consider are brand new golf courses. Although they are all presently golf courses so probably should be termed 'Improvements'.

Trevose for me was a bit boring I can only remember 1 to 4 and 18. Princes I remember far more and it seemed total links whilst Trevose seems more field like, I have never seen any Trevose pics to inspire me, though the 4th hole/green is total candy and perhaps it plays better strategically and I never got that in my only caddy experience, I never actually played.

Most of Frank Pont's work posted here I have thought looks better than the before would be interested to know how he feels with his work..is he restoring - is he improving or is it a combo.

I had a look at Long Ashton a few weeks ago, they just rebuilt 14 of their greens over the winter, M J Abbots did the work. It cost £400,000 which I think is toppy though the quality of work was excellent, the work involved restoring the greens to the exact contour of before, so then stripped and stored the turf, excavated about 16 inches, installed drains and gravel/grit raft and finally rootzone and then put the turf back.........the only problem in my opinion is on some greens the contours were not very good before and some greens were and so still are too steep....a golden opportunity to correct the errors in my opinion....but they passed.

[Ryan Coles]

Agree re: the contours, Adrian, particularly 3rd, 4th & 16th. Greens are quite small so it may have been an opportunity to create a few more pin positions and "improve" what was on top rather than "restore".

I think the cost included a fair bit of irrigation renewal but even so it was an expensive and ballsy decision for a Club of that size. It could be that they didn't want to muddy the waters by mentioning new contours to the members, who they did really well to garner support from. Good luck to them. Hope the members give the greenkeeper time for them to settle - will have hundreds of them on his back next time the course closes.

[Thomas Dai]

That's a brave step by Long Ashton in re-doing so many greens and spending that much £. Well done to them. Mind, whenever I've played LAGC the greens have been very firm and rolled wonderfully well but I've only been there for formal Open comps so I guess unable to comment on the greens in general play.

As to Trevose, some splendid green complexes, the 5th and 7th, come particularly to mind and some tough holes, like 11, plus the lengthened 18th off the new lower back tee is, as I mentioned on another threat, a right difficult sod of hole.

Great views of the course/bay from the high point positioned clubhouse, almost Cruden Bay like in standard of view, and a very, very nice place to stay, especially during the winter period. Being privately owned and with a great deal of on-site accommodation, ie 'resorty', the rough never seems to be as much of a feature on the course as at other 'private' courses, so impressions from general visitor play may not be the same as when a formal event is held and things are toughened up.

atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

A restoration is easy to "qualify and quantify", in the absolute.

An Improvement is a matter of "opinion" and nebulous at best.

[Paul Gray]

Whilst I agree with Pat in principle, to restore a course to such a position that the golfer approaches it as a player would have in the past, given modern technology, it is often necessary to alter the course. So, if restoring function is achieved through change, has the course actually been restored or improved?

[Tom_Doak]

I have spent a lot of my consulting career focused on restorations.  We have been fortunate to work on some of the best courses in the world, and it would take a huge ego to think that you are going to improve them, when clearly some previous alterations had been a step backwards.  Indeed, I got involved in that side of the business because I had seen so many questionable renovations in my travels.

The other advantage to restoration is that it eliminates argument.  Everyone at the club thinks they know what ought to be done, and all design is a matter of opinion, so a young architect will be constantly questioned on his choices, whether they're right or wrong.  But if you are restoring a course, you make it a case of the member vs. Alister MacKenzie or Harry Colt, and they can't say much.

Nowadays we are starting to get more jobs where clubs want to make improvements instead of do a restoration, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they have faith in the designer to do the right thing.  But I do think there are a few courses that should be protected from such work.  My proposal years ago was that every designer should have a list of 3 or 5 or 10 courses which they don't want to see altered, and hopefully those clubs would be less inclined to pursue changes in order to preserve their special status.

[Tom_Doak]

Whilst I agree with Pat in principle, to restore a course to such a position that the golfer approaches it as a player would have in the past, given modern technology, it is often necessary to alter the course. So, if restoring function is achieved through change, has the course actually been restored or improved?

In my opinion, that is not restoration, it's b.s. posing as restoration.  Fairway bunkers are located based on terrain, and the tees planned based on those positions, not the other way around.  If you can move the tee, fine, but moving the bunkers is a drastic change and seldom a good one.

[Adam Clayman]

Whatever happened to the graceful evolution of a golf course? If a hazard evolves into a nasty beast, naturally, isn't a restoration of it appeasing the modern mindset of making things easier? (The fairness whiners)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whatever happened to the graceful evolution of a golf course? If a hazard evolves into a nasty beast, naturally, isn't a restoration of it appeasing the modern mindset of making things easier? (The fairness whiners)

Adam,

Could you provide some examples of hazards evolving into a nasty beasts.

[Brent Hutto]

Whatever happened to the graceful evolution of a golf course? If a hazard evolves into a nasty beast, naturally, isn't a restoration of it appeasing the modern mindset of making things easier? (The fairness whiners)

Adam,

Could you provide some examples of hazards evolving into a nasty beasts.

Well if we believe the line some folks were trying to sell regarding the "natural areas" at Pinehurst #2 then in a decade's time everything except fairway there is going to be veritable forests of 25-foot-tall volunteer pine trees with stemmy, bushy crap poking up from the sand and through the fallen pine straw. That would indeed be a nasty beast of a golf course.

Of course we know the resort intended no such thing and the "natural areas" will continue to be carefully maintained (not to say manicured) simulacra of open sandy land arrested in its second year of natural development.

But man if they really were unmaintained and naturally evolving  the result would be beastly enough. And I can see some course or club somewhere trying to adopt the "Pinehurst look" by scraping their rough down to bare sand and letting nature take its course. Without the Pinehurst resort's very, very deep pockets it might get out of hand in a beastly direction eventually.

[SAID TONGUE MOSTLY IN CHEEK]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

Natural areas don't equal hazards.

Hazards are meant to be............ hazardous.

[Carl Rogers]

Whilst I agree with Pat in principle, to restore a course to such a position that the golfer approaches it as a player would have in the past, given modern technology, it is often necessary to alter the course. So, if restoring function is achieved through change, has the course actually been restored or improved?

In my opinion, that is not restoration, it's b.s. posing as restoration.  Fairway bunkers are located based on terrain, and the tees planned based on those positions, not the other way around.  If you can move the tee, fine, but moving the bunkers is a drastic change and seldom a good one.

How would Fazio's ANGC's effort on the fairway bunkers on the 5th hole be characterized?  Certainly not a restoration of the Architecture??  Then a restoration of what?  I thought all the alterations at ANGC were justified to RESTORE shot values (only of course for the top 200 in the world) right??

[Tom_Doak]

How would Fazio's ANGC's effort on the fairway bunkers on the 5th hole be characterized?  Cetainly not a restoration of the Architecture??  Then a restoration of what?  I thought all the alterations at ANGC were justified to RESTORE shot values (only of course for the top 200 in the world) right??

Tom Fazio does not believe in restoration as I defined it, at all, ever.  I don't think he believes in justifying what he sees as improvements as "restoration," either.  Augusta National Golf Club might spin it a bit differently though.

[Chris Cupit]

Whatever happened to the graceful evolution of a golf course? If a hazard evolves into a nasty beast, naturally, isn't a restoration of it appeasing the modern mindset of making things easier? (The fairness whiners)

Adam,

Could you provide some examples of hazards evolving into a nasty beasts.

I am not certain if this is what you menat but I would say the Devil's Asshole at PV certainly has become "nastier" and more difficult over the years.  I would also say the road bunker at TOC has become a much more "nasty" hazard too.  I apologize that I don't have pictures but the ones I have seen for both holes show an "evolution" of both hazards into more hazardous hazards

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whatever happened to the graceful evolution of a golf course? If a hazard evolves into a nasty beast, naturally, isn't a restoration of it appeasing the modern mindset of making things easier? (The fairness whiners)

Adam,

Could you provide some examples of hazards evolving into a nasty beasts.

I am not certain if this is what you menat but I would say the Devil's Asshole at PV certainly has become "nastier" and more difficult over the years.  I would also say the road bunker at TOC has become a much more "nasty" hazard too.  I apologize that I don't have pictures but the ones I have seen for both holes show an "evolution" of both hazards into more hazardous hazards

Chris,

Actually, they made the DA bunker easier right around the time of the Walker Cup.

Previously, balls hit out of the DA used to roll back off the green and into it.

They inserted a berm and a buffer of rough to prevent that from happening.

And, the DA was not an original feature designed and built by Crump when the club first opened.

[SL_Solow]

If the golf course is well designed,it is always iffy whether a significant change will improve the course or send it the other way.  At our Colt & Alison, numerous changes in the 60's through 90's made it worse despite good intentions.  We did the best we could to change things back closer to the origins (absent plans) and are happier.  Nonetheless we have members who push for regular change because we could be "better".  i usually reply that we could more easily get worse.  Hippocrates had it right when he said "first do no harm".

The other common comment is that in all other facets of life (automobiles are a common example) no one is buying a 100 year old item to use on a regular basis so why not "modernize" the course.  What these folks miss is that nothing modern has changed the basic strategic and aesthetic principles of golf architecture.  Most of us have modernized "under the hood" by utilizing irrigation and agronomic advances.  As far as fighting the distance gains from new equipment, for most members no change is needed.  I defer to Tom when he brings his expertise to bunker placement and his preference for new tees if there is a distance problem.

Finally, while I am usually dubious of "improvements", I also recognize that there are very few courses that are worthy of a true restoration.  Accordingly, member/owners should be realistic about what they have and equally realistic about the potential of the site and the amount they are willing to spend before embarking on any project, regardless of how they label it.

[Tom Kelly]

I had a look at Long Ashton a few weeks ago, they just rebuilt 14 of their greens over the winter, M J Abbots did the work. It cost £400,000 which I think is toppy though the quality of work was excellent, the work involved restoring the greens to the exact contour of before, so then stripped and stored the turf, excavated about 16 inches, installed drains and gravel/grit raft and finally rootzone and then put the turf back.........the only problem in my opinion is on some greens the contours were not very good before and some greens were and so still are too steep....a golden opportunity to correct the errors in my opinion....but they passed.

I spent hours thinking about this!

They did change a few contours to aid surface flow drainage on a few flat spots and basins, the 18th being the biggest change which took forever to agree on the details of the change as they didn't get an architect involved which meant lots of opinions etc.

Prior to the work the course had serious problems with green closures during the winter from flooding which shouldn't be the case now.

In my opinion the site has quite alot of potential especially the front nine, though the road crossing is a massive issue. They could restore a hole or two on the front nine, but the the back nine could do with an improvement!

[Adam Lawrence]

Whilst I agree with Pat in principle, to restore a course to such a position that the golfer approaches it as a player would have in the past, given modern technology, it is often necessary to alter the course. So, if restoring function is achieved through change, has the course actually been restored or improved?

In my opinion, that is not restoration, it's b.s. posing as restoration.  Fairway bunkers are located based on terrain, and the tees planned based on those positions, not the other way around.  If you can move the tee, fine, but moving the bunkers is a drastic change and seldom a good one.

Tom - broadly speaking I agree with this. But let me offer you one possible counter example - I would be interested to hear what you think.

That's the fourth at Woking. There, the tee has gone back as far as is possible - the black tee is hard against the fence surrounding the car park. Paton's bunkers are routinely flown by strong players. They were not really built into any landform - as you know the fairway is basically flat and the bunkers were built by using the material excavated to create small supporting mounds.

Would you support the creation of an additional central bunker, perhaps 15-20 yards further on, to restore the strategic intent of Paton's work?

[Ryan Coles]

I had a look at Long Ashton a few weeks ago, they just rebuilt 14 of their greens over the winter, M J Abbots did the work. It cost £400,000 which I think is toppy though the quality of work was excellent, the work involved restoring the greens to the exact contour of before, so then stripped and stored the turf, excavated about 16 inches, installed drains and gravel/grit raft and finally rootzone and then put the turf back.........the only problem in my opinion is on some greens the contours were not very good before and some greens were and so still are too steep....a golden opportunity to correct the errors in my opinion....but they passed.

I spent hours thinking about this!

They did change a few contours to aid surface flow drainage on a few flat spots and basins, the 18th being the biggest change which took forever to agree on the details of the change as they didn't get an architect involved which meant lots of opinions etc.

Prior to the work the course had serious problems with green closures during the winter from flooding which shouldn't be the case now.

In my opinion the site has quite alot of potential especially the front nine, though the road crossing is a massive issue. They could restore a hole or two on the front nine, but the the back nine could do with an improvement!

Tom

Which holes on the front nine do you mean?

Whilst not being a fan of the current 5th, two of the old three holes were poor or certainly the weakest on the course IMO. Overall I think the new front nine with the two new holes is better.

[Adam Lawrence]

I have been fortunate to be a regular visitor to Trevose for years. Recently they have taken on a very good greenkeeper who is doing a lot of good work. I even think he may browse these pages at times. At the moment he is trying to return the course to fine fescue and I am sure when he has got the course back to the quality he wants he will start more projects.

I second Ben's comments about Jon Wood, the new-ish greenkeeper at Trevose. I visited for the first time two weeks ago. Had heard about some of the conditioning issues of recent years, but was very pleasantly surprised at the state of the course. There are a LOT of undesirable grasses in both fairways and greens, the result I believe of a policy of overseeding with rye. But the turf was firm and the rollout good. Greens nice and true and, though not searingly quick, certainly speedy if you got above the hole.

Clearly the course is not close to the quality of St Enodoc, but I think it has some strong holes and is generally a very good day out. I feel 18 is far too difficult in its present form, and the pot bunkers short and left of the green are overkill. Remove at least one of them, so you don't find yourself in one and having to carry the others to get to the green and I would be happier. For me it's a typically strong piece of Colt work - I was particularly impressed by how he used the dunes to good effect - the location he chose for 8 green was very clever imo.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, The first at Cypress Point Club has a bunker up on the left, well short of the green by at least 70 yards. The day I played the hole in Jan. 2000 that bunker was an evolved beast. It hung on the shoulder of the visual, like a giant ball eating menace, meant to be avoided at all cost.

As I understand it, that bunker was "cleaned up" or, restored. Mitigating it's hazardous nature.

The 2nd at Spyglass Hill "Billy Bones" had a natural looking hazard in front of the upslope that fronts the green surround, wrapping obliquely around to the right. It too had an avoid at all cost look. And from personal experience, the natural dune sand, and Ice Plant, made any successful up and down, rare and exceptional. That hazard was altered into some rote looking bunker, with clearly defined edges, that neither menaces nor identifies the exceptional.

[Tom Kelly]

I had a look at Long Ashton a few weeks ago, they just rebuilt 14 of their greens over the winter, M J Abbots did the work. It cost £400,000 which I think is toppy though the quality of work was excellent, the work involved restoring the greens to the exact contour of before, so then stripped and stored the turf, excavated about 16 inches, installed drains and gravel/grit raft and finally rootzone and then put the turf back.........the only problem in my opinion is on some greens the contours were not very good before and some greens were and so still are too steep....a golden opportunity to correct the errors in my opinion....but they passed.

I spent hours thinking about this!

They did change a few contours to aid surface flow drainage on a few flat spots and basins, the 18th being the biggest change which took forever to agree on the details of the change as they didn't get an architect involved which meant lots of opinions etc.

Prior to the work the course had serious problems with green closures during the winter from flooding which shouldn't be the case now.

In my opinion the site has quite alot of potential especially the front nine, though the road crossing is a massive issue. They could restore a hole or two on the front nine, but the the back nine could do with an improvement!

Tom

Which holes on the front nine do you mean?

Whilst not being a fan of the current 5th, two of the old three holes were poor or certainly the weakest on the course IMO. Overall I think the new front nine with the two new holes is better.

The old 5th could be re-built and therefore you would re-instate the 6th tee and hole (not sure if the green was altered? I would actually like to 'improve' this hole too) so I would keep the 'new' holes in play. Then you would lose a hole on the flat land of the back nine, by either combining the 11th and 12th into one par 5 (stealing someone else's idea...) or getting rid of the 13th and re-aligning the 14th with a new tee near the 12th green. Or it would be an option if the second hole was closed due to H&S, a nice little hole but I don't know how it is still open with the road there!

I will say I never saw the old holes in play, but the 5th looks like a nice hole on paper and the 6th has some potential.

I've spent quite a while at home messing around with designs for the whole course including trying to get over the road issues. Unfortunately I can't see anyone getting the chance to get their hands dirty out on the course though other than maybe a few new tees on the 10th to avoid the road crossings.

[Adrian_Stiff]

My involvement in Long Ashton has mixed feelings for me. It was something that put me off working with member clubs though working with Henbury after was a pleasure. Primarily it was just a sequence of compromises and giving in to what part of the committee wanted and I felt the (1993) committee were split. What I wanted to do was build two new holes in the new land and lose the old 7th and combine the 11th and 12th holes into one hole. I think it kinda had 49% support. The 51% felt strong that they wanted a 10 hole and 8 hole loop not 11 and 7.

The old 5th was a great strategic par 4 and at 340 yards took many victims for a five or more. The green was narrow and the left bunker was very tight, I suggested that a portion was removed (as a compromise). The old 6th was a great hole. IMO they do not have a (now 5th) great hole now, Hawtree's did this after me, for a long time they played the hole as it was...it is now 150 yards longer. The old 7th was a dog. My two new holes just used the land as naturally as possible, the green site was tight for 6, so had to be long and narrow or the steepness of the sides would just not have worked, but I tried to get an old fashioned look to it. The club use this hole heavily in their marketing. The new 7th is a longer strong par 4 played back up the valley, the bunkering is a bit more modern looking but it is well thought of. I also built another short hole 2A which the club wanted in case they ever lost the second with road issues.

The 9th and 10th were something I would have altered, to avoid the road issue, ie a par 4 as 9 and the 10th as the 3.

I never got a call back for anything later and later on the club needed to change the 13th hole as it had neighbour issues. Hawtree's did the change, it is not very good IMO and IMO shows me my work is vastly superior to the company that gets plenty of Open championship work. If it was me I would have taken the opportunity to change 9 & 10 in the most recent change and made alterations to the 3rd, 4th, 16th, 17th and 18th greens.

I tend to think Long Ashton is a missed opportunity, I like the front nine personally but the holes on the ridge are liked by some and disliked by some. GCA folk would have their thumbs up I think for these holes and get bored on the back nine.