Restoration v Improvement

[Ryan Coles]

Peter Mcevoy has written an interesting article in this months Golf International, which goes against the grain of much of what is written here.

He basically argues against restoration saying that many old courses were designed for old inferior equipment even hickories and therefore no longer suitable. To turn the clock back architecturally was pointless unless equipment was turned back with it.

This combined with Sean A's critique of Colt's Trevose as "listless" leaves me pondering if "Restoration" is just a marketing term/ gimmick? Presumably if Trevose was markedly improved it would not then ever be "restored" to its current listless state. I.e only restore what is worthwhile and practical.

It does seem as if most "restorations" also include lengthening the course which is somewhat of a contradiction. Construction methods, agronomy and even climates have changed. It seems to me that being selective of borrowing from the past to only what still has merit is probably the way to go. Were the old guys always right? Surely they were as fallible as the best guys of today?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ryan,

There are always going to be people who try to justify the golf technology arms race.

[Joe Hancock]

I understand your questioning of restoration work. True restoration isn't always the best option, in my opinion. However, there certainly are some courses that could and should be considered museum pieces for what they represent architecturally and historically.

Paying homage to the original architects' intentions and presentation while providing some relevance to today's game is a fair balance, yet difficult to achieve. Standards certainly have changed, and as PH2 is proving, they still are. One thing it doesn't mean is attempting to make every hole as long as possible or as difficult as possible. The enjoyment of the golfer should be top priority, but often gets muddled in the boardroom.

Joe

[John Connolly]

Ryan,

Interesting question. I've thought about it a lot since my own club just completed a restoration in 2014. Our 18 hole course was completed in 1898 by our first pro and another well known local architect. It was then renovated in 1923 by a famous "golden era" architect. So did we do a restoration back to 1898 or 1923? And was it truly a restoration if it was modified in any way? At what point is it a restoration? Renovation?

I've decided, in my own mind, to call it a "restorvation" because it's pretty darn near impossible to restore a course to its original form. Too many variables have been intercalated in the decades between. So accept it for what it is - an attempt to improve a course so that it continues to bring enjoyment to those who play it. And if the original design was considered truly special, talented architects hired for the job will be inclined to leave those features well enough alone. Perhaps .38 Special summed it up best - "hold on loosely."

[John Connolly]

By the way, our "restorvation" resulted in a course that is 10 yards shorter from the members' tees and 15 yards shorter from the tips. Go figure.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

I think in the main restorations are about the visuals - trying to achieve a better look - hence the reason there is so much focus on how bunkers look.  The playability side, while not quite an offshoot, often plays second fiddle.  In the main, to improve playability all it takes is for mowing lines to be pushed out, the grass cut shorter and more often - pretty cheap as course alterations go, but that doesn't often seem a popular approach.  We sometimes get green enlargement, but that is as much a function of counterbalancing green speeds/contour reduction as it is about a true restoration.  Its fairly rare to get a "restoraton" which looks good and is more playable without essentially creating more short grass area - thats the bottom line.  I am not sure why clubs don't first try cutting more grass before engaging in an expensive process of restoration - then go from there if need be.  So yes, I do think to a very large degree, restoration can be a big scam.  Using Trevose as the example, yes, I think in the right hands the course could be greatly improved with some new design concepts and a visual upgrade.  The big problem with this approach is there is a real risk of Trevose looking like any other modern course because it is highlly likely that in the main the bunkers will be the focus.  If you had a creative archie taking some chances then you might get somewhere, but at what cost and how long does it take to recoup the investment?   As Trevose is a privately owned resort it may be a totally unnecessary risk/investment. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I agree with your comment. Too often restorations are simply efforts to make a course look more modern to modern golfers, hence the inordinate attention paid to the 'look' of bunkers. That misdirected attention is a problem not just with clubs. It is a problem here at GCA as well.

A general rule of thumb is that a course should only be restored if it improves the course. A corollary rule is that there should be a rebuttable presumption that a course by Colt, MacK or other great archie merits restoration over renovation. Note, however, that the presumption is rebuttable.

Bob

[Paul Gray]

Ryan

.......I am not sure why clubs don't first try cutting more grass before engaging in an expensive process of restoration........

Ciao

Sean,

Excellent post but I couldn't help but pick up on the above.

You know better than most that ignorance is the biggest hindrance to exactly what should be a relatively simple process. This is where I'll happily blame the Tour as your average committee member sees a few tight corridors and longer grass and assumes it to be a mark of quality. The overwhelming view is that the committee want their course to be taken seriously and all they know is to grow grass. Couple that with the overwhelming problem of focus being misdirected towards style rather than substance and the recipe for disaster is all set. Tight corridors and money wasted on frilly bunkers which rarely effect play is the result.

[Ian Andrew]

This is probably my favourite topic because this is the type of decision that I face on most projects.
I'll stick to Thompson to answer th question because I respect his work a great deal.


I will say that for some projects like Highlands Links and St. George's (Thompson), the work is "restorative" because the architecture is important and should be left for others to study and see. The minor flaws that some may find are nothing compared to the education that the entire course provides "intact."

But I have worked with 30 Thompson courses and not everything is worthy of preservation.
This is kind of my checklist of sorts:

If it's a great example of his work, it gets pointed out and preserved.
If there was a great example of his work with documentation, it gets restored.
I never change holes to gain length/par/etc.

I will rebuild any tee and shift tees back where logical to return original landing areas
I generally won't lengthen short fours - even if the club is length obsessed

It is very rare for me to change greenside bunkering ever, beyond restoration.

I will move or add a few fairways bunkers, but only a handful because I don't want to lose the feel.
He was more visual than strategic, so I never remove original fairway bunkers just because they are essentially out of play
I also never "place" something in a key spot to create strategy, because that wasn't his style

Any modification or change that I do make is always created to match the existing style (of that course!)


For perspective:
There is no shifted, added or altered bunker at HIghlands LInks.
There are some recreations in new places at St. George's because 5 greens are relocated greens.
One will go back to it's original site this summer.


I do believe you have to solve issues like access, wear, drainage, washouts and this will involve minor modifications.
(I talked this through with a couple of your favourite restoration guys more than 10 years before - we all agreed that you can't put back something that continual fails "just because it was built originally that way")

The trick to "restorative architecture" is to be very good at hiding your work (and make sure its sustainable through detailing)


I spend more time removing trees and getting the grassing lines (greens, fairways, approaches, around greens) back to where they should be than changing holes or building bunkers.

[D_Malley]

Can adding length to a hole to re-create the original landing area be considered a restoration?

when restoring bunkers in original locations but changing the bunker design style...... can this be considered resorative?

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

There are always going to be people who try to justify the golf technology arms race.

I don't think Mcevoy is an apologist, in fact quite the opposite.

The point is the ball does go as far as it goes. Green speeds are much quicker. Distance measuring devices are widely used. There is no point returning certain aspects of a course to an era where none of this was prevalent.

It's not just distance but ball flight. It now goes much higher. What do players do when confronted with a firm course? They don't hit it lower and play the ground game. They try to adapt to hit it higher with more spin.

[BHoover]

I wonder if we are taking the term "restoration" too literally? Is it only a restoration if the architect's original design is brought back? Or is it not a restoration if the architect's original intent is brought back? In other words, if the original intent was for a particular hole to be played for a long iron approach, wouldn't a restoration be adding length to bring back that same long iron approach? Or to return the strategic value of a hazard or feature?

In that sense, I think the term restoration does not have to be such that it returns the course to how it played with so-called inferior equipment (that is ridiculous by the way). It's more about bringing back the architect's intent and strategy for playing the course.

[Thomas Dai]

Mention on this, and on the other ongoing thread, about 'listless' Trevose reminded me that Peter McEvoy did some re-design work at Trevose's near neighbour St Enodoc a few years ago. 'Improvement' or 'restoration'?
atb

[Ryan Coles]

Speaking only for the 16th. I would say improvement.

[Adam Clayman]

There are very few modern archies who can pull off "improvement".  (Who remembers " Minimalist's Blues") Since it's all opinion, there are some pretty clear cut cases where well respected individuals, have basically  disfigured works of art, under the guise of improvement. Pebble Beach's 3rd is a great example.

[Mike_Young]

As most know I have always thought there was a tremendous amount of myth involving the ODGs.  ( see IMO Piece "The Archchitect as Genius)

Anyway, IMHO the Restoration, renovation, improvement are all just words used by an archie, board, supt , pro or whomever to justify an argument for or against an agenda.  Golf courses are living breathing thigns just like a tree and we don't restore trees.  For example PH2 was initially sand greens.  One could argue that a true restoration would be back to such.  Nobody wants that.  But I do know that a golf course where the architect did the initial design and was not able to continue tweaking it for about 10 or more years will not be as good as one where he could. 

Therefore my key word for working on a golf course is just "changes".  The other words are just marketing BS which really came into style when the signatures became so expensive that clubs found they could hype the ODG who originally built their club and hire a person who marketed themselves as that particular ODG expert on that day.  It gave the club what they wanted and in most cases the ODG expert was more expert at doing what the members or board wanted and the club walking away thinking it had been blessed by the ODG.  There has been a lot of lipstick put on pigs in the last few years

So don't complicate it.  Golf courses always have and will continue to just change.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

I think you have to compartmentalize "restoration"

To me, a restoration is obliterating an subsequent design change and returning to the original design intent.

An example would be the 12th at GCGC.

In the 60's the original hole was blown up and an imposter, an inferior hole created in it's place.

Recently, the hole was returned to it's original form.

To me, that's a restoration.

Another example of a restoration is the restoring of a bunker that was previously removed.

Now, the dicey part of the term "restoration" comes about when a feature is intended to be restored in form, but the location may differ.  An analogy might be a 24 year old man returning to his childhood home and trying to fit into clothes he wore as a teenager.

With a bunker that was previously removed, due to the dramatic change in the game, do you return it to it's original location where it will be a vestigial feature, or, do you reinsert it where it was conceptually intended in the context of playability ?

The logical answer for me is, why create a bunker that's out of play ?

Ergo, I would restore the bunker in form, but, alter it's location.

To me, that's a sympathetic restoration.
One that FUNCTIONS as it was always intended to function.

I don't necessarily agree with Sean and Bob that restorations are solely about the look and visual.

Golf is an interactive game, the golfer and the architecture.

If you don't restore a feature so that it interacts with the golfer, what's the sense in restoring it ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ryan,

There are always going to be people who try to justify the golf technology arms race.

I don't think Mcevoy is an apologist, in fact quite the opposite.

The point is the ball does go as far as it goes. Green speeds are much quicker. Distance measuring devices are widely used. There is no point returning certain aspects of a course to an era where none of this was prevalent.

It's not just distance but ball flight. It now goes much higher. What do players do when confronted with a firm course? They don't hit it lower and play the ground game. They try to adapt to hit it higher with more spin.

Ryan,

I stand by my point. It is all about people trying to justify the golf technology arms race.

That said, I probably agree with Ian Andrew that not every golf course is worthy of restoration/preservation.

Ian Andrew:

The Cleveland Metroparks System includes the work of Stanley Thompson, most notably Sleepy Hollow. Unfortunately, records aren't complete but it is also thought Thompson did two other courses, Big Met and Little Met. Neither offer much in the way of anything for students of architecture to study. Big Met has, maybe, two holes worth looking at.

But, strangely that in itself is worth considering. I doubt Big Met is beyond a 3 on the Doak scale. Yet even with all the technology "improvements", still the vast majority of people who play the course struggle to shoot any respectable score and have never demonstrated they need more than 6,100 yards to be challenged on a course that has very few bunkers or other hazards.

I guess that is why I am now for bifurcation and the tournament ball.

[Ryan Coles]

Mike & Patrick

Very well put, fully agree.

Perhaps like a painting, a course is never truly finished, merely abandoned.

[Peter Pallotta]

It seems clear to me that golden age courses (and the golden age equipment i.e. clubs and balls that went with them) played harder for both the average golfer than we can even imagine -- longer and more punishing than most of us would put up with today. Left exactly as it was in the 1920s and 30s, any course still around from back then and worthy enough to qualify for a possible restoration would still prove a challenging and fun field of play for the vast majority of today's golfers, using today's equipment. (Most of us would get around in about 85-90 strokes, a score that most of us have learned to accep', whereas our golden age counterparts got around in scores that they had come to accept, i.e. 100+). So if we are restoring golden age courses, I'm not sure why -- though I'm pretty sure it's not because most of them have become obsolete in any meaningful sense of the word.

Peter

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

But most of those courses haven't been left exactly as they were, hence 'renovation.'

That isn't to say that some restorations aren't anything other than a redesign but, at least in the case of factors such as playing angles, restoration is exactly the right term and very much required.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - I understand your point, and you are probably right, and I'd defer to your pov. At the same time, though, I'd suggest that in many cases getting back the fairway widths/mowing lines to where they once were would return a course pretty close to its original 'playability'....and isn't that the main purpose/rationale/measuring stick for a good restoration?

Peter

[Mike_Trenham]

Watching "Top Gear" recently they used the term "RestoMod" for the cars on the episode.  I feel that it a great term for what most golf course restorations really are trying to acheive.

[Thomas Dai]

Not necessarily appropriate worldwide, but it could argued that 'restoration' of some older courses in GB&I ought to include sheep and cattle mowing/eating the fairways and the rough
atb

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

I quite agree.

As Sean alluded to earlier and I responded to, many restorations could actually be done 'in house,' if only the average member of a Greens Committee bothered to read two or three classic books on course architecture.

I realise the mere suggestion of work being done 'in house' is enough to induce a heart attack in some and, given the historic mistakes which have been made by amateurs, understandably so. But, complete with copy of Mackenzie in hand, if a humility injection could be found clubs might be able to save themselves a few pretty pennies, just so long as the injection didn't wear off and thoughts of bunker restoration or rearranging holes didn't start rearing up.