[T.J. Sturges]

Once a golf course is constructed, it seems to me that in nearly every case, that is the absolute best the course is going to be.  Along comes father time.  Time brings, trees (either new ones planted, or the existing ones grow), green committees who want to leave their mark on a course, season after season of top dressing, mowing patterns that do not match the original specs put out by the architect on the putting greens and closely mown areas of the course, bunker deterioration, and the list goes on.  Some questions:

1.  What can a club/course owner do to make sure their course "ages" gracefully?
2.  What will Pacific Dunes and Sandhills look like 3 decades from now?
3.  Are there any examples of a golf course actually getting BETTER over time?
4.  Are golf courses destined to be neglected for years, and then "restored" every 40 or 50 years (like Seminole, Oakmont, Pasatiempo, Winged Foot, etc.)?

TS

[Joe Hancock]

T.J.,
1. Limit play...not very popular with those wanting to make money

2. I wish I knew what Pac Dunes and Sandhills looked like right now!

3. Kingsley Club, and most courses planted with fine fescues

4. No. I always like when someone says the grass got old, or tired. Fact is, grass plants regenerate new growth as the old leaves die off...sometimes the whole process is as short as 21 days! It's all in the sensitivity to the original design as a course is grown in and maintained.

Joe

[T.J. Sturges]

Joe,

The Kingsley Club is less than 4 years old, so I'm not sure it will qualify for an example of a course getting better "over time".  I'm looking for examples that have been around for decades.  For example, can one make the argument that The Old Course has improved over the decades?  Has it at least "not gotten worse"?  Are there other examples of courses that have been around at least 50 years?

TS

[ForkaB]

Ted

I personally believe that golf courses can and do get better with age.  As they age they naturally conform to the environment from which they were crafted.  Certainly, when that natural environment is woodland (as is the case for most non-links courses), one must continuously try to balance the forces of nature and the shot values envisioned by the architect.  Often the latter need to be compromised--not always for the worse...

Of the reasonably good courses I have seen over a longish period of time I would offer the following observations:

Woods Hole--more treed than when I remember playing it in the late 50's but still with adequate width, great beauty and challenge

Stanford--recently "restored" back to what is was like when I played there in the late 60's.  An architect friend of mine asked me what I thought of the changes.  I said, "what changes?"  Good restoration by Harbottle, IMO.

Dornoch--Overall a better course that when I first played it in the late 70's.  Better agronomy.  More thoughtful maintenance.  Periodic bunker re-building.  Slight "dumbing down" of tee shot challenges to accomodate the increasing hordes of visitors

I haven't played Sand Hills, but I am confident that Pacific Dunes and Kingsbarns and Applebrook will be different--AND BETTER!--courses when I play then in the next decade or two.

[A.G._Crockett]

I agree wih Rich; courses can and do improve after the ribbon is cut.  In some cases, the architect comes back over a period of months or even years to tweak the course as he and the management see how factors like drainage, play, air circulation, etc. are progressing.  
I imagine that, like most other things in life, this all depends on the money available to the owner/developer.

[BCrosby]

Some get better, most got worse.

In the US there were hundreds of Golden Age courses that had their fangs removed in the 1950's. (Ironically, RTJ did a lot of that type of thing.)

Back then it was called "modernization". The goal was to make the course more "fair" (read: eliminate most bunkers, smooth contours, round off green and bunker angles) and more maintenance friendly (read: see above).

Then you season with a "beautification" campaign (read: plant lots of trees) and - presto chango - you get a watered down Golden Age course, like the ones most of us play on today.

Virtually every American Golden Age course I am familiar with went through that process (in varying degrees) in the '50's and '60's.

Some have recovered. Most have not.

Bob

[T.J. Sturges]

I agree with Bob.  Very few get better.  After Thinking about this overnight, I think one could make the argument that The Ocean Course at Kiawah has gotten better.  But...I think there are very few examples that can be cited where a course is clearly better 10 plus years after it has opened (especially the ones that have been around for 30 plus years).  

I'd be interested to hear from Tom Doak on this one.  I know Tom has struggled with the evolution of High Pointe.  High Pointe's evolution has gone something like: great, worse, bad, really bad, even worse, a little better, better some more,  back to decent, maybe now it's "pretty good".  The changing of the 10th hole there must be particularly frustrating to Tom.  On the subject of Pacific Dunes, what would you (T.Doak) suggest Mr. Keiser (sp?) do to create a long term plan to ensure the course does not get worse?  Is there any historical basis for Dr. MacKenzie suggesting long-term guidance to a club to ensure his work didn't evolve for the worse?

Also, what other courses can be suggested here that are better today than when they were built (and I'm talking about courses that were built prior to 1970)?  The list of courses that are worse off today would be a long one.  What would be a list of courses in the worse off category that are particularly noteworthy (read:  much worse now than at the time of their creation).

TS

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll suggest Duke Univ. GC as one built before 1970 that has gotten dramatically better.  It was an RTJ design that Rees Jones "redid" several years ago.  The redesign work was excellent, and turned it into a truly excellent golf course, helped also by the fact that the university began to spend the necessary funds for the first time to keep the course in top condition.
The redesign, by the way, was relatively large in scope.

[CHrisB]

The Old Course is certainly better than it was 500 years ago.  

[Bob_Huntley]

Quick answer, worse.  See Bel Air,  Los Angeles C.C. and Riviera.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TJSturges,

A better question might be, do golf courses get worse once the original architect is no longer involved.

Donald Ross tinkered with Pinehurst # 2 for about 26 years.
I haven't heard many or any comments about its deterioration in those 26 years.

A sub-question might be, even if the original architect is involved, is he under pressure from the members/owners to modify the golf course.

And, if the original architect is involved, has he been prevented from fine tuning by the members/owners ?

It would seem, that those courses under the reign of dictatorships have fared far better in the preservation of the golf course then those courses under the influence of revolving door Presidents, Boards and Committees.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

RIch -

I love Wood's Hole - especially #17 in the fall.

KLP

[Bob_Huntley]

A far sighted director of our club insisted that the Bye-Laws include a clause, stating that, "No alteration to the course shall be made without consultation with the originating architect" or something like that.  

It is truly amazing how a number of low handicap players around the country, have been instrumental in botching up some perfectly good courses.

[T.J. Sturges]

Pat,

It could be argued that Donald Ross improved #2 over the years, but this would not necessarily be the case for all architects.  Pete Dye has never left Crooked Stick alone, and I for one liked it much better in the form it had 20 years ago.  Crooked Stick has also consistently dropped in the rankings the more Mr. Dye has "tinkered" with it.  My point is it would not necessarily be a given that if the original architect had a free hand to evolve the course over time, it would not always be for the better.

TS

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Sturges:

To answer what courses get better with time -- start with Bethpage State Park's Black Course. I can vividly remember playing from rubber mats and from fairways that were more dirt than grass with greens that required a hefty shoulder turn to get the ball near the hole.

The course was nicely updated by Rees Jones and although fees for out-of-state players has doubled since the Open the facility clearly proved how you can take an unknown masterpiece and transform it back to what it rightfully should be. I would just hope for the '09 Open that the Black be more wild and wooly the next time around and less reliance on overly fertilized rough that was as dense as I have ever seen on a major championship site.

In answering you second question -- many facilities need to learn just what can be done to bolster their course. Too many were led down the path of more trees because of nature lovers who just happened to play golf. If the desire within any club is to learn more about quality golf architecture the resources are there for that task. The more important aspect is the willing to go find out.

[ChasLawler]

Matt - but wouldn't the Black be a great example of a course that deteriorated over time as well? It certainly must have been better the day it opened than in 1996.

And aren't there some here who would argue that it is not as good now as it was originally - architecture wise - not condition wise?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I understand the rationale, looking at the Golden Age courses and asking whether they have gotten worse is confusing.

Changes have left many worse, but are Pine Valley, Pebble, Shinnecock, Oakmont, National, Seminole, Valley Club really all worse? I know I am being selective, but good restorations can leave a course as great as ever. I have a hard time imagining NGLA being better than it is now, but maybe it was.

If you look on a ten-year scale, I think most of the above would benefit.

Looking at Modern is a little more interesting, because at least we have people who can examine them from opening to closing.

Whistling Straits will get better, both through turf, lack of possible tree encroachment and the wind's effect on the sand and dunes. The original course with its netting to hold sand in place looked a little artificial. The seasons will benefit the bunkering, creating a more natural look (if you can call WS natural).

Harbour Town is better than it was 10 years ago, post reno sure, but grasses withstand play and the trees were there, so that cannot be used. I did not play the course in 1969 - for obvious reasons - so I do not have a level of comparison.

Generally, I find courses on the day they open never to be as great as they could be three years later, though I understand you are looking on the larger scale.

Lastly, if you want to give an owner advice, do not build homes, see PGA West.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TJ Sturges,

I can't comment on Crooked Stick because I only played it a few times and they were all within a one week span.

But, I think one could make a case that once outsiders (non-original architect) touch a golf course, the odds are pretty good that it will not get better.

[Matt_Ward]

R Junah:

I can't answer how the Black was when it first opened -- but I'll say this in having played the course for over 30 years and having personally witnessed the transformation.

Even with the rubber mats the inherent qualities of the Black were still present. Yes, you had to fight through the hordes of hackers that had no business (still have no business playing it) being out there but the sheer first rate demands were still there. Let me mention that the desire to change the Black really started with Dick Sheridan (GM for the LI Park Commission for NY State Parks) back in the early 80's and obviously it picked up even greater steam with the emergence that a future Open was going to be played in '02.

You raise a good point about the architecture aspect but I don't buy it. The Black was groomed with dense rough that took away from some of the natural "look" that I think is part of the joy in being at The Black. There's also the desire by the USGA to transform certain holes -- i.e. the rough cut through the middle of the 6th hole -- the playing of the 7th as a long par-4 for the duration of the event, etc, etc. I also think the tinkering with the 18th is really not the long term answer for the Black either. Overall -- the course was not modified as so many other courses have been through the years -- the issue was really one of abandonment but the inherent qualities were still present even in its darkest days IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Ted,

It depends, of course, on where you start.  If the course is perfect to begin with (as many architects are inclined to believe of their own work), then it has nowhere to go but down!

However, I can think of many courses that are better now than when they started.  I'm not a big fan of the new fifth hole at Pebble Beach, but I like Chandler Egan's 8-9-10 better than Jack Neville's original version.  And on one of my favorite links, Rye, the four best holes were designed by four separate designers (Colt, Simpson, Guy Campbell, and a member!) over three generations.  But, of course, neither of those was perfect to begin with.  Once a course is one of the best in the world, it's more likely to go backward than forward.

I can't look thirty years into the future to imagine what I'd want to change at Pacific Dunes ... there's nothing on the five year plan.  My advice to Mike Keiser would be not to listen too closely to what his guests say, and to sign Ken Nice to a lifetime contract (with an option to renew).

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom,

Like you I find the fifth at Pebble uninspiring. Having run the dogs on the beach and looked up at the Jenkins property at Stillwater Cove, I had visions of another 15th hole a la Cypress Point. Sadly it is not so. Scenically, it is much improved over the old hole but so much easier to play. When you come to think of it, the old fifth was a bit of a terror with a pencil in your hand.

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:  I agree.  On paper the old fifth was probably the worst hole on the course, and certainly the least liked.  But it was a frightening thing for the average golfer, and the tilt of the green made it hard for good players, too.

A couple of times when I was there twenty years ago I saw Bobby Clampett (still in college) out practicing his chipping and flop shots on the fifth green after the last players went through, because it was so severe.

[Dan Kelly]

On paper the old fifth was probably the worst hole on the course, and certainly the least liked.  But it was a frightening thing for the average golfer, and the tilt of the green made it hard for good players, too.

What do you mean by "on paper"?

I played it only once, but I liked it a lot and was sorry to see it replaced. Of course, I hit one close there, so I'm probably BIASED.

[Mike_Clayton]

In Australia the record sadly seems that almost all of our best courses are poorer for the passage of time - for a myriad of reasons mostly self-inflicted.

The Australian- a course a course Mackenzie had an influence over had a freeway go through one corner and they lost a par three that was,by all accounts ,very good.The course was,however,one never likely to fall outside the top hundred in thre world -or thereabouts.
Then Jack Nicklaus redesigned it and turned a uniquely Australian links into something indistinguishable from anything in Florida.
The same freeway went straight through the middle of the Lakes next door ( The Australian members had more influence over the government and apparently had it re-routed).
That was in the middle sixties but Jack Newton did play it and said it was a fantastic course.Devlin did a good job with the new one but it has been hacked with so often since that even the new version has lost much. Manily trees planted and bunkers filled in.
In Melbourne where Mackenzie had most influence only Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath can claim a record of fine custodianship.
RM was never really messed with although Claude Crockford did build the 7th West -a fantastic par three- and move the 12th green left which was also a terrific change.
Metropolitan lost almost nine holes to a school and has never been the same.
Yarra Yarra altered two fantastic Russell ( Mackenzie's partner here) greens and ruined them and the tree planting is horrendous.Boundary problems have also meant alterations to 3 and 12 and both attempts have been clumsy,at best.
Commonwealth.The committee dug up one of the best par three's on the sandbelt and replaced it with an average one and also changed the 1st,6th and 12th to add length.All three are poorer holes especially the first.Also the plantations are the worst on the sandbelt - too many trees and with no relevence to local indigenous plants.
Victoria.The original bunkering was phenomonal but was almost all destroyed between the end of the second war and the mid seventies.We have put a lot back but there are still several self-inflicted wounds left - 1st green,5th green,12th green,17th green,fairway bunkers at 2 and 3 and while we have managed to pull out many trees there are still a few left that really detract from a couple of holes notably 8 and 11.
Woodlands is another course that has avoided similar stupidity and as a result it has gone past at least three of the four above in terms of fine golf and architecture.
The record in other states is similarily disappointing.
The blame can be placed in a few obvoius places although encroaching suburbia divert some of it away from committees and architects.
From what I have seen ,it is the British who have done the best when it comes to retaining their great work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

If you were in the middle of designing/building Pacific Dunes today, would it be identical to the Pacific Dunes you finished a few short years ago ??

And, given the opportunity to fine tune the golf course, would you make any amendments ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()