If there'd been a roll-back, what would renovations be?

[Peter Pallotta]

If years ago there'd been limits placed on technology, such that a whole range of wonderful/classic/golden age courses were still perceived as worthy (and sufficiently testing) by low-handicap members, what would architects (now) busy with restorations and renovations have been doing all these years?

Not a rhetorical question. If great old courses could've remained at their traditional lengths (and thus have their traditional bunker placements remain strategically relevant/appropriate), what would architects have been working on instead?   

Something tells me that they answer isn't "they wouldn't be doing anything" -- club committees (and architects) being what they are. But what? Messing with greens? Taking out trees?

Peter

[Ian Mackenzie]

I would imagine that restorations would still be occurring as courses seek to undo many of the "trends" from the past 50+ years.

1. Over time, bunkers break down and need to be replaced
2. Over time, greens get smaller due to mowing practices and need to be expanded.
3. TREES!
4. Fairway mowing lines change and may need to restored to their original lines
5. new irrigation is needed and that may inspire new fairway grasses that are more resilient.
6. Over time, various committees have altered the courses to their liking. A good restoration returns the original strategic value.
7. Greens get replaced with, as an example, USGA spec greens
8. Some courses may move from 4 grass heights to 3 under the direction of an architect

I see restorations as being viable regardless of technology or course yardages.

[RJ_Daley]

Pietro, I don't agree.  I'll give you that the work may be somewhat diminished.  But, bunkers still wear out, get contaminated with soils and silts, stop draining, etc.  They still need to be rebuilt.  Same with greens.  The turf cultivar advances still yield speeds that need a bit of softening from old timey slopes.  The soil in rootzones still need replacement along with drainage.  Outside factors such as land lost to things like eminent domain requiring re-routing, or natural diasters still require an archie to do the work.  And,  even the classic golden era clubs did their share of remodelling, pre-techno distance enhancing era.  They remodelled because the members are never satisfied to a great extent, and just desire changes for a multitude of arbitrary reasons.

[RJ_Daley]

Oops, Ian is a minute faster typer than I.   

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ, Ian - thanks. While I can't say i thought of most of your suggestions/points, I can say that I used the word "renovation" on purpose, to delineate it from "restorations" (though I know those lines are blurred -- which is part of my question). To me, most of the points you make fall under the restorations umbrella. With so much current "renovation" being mbout moving tees back and adjusting hazards (so that golfers continue to 'interface' with the architecture), I find myself wondering what's really at the heart of this seeming mania for continual upgrades and change -- and wondering whether, if technology had had no impact, this determined effort at "continual change" would still be there, and what form(s) it would take.  In short, I'm wondering why some golfers (past and present) seem alwasy dis-satisfied with their fields of play, and where they'd focus their complaints if length wasn't an issue.

Peter

[Charlie Ray]

wondering whether, if technology had had no impact, this determined effort at "continual change" would still be there, and what form(s) it would take.  In short, I'm wondering why some golfers (past and present) seem alwasy dis-satisfied with their fields of play, and where they'd focus their complaints if length wasn't an issue.

Peter

Technology always has an impact, even if for this exercise we imagine a 'roll-back', it does not exclude all the other things that have effected golf design:  irrigation systems, turf-grass, maintenance equipment.   The true question I think you are alluding to is why do men like to tinker with things?  
1.  We like to create more than maintain.
2. Even something great and wonderful can be improved.

as for the second part,  'where they'd focus their complaints if length wasn't an issue'   most complaints I hear have little to do with length;  which can attest to the concept that the whole length argument is overblown.  I will conclude with a handful of complaints I hear often:
-greens too fast
-greens too slow
-playing corridor too narrow
-playing corridor doesn't provide strategy
-greens too undulating
-greens boring
-stupid cart girl comes around too often
-'where's the cart girl?'

Men will always complain about something, won't we?