Restorations: A question that never seems to be answered

[Patrick_Mucci]

In Tom Doak's book, he devotes a chapter to the 19 greatest holes that no longer exist (NLE)
 
Amongst them is the 12th at Garden City Golf Club.
 
Subsequent to publishing, the 12th green has been restored to the original configuration.
 
The restored 12th at GCGC is a marvelous hole.
 
Not too long ago I played with 3 golfers who had never played GCGC.
 
They were in awe of the 12th hole.
 
Many guests have likewise expressed positive comments regarding the architectural features, individual and collective and have remarked very favorably on the play of the hole.
 
In the recent Pine Valley thread started by Sven Nilson, Robert Mercer Deruntz commented that he'd like to see the 18th green restored.
 
I've shared that sentiment for over a decade.
 
"The" question that never seems to be answered by clubs that have lost a good/great feature or hole is:
 
Why hasn't the feature or hole been restored ?
 
In this day and age, it can't be for lack of data regarding the configuration of the feature or hole.
 
And, over the last 40 or so years, it can't be a financial issue.
 
So, why haven't these good to great features or holes been restored ?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Salesmanship with an agenda must earn some attribution for this failure to restore wonderful features.  At Rancho Santa Fe, there has been a resort style appearance promoted by the failed superintendent turned untrained architect, David Fleming who got the advisory role to the club due to political connections among local superintendents.  The success of the LACC restoration with the alternative 17th rebuilt might help improve in terest in the future for other courses.

[Mike_Young]

Patrick,
You know the answer.  The guy in charge doesn't see it as many on here would and therefore he does as he thinks.  That's how it has always been and will always be.

[Brent Hutto]

It's all opinion. And as Mike points out, some opinions matter and others don't.


I play every day at a course with a very interesting pedigree. Or at least interesting history. About 10-15% of the members are concerned at all with that architectural/design/renovation history. The remainder are totally concerned with how the course plays for their game, today.


To be honest I have one foot in each camp. If it were possible to wave a magic wand (and a bunch of money) to restore some or all of the course to exactly the configuration it had when Donald Ross got on the train and left town for the last time...I'm not all certain I'd like the restored version better than what's in the ground today.


Maybe I would like the previous version better, maybe not. It would be interesting to see but the odds are what has evolved over the past 80 years is every bit as fun to play as the previous versions. I say "previous" rather than original because the Ross version was itself a palimpsest.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

In general, anything that is hard to maintain goes away in a few years.  We have to recall that in the '40s until even today, mechanical maintenance was different than the original hand maintenance/smaller machines that many of these things were designed for. Supers do have more tools now, but in most cases, there would still be a value judgment as to whether to build a green like GCGC 12. A rich club with history may decide it is worth it to maintain their heritage.  Struggling clubs, or courses that have turned to public courses, and thus forced to consider here ad now issues like pace of play, not being known as "that course" with a crazy (i.e., non standard) green, staying within a sub-standard maintenance budget, might not.

A large hump in a tightly mown bent grass green is still going to be hard to maintain and keep to the same level of moisture content as the rest of the green.

How is the new 12th doing, maintenance wise?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,


I agree, if it's a maintenance problem it's not long for this world, unless the club has ample resources and can devote TLC & $.


The 12th at GCGC was restored with maintenance in mind.
It was build to be properly maintained and is doing fine.


Tom Doak was there last Thursday/Friday and can provide his thoughts on its condition.


Somerset Hills has a pronounced mound in the 5th green that has faired well over the years.


With PV's budget I would doubt that maintaining that mound would be a problem.


NGLA has numerous mounds/tiers in their greens and they're properly maintained, so I don't see those features as difficult to the point of extinction.


I would ask those who have played the 12th at GCGC pre and post restoration their opinion as to whether the restoration represents [size=78%]a dramatic improvement.[/size]


Then, I believe that you have to ask the same question about those holes that have been lost.   What was dramatically better, the original or the current.   If it's the original, then why hasn't it been restored ?


That remains the critical question.

[Tom_Doak]

A large hump in a tightly mown bent grass green is still going to be hard to maintain and keep to the same level of moisture content as the rest of the green.

How is the new 12th doing, maintenance wise?

Jeff:


The green is doing great.  I played golf with the greenkeeper Dave Pughe, and it just so happened that when we played the 12th his assistants had come out to check in with him before the end of their day, so I got to discuss the maintenance of the green with them quite a bit. 


Most greenkeepers would have said it would be impossible to maintain the feature we wanted to restore, and it took Dave a while to warm up to the idea.  His original criterion was to reduce the mound to where he could take a sprayer over it, but as it turns out he estimated that wrong and they have to do spray applications manually on the mounding.  They also take precautions like lifting up the mowers as they go over the mounds every other day to reduce scalping and wear on top ... the mounds are so steep that it doesn't make much difference to putting, and I'm sure the turf quality in 1930 was nowhere near what it is now.  Nobody seems to notice, or to mind.


I am really pleased with the result because it is just so unlike any other feature I've seen on another course.


To Patrick's question, these projects are seldom so straightforward.  We were lucky to have multiple photos of the original Garden City green at different angles so that we could be pretty certain of the size of the features, and we did NOT restore them as high as they were.  Pine Valley would not have as much to go on, and opinions would differ on whether the feature was great or goofy.  It's easy to see why the #1 course in the world is going to play it safe on something like that.  The best thing about the men's club is that they don't give a crap about the rankings or anything like that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,
 
One of the most enjoyable things about the 12th hole is watching how golfers play their recovery when they're on the outside of the flanking spines.
 
Most are completely befuddled because they've rarely, if ever, faced a shot like that.
 
I've seen everything from drivers to putters to Lob wedges and everything in between.
 
The key to recovery is not short siding yourself.
 
I'd still like to see the tee elevated slightly in order to give the golfer a bird's eye view of the fronting, deep horseshoe like bunker.
 
As you approach the 11th green, if you look left, you get a great view, but from the tee, the tall Fescue tends to obscure a great feature on a terrific hole.
 
The hole has such a great personality.
 
While it's no pushover from the forward tee, from the back tee it's a very challenging par 3.
 
Every time I play it, the green appears to be in very good shape and I'd say that it got through a very, very difficult winter better than most greens.
 
 

[Jon Cavalier]

The 12th at GCGC stood out for me in such a positive way that I posted some photos about the hole last fall. Here's the thread, for those of you who want a look at it: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=59538.0

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Thanks for the reply.  It seems from Jon's photo's that scalping in minimal, and actually where there is more mound effect than straight ridge, which I think you would expect.  Pretty nice job on a difficult slope.

Other questions - did you add any sort of water retention element to the soil, like profile, just on top of the ridge to help with dryness?  How high is the actual ridge, and how low did you consider going?

One educational gca.com snippet I have saved over the years was a study showing the ball will roll out at least 14 feet when coming down a ridge of even one foot high.  In other words, I am not sure the extra height changes the roll out of the ball significantly (presuming someone else was going to try a similar concept somewhere that wasn't a restoration)  I have built such ridges at 1-1.5 feet high, and missing beyond that ridge results in an uncontrollable putt.  In fact, a ridge on the other side is actually a "save feature."

I saw David Moriarty had a question on the photo thread regarding my comments on Lahainch.  From memory, those ridges are less than 2 feet high, and not a ring, but merely parallel ridges on the left and right of the green.  Others who have been there more recently can chime in.

[John Percival]

P,
Like many things in life, the obvious is easy.

But what about restoring old elements that aren't 'no brainers'?

For example, should the original 16th at ANGC be restored?
Should 18 at PB return to its 400 yard, par 4 origins?
Etc

And, as mentioned in this thread, many at clubs are not knowledgeable about design, maintenance and history and lean more intellectually on costs (which has some validity) and playability (meaning- if it's harder to play, they don't want it... which is crap).

And, for the record, the new 12th looks way cool. How long is the hole?

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
I am sure this has been touched upon, but I am do not remember.  Was the 12th at GCGC restored to its state on the opening day of the club? Or was the green built later, and then removed? I ask because as courses evolve, I wonder what iteration should be restored? Should it always be the opening day version?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I am sure this has been touched upon, but I am do not remember. 
Was the 12th at GCGC restored to its state on the opening day of the club?
Or was the green built later, and then removed?
 
Keith,
 
The 12th was restored to it's original basic configuration
 
I ask because as courses evolve, I wonder what iteration should be restored?
 
Tom MacWood always felt that a feature/hole should be restored to it's architectural high water mark.
While I agree, the difficulty comes with determining what that was, as opinions vary.
 
At GCGC no such dilemma existed.
 
The original was vastly superior to the alteration and the restoration is vastly superior to the RTJ alteration.
 
It's not a perfect copy because you can't build what you can't maintain.
 
Should it always be the opening day version?
 
That's so site and quality specific that I don't think a general answer suffices.
 
I think that Tom MacWood's theory is a sound one, it's the determination of what constitutes the "architectural high water mark" that complicates matters.
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

P,
Like many things in life, the obvious is easy.

But what about restoring old elements that aren't 'no brainers'?

For example, should the original 16th at ANGC be restored?
 
Not in my opinion.
I happen to agree with Tom MacWood's premise, that restoration should target the "architectural high water mark".
The difficulty, is in determining what the "architectural high water mark" is.

Should 18 at PB return to its 400 yard, par 4 origins?
 
No, See my answer above.
Etc

And, as mentioned in this thread, many at clubs are not knowledgeable about design, maintenance and history and lean more intellectually on costs (which has some validity) and playability (meaning- if it's harder to play, they don't want it... which is crap).

And, for the record, the new 12th looks way cool. How long is the hole?
 
It can play from about 135 to 230 depending upon the tees selected.
And, it typically plays into a good prevailing wind.
 
It's really a great hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,
 
I haven't measured the spines, but, I would imagine they're about 3 feet high, depending upon what you consider the floor.
 
The spines certainly help balls hit within their confines since the spines redirect the ball back toward the center of the green.
 
The spines hurt the short side golfer whose tee shot falls outside of the spines.
 
Recovery can be from several areas.
 
The putting surface outside of the spine
The fairway outside of the spine
The rough outside of the spine.
 
Club selection for recovery is about as varied as can be.
 
I've used putter, 3-wood, L-Wedge and just about every other club.
 
I like playing the hole from 180 and in, rather than at 200 and out.
And, I like it even more from 140-160 since it's reasonable to locate the hole far back or far back right, slightly behind the spine.
 
It's a challenging but fun hole, a welcome and refreshing restoration

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
That makes sense, like you said, the problem is who determines what the high water mark was.

[Mark_Fine]

There is NOTHING more challenging (though it can be very rewarding) than being involved in “restoration” projects.  However, it is very easy to see why many architects still shy away from them.  Determining those so called “obvious” lost great design features and a course’s “high water mark” is very time consuming and takes months (sometimes years) to inform and educate club owners/members/golfers about what is “obvious” and why those features/design attributes should be restored from a particular time period.  Few architects have the time or patience and most prefer to do renovations and/or redesigns which is one reason why many of these good/great features and holes have not been restored.   

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


I do not remember for sure but I believe the mounds in the green are 2.5 feet high and maybe 3 feet.  Jim Urbina could probably tell you exactly.  They are certainly the biggest and sharpest feature I have ever seen inside a putting surface.  There are two mounds in the 5th green at Somerset Hills that convinced me we could restore the green at Garden City and have it be maintainable, but the mound at Somerset Hills is not quite as high.


I believe the original mounds at Garden City were 3.5 to 4 feet high, but I can only estimate based on the photos. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I always enjoy how you describe a given golf hole: you bring both architectural astuteness and a good player's perspective (re varying degrees of difficulties and recovery options). But saying that, I'm struck by a possible answer to your original question about why more great old holes like the 12th aren't restored. That is, I'd imagine that the desire for/interest in having such a restoration has much to do with the qualities that golfers/club-or-committee members bring or don't bring to the table. If they aren't both good golfers as well as fans of good architecture, I think they'd be hard pressed to realize or understand the rationale for restoring an old green, let alone to get excited about the prospect. Now, you've played with literally thousands of golfers/club members over the years: how many good players have you met who can also articulate something like what you did in your post above about the spines and how they work 'architecturally'? If it's not many, I think you have the real answer to your OP.


Peter







 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,
 
I think golfers, in general, tend to view a golf course from the limited perspective of their own games.
 
I think lower handicap golfers may do so more than most.
 
I think inertia is a major factor.
 
People don't like change and golfers are no different.
 
Another reason is: lack of historical perspective.
Many golfers never experienced the prior iteration, so that have no frame of reference or basis for comparison, so they accept the present version and resist the better version.
 
"Cost" is almost a universal factor.
Many golfers/members cloak the money issue in deflective terms, but, money is almost always a significant factor irrespective of the project, golf or non-golf.
 
I've always appreciated and marveled at Ran's astute powers of observation and his unique ability to verbalize his analysis after just one play of a golf course, but, then again, Ran isn't a good golfer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,
 
I think that one of the reasons that golfers seem to really enjoy the restored 12th hole is that the challenge required to recover rarely requires brute strength.
 
The spines also present a unique challenge that most golfers have never encountered.
 
Hence, tee shots that end up outside of the flanking spines leave the golfer with a "creative" dilemma.
 
This isn't your typical recovery, this is a recovery requiring thought and internal assessment.
 
It's one thing to determine what recovery shot should be hit, it's quite another to ask yourself if you have the talent and experience to execute that shot.
 
Even putting from outside of the flanking spine is difficult.
 
How many golfers have any experience in putting up and down a 3 foot hill, then factoring in break and pace ?
 
That situation causes many to reach for their Lob-Wedge.
But, hitting a Lob-Wedge off of a tight lie, with precision, and factoring in break and pace is no easy task either.
 
I think the uniqueness is part of the lure.
 
When the golfer reaches their ball beyond the spines, they have to ask themselves:   What in the hell do I do now ?
 
I'd be surprised if golfers playing GCGC for the first time, don't remember the 12th hole as a standout hole.
 
 

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You say golfers don’t like change and I agree but most don’t realize the golf courses they are playing are in a constant state of change!  Best comment on this came from the greenskeeper at St. Andrews when asked how much change had taken place over the years on The Old Course.  As the winds swirled and swept sand across the landscape he said, “I have no idea but the course is changing right now by the minute"! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,


I believe that we're aware of the natural, almost imperceptible, changes that occur daily on a golf course, but those aren't the changes this thread is concerned with.


We're talking about orchestrated change.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Those "almost imperceptible" changes add up to major change over time as trees grow, greens shrink, fairways narrow, bunkers lose their size and shape,... 


I answered your "orchestrated change" question in my first post.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not to mention, in general, Post WWII, there was a big desire to change nearly all forms of design to a more modern style. I think it was tied to wanting to sort of forget the last, painful, 20 years, and a general feeling that the future was unlimited now that there was peace, and design ought to reflect it with a new style.  In golf design there was also the technology issues.

It seems to me much of golf course change was more this, than any gradual evolution, but I could be wrong.