News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« on: September 11, 2015, 07:44:15 PM »
Dr. Mac was many things. He was not however, to the best of my knowledge, ever regarded as modest. He was a man who knew what he was doing and was fully aware that he knew what he was doing. One thing he wasn't though was so arrogant as to think he had ticked the GCA box for evermore. Nope, Dr. Mac had high standards but he fully expected those who came after him to improve on his legacy. As Newton might have put it, he expected his GCA descendants to stand on his shoulders and to look further than he himself had been able to.

So anyway, is it wrong that the afficiandos of GCA sometimes have a tendency to regard the work of past masters as untouchable, save for a bit of restoration here and there. With the understanding that we most certainly are not talking about abandoning those tall shoulders, would it be so wrong if TD or C&C made wholesale changes to great courses? Is that not precisely what the good doctor would have wanted? Would he himself not be turning in his grave if he saw his own work stagnating?

You get the general idea. Discuss.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2015, 07:47:54 PM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2015, 08:26:54 PM »
Could some part of Mike Strantz's work be described as the ODG's on steriods?
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2015, 08:43:48 PM »
Paul - I think these decisions are every bit a product of the membership/club as the architect. Sometimes a club will fall out of favor with a hole or part of the property and seek an architect to take it in a different direction. Sometimes that is the pitch/design concept that an architect makes to the club, and it could be for a variety of reasons.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2015, 09:33:15 PM »
Paul:
It is a valid question but I think you picked the wrong example.  Dr. Mackenzie took great pride in how his routings had not been changed by others, even though many of his courses were total redesigns.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2015, 10:02:11 PM »
The afficiandos of GCA have definitely helped perpetuate the myths and thinkings of the ODGs.   I would think the ODGs would think the  forming of the various ODG groups was scary.  I definitely think the ODGs would expect someone who had their own body of work to consult and imlement work on their projects today.  I could explain this way.  They have to view it like Butch Harmon views the other "teachers" that have taken TW since he moved aside....

The afficiandos of GCA overthink this stuff... ;D ;D   AND Paul, why would consider it unthinkable?
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2015, 12:32:02 AM »
Paul,


I have no worries about being called an "afficianado" as if it is something derogatory. Nor do I mind saying I'd prefer living architects basically leave the work of ODGs alone. Moreover, I would much prefer the most talented architects alive today - people like TD and C&C - just concentrate on doing their own original work.


Put another way. I don't want a guy like Tom Doak trying to make the 9th hole at Cypress Point better. I'd prefer he just create more great short par 4s like the 2nd at St Andrews Beach.
Tim Weiman

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2015, 08:07:39 AM »
Paul:
It is a valid question but I think you picked the wrong example.  Dr. Mackenzie took great pride in how his routings had not been changed by others, even though many of his courses were total redesigns.

A very fair point. Would you say then that MacKenzie thought evolution was necessary for everyone but himself?

Moving on, is it not possible that reluctance to change, dare I say improvement, is an understandable response to the many misplaced efforts of Greens Committees? As a result of such errors, it is perfectly understandable that a mindset of 'don't touch it' would emerge amongst those who know their stuff.

In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2015, 10:50:18 AM »



Moving on, is it not possible that reluctance to change, dare I say improvement, is an understandable response to the many misplaced efforts of Greens Committees? As a result of such errors, it is perfectly understandable that a mindset of 'don't touch it' would emerge amongst those who know their stuff.


Paul,
I think that is a fair assessment...  I look at a golf course like a person.  I don't like plastic surgery.  Yet beards and mustaches and hairstyles come and go and greatly affect a person's looks.  And a good, solid, classical golf course needs someone to make sure it evolves as it should but it doesn't need someone to bring in a bulldozer and make a statement....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Peter Pallotta

Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2015, 10:56:03 AM »
Paul -

I think of the Swing Era in jazz and the Tin Pan Alley era of American songwriting. There were countless working musicians back then, and countless working songwriters. And while there were quite a few titans that we remember and praise to this day -- musicians like Lester Young or Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington etc, and songwriters like Cole Porter and Johnny Mercer and George Gershwin -- the vast majority of those musicians and songwriters were simply that: "working men", most of whom are now forgotten. They were good (but not great) at their crafts/on their instruments, and they were in it mostly to make a living; and, while they occasionally did some outstanding work, most of the time they stuck with the same basic (and popular, and populist) riffs and the same well-worn patterns and had no illusions/belief that they were making art or serving a higher purpose. Their "job" was to make uncomplicated music for people to dance to or writing trifling songs for people to hum for a month or two until the next trifle came along. Now, from my perspective there is nothing wrong with that: they made their livings honourably and enjoyed doing something they liked; but if truth be told they often "mailed in" their solos and "whipped off" their latest love song. And, truth be told, even some of the titans occasionally (maybe more than occasionally) slacked off, and mailed it in, and settled for mediocrity. The difference was that some of the titans, Duke Ellington for example, *did* have a self-understanding of themselves as "artists", and did think that the work they were doing was important, i.e. adding to/shaping culture in new directions, as when Gershwin wrote "Rhapsody in Blue" to celebrate a uniquely American spirit in the forms of European classicism. All of which is to say: I think of some of the ODGs -- the ones we remember and celebrate at least -- as the same kind of "titans". Sure, they too sometimes weren't very good or mailed one in or did it for the money; but some of them, some of the time, and when at their best, understood themselves to be doing something of import, and saw themselves as "artist-craftsmen" and not simply as "working men", and they knew/hoped that their very best work would be around for a very long time for others to play and enjoy. Dr. Mac was one of these, one of these titans; but as Mike Y suggests, I think we tend to glorify the entire era because of the existence of a relatively few titans; and I think this glorification is supported by the fact that much of the work of the "working men" from the Golden Age and beyond has long ago disappeared, renovated beyond recognition or ploughed-under for housing.
Peter
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 11:09:25 AM by PPallotta »

Phil Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2015, 11:34:23 AM »
DaVinci, Micgaelangelo, Rembrandt and every other great ODG artists painted over their own work because they thought that it could have been done better. Guess what, when given the opportunity so did the ODG's. If this didn't happen Pinehurst #2 & SFGC (2 of many examples) would not have become what they did by the time of Ross' & Tilly's passings and that is why they have stood the test of time.

If these very men thought their work could be improved and made the attempts themselves when given the opportunity, I doubt that they would criticize any club who attempted changes on their work if they were doing so to improve it.

Of course if the work was crap they'd be all over them for that... 


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2015, 12:40:30 PM »
DaVinci, Micgaelangelo, Rembrandt and every other great ODG artists painted over their own work because they thought that it could have been done better. Guess what, when given the opportunity so did the ODG's. If this didn't happen Pinehurst #2 & SFGC (2 of many examples) would not have become what they did by the time of Ross' & Tilly's passings and that is why they have stood the test of time.

If these very men thought their work could be improved and made the attempts themselves when given the opportunity, I doubt that they would criticize any club who attempted changes on their work if they were doing so to improve it.

Of course if the work was crap they'd be all over them for that...

Well Phil you sort state what I have always felt above.   The modern day problem is:  who is the judge of crap? 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Phil Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2015, 03:56:29 PM »
Mike, that's the easiest question to answer... we all do. That's why ratings always become highly and many times hotly argued.

The real question is who should be the judge of what features/holes to change on an ODG's course? That's far more difficult to answer...

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2015, 12:55:22 AM »
The reason "restoration" rather than renovation is in vogue is because you've got to convince 300 members what needs to be done.  If you can couch it in terms or "restoration" -- even if you are moving all the bunkers around to where Donald Ross would build them now, in your opinion [which is NOT restoration at all] -- then you've got a much better chance of getting the vote passed than if you just say you know better than Ross or MacKenzie did.


Personally, I would never pretend to know more about design than Ross or MacKenzie did.  The only way I can prove I'm in their league is to build courses of my own.  Anybody can change what they did, but alterations are not necessarily improvements.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2015, 09:12:17 AM »
As to judging crap, well, its all in the eye of the beholder.

As to improving on the ODG, in general, it would be a shame if each generation didn't build on what the last guys did.  With more time to figure stuff out, the profession ought to be better.  Or, it may be mature, and we say their generation had it all figured out, and all we are doing is adapting to modern conditions, including technology, construction, environment, wider variety of players, more public courses, etc.

And, it is individual on a case by case basis.  There is great music and great design in every era.  That endures, the other fades away.  So, some you save, some you don't.  My question has always been not about saving, say, Ross best courses.  Sure, save the top 10% of his 400 as is. What about the generally agreed upon bottom 10%?  Is that worth saving because of the nameplate?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

BCowan

Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2015, 09:35:35 AM »
''What about the generally agreed upon bottom 10%?  Is that worth saving because of the nameplate?''

   Well said, I'm curious what other archies think of this statement. 

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2015, 10:40:29 AM »
My question has always been not about saving, say, Ross best courses.  Sure, save the top 10% of his 400 as is. What about the generally agreed upon bottom 10%?  Is that worth saving because of the nameplate?

Jeff,
In most cases the nameplate is a free ride....and in many cases it really isn't even a Ross but he stopped by there to have a drink or something one day and said put more sand in that bunker.   If a club can use the Ross name then they don't have to spend signature design money.  That brought about all the experts. 
BUT TD states above :  "
Personally, I would never pretend to know more about design than Ross or MacKenzie did.  The only way I can prove I'm in their league is to build courses of my own.  Anybody can change what they did, but alterations are not necessarily improvements."  People need to really think about that statement....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2015, 11:02:01 AM »

My question has always been not about saving, say, Ross best courses.  Sure, save the top 10% of his 400 as is. What about the generally agreed upon bottom 10%?  Is that worth saving because of the nameplate?

Really?  I could swear that those times I argued for preserving even a handful of examples of an architect's best work, you were not in favor.  I wish I had time to go back in the archives on that one.

As for the bottom 10%, or even the bottom 50%, I've never advocated preserving or restoring those.  The problem is, wherever those courses are, they never call about a redesign; they're the most anxious to live off the nameplate because it's all they've got.

To be honest, I'm not sure where they are.  I've seen twenty Ross courses in the past year and even the least known of them was pretty darned good.  I would have put The Meadow Club and Green Hills in the bottom half of MacKenzie's work [in the U.S. anyway]  and both of them have tried to restore even the edges of their bunkers ...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2015, 11:10:37 AM »
Tom,

Hmm, I don't think so. I may have intellectually given the reasons against the restoration just for discussion at a few points, but have always felt the best of the best ought to be restored as close as possible.

I used Ross as an example, because I think Mac saw most of his work, but Ross supposedly has hundreds of courses his staff drew and he never visited. 

Of course, restoration or renovation is really driven by current market and marketing reasons, rather than love of design in most cases.  If a private course is now public, or just dropping in play, new and improved (or new and dumbed down for speed of play and maintenance reasons...... :P) can be a compelling argument for many who don't care about history of architecture unless it can make them some cash.

As with everything, it really turns out to be a case by case basis for any ODG. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff Bergeron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2015, 02:47:47 PM »
The reason "restoration" rather than renovation is in vogue is because you've got to convince 300 members what needs to be done.  If you can couch it in terms or "restoration" -- even if you are moving all the bunkers around to where Donald Ross would build them now, in your opinion [which is NOT restoration at all] -- then you've got a much better chance of getting the vote passed than if you just say you know better than Ross or MacKenzie did.



I agree that the use of the term 'restoration' does improve the ability to sell 300 members on what needs to be done.However, isn't your definition of a restoration so narrow that as practical matter no club would ever undertake one.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2015, 02:50:31 AM »
Jeff:

The Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, and Shoreacres are among the clubs that have taken me up on my definition of restoration ... And it's out all four of them into the top 100 lists.

Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2015, 04:08:11 AM »
Jeff:

The Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, and Shoreacres are among the clubs that have taken me up on my definition of restoration ... And it's out all four of them into the top 100 lists.

How wonderful, you get paid, the clubs get a piece of shitty paper to hang in the foyer and a number to market their course with. Please explain how that's good for golf?

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2015, 04:52:47 AM »
Jeff:

The Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, and Shoreacres are among the clubs that have taken me up on my definition of restoration ... And it's out all four of them into the top 100 lists.

How wonderful, you get paid, the clubs get a piece of shitty paper to hang in the foyer and a number to market their course with. Please explain how that's good for golf?

By every account I've read here in GCA.com, the members get a better golf course.  And that is Tom's responsibility, not a commitment to some vague notion of 'what's good for golf.' 

Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2015, 05:30:48 AM »
Of course they do, they're now in the Top 100, it must be better. Please.

How about some of these architects go and put their own money into a course and stop adding weight to ratings. Tom's not alone. http://www.golfindustrycentral.com.au/newsview/the-best-three-holes-in-qld-by-mike-clayton-13373?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Jim, do you give your readers the chance to have their say about their favourite course?


Phil Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2015, 07:15:08 AM »
Mark,

You stated, "How wonderful, you get paid, the clubs get a piece of shitty paper to hang in the foyer and a number to market their course with. Please explain how that's good for golf?"

Actually, why don't you explain why that ISN'T good for golf? The reality is that it is neither good nor bad "for golf" just for the club itself, yet you seem to believe that the decision to "restore", "recreate" or "redesign" a club's course is the decision of the architect. Well it isn't and never has been. For what club approaches an architect and says, "We're hiring you, do whatever you think best and we'll pay you whatever you say."

The ODG's who created the masterpieces we spend so much time arguing over and discussing were every bit the captives to the desire of the clubs they  were working for as the architects of today are. In fact even though there were no "rankings" of courses as is done today, Tillinghast, Ross, MacKenzie and so many architects of the time almost routinely made statements that the course that they were just hired to design would be recognized as "being among the great courses" in the land when announcing what would be built. So by your statement above, weren't they just as guilty as those today of giving the club a "shitty piece of PR statement" every bit akin to what the rankings do today? And this also for many courses that weren't new but redesigns of what existed before.

Also, you stated, "How about some of these architects go and put their own money into a course and stop adding weight to ratings. Tom's not alone." Why should Tom or any other architect "put their own money into a course" as you put it? That some have done so on occasion are wonderful gifts to local communities; yet most architects personally can't afford to do so. Shouldn't the real question be why doesn't the local community band together and put money into the local course? If they choose not to why then should one expect any architect to? Indeed, if you choose to challenge architect's to make this sacrifice is it wrong for someone to ask whether or not you personally have done so?   

Golf course architecture has always been a tough business to succeed in for the extreme majority of those pursuing it.


 

Jeff Bergeron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2015, 08:51:41 AM »
Jeff:

The Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, and Shoreacres are among the clubs that have taken me up on my definition of restoration ... And it's out all four of them into the top 100 lists.
Maybe I don't understand your definition. You faithfully restored what was originally there, no movement of bunkers, no added length.