Thinking the Unthinkable - Improving on the ODG's

[Michael George]

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?

The bashing of the magazine rankings is getting a little tired.

Are they perfect?  No.  Do they include courses that likely don't belong?  Yes

However:

(1) They create interest - which is good for golf - just look at the posts after any new list is released.
(2) If clubs call Tom to perform work on their courses in order to improve their ranking, the courses are better for it - which is good for golf.

Please explain to me how Tom's work at Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall and Shoreacres is bad for golf?  Their members are likely happy with the changes and now enjoy the golf courses more.  Also, while you blast the rankings, maybe his changes actually made the golf courses better, which caused a higher ranking.

If you would actually take the time to look at the before/after pictures of Camargo, you would see that Tom's work greatly improved that golf course (it really was night and day in terms of the bunkering especially). 

[Josh Tarble]

Paul,
I think it's an interesting question.  I am not sure as where I stand on the matter - I didn't agree with the changes on the Old Course - but I don't oppose making changes when necessary.


I guess my questions on the matter would be:


1.  Why does a course need changed?
2.  Who is deciding what needs changed?
3.  Who decides when it's "good enough?"

[Michael George]

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.

Tom:

I think that you are being too modest on this one.  I think you know A LOT more about design than Ross and MacKenzie did.  The ability to travel and get information is significantly better today than in the 1920's.   I am sure that neither of these men saw a 1/3 of the courses that you have seen and neither of these men have read nearly as much on maintenance techniques.

The question that I would pose is:  Is more knowledge/information always a good thing?  Are architects today less original because of this increased knowledge/information?  It is interesting that some of the best golf courses in the world were designed by 1 time designers - Pine Valley, Oakmont, Merion, etc...

I think, in general, that more knowledge/information by architects is good.  Laymen that think too much about golf course architecture (like myself) may crave the original courses, but the average golfer doesn't play enough places to need it.

[Jim Nugent]

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

Mark, you got the wrong person.  I'm not the guy who publishes a golf magazine. 

Let me ask you a question.  Have you played any courses Doak restored, both pre- and post?  If so, what did you think of his work? 

[Gary Sato]

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?

Someone took an angry pill?


What is "good for golf"?  A better playing environment, a course that is fun and interesting.  A course that the members are proud of and encourages new members to join.  The list goes on an on.


 

[Mark Pavy]

Mark, you got the wrong person.  I'm not the guy who publishes a golf magazine. 

Let me ask you a question.  Have you played any courses Doak restored, both pre- and post?  If so, what did you think of his work?

Sorry Jim, same name.

I'm not questioning the quality of Tom's work. I do have a problem with architects who actively participate in ratings and drive the "importance of ratings". 

How soon before the clubs that dropped out of the Top 100 "decide" to get some work done?

Phil, you don't see that encouraging the importance of ratings forces the price of golf up?

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?   
 

Doesn't the local community already put money into the local course? Isn't that the green fee-membership subs-business model ?
FWIW, Yes, I have put my own money into a course. I own, built and operate a nine hole golf course.

[Phil Young]

Mark,

No, I don't see that that ratings, and no I don't subscribe to their being of any importance in the work that a course needs to have done to it, "forces the price of golf to go up." What has probably effected the financial situation for the vast majority of private clubs for the worse through the years is the insistence on having a clubhouse that rivals the Taj Mahal rather than simply being functional. So many clubs built huge additions from the mid-80s onward with the idea that the club could have a large revenue stream through the renting of its facilities for weddings, meetings and many other events that have nothing to do with the club whatsoever. So many clubs have been left holding multi-million dollar mortgages when that revenue stream dried up suddenly after the turn of the century and the financial crises that occurred. What helped many of them to stay in business was the quality of the golf course in comparison to other private clubs in the same area. One could then make the argument that a ranking of any sort, even something as humble as being in the top 10 courses of a county as voted on by the sportswriters of a local newspapers can provide a club with positive notoriety and a better ability to maintain membership and even grow it during difficult times.

You wrote, "Doesn't the local community already put money into the local course? Isn't that the green fee-membership subs-business model ?" That is true and, in fact, municipal courses are owned by the people of the specific municipality that built and operates it. Therefor they are the ones responsible for its cost just as the members of any private club are responsible for the costs of the club to which they belong. Why should an architect donate his time and money simply because a community would like them to do so?

I do think its a wonderful thing that you used your funds to build and operate your own 9-hole course. I hope that it also is at least financially viable for many years to come.

[Mark Pavy]

Phil, I think you may have interpreted my suggestion incorrectly, I'm not suggesting architects donate their services for free, rather they could go and build their own course with their own money.
It's funny, because in my experience, the clubs in my area would be broke without the revenue from the clubhouses themselves.

[Mike_Young]

Phil, I think you may have interpreted my suggestion incorrectly, I'm not suggesting architects donate their services for free, rather they could go and build their own course with their own money.
It's funny, because in my experience, the clubs in my area would be broke without the revenue from the clubhouses themselves.

Mark,
I now own the golf course that was my first design back in 1988.  If I could erase the clubhouse tomorrow I would.  F&B are not meant to be a profit center and rarely make a dime.  JMO

[Mark Pavy]

Phil, I think you may have interpreted my suggestion incorrectly, I'm not suggesting architects donate their services for free, rather they could go and build their own course with their own money.
It's funny, because in my experience, the clubs in my area would be broke without the revenue from the clubhouses themselves.

Mark,
I now own the golf course that was my first design back in 1988.  If I could erase the clubhouse tomorrow I would.  F&B are not meant to be a profit center and rarely make a dime.  JMO

Mike,
That's why I said it was funny to Phil, because the range of business models varies quite significantly around the world. I'm in Australia, for a long time NSW Clubs had a huge advantage over their neighbouring states Victoria and QLD because poker machines were legal in NSW and not so in Victoria and QLD, this lead to boom times for the Golf Clubs along the borders, literally busloads would turn up just to play the pokies and eat the cheap food.

[Phil Young]

Mark,

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,
 
That's an interesting concept, part golf clubhouse, part casino.
 
Why stop there thou?  Why not put in a strip club as well with a "massage parlor" in the back....

[Mike Hendren]

I can only dream of what the inventory of golf courses would look like in this country if there had been a renovation moratorium placed on golf courses around, say 1940.  I'll kick in a second moratorium on redeveloping or selling for a higher and better use. 
 
Just because everybody likes to hang their ornament on the Christmas tree doesn't mean the tree has been improved with time. 
 
Clubs and course owners would be well advised to measure four times, take a year off before measuring two more times and then only cut once. 
 
One Question:  Why must things always be "improved?"
 
Bogey
 
 
 

[Sean_A]

Bogey


Do you think that sometimes clubs dig up courses for structural reasons (improve drainage on short grass and bunkers for instance) then it later turns into altering the architecture simply because its easy with equipment on site and the course a mess anyway?  Improvement is at least a double edge sword mainly because the concepts often come from a few well placed persons with the power to implement.  On the the other hand, nearly always improvements result in some positive changes.


In any case, people simply cannot resist adding their touch to a course...this is why I have never believed the "long" ball is responsible for course muck up jobs.  Courses will change because attitudes and fads change.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

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.

The Valley Club and Camargo and Yeamans Hall are 100% faithful restorations, as best as we could do with the information we have.  The committee at The Valley Club wanted to put in a couple of back tees and I disagreed, so now they've got another more local consultant, taking a bit too much credit for the restoration.  [I don't really mind additional tees, as long as you don't move the original ones, an added tee doesn't change things for the people who don't want to play it.  However The Valley Club was 99% restored and I advocated strongly for 100% on principle.] 


Shoreacres did move a couple of bunkers in toward the fairway, instead of widening the fairway from 60 yards to 80 as they originally were.  It just seemed like a less expensive and more practical solution.


At other clubs I have not been able to convince them to "restore" under the strict definition; most have wanted new tees further back, and on many of them I have obliged.    Occasionally I have added a fairway bunker, usually under duress.


For my big fan Mark's edification, none of these projects were undertaken with the goal of getting the course onto a top-100 list.  I only cited the rankings because you insisted that no club would ever do such a thing, and I presumed that meant because you thought it was a step backwards.  There are times when it's the right way to go.  It just isn't suggested as often as it should be, because too many architects and too many green chairmen want to change something to attach themselves to the history of the course [and, in the former case, justify their paycheck].

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey


Do you think that sometimes clubs dig up for courses for structural reasons (improve drainage on sort grass and bunkers for instance) then it later turns into altering the architecture simply because its easy with equipment on site and the course a mess anyway?  Improvement is at least a double edge sword mainly because the concepts often come from a few well placed persons with the power to implement.  On the the other hand, nearly always improvements result in some positive changes.


In any case, people simply cannot resist adding their touch to a course...

It is possible to resist, though uncommon.  There are many green chairmen who left good enough alone, and precisely because they did, you just ignored them.


You are right though in your first paragraph.  Nowadays it seems that every time a club decides they have to replace their bunker sand and put in "better" sand, it morphs into a $1.5 million bunker restoration with an architect in charge of a contractor.  This is partly because many superintendents don't want to direct the work themselves, and partly because green chairmen are suckers for the label of "restoration".  Some clubs have "restored" their course two or three times in the past 25 years ...

[Sean_A]

Bogey


Do you think that sometimes clubs dig up for courses for structural reasons (improve drainage on sort grass and bunkers for instance) then it later turns into altering the architecture simply because its easy with equipment on site and the course a mess anyway?  Improvement is at least a double edge sword mainly because the concepts often come from a few well placed persons with the power to implement.  On the the other hand, nearly always improvements result in some positive changes.


In any case, people simply cannot resist adding their touch to a course...

It is possible to resist, though uncommon.  There are many green chairmen who left good enough alone, and precisely because they did, you just ignored them.


You are right though in your first paragraph.  Nowadays it seems that every time a club decides they have to replace their bunker sand and put in "better" sand, it morphs into a $1.5 million bunker restoration with an architect in charge of a contractor.  This is partly because many superintendents don't want to direct the work themselves, and partly because green chairmen are suckers for the label of "restoration".  Some clubs have "restored" their course two or three times in the past 25 years ...

Tom


All it takes is one guy every few generations and things can quickly unravel. On the flip side, for most of the negative issues which occur (ie tree growth and the damage to turf and design it causes), much of the time it is a lack of action which perpetuates the problem(s). 


Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 




I've been on record many times that Pine Valley is one of he great architectural masterpieces in the world. Not a single hole that isn't eye catching and inspired .


This being said , many would argue that removing some of the pines that have grown over the years would uncover even more brilliance . I'm thinking the entire left side of #12 to start.


We've talked skyline green on #9 , which I believe would be a fantastic move . On the other hand I'm not enamored of the newish bunkers on #'s 4 or #9 , even though the construction  integration Was superb .


So , yes , I'm for advancement and tinkering , but not for its sake alone .

[Ryan Coles]

Slightly unrelated, but in terms of greens, it seems a lot of modern designers put more slope in than the the ODG's. Certainly in the UK. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but having spent last week again scratching my head at the Castle Course, I don't believe any of them would build anything remotely like that on a windy site. Dundonald's are quite severe, Machrihanish Dunes certainly are, Castle Stuart are mitigated somewhat by the width of fairways but are certainly adventurous and although I've not played it, The Renaissance in East Lothian looks from Sean's pictures to have consistently more slope than most of our great links.


It seems modern guys put more time and effort in with greens or so it appears. This could be an american thing where it seems much more common place, but the newer courses here definitely stand out in this respect compared to the classics.


I'm not sure it is particularly popular with GB&I golfers. There is a mindset amongst players here that the work is done once they're on the green and further challenges, particularly difficult ones are as unwelcome as those greens which repel shots.


Do the New Alive Guys, try too hard with greens?

[Sean_A]

There does seem to be more emphasis placed on greens and rightly so imo.  However, I would prefer much more diversity using older styles as well as the new big brash syle with large flowing movement.  I see a distinct lack of flatter greens and greens which run away from play in modern GB&I designs.  For mine, I want a few outrageous greens to accentuate a design but some very simple greens as well. 


Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,
 
Credit where credit's due, that, in my opinion, is a very valid summary.
 
I'm personally inclined to agree with Sean in that I like a few greens with real big breaks but don't want eighteen of them. I wouldn't say it was too easy to prescribe but, broadly speaking, I'll happily encounter some tough work on the green of a 260 yard par 4, maybe not so much on a 460 yard hole. But then rules are there to be broken.   

[Ryan Coles]

My tastes are somewhere in the middle. I like movement but I don't want a day at the funfair. Lytham and Hoylake are probably poorer for being so flat. I think the links here in the Southwest strike a good balance. Burnham, St Enodoc and Saunton have some great greens without being the dominating feature of the experience. 

[Joel_Stewart]

It's not always positive.  Of course everyone intent is to improve but there are plenty of examples of courses that went the other way.  Money not well spent.

[Paul Gray]

It's not always positive.  Of course everyone intent is to improve but there are plenty of examples of courses that went the other way.  Money not well spent.

Countless examples. This is what led me to speculate earlier in the thread as to whether reluctance to change now is primarily a response to the errors of the past. Better not to risk it perhaps, given the many mistakes made historically.

[Thomas Dai]

With regard paricularly to famous UK links courses and no doubt some inlanders as well, many were severely impacted, ravaged might even be a discription, by WWII (and probably some by WWI etc as well) so I suggest this needs to be considered when discusssing improving/renovating the work of ODG's.

Perhaps not so much improvement or restoration of what was there beforehand more let's just get the ground in good enough shape to play some golf here again.

Indeed I imagine this to be the case in probably many areas of the world that have been effected by warfare and various natural disasters as well for that matter.


Atb