[Jim Sherma]

I remember a while back teh term "restorvation" being thrown around to refer to a "restoration" of intent and shot values in the context of the modern equipment and ball. Here is a link to a thread where this was previously discussed:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4658.0.html

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Good find in that old thread.  Hope some take the time to read it.  Interesting quote from Jeff Mingay - “Restoration isn’t at all about restoring and aged course to a past form and appearance from a specific year.  That’s a very simple, unintelligent and impractical way to look at it.  Golf course restoration is about restoring/reviving original playing characteristics and appearances, based on sound judgement and knowledge of the original layout in question and the philosophies and style of the original architect” 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Your statement "Just restore it to original form as best you can with the information you have....that's it.”  is one of the reasons soooo many courses have been changed they way they have been   If only it were so easy but it is far from it.  I don’t know what Tom thinks but I would guess it is easier to design a new course and deal with all those issues than it is to do most restoration or renovation projects.  I’m only on the one side and while it is very rewarding, it takes a lot of time, patience and hard work.  People are very passionate about their golf course and most don’t like change (and that is the ironic part because most don’t even know how their course has changed and if what they have now is better or worse than what was originally there).  If you polled members at many of the great classic courses in the country, you would be shocked at how many don't even know who designed their golf course let alone care.  That is where the whole education process starts

Mark,

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, and no doubt you have access to a lot of golden age courses where these kind of issues have the greatest potential impact.

However, the intent of my last post was really only to say that in the absence of good information, perhaps its better to just leave things alone...as opposed to inferring or guessing or imposing (even with the best of intent) on incomplete knowledge resulting in a further disfiguration of the course.

As an example, consider Melanie Griffith....shoulda just left it alone...she was once a stunner!! 

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
LOL!!  Good post about Melanie!  The problem is, I usually am brought in to deal with something like Melanie after the damage is already done    and sometimes very few think it is damaged 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

I thought about that today, in the context of expenses related to maintaining non-functioning features.

It's certainly a viable alternative.


Pat, in certain circumstances, you could even add "removed" to your list.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's get away from semantics and focus on "function".


When a feature no longer "functions" as intended, should it have it's function returned ?
That's what lengthening holes accomplishes in many cases.


Or, should it remain functionally abandoned ?


Let's also presume that the hole is land locked

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting what happens when you put this in concrete terms (albeit a hypothetical example):

A 1928 golf course that originally played 6,500 yards; it had big and well contoured greens and wide playing corridors, and a minimal number of bunkers that were simply shaped but deep and penal - with fairway bunkers usually requiring a carry of about 220-230 yards.

Over time, the playing corridors got narrowed by rough and trees, the greens were flattened and then got smaller/shrunk as the collars got wider, and many bunkers were added both around the greens and in the fairways, while the original bunkers were filled in and moved further from the tees. No new tees, however, were ever added. 

What's a restoration in this case? As my previous posts suggest, my view is that the word should be used the way it is commonly understood -- and that means that a restoration would a) bring the greens back to the original size and contour, b) bring back the fairways to their original width, including through the cutting down of trees c) get rid of the bunkers that had been added over the years, and bring the bunkers that were originally there back to their original depth and location, and d) would NOT add new back tees. Period. That's it. That is a "restoration" -- and everyone but architects and the committee members they woo know this.

And what would you have if you restored the course this way? A cool, lovely, playable, 6500 yard course that the vast majority of golfers today would find challenging and fun, in every way.

Now, If an architect and/or a committee member doesn't believe this, that's fine -- people can have honest disagreements and differing points of view. And if so, go right ahead -- add tees that stretch the course out to 7,000 yards and bring the "original" bunkers out to the 250 yard-carry mark etc etc. But then call it what it is: a "renovation".

Again, I don't understand this determination by industry types to use the "restoration" term even if it has to be bent all out of shape, nor do I understand the reluctance to use the term "renovation"; it is  not a dirty word 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter & Tom Doak,


What intrigues me about # 16 at GCGC is the beautiful structure of those bunkers.


It seems a shame to have them taken out of play for the majority of golfers.


Why should golfers be deprived of the opportunity to interface with them ?

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Its about marketing concepts.  A modern archie can ride the coat tails of an ODG in the guise of a restoration when we all know that is very rarely the case.  Archies will even change the meaning of the term to fit their marketing concept.  Its a bunch of baloney...but so what?  If members are happy being hoodwinked with "design intent restoration to a spec which never existed", more power to em'. 


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter & Tom Doak,
What intrigues me about # 16 at GCGC is the beautiful structure of those bunkers.
It seems a shame to have them taken out of play for the majority of golfers.
Why should golfers be deprived of the opportunity to interface with them ?

Patrick - as I mentioned on your thread, the example you gave of the 16th at GC was so interesting and so well described that it was the first time I ever began questioning my sense of what "restorations" should be about, especially at courses of such quality and history as Garden City.

But I do value "history" and I do value "originality" and I do value "words", and so I've come back to the thoughts I once shared on a thread and on the post above.

I can't answer your question, Pat - I'm not dodging it so much as I'm recognizing that I have no business trying to answer as I don't know the course and I'm not a member with skin in the game.

Peter     

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Be careful who you are criticizing.  Yes there are some who do it under the guise of "marketing", but there are some that don't.  Also there are very few who could give a flying hoot about doing anything even remotely close to “restoration”.  If you didn’t have at least a hand full of architects at least trying to restore/revive lost features and design strategy and intent, you would have far more courses looking like Pinehurst #2 used to look.  Oh by the way, is what C&C did there a “restoration” by your standards?  I love what has been done but the answer is I don’t think so 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


Those bunkers are so striking in their configuration and so penal in terms of the golfer's ability to extract themselves and advance their ball a meaningful distance down the fairway that it would seem to be an architectural crime to deprive the golfer of the challenge/s they present.


Every time I walk by them I look, study and admire them, they're really magnificent.


I would NOT want to see them removed even though they're no longer functional.

[Mike_Young]

Can we agree that restoring a golf course and restoring "design intent" are two entirely separate things?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Why did many classic architects build elasticity into their designs?  Why did architects like Flynn often not add ANY fairway bunkers until years later after he learned how the golf course was played?  If you "restored" a Flynn golf course back to what it looked like opening day, would you be doing the right thing for that design?  This is where I agree very much with Jeff Mingay's quote above about "golf course" restoration.  We are not restoring static objects. 


Did I answer your question 
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can we agree that restoring a golf course and restoring "design intent" are two entirely separate things?

Mike,
 
You got my vote

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

No doubt it is a problem when the client absolutely doesn't believe there's actually a problem...especially when they have created a "Melanie"

And I guess tying in to Sean A's post, where he implies people deserved to be hoodwinked...I would disagree.

Whats wrong with a little old integrity on the part of the architect?  Kinda like dealing with a car salesman, we all appreciate the ones who at least trying to be honest...

[Mark_Fine]

People who don't actually do this kind of work don't really understand it and think it is black or white!   Let me try one more example; I was asked to prepare a Master Plan for an old Tillinghast design about ten or so years ago.  The course which will remain nameless was really run down and had been changed dramatically over the years.  About half the greens were redesigned and half were originals.  Fortunately, most of the bunkers were still there but many were grassed over or had shrunken in size.  They were all amazing bunkers very deep and bold and a lot like what Tillinghast designed at Somerset and Fenway.  I brought Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus out to see the course one day and explained our plan and they loved it. What confused us all, however, were two holes along the road on the one side of the course where the bunkers were totally different than everywhere else.  They were dead flat and poorly shaped unlike anything else on the course.  They looked awful and totally out of context with the tart of the design but early aerials confirmed that they were like this early on and didn't appear to have been touched.  Bob, Rick and I were puzzled and couldn't believe they were original Tillinghast bunkers.   So what would you do?  Leave them as is if you were trying to "restore" the golf course?

As it turns out, I did a lot more research and discovered that when the course was being built, the club ran out of money.  Those last two holes were built by a local road builder to save money and the club never went back and finished them properly as Tillinghast had designed them. 

So now what would you do?

Things aren't always black and white about what to restore!

I wonder how many architects really take the time to dig deep to understand what was there (or in this case, intended to be there) in the first place?   

[Sean_A]

Sean,
Be careful who you are criticizing.  Yes there are some who do it under the guise of "marketing", but there are some that don't.  Also there are very few who could give a flying hoot about doing anything even remotely close to “restoration”.  If you didn’t have at least a hand full of architects at least trying to restore/revive lost features and design strategy and intent, you would have far more courses looking like Pinehurst #2 used to look.  Oh by the way, is what C&C did there a “restoration” by your standards?  I love what has been done but the answer is I don’t think so 

Mark


I am not criticising...just offering an explanation.  I could care less what an archie calls his work because I know the definition of restoration     In the gca world today every archie needs an advantage.  Its not only the archie, the movers and shakers at clubs have to convince memberships about change and there is no question that for many "restoration" is an easier sell.  Its all part of the selling game. 


My stance is once a club has made a decision on what they are going to do, I merely focus on what I think is good or bad about the changes.  There is nothing I can do to preserve said course (which would almost always be my stance) so while I may disagree with the changes, I don't lose any sleep.  Clubs do what clubs do...make changes...its human nature and nearly impossible to avoid.  Besides, sometimes change is very good.  The great thing is you can be damn sure that eventually, there will be talk about more change. 


I haven't seen Pinehurst since the redo, but it looks awfully nice.


Ciao

[JESII]

Mark,


Maybe you can help the rest of us...when you're restoring "Intent", what evidence of that intent are you working with? What is the most descriptive example you've specifically had the opportunity to work with?


I think that's where I'm most skeptical, but maybe you're using written text from the architect describing exactly what they want specific players to deal with.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I tried to give multiple examples such as the “carry fairway bunker” that no longer functions that way. I mentioned someone like Flynn who would often not add many of his bunkers until years later after he saw how the course played, the example of the Tillinghast course where the club ran out of money before construction was completed and just had a local road builder finish off the last two holes cheap.  The fact that many architects designed elasticity into their designs knowing full well the game was changing and their course would need to change with it.  Why do you think architect’s designed elasticity?  No one hear seems to have responded to that point   It is because they knew the design intent of their golf course was going to change over time and not just for the +2 golfers but for many others as well. 


As far as trees go, Colt for example was one of the first to prepare tree management plans with his designs.  If you know this and you see trees added that don’t make sense or don’t follow his plans you know that they are not what he intended. 


All architects have styles and preferences (some more pronounced than others).  If you take the time to learn this and all about them through their actual work and writings, you can have a pretty good idea of how they think. 

[JESII]

Mark,


Believe it or not, I understand everything you've said...other than your insistence that you can guess what an architect would have done if they were still working.


When you're working specifically off a plan and restoring what's there, great. When you're using your knowledge/experience of/with a particular architect as justification for building what you think they would have built you're not restoring anything. You're guessing and hoping that you're restoring intent but there's no way to know for sure.


To be honest, I'm with Sean in that I understand and agree that courses are living breathing things. Combine that with equipment and maintenance changes and nothing can be restored exactly...well then, why use the word? Because it sells better.

[Tom_Doak]

I was asked to prepare a Master Plan for an old Tillinghast design about ten or so years ago.  The course which will remain nameless was really run down and had been changed dramatically over the years.  About half the greens were redesigned and half were originals.  Fortunately, most of the bunkers were still there but many were grassed over or had shrunken in size.  They were all amazing bunkers very deep and bold and a lot like what Tillinghast designed at Somerset and Fenway.  I brought Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus out to see the course one day and explained our plan and they loved it. What confused us all, however, were two holes along the road on the one side of the course where the bunkers were totally different than everywhere else.  They were dead flat and poorly shaped unlike anything else on the course.  They looked awful and totally out of context with the tart of the design but early aerials confirmed that they were like this early on and didn't appear to have been touched.  Bob, Rick and I were puzzled and couldn't believe they were original Tillinghast bunkers.   So what would you do?  Leave them as is if you were trying to "restore" the golf course?

As it turns out, I did a lot more research and discovered that when the course was being built, the club ran out of money.  Those last two holes were built by a local road builder to save money and the club never went back and finished them properly as Tillinghast had designed them. 

So now what would you do?   

I would have restored the 16 holes precisely, and renovated the two.


So, I'm curious ... did you "restore" the other 16 holes by my definition?  Or did you recommend changes to them, once the door had been opened by the two that needed to be changed?

[Kalen Braley]

Mark you said:

Those last two holes were built by a local road builder to save money and the club never went back and finished them properly as Tillinghast had designed them. 

This would imply you had some kind of original plan or sketch or otherwise.  Like Tom D said, Restore the 16 and renovate these to the best of your ability to what the Tillie design shows.

[Mark_Fine]

Our plan, without going into all the details, was basically what you said - restore the 16 holes as best we could and renovate/finish the other two.  We found Tillinghast’s original sketch for the golf course and an early 1930’s aerial.  We also found (believe it or not on e-bay) a bound book about the club from opening day that had been given to members.  All of this and other historic information was used to develop the Master Plan.  The reason I say "as best we could" is because half the green sites had been blow up and rebuilt by someone (no names needed) that probably didn't even know it was a Tillinghast design (certainly didn't care).  As you know, once a green is rebuilt/redesigned, there is no real way of knowing what the internal contouring was like.  As such, by this discussion group's definition, you can't do "restoration"   The club had financial issues and one of the first aspects of the Master Plan that got implemented was some drainage improvement.  Many here know that lots of these older courses end up becoming catch basins for all the development that occurs around them.  Quite a bit of bunker work was also done (as I said it was great that many had only been grassed over and/or left fallow so they were easier to restore) and a ton of tree work and restoration of grassing lines, etc was also done.  Long range plans at many clubs are truly that - long range plans! 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Why did many classic architects build elasticity into their designs?  Why did architects like Flynn often not add ANY fairway bunkers until years later after he learned how the golf course was played?  If you "restored" a Flynn golf course back to what it looked like opening day, would you be doing the right thing for that design?  This is where I agree very much with Jeff Mingay's quote above about "golf course" restoration.  We are not restoring static objects. 


Did I answer your question 
Mark

Mark,
IMHO, "doing the right thing for a design" is a judgement call.  I disagree a little in that I consider the features created in an original to be static.  Of course trees, grasses and conditions may not be static but the actual features are.  T o me the things that are NOT  static are equipment, and players. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()