[Ed Homsey]

For the last several years, as Archivist for The Walter J. Travis Society, I have worked to refine our listing of Travis golf course projects, using the best available information to create an informative and accurate listing.

A point on which I have been challenged, by interested and concerned parties, is the designation of either "designed" or "redesigned".  For example, our listing of Yahnundasis Golf Club identifies it as a "redesign" based on the knowledge that a golf course existed on the property before Travis created his 27 hole design in 1922.  The course that opened in 1924 consisted of 11 holes from the Travis design and 7 holes from the old course.  The remaining 7 holes of Travis's 18-hole championship course were built in 1931.  In another example, Onondaga Golf and Country Club, there is clear evidence that nine holes of their old course occupied part of the land on which they built the Travis design.  In studying Travis's design, it is apparent that at least a couple of his holes occupied the same space as the old course, with some slight changes.  We have the course listed as a "redesign".

How would you distinguish between "design" and "redesign"?

[Ian Andrew]

Onondaga History


 Onondaga Golf Club was formed in 1898 on a farm owned by Charles Hiscock with a very rough and ready nine holes. The golf course was then rebuilt and improved the following year by member David Campbell. In 1899 Onondaga committed itself to buying the Van Schaick property in Fayatteville which allowed for a far longer and better golf course. In 1901, David Campbell was asked to produce the new nine hole layout on the Van Schaick property. The course began at 2,800 yards, but quickly grew to 3,470 yards by around 1914. This would have been a very long nine holes at that time. David Campbell was also asked to produce another nine holes across the road on Earnest White’s property in 1907 (the current Lyndon Golf Course) making the club into 18 holes. The club continued to lease the Lyndon nine up until 1930.
Three of David Campbell’s holes were kept and included in Walter Travis’s layout, with the 5^th and 11^th remaining in play today. Skip Wogan removed the 4th in 1983, due to the road’s proximity, but players can still see most of the original hole. While this is an obvious loss, the liability issue was too great for the club to continue with.
In 1917 the club acquired the 94 more acres known as Bang’s Farm in order to become a contiguous 18 holes. In 1919 they then commissioned one of the top architects of the time Walter Travis to layout “a bona fide 18 for Onondaga.” Travis actually designed two layouts, one using the newly acquired land and the existing property, the other included one additional parcel (the Kimber property) not yet owned by the club. The club trusted Travis and acquired the additional 50 acres to build the favored layout. The course was built and opened in 1921.
Onondaga Golf & Country Club is still essentially a Walter Travis Golf course, with 11 holes of this layout still almost completely intact. The holes 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 remain largely as Travis designed them. He also made the decision to keep both 5 and 11, which gives us a course with 13 holes that date back to his original layout of 1921.
In 1928 the club hired Stanley Thompson “the most conspicuous golf course architect in Canada” to come in and “modernize” Travis’s 18 by rebuilding the greens at holes 7, 12, 15 and 17 and by altering some fairways and bunkers. The plan is in the clubhouse archives available for viewing. The work was never done.
Later in 1930, after purchasing more land, the club extended Thompson’s commission to include laying out an additional nine holes. The depression quickly brought and end to this project and it was cancelled and Thompson was released from his contract. That was the end of Thompson’s time with Onondaga since the club, like many others, had to deal with impact of the depression.
The course saw little happen until 1962. Hal Purdy was brought in to look at the final three holes on the front nine. He looked to add length to the 7^th by pushing the green back and to straighten out the 8^th and turn it into a par four. Member Edward Collum proposed that the 8^th could be a par three set in the trees and the 9^th could be a massive uphill par five coming back to the clubhouse. Purdy followed his suggestions and the current 7^th, 8^th and 9^th holes were built at that time.
In 1982, the club grew very concerned with the proximity of the 3^rd and 4^th greens to Genesee Street and the liability they faced. Skip Wogan and Samuel Mitchell were brought in and proposed moving the 3^rd green left and into the orchard and 4^th green to the right and away from the road for safety. The holes were built and opened for play in 1983.

In 2006 I rebuilt the 4th and the 8th greens as part of the renovation and restoration works.

That's the complete history.

Now, knowing all that, how would you assign accreditation?
I have my own opinion, but I'll give it  awhile and wait till I get back from Ireland to weigh back in.



 

[Sean_A]

Ed

Why define design history is such an arbitrary manner?  If there isn't space to allow for a more complete description of the history, I prefer a brief listing such as

Original Design by....in.......

Significant additional design work by ..... in .....

Just avoid words such as redesign, renovation, restoration...just leads to useless debate.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,


No expert on the subject, but somewhere, as you allude, its the number of holes that are newly routed, and not left alone or just rebuilt in place.  In your example, if those 7 originally routed holes are redesigned by Travis at the same time (change the green, etc.) it would IMHO, clearly be a new design.


I always think of Ross at Northland, credited as a new design in 1916.  There was a course there, but they actually added and changed property, so no question it was basically a new course.  If on the same site, and most holes (won't give an exact number) stay in place, its a redesign.


I have a project now where we are keeping 5 of 18 holes in the same corridor, and redesigning everything (re-designing is even a bit of a stretch.....it assumes what was there was actually designed in the first place )  Clearly it is entirely a new course, but still not sure if I will call it a new or redesigned course on my resume.  Probably a re-design for marketing purposes, to build up my list of renovations in a renovation driven market.


Those things figure in, but we can't go back and ask anyone what their motivations for listing certain courses the way they did.  In most cases, I would presume the clubs themselves would want a new Travis, or Ross, etc. to be listed as a Ross design, for their membership marketing, also confusing the issue.

[Ed Homsey]

Jeff,  Thanks for your comments.  Your point about the membership of a club, and their feelings about the question, is exactly why I introduced this topic.  I've had members from two clubs who have expressed strong disagreement with my classification of their course as a redesign.  So, I can vouch for the likely sensitivity of membership.  On the other hand, if this type of differentiation is going to be used, I think there needs to be some standard criteria.  An argument for the design/redesign designation was strongly made by a very respected member of this forum, who is not longer with us.  He felt that to use the designation of "design" for a course where previous holes had existed diminished the work of previous designers.

On the other hand, I can think of an example where the use of "redesign" by a noted architect, i.e. Robert Trent Jones, kinda diminishes the work of the original designer.  The RTJ society's course listing has my club's course (Stafford Country Club) listed as an RTJ redesign.  We are aware that RTJ and Stanley Thompson was at our course in 1931, but there is absolutely no record of what they did.  RTJ, Jr's told me that his father probably held Thompson's clipboard.  I think he was making a joke, but he would not venture any opinion about what they might have done (after playing the course).  I'm guessing they did some tee work on 5 holes.  But, is that a redesign?

Sean--I think I like your suggestion.  Have to give it more thought.  It sorta fits what I've been trying to do with our listings, i.e. provide a brief description of the architectural history of the course.  I suppose that could result in doing away with the overly simplistic design or redesign designations.

Ian--Thanks for your clear and concise history of OGCC.  We have some info in our files that is pretty clear about Travis's involvement in 1917, when he spent a couple of days walking the land, doing measurements, and beginning the layout of the course.  As you know, the Travis plan they settled on required purchase of additional land to the east.  I'll send that to you, if you'd like.  I wonder if that is the reason that the start of construction was delayed until 1919.  Somewhere, we have info indicating that William Flynn was the contractor.  Would you describe Travis's work as a redesign or design?

Thanks--

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:


If you come up with clear terminology, let me know.


To me, anything where you're building over the top of an old course should be classified as "redesign," although obviously the scope of work varies tremendously between total routing changes, minor routing changes, bunker makeovers, and "recommendations" that may or may not be implemented.


However, I have the same problem Jeff cites -- clients insisting on being called one or the other for political reasons.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,


Others have struggled for reasons mentioned. I doubt that in this attention span shortened era that the idea of more detailed attributions will fly with most.  Most of the GCA books sell about 3500 copies, out of 350 Mil Americans who will prefer a sound bit if at all interested.  Whitten got it down to Original (XX), Brauer R5 (if I remodeled 5 holes or greens, etc.) and I believe that is about as detailed as you can get.  If they were accurate in some of those long term renovations, you might get Brauer, RG1, 1984, G2, 1985, G6, 1987, etc.  Of course, then you might also have


"Original (XX),
Brauer R G6 1987,
Greens Committee, R 6G, 1989, 
Doak - R Brauer/Committed G6, 1999"


and so forth, if you really wanted to trace the history of a golf course.  But again, that is for the club to do in that level of detail, and you still might find some young associates add in 2009 proclaiming he actually was the R-G6 guy at some point in his marketing materials or press releases.  And, 100 years from now, someone will find it and claim the history is false!


As well as Owner preferences, and architect preferences, we have seen on another thread that sometimes construction personnel preferences, and Partner vs Partner, Partner vs. former Partner, Associate vs partner or former partners, etc. may all at one time or another claim credit, confusing the matter no matter how strict the rules may be set up.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a fascinating discussion, even for me (who has no stake it in and is only aware of the challenges/issues involved because others have posted already). 

For what it's worth, Ed, I think this might be an opportunity to take ownership/authority of this issue. What I mean is: since Tom D, Jeff B and others say that there's no official/agreed upon definition, why don't *you* create one yourself?

You know the subject as well or better than most - why not preface the section on design credits with a paragraph or two that explains/rationalizes your considered opinion on these definitions; you can note the complexities involved, and even the reasons for disagreements, while at the same time making a case for what you believe is the most accurate/fair methodology and approach to assigning designations.

At the very least, creating a paragraph like that will then help you keep the detailed-course-by-course credits short and concise (as Jeff suggests). 

It's true that few people read or want such details, but I also think that isn't your problem (or responsibility), it's *theirs*.  You just lay it out the way you think best. 

Peter   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,


Not a bad idea. I am sure other historical societies and maybe NGF and even ASGCA would take a look at it.  Of course, I can't guarantee anything.


If using an Access or Excel type of spread sheet, he could have a formal column for "Disputes" or in today's parlance....Alternate Facts.

[Kirk Gill]

It's probably impossible to create specific terminology for every type of course update or change. It's likely easier to go the other way, and have broader and simpler terms that might include a variety of changes.


Tom Doak, your answer above made me think immediately of Common Ground - one of the more radical redesigns of a golf course I've ever witnessed !

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak, your answer above made me think immediately of Common Ground - one of the more radical redesigns of a golf course I've ever witnessed !

Kirk:


I honestly forgot that Common Ground was a redesign!  The only time I walked the original course, it was under a couple of inches of snow.  We did save a few of the trees they'd planted, and [I think] the sites for the 1st & 10th tees and the 18th green.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's probably impossible to create specific terminology for every type of course update or change. It's likely easier to go the other way, and have broader and simpler terms that might include a variety of changes.

Correct: Design, redesign, renovation, restoration. With the occasional "partial" thrown in for good measure.


The above terms are relatively easy to understand if people take the time and if they don't get too picky on how they are applied.


They're also open to abuse but again, that's because people don't take the time to understand them and are therefore open to being abused.

[BCrosby]

I have always thought that primary design credit goes to whomever did the routing of the course. To the extent the routing is intact, they retain the main credit. Tweaking greens, bunkers and so forth earns you a lower rung on the marquee.


Thus, for example, ANGC is a MacK course, with revisions by Maxwell, RTJ, etc.


Similarly, Pebble is a Grant/Neville course with revisions by Fowler, Egan, etc.


If the routing has been changed substantially, then primary design credit goes to whomever did the re-routing. We can argue about what "substantially" means at any given course, but the idea is that primary attribution ought follow the person responsible for most of the routing.


I can think of a couple of courses where the above assigns attributions we are not used to seeing. For example, it appears that most of Cypress Point was routed by Raynor, though MacK designed several new, spectacular holes.


Does that make sense? Shouldn't routing be given extra weight in design attributions?


Bob   


   

[Tom_Doak]

Correct: Design, redesign, renovation, restoration. With the occasional "partial" thrown in for good measure.

OK, let's use these and clarify:


1.  Design - new course on a new site not previously used for golf.


2.  Redesign - new course on a site previously used for golf.  Routing changed in large part, though some hole corridors could remain; new greens and bunkering.


3.  Renovation - modification of an existing course.  Some substantial part of the routing unchanged, some existing greens kept in play [but maybe rebuilt].


4.  Restoration - return of an existing course to previous historical design.  Could involve routing changes, greens or just bunker work, depending on the extent of changes over time.




So, if we agree on those terms, at what point do we consider credit due?


To me, a restoration does not warrant design credit:  you aren't designing anything new, just rebuilding what was there.


Whether a renovation warrants design credit, depends on the scope.  Making design credit hinge on the relocation of one or two greens would encourage designers to make such a move ... and create space for a restoration down the road.

[Ed Homsey]

Wow--It's going to take a while for all of this to sink in, for me.  I am relieved that the approach I have taken with the Travis listing has not violated some established standard of classification. This discussion, thus far, has been enlightening and informative.  I'm thinking you may have nailed it, Tom.  But, I need some time to see how it would work with various courses. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Correct: Design, redesign, renovation, restoration. With the occasional "partial" thrown in for good measure.

OK, let's use these and clarify:


1.  Design - new course on a new site not previously used for golf.


2.  Redesign - new course on a site previously used for golf.  Routing changed in large part, though some hole corridors could remain; new greens and bunkering.


3.  Renovation - modification of an existing course.  Some substantial part of the routing unchanged, some existing greens kept in play [but maybe rebuilt].


4.  Restoration - return of an existing course to previous historical design.  Could involve routing changes, greens or just bunker work, depending on the extent of changes over time.




So, if we agree on those terms, at what point do we consider credit due?


To me, a restoration does not warrant design credit:  you aren't designing anything new, just rebuilding what was there.


Whether a renovation warrants design credit, depends on the scope.  Making design credit hinge on the relocation of one or two greens would encourage designers to make such a move ... and create space for a restoration down the road.

Tom you bring up a good point that always concerns me, primarily that it becomes tempting for a designer to recommend redesign changes (new holes, new green sites) over renovation (new bunker positions, new green details) when the former gives him named credit and the latter perhaps doesn't.


It brings up an example I had a couple of years ago when a classic OTM designed links approached me to re-route a corner of the site (4 essentially new holes). In essence, their desired plan didn't work and I kicked it to touch, in the end recommending to move one tee site and one existing green site. I knew it was the difference between design credit and no design credit and I knew that many others would have jumped on the chance to recommend wholesale changes for that exact reason.


However, that conflict aside, I do think those terminologies work best.

[Sean_A]

Correct: Design, redesign, renovation, restoration. With the occasional "partial" thrown in for good measure.

OK, let's use these and clarify:


1.  Design - new course on a new site not previously used for golf.


2.  Redesign - new course on a site previously used for golf.  Routing changed in large part, though some hole corridors could remain; new greens and bunkering.


3.  Renovation - modification of an existing course.  Some substantial part of the routing unchanged, some existing greens kept in play [but maybe rebuilt].


4.  Restoration - return of an existing course to previous historical design.  Could involve routing changes, greens or just bunker work, depending on the extent of changes over time.




So, if we agree on those terms, at what point do we consider credit due?


To me, a restoration does not warrant design credit:  you aren't designing anything new, just rebuilding what was there.


Whether a renovation warrants design credit, depends on the scope.  Making design credit hinge on the relocation of one or two greens would encourage designers to make such a move ... and create space for a restoration down the road.

I don't like these sort of hardened definitions because for one...not everybody would care to agree on the definitions.  For two, club politics plays a role in diluting the truth.  For three, we often don't know for certain who did what.  I know folks like to think they are certain, but much of the time its a best guest scenario. To me it seems far easier and often more accurate to simply be vague unless there is the space allowed for more detailed info.  It just seems silly to argue over terms like this when they don't actually add any value.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Correct: Design, redesign, renovation, restoration. With the occasional "partial" thrown in for good measure.

OK, let's use these and clarify:


1.  Design - new course on a new site not previously used for golf.


2.  Redesign - new course on a site previously used for golf.  Routing changed in large part, though some hole corridors could remain; new greens and bunkering.


3.  Renovation - modification of an existing course.  Some substantial part of the routing unchanged, some existing greens kept in play [but maybe rebuilt].


4.  Restoration - return of an existing course to previous historical design.  Could involve routing changes, greens or just bunker work, depending on the extent of changes over time.




So, if we agree on those terms, at what point do we consider credit due?


To me, a restoration does not warrant design credit:  you aren't designing anything new, just rebuilding what was there.


Whether a renovation warrants design credit, depends on the scope.  Making design credit hinge on the relocation of one or two greens would encourage designers to make such a move ... and create space for a restoration down the road.

I don't like these sort of hardened definitions because for one...not everybody would care to agree on the definitions.  For two, club politics plays a role in diluting the truth.  For three, we often don't know for certain who did what.  I know folks like to think they are certain, but much of the time its a best guest scenario. To me it seems far easier and often more accurate to simply be vague unless there is the space allowed for more detailed info.  It just seems silly to argue over terms like this when they don't actually add any value.


Ciao

Sean,


If one is too vague, it gives license for designers to say they did things they didn't. Which just helps proliferate the sales spin / lies.


So whilst hardened definitions are difficult because every project needs a different level of input, they serve their purpose, especially if everyone understands the frame of reference in which they are used.


And the question of credit can be more important than just a label - it brings with it an element of accountability and liability.

[Ed Homsey]

I am in favor of a classification of the work by golf course architects.  Whether such a system is used, or a system of descriptors, as Sean is suggesting, there will be gray areas, and with old courses, where available information is lacking or inconclusive, there will be uncertainty.  So, in either case, we do the best we can.


I think the system suggested by Tom will work.  I agree that the categories of restoration and renovation do not rise to the level of "design".  I wonder how Ian would respond to that, in reference to his work at Onondaga where he did extensive bunker renovation/restoration work, rebuilt two greens, etc. 


Tom's system appeals to me because I don't think it would require me to make major, if any, changes to the Travis Society's Travis golf course listings.  A course by course review would be required to confirm that impression.


For a renovation job to rise to level of redesign would require essentially, a new course, in my opinion.  Some major routing changes and major relocations/rebuild of greens.  What remains, of course, is the definition of "major".  Would the slight routing change and new green on #1, modified routing and new green on #2, slight modification of routing on #3, new routing and green on #5, and new routing on #6 at Yahnundasis by the Gordons rise to level of redesign?  Raises question, does redesign fit?  Nearly a third of the course is new.






 

[Peter Pallotta]

I understand Sean's points/pov, but the reason I suggested to Ed that he create his own definitions is this:


No one is writing the Ten Commandments here, or writing a doctor's prescription for a critically ill patient -- and no one really *expects* any kind of unanimity of opinion or equations that fit everyone's needs (from hungry architects to well fed club members).


All that is required here is a clear, rationale, and defensible set of Ed's *own* criteria, clearly identified as such, i.e. this is how *I/we* see the various categories and criteria related to design designations.


Create it, defend it, stick with it long enough - and pretty soon it *becomes* the standard, whether this or that architect or this or that club member likes it or not (just like Tom D's CG  )


   

[Sean_A]

Ed

It sounds good in theory, but your definitions won't be universally adopted....everyone will continue to use words as they see fit....and rightfully so.  If you feel you must have some sort of defined terms, then you will need to provide the definitions and not expect folks to use repeat those definitions in other usage.  Your needs will mostly be met in conveying a message fairly easily...there will always be grey areas where one word definitions just can't convey the information efficiently. 

The big issue I see with a system like this is you will be trying to force a one word definition on all courses for the sake of consistency. 

I can't ever see archies getting on board with this kind of thing because I don't see where the value is.  Archies need to provide more detail when talking about their works because that is how they market themselves.  It doesn't do much good to say I redesigned X club because even with a definition people looking to hire an archie would want to know the details. 

Pietro

I still don't fully understand the Doak Scale...and I don't think anybody else does except for Doak 

Ciao

[Ed Homsey]

This discussion has taught me that there will/can not be an industry-wide classification system.  But, I will adopt one for my particular use that, I hope, has some general acceptance and use; even with the limitations that have so clearly been described here. 


In addition, this discussion has been of help in terms of expanding my understanding of the complexity of the issue, and the realization that there is no existing code that I may be violating, or that I must aspire to.


I'll be going back to work on our Travis course listing, making sure that I have a legend that defines, as clearly and concisely as possible, the terms that I use.  If you happen to stop in, sometime in the future, and have any suggestions to make, I'll be all ears.  Thanks.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ed,


Despite what others are saying, restoration, renovation, redesign, design is a pretty much accepted standard.

[Sean_A]

Ed,


Despite what others are saying, restoration, renovation, redesign, design is a pretty much accepted standard.

Ally


I disagree.  Restoration is used very often for Renovation.  Redesign is not a simply used term...sort of like how long is a piece of string.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ed,


Despite what others are saying, restoration, renovation, redesign, design is a pretty much accepted standard.

Ally


I disagree.  Restoration is used very often for Renovation.  Redesign is not a simply used term...sort of like how long is a piece of string.


Ciao

Yes, they are used wrongly because people don't take the time to understand what they mean. So they should educate themselves.


There are very specific differences between each term. It just so happens that work on a course can have elements of more than one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()