[Peter Pallotta]

In the 1980s, federal agents cracking down on the Mob/Mafia in New York City would enter the wise-guys' homes only to find VHS copies of "The Godfather" by the television set and stacks of books about the Mafia lying around the house -- apparently all being read and watched and studied by the newest generation of mobsters who were trying to figure out how to do it right, i.e.how to do it the way Art had imagined Life as it used to be in the Mob's glory days of the 1920s. Life imitating Art Imitating Life.

So: with the almost countless number of restorations or renovations going on these days at 1st and 2nd and 3rd tier golden age courses all across the country, and with much of this work being done by architects who have also featured prominently in the modern renaissance of golden age design, I ask this:

When the renovations/restorations are complete, will these golden age classics be:
1. Life (i.e. look and play the way the courses actually looked and played in the 1920s)? or
2. Art Imitating Life (look and play the way modern artists/experts have long told us those courses looked and played like back then)? or 
3. Art Imitating Life Imitating Art (i.e. look and play like the work of modern artists who've built their current designs on the foundation of what they think golden age courses looked and played like originally and who are now taking these modern examples of the golden age and projecting them back onto the originals)?

I think a lot of you guys will have the answer to this, or at least good guesses about it. I have neither, so I'm gonna wander away for a while and do something else.

Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I think the answer to your question is, more #2 and #3 than #1.


#1.  In the 1920's, classic courses were built on the cutting edge of toughness, and only the great players could even drive the ball 250 yards.  There is no way architecture can restore that.  Moreover, playing surfaces on those classic courses were nowhere near the modern standards ... and the aesthetics of turf maintenance weren't up to what today's members demand.  Oh, and most of those great courses didn't have very many trees along the fairways.


#2.  We can pretend that we're getting these courses to play the way they were meant to be played, by restoring hole locations back into the corners of the greens and such, but they're still easier.  And we can pretend that convincing a green committee to let us cut 10-20% of the trees on the course really makes it play just like it used to.


#3.  There are many things from modern design that members don't want to give up on:  forward tees!  multiple tees!  wall to wall irrigation!  consistent roughs!  stylish bunkers!  photogenic beauty!  I'm not one to project these back onto the original course, at least in terms of arguing that's how Dr. MacKenzie would have done it today ... but I also know that arguing against such "progress" would be like yelling into a hurricane.


P.S.  You can find MacKenzie's and Thomas's books in nearly any golf course architect's office now, too.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom

I thought the topic might lead to fruitful discussion. My reaction to your post:

While I'm not one (and neither are you) for minimizing the differences between restorations and renovations, the #2-#3 approach suggests that the ultimate goal is to bring the best course possible to life.
 
So maybe we should start changing the conversation and re-framing the narrative of such work, beginning with the language that describes the golden age course prior to any work being done, e.g. 
"Original Design by Alister Mackenzie"
"Original Design by George Thomas"

[I can imagine, however, that members at private clubs undergoing such renovations/restorations would probably prefer a slightly different wording, e.g.
"An Original Alister Mackenzie Design".   
"An Original George Thomas Design".]

It would keep things a lot simpler and more honest, I think - because whatever happens after that, whatever the restored/renovated course turns out to be, the modern-day architect would have to wear it/own it/own up to it. 

Peter

[Ronald Montesano]

A fantastic premise and a superlative first response.


I've nothing to add, but it makes me think about how an adult generation (there are usually two: middle-aged and third-aged) addresses the impetuous nature of youth and its toys. 2nd and 3rd ages say things like "they have it too easy" and "they spend too much time doing ..."


The reality is, all of us would have done the same, damned thing if generations had been reversed. I hear older teachers kvetch about students and their (de)vices, and I laugh at their (teachers) ridiculous assumptions about what the kids are and are not doing with said technology. AS IF any adult truly knew everything about what kids are doing.


So with the golf, the facade is worth the effort. If we pretend to revert to a different era, a more natural era, a more original era, a more celebrated era, a more authentic era, is this a bad thing? Of course not, and that's not your point, Pedro and Tomas.


What is good, is the respect for history, for the work presented by the authors. It's far better than the alternative.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()