When has "tinkering" worked?

[BCowan]

Bob,

 What changes at ANGC do you like? 

[Mark Pritchett]

Weather, other elements and human/animal impact tinker on golf courses every day. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Let's face facts.  Even today's restorations are tinkering if they move one bunker, add a tee, etc.

[BCrosby]

I think many of RTJ's changes to ANGC in 1947/8 were pretty good. His 16th, for example, is probably a better hole than the original.


I like the restoration of MacK's original 8th green and surrounds after Cliff Roberts and George Cobb had butchered them in the late 50s in the name of "crowd control". That change was made by Byron Nelson and others soon after Robert's death in the mid-70s. It is, to my knowledge, the only "restoration" of a feature of the course that had been changed.


Bob

[Kyle Harris]

William Flynn tinkered with a good number of his courses.

Lancaster CC probably the best example of this. Merion, too.

[Niall C]

Ted
 
I appreciate that you are probably asking the question in the context of US courses but as others have said there are plenty of examples of tinkering in the UK. Tom and Pete have highlighted Woking although I’m not sure why beyond the Low/Paton bunker thing. Most courses of that era in the UK would have had plenty of tinkering.
 
Indeed some of  the courses of Wokings vintage seemed to get different architects in to tinker with the course about as often, or even more so, than they got the painters in to redecorate the clubhouse. Back then the ODG’s had no compunction in altering/tweaking/destroying someone else’s work. That grand tradition has continued through the ages with mixed results, but mostly for the good IMHO.
 
A specific example might be Carnoustie. Originally laid out by Allan Robertson, then redesigned by Old Tom followed by Willie Park in the early 1900’s. The course then got basically rebuilt by James Braid in the 1920’s to more or less give the basic routing we have now. Tom Simpson tweaked the 6^th to take it from being a very good hole to an acknowledged great hole before further tinkering in recent years by the former greenkeeper John Philp with less happy results (IMO). Simpson also suggested other changes but quite what they were and whether they were carried out is hard to say.
 
While the spine of the course is Braid’s it didn’t get it’s fearsome finish until a few years after Braid when the Green’s Convener (James Wright ?) set back the 17^th green over the burn and therefore the 18^th tee to lengthen both holes, and I think he may also have pushed the 16^th green back as well.
 
Since then John Philp, has done his thing which has mainly involved the judicious use of a chainsaw to reduce the number of trees. He also though put in the mounding between the 1^st green and the 3^rd green, raised the ground in front of the 15^th green (and possibly the ground to the rear) to produce a punchbowl type green and making the green blind/semi-blind for the approach. I believe he also introduced the fingers of rough into the 3^rd fairway (are they still there ?) which I think a less successful tweak.
 
Since then McKenzie & Ebert have been consulting although I don’t know what changes they have done or are contemplating. Either way, and judging from old photographs, the course now has a lot less bunkers than the Braid version.
 
Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

The 10% topic is sort of wandering into this territory.....started to post that there, but this is the place for it.



The most common tinkering today is sand bunker reduction, as liners and white sand become necessities instead of luxuries in the minds of most.  When adding new sand or liner, it makes a great time to reassess your bunkers to see if you can reduce size without greatly impacting the architecture.   Not unlike Tilly's tour, but at least some places aren't just taking them out willy nilly.


So, is a bunker reduction plan, even by the original architect, a tweak/tinker that "doesn't work" if it reduces sand by 25% (with attendant construction cost and ongoing maintenance)?  What about reducing the slopes of a cape and bay bunker to minimize the number of times crews must go out and shovel sand?  Working with two supers now that estimate they spend $80K per year shoveling sand.  (Yeah, surprised me, too, would have guessed 15K)


I have reduced sand bunker size by up to 35% without, IMHO, affecting my original designs.  Take out portions of bunkers that you don't really see (why blind sand when you pay $120 per ton for it?) or no longer affect play, etc.


Is saving $80K a year (or anywhere close) a successful tinker that works?

[Tom_Doak]

I have reduced sand bunker size by up to 35% without, IMHO, affecting my original designs.  Take out portions of bunkers that you don't really see (why blind sand when you pay $120 per ton for it?) or no longer affect play, etc.


Is saving $80K a year (or anywhere close) a successful tinker that works?

Sure.  But not spending $150K to build those bigger bunkers and import that extra sand, and $80K per year for the few years they were in place, would be a more successful approach.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Simply trying to illustrate that golf course needs change over time.  In the 1990's, when the primary goals were splash and instant marketing, awards, etc. using more sand made tons of sense.  Not much different than Tilly realizing times had changed from 1928 to 1932 or so.


I recall a Fazio associate telling me they knew their bunkers would be rebuilt, after the Owner got his photos, awards and rankings.


I recall Von Hagge telling me his bunkers/steep banks/shadows were primarily to sell real estate, and I think he knew they would be softened for maintenance and playability after the houses were sold.


I am sure, besides Tilly's tour, many golden age courses that morphed from private to public had bunkers removed, and it also made sense given the course's new role.


Certainly, if someone had told architects they could only use 75,000 SF of sand in those days, they would rebel and reject the idea.  Owners who wanted rankings, too!  Too many rules negatively affects great design, no?  Stifle creativity and all that.


What if someone told you, circa 1990, that you couldn't contour greens more than 2.5%?  What would you have done?  (I am presuming that at some point, some of your greens, famous/infamous for their contours, will be softened by others in the future, after several years of members frustration. It seems they always do with other architects, and I presume you will not be spared.)


In essence, for many reasons - time, experience, maintenance needs, green speeds, tastes, etc., things change.  Seems like most designs that fight Mother Nature (shade, drainage) or are difficult to maintain or play every day end up getting changed.  Is it wrong to tweak a course based on experience?  I guess that is all a matter of opinion.


Besides, I wonder how many architects wouldn't really like a mulligan or two on every course they design? If they are not around, then someone has to make the call.

[Mark_Fine]

I love golf committees/clubs that "tinker".  It keeps many of us busy 


That actually is true and the reality is that tinkering will always happen as courses are living things and constantly changing as they age and are maintained.  Trees grow, bunkers deteriate, greens shrink, ...tees get changed/added, on and on.  Some changes will be good and some not so good.  As we all know, this is a very subjective topic and always will be. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Right on.  I often point out that most archies renovation jobs come after a club has tried to do it themselves.


For those who would say this board has some mortal lock on knowing what is good and bad renovation/restoration/tinkers and tweaks, I am always reminded that those who did the tinkering some here hate were also 100% sure what they were doing was right, at least for them.

[MClutterbuck]

The course in which I am Captain turned 10 years old last week. We receive tons of informal tinkering requests per year, have not counted, but probably there are 50 tinkering ideas out there.


We implemented only 2 changes, and considering a 3rd (discussed on this forum). I have no doubt the 2 changes have made for a better course.


If we could order the tinkering proposals by merit, top to bottom in a curve, same as economics, we could surely decide on a cut-off point, beyond which the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit.


The problem is measuring marginal benefit and setting a true cut-off point. In absence of a true measure, we have the original architect, new consulting architects, and a few knowledgeable folks. Unfortunately we also have clueless committees, developers, unknowlegable low handicap players and "wronged players". Member consensus and voting are probably not going to give us a good answer.


I would guess that the answer to the original question is that tinkering works when you have knowledgable people evaluating tinkering proposals and showing restraint in only carrying out the most clear examples of benefits above costs.


So in summary, tinkering always works, if you know when to stop.

[Thomas Dai]

The opposite perspective - 'untinkering' - putting it back to how it was before the 'tinkerers' got 'tinkering'?
Or is this covered by terms like restoration/renovation?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


The question is still what date? How much modern stuff do you account for? Irrigation? Forward Tees? Bent grass vs old bluegrass fw?  The slopes on bunkers were never irrigated in the old days, now they get a lot of it.  Let them get scruffy?


Even true "restorations" involve value judgements, no?

[Tom_Doak]

I love golf committees/clubs that "tinker".  It keeps many of us busy 

Actually, most of the consulting projects we are doing these days are places where a well-known professional golf course architect has been tinkering over the past 5-20 years, and doing those clubs a disservice.  The only thing that saves them is that it's all a matter of opinion, just like yours or mine.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Simply trying to illustrate that golf course needs change over time.  In the 1990's, when the primary goals were splash and instant marketing, awards, etc. using more sand made tons of sense.  Not much different than Tilly realizing times had changed from 1928 to 1932 or so.


I recall a Fazio associate telling me they knew their bunkers would be rebuilt, after the Owner got his photos, awards and rankings.


I recall Von Hagge telling me his bunkers/steep banks/shadows were primarily to sell real estate, and I think he knew they would be softened for maintenance and playability after the houses were sold.


I am sure, besides Tilly's tour, many golden age courses that morphed from private to public had bunkers removed, and it also made sense given the course's new role.


Certainly, if someone had told architects they could only use 75,000 SF of sand in those days, they would rebel and reject the idea.  Owners who wanted rankings, too!  Too many rules negatively affects great design, no?  Stifle creativity and all that.


What if someone told you, circa 1990, that you couldn't contour greens more than 2.5%?  What would you have done?  (I am presuming that at some point, some of your greens, famous/infamous for their contours, will be softened by others in the future, after several years of members frustration. It seems they always do with other architects, and I presume you will not be spared.)


In essence, for many reasons - time, experience, maintenance needs, green speeds, tastes, etc., things change.  Seems like most designs that fight Mother Nature (shade, drainage) or are difficult to maintain or play every day end up getting changed.  Is it wrong to tweak a course based on experience?  I guess that is all a matter of opinion.


Besides, I wonder how many architects wouldn't really like a mulligan or two on every course they design? If they are not around, then someone has to make the call.

I'm just taking the opportunity to quote this to save it for posterity.  I thought you tried to position yourself here as the professional voice of reason.  There is hardly anything above that I find reasonable, or professional.


Mulligans on every course?  Really?


Also, don't presume things about my designs if you don't know the correct answer.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Didn't Ross continuously tinker with Pinehurst #2?  And the Good Doctor at Pasatiempo?

[George Pazin]

Defining terms would be a good start. What is tinkering, what is tweaking (i.e. making sure what resulted is what was intended), etc.?


But having thrown that out there, I will offer the following:


It doesn't matter how good it is, how much you thought it out, how smart you are, or anything else - there is always someone out there who thinks he's smarter, and is willing to "persuade" someone else that he's right. And there's even more people out there who are dying to have their egos stroked and are willing to buy in.


How many of those who tinker stop to re-assess whether it was a success? My wager: ZERO. POINT ZERO. And the criteria matters not a whit. Were I a betting man, I'd wager there is no criteria.


It's largely impossible to evaluate what didn't happen. (This is the Forgotten Man theory of the past, as applied to golf course architecture.) Surely ANGC's flipping of the nines is viewed as a success of the highest magnitude - but how can anyone know if the magnificent 8th or 9th wouldn't be viewed in much higher regard if Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Woods, etc., hadn't won or lost tournaments with those as the closers?


If I were advising anyone regarding changing a course, I'd say, first do no harm. If you can guarantee that, then perhaps - PERHAPS - we can talk.


But hey, no one is listening to me when their own ego is screaming in their ear, so that doesn't mean much...

[Tom_Doak]

Didn't Ross continuously tinker with Pinehurst #2?  And the Good Doctor at Pasatiempo?

Others would be better to talk about Pinehurst #2 than me.  But it didn't have grass on the greens until the 1930's, so one could argue that anything before that was not to be taken too seriously.


MacKenzie did make a couple of changes at Pasatiempo after it opened.  At one time #9 had an alternate green, up closer to the 1st tee ... I can't remember if that was added after opening and then taken out, or if the current green was the second version.  And I am not sure when #17 green was shortened.  But there were not a lot of changes in the 4.5 years between the course's opening and MacKenzie's passing.

[James Brown]

Bob,

 What changes at ANGC do you like?

If they played the same course today as in 1997, the winning scores would be 25 under. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree with you on that and it results is lots of phone calls

All "tinkering" is done by well intentioned people trying to do what they think is the right thing for the golf course.  It is hard to blame them but the reality is that many times not such good things are done but it is all a matter of opinion.  I sure don't have all the answers but I do spend most of my time on education and getting golfers/members to look at their golf course in a different way.  It is very rewarding when you see them starting to understand why things (design features) are the way they are. 
Mark

[Garland Bayley]

...
In essence, for many reasons - time, experience, maintenance needs, green speeds, tastes, etc., things change.  Seems like most designs that fight Mother Nature (shade, drainage) or are difficult to maintain or play every day end up getting changed.  ...

Geez, it sounds like you are saying most architects are incompetent and their work needs fixing. And, I thought my colleagues in software were error prone!!!!
 

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
When it comes to most architects, I think it has nothing to do with incompetence.  Most if not all are very competent, but most just have very strong opinions of what they like and don't like.  And some, when it comes to older courses, could care less about what some dead guy did 100 years ago.  Read Tom Fazio's book if you don't believe me. Tom is EXTREMELY competent and is a great guy.  Talked to him many times but he could care less about "restoring" some old Ross or Tillinghast design.  He is going to "tinker" with the course the way he thinks the course should be tinkered with.  The good news for some of us is this eventually leads to phone calls 
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I was a bit casual in my wording on mulligans. I didn't mean to imply I would want to redesign an entire course of mine, but that there is always one feature I wouldn't mind getting a do over. I think most architects feel the same way.


For that matter, as it pertains to tinkering, I think most original architects, consulting architects, golfers, greens committee members and superintendents, based on their own perspectives probably look at any 18 holes and have a least favorite hole or feature they think should be changed, and hence, the tinkering begins.  Assuming a minimum of one favorite hole, some clubs keep tinkering with the new least favorite hole, former 17th favorite, then 16th favorite, etc.


BTW, I am surprised the champion of critiquing other architects work in the name of enlightenment would find some specific examples to be unprofessional. 


As to voice of reason, part of my posts attempted that, trying to highlight my opinion that similar discussions get skewed by focusing on the top 500 courses, when the issues facing the other 13,500 are somewhat more typical and different.  I think I did that.


Part of the posts, admittedly, were meant to be provocative to the general mindset of this board....... since Mike Young wasn't participating yesterday, someone had to do it!


Garland,


As Mark says, I think architects are all competent.  I think some excel in some areas, others in other areas.  Each has a slightly different skillset depending on their training and outlook.


I try to pay attention to those Mother Nature issues, for example. However, when thinking to scattered holes on my courses, yes I do have greens and tees sitting in too much shade.  Ideally, it should never happen, but thinking to my first solo course design, Brookstone near Atlanta, its a housing course, the land planner already routed the basic corridors, all in valleys, which I tweaked.


However, put a green in a valley, with tall pines and high hills on the east side, because you are doing what you are charged to do - create a housing course - and those greens will fight shade forever.  I also am one of few golf course architects who design drainage using engineering formulas, but sometimes, the additional drainage of development can over whelm, especially if the initial budget didn't allow for upsizing pipe for future conditions.  In fact, I only got enough budget to do that once, and at Colbert Hills there are a few 36" pipes rarely flowing full because 11 years on, no development is in that area.  I think a few folks up there questioned me on my competency on those!


So, not sure how you can take a post of two showing how conditions do change, and extrapolate (even in humorous way) that I think architects are incompetent!


Mark,


I agree with your opinions.  The cynical side of me wonders if any club that hires any of us to fix past tinkers has really found the "truth", or is just succumbing to the same "follow the trends" mentality that caused earlier tinkering?  Since no one design concept can solve everything, I can see all the courses that have removed trees, or whatever, see the problems (probably that the course is now seen as too easy?) and decide to embark on a new tree planting program, perhaps determined to avoid past mistakes of overplanting.


In theory, with decades of experience to draw on, we should all be better architects with more right answers.  On the other side, does human nature (including an almost innate desire for change) ever change?


Cheers.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
There will always be ebbs and flows in golf course design.  That will not change as there are no right answers, only varying opinions of what is good, better, and best.  But that is what makes this game so special.  If every golf course was the same (just like a tennis court or a football field) this site would have nothing to talk about 
Mark