When has "tinkering" worked?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Yes, I think differences of opinion will keep this board active for decades!  And you say what I was trying to point out, that we should never impose too strict a rule on design, even if practicality eventually brings several things back closer to "standard" for whatever era.  And, of course, moving to standard only eggs designers on to do something different!  Never ending Ying and Yang.

Sometimes, tastes but also technology influences the "standard" more than we give credit for.  Examples include the ProV1, turning from clubby to public courses (with the ration flipping in the last 100 years), cheaper plastic drainage pipe, irrigation, of course, etc. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think a possible disconnect here is that it seems to me designing and putting a course into the ground is closer to an art form than a rigid/set formal design used in say constructing a building.  As such there are no absolute wrong or right solutions, its a spectrum, with some features and holes that are better than others.


So I don't think tinkering is necessarily a bad word here, just as long as the one who is tinkering is not implementing a lesser version of what is already there.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Define "better" and "lesser" when it comes to golf course design?  That is where the subjectivity and debate comes in.  No different than saying why The National is "better" than Shinnecock Hills or vice versa 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


I might have tried building architecture, but am not that precise, and knew missing a quarter inch would result in a pretty cold building, whereas the tolerances for golf courses are rarely that tight.  Even USGA greens mix gives you 2" up or down when trying to lay a 12" layer, so you are right in many senses.  But, sooner or later, a professional golf course architect is one who can translate great artistic flair into some kind of measured distance, depth, space, etc. to make sure the details work as planned.  And, some tinkering comes when that doesn't happen originally, too.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

You're probably right.  So what?

[Peter Pallotta]

TD - I wouldn't mind low scores either, but they'd reflect that the design's key attribute/defining characteristic -- ie approach shot angles into contoured greens -- no longer engaged golfers as it once did. And what other purpose is great architecture meant to serve than to promote such engagement and interaction?

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,


I understand what you're saying here, it is difficult to define at times what is better or worse.  I hate to say let the ratings be the guide, but perhaps better or worse is defined by the membership?  If a private club wants to go all Joan Rivers, who am I to say they can't... 

[Jim Nugent]

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.

You're probably right.  So what?

The players would hit little wedges on their second shots into lots of greens, including 13 and 15.  ANGC would be reduced to drive, half-pitch and putt on many if not most holes. 

[BCrosby]

Not sure when this thread went off the rails. Pretty much everyone agrees that tees on older courses that host a modern major usually need to be moved back. 


ANGC's building post-'97 new tees on 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 was probably unavoidable. (It would be better to roll back the ball, but let's not get into that again.)


Most of the other changes made to ANGC since '97 were not just avoidable, they violated both the letter and spirit of the MacK/Jones design.


Bob

[Tom_Doak]

TD - I wouldn't mind low scores either, but they'd reflect that the design's key attribute/defining characteristic -- ie approach shot angles into contoured greens -- no longer engaged golfers as it once did. And what other purpose is great architecture meant to serve than to promote such engagement and interaction?

Great architecture is also a pretty good barometer for when equipment and other factors have gone off the rails.  If they hadn't lengthened Augusta, there would have been a lot more pressure to dial back the equipment.  And even if guys are hitting wedges into #15 green, you still have to hit a really good shot in there.

[Thomas Dai]

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

You're probably right.  So what?

Might even have been of longterm benefit in showing up how daft the equipment regulations had/have become and led the powers that be to introduce some decent equipment restrictions. But of course 'if' is the middle word in 'life'.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

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

I own, and have read Tom's book. The impression I took away from it was he believes that golfers want pretty, so that is what he will give them. Given traditions and philosophy of the game, is pretty a sign of competence? Who does he want to be? Frederick Law Olmsted?