Which great old courses were the most Stubborn, and why?

[Peter Pallotta]

Of the golden age classics, which were most resistant to change over the ensuing decades?
Which great old courses (ie clubs, and their memberships) stood most firm against the temptation to renovate and to 'keep up with the times'?
Which classic courses-clubs best ignored the various pressures they all faced over the years, i.e. changes in equipment, new & populist post war design styles, competition from their neighbours, memberships keen to raise club profiles & prominence and garner higher rankings for their courses, and the desire to host pro tournaments/major championships?
Which great old courses most stubbornly remained what they were, and had always been?
And how/why did they manage to do that?

[Mark_Fine]

My first answer would be to say that all the courses that weren’t very good in the first place but somehow still are lucky to be around were mostly unchanged/left alone because no one really cared.


My second answer would be to say that all the courses that were really good to start or had potential probably have changed at least to some extent to either keep them relevant and/or to try to make them better (we all know that sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn’t) 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
the genesis of this thread: a few days ago someone mentioned NGLA. Now, I know this is simplistic/superficial, but when I look at photos from NGLA's early days and then look at photos from today, it looks to me to be the very same course; but when I look at the earliest photos of say, Merion, and then look at what the course has now become, it is unrecognizable to me. No doubt the truth of the matter is more nuanced than that, but I do think theirs are two very different 'architectural trajectories', reflecting two markedly distinct understandings of-approaches to 'ongoing relevance'. I'm curious as to how many other 'NGLAs' there might be.

The goal of this thread: if there are in fact quite a number of other 'stubborn' old classics, I thought that 'how' they managed to resist the temptations to change and 'why' those in charge clung so fiercely to the original architecture might be instructive for us today, i.e. we have many great courses being built in the modern era -- and I think it might be useful to raise the issue of how-why they might best ensure that, 60 years from now they remain what they have always been. 

I'll retire to the wings now; I certainly can't answer my own questions but hopefully others can.

[Colin Sheehan]

I remember an old member at Royal Worlington telling me that the club's attitude had always been that "any change is bad." I think the British, in general, are more willing to take the side of historic preservation.


From a point of view of length, Yale remained basically the same course from its opening day until at least the 1970s.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UWmAMripioMacz6U9

[Jeff_Brauer]

I mostly agree with Mark, although I'm sure there are some great courses that were resistant to change.  I'm not sure gca quality had as much to do with lack of change as lack of funds.


Ron Whitten and I drove through Kansas once, looking for old courses that were said to be Maxwell and unchanged.  We found a few - including one with sand greens - and they weren't much architecturally, but they certainly appeared mostly unchanged as to major features.

[SL_Solow]

I suspect that 2 factors which made a difference were proximity to major metropolitan areas and money.  Two examples come to mind.  Crystal Downs was largely unchanged for many years.  I suspect that the main factor was its location in Frankfort Michigan.  I have a cousin whose Uncle on the other side of the family had a summer cottage in the area.  When I mentioned Crystal Downs some time ago, my cousin, who was barely a golfer, referred to it as the "old broken down private course".  Shades of Snead and the Old Course.   I believe Crenshaw helped bring it to the attention of the public but by then, appreciation for the classics had taken hold.


My second example is Lawsonia.  Off the beaten track in Green Lake Wisconsin and owned by a religious conference it stayed off the beaten track and thus was untouched.


In both cases, for many years there was no plan to preserve the architecture.  It just happened.  Now Crystal is in good hands and the new found notoriety of Lawsonia should aid in the preservation.  Lawsonia has also engaged our good friend, Dan Moore, to act as its historian.

[Mark_Fine]

Most people have Very Little idea how much the golden age classic courses have changed since they were first designed.  I've had comments from members tell me, "Mark, I have been a member here for 50 years and those trees have been here as long as I can remember."  I have to carefully and politely respond that, yes those are nice trees (sadly planted all in the wrong spots  ), but the course was designed 100 years ago and those trees are at most 60 or 70 years old.  The same goes for bunkers added or taken away, altered fairway widths, new water hazards, mounds, added tees,.......,


I have found as Jeff said, some very old courses that still exist from that time period that have remained pretty much the same, but few if any are worth talking about.  They fit in that first category I described above. 


And yes there are a few good ones that have been "preserved" but it takes money and maintenance to "preserve" something like a golf course that is changing on a daily basis.  I talked about Copake CC on another thread (built in 1922).  When I first saw the course it had almost gone fallow and believe or not, that can happen very quickly (leave some courses for six months without play or maintenance and you might not even realize it is a golf course anymore). 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Holston Hills might be one of the very few Ross courses that has not been tampered with much. I'm not sure it is because of the club's resistence or lack of funds.

[JMEvensky]

Holston Hills might be one of the very few Ross courses that has not been tampered with much. I'm not sure it is because of the club's resistence or lack of funds.

Probably the poster child for this in my part of the world. I believe lack of funds was the reason more than any respect for the architecture.


It's been renovated/restored/restovated spectacularly.

[Mark_Fine]

When someone says the course has been renovated/restored/restovated spectacularly doesn’t that mean it has been changed over time 


I have not seen Holston Hills and maybe it is well preserved but I have heard and read people say some of the greens remind them of Pinehurst #2 which makes me shake my head if they think that means they are original Donald Ross 

[JMEvensky]

I just wasn't certain of the preferred nomenclature and used "spectacularly" only as my opinion of the changes to the golf course. As to the work done, I believe a couple of frequent posters would be able to speak with an extremely high level of specificity.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm sure every course changes over time and is tinkered with (by supers if not architects), but that strikes me as very different than consciously directed and large-scaled renovations aimed at 'keeping up with the times' -- e.g moving tees further back, altering greens, adding bunkers etc. As Shel mentioned, Crystal Downs seems to have gone many decades without any of that, and Lawsonia too, and as Tommy and JE note, Holston Hills. And from reading here over the years, others come to my mind (rightly or wrongly): Fishers Island, Eastward Ho, Garden City -- they all seem to have gone decades without feeling the need to 'modernize' themselves to 'stay relevant' because of the 'new era' in design or the 'latest equipment'. To Mark's perspective, granted, there may not be *many* such courses, but there must be more than *none*. There must be a few (in America) that were guided by a philosophy akin to the British one that Colin mentions, i.e. Worlington's "any change is bad" -- which is not too far from saying that *all* change is bad. Or to put it more elegantly: omnis mutatio est malum

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Just to be clear, you pose a very good and interesting question but it is much harder than most think to accurately answer.  Sometimes what we think hasn’t changed or is original is far from it. 


Many architects for example tinkered (some extensively) with their own golf courses while they were still living.  I could list many examples as I am sure others here could as well. Rarely is a course perfect in design on opening day!


I am surprised by the phrase from Britain that all change is bad?? Golf courses are living breathing things not static objects.  In a way you could compare some courses to a young child that grows into a mature and experienced adult.  Sometimes the change is for the better and sometimes not but one thing is certain there will be change.

[Mike_Trenham]

Huntingdon Valley seems like the best answer to me in Philadelphia.


I am not super knowledgeable about its history but the changes made over the years seem to have been with a light hand.  Scott Anderson’s ability to present the course so well over the years and his less is more approach makes me surmise this is the case.

[Tom_Doak]

I remember an old member at Royal Worlington telling me that the club's attitude had always been that "any change is bad." I think the British, in general, are more willing to take the side of historic preservation.

You must not get the Mackenzie and Ebert Christmas card !

[Tom_Doak]

When someone says the course has been renovated/restored/restovated spectacularly doesn’t that mean it has been changed over time 


I have not seen Holston Hills and maybe it is well preserved but I have heard and read people say some of the greens remind them of Pinehurst #2 which makes me shake my head if they think that means they are original Donald Ross 

My company worked on Holston Hills for a while.  We "restored" old bunkers by cleaning out the bottoms and restoring sand to them . . . didn't even have to touch the faces.


I'm sure some of the greens have changed some through topdressing etc., as they would on any old course, but they had not been changed much otherwise.  They really are not much like the greens at Pinehurst No. 2 at all, so your choice of intelligence on that is poor.


After working there a few years, a new greenkeeper came in and decided he wanted USGA greens and the club told us they were going to rebuild them all that next summer, when I was very busy with new work!  To their credit, they mapped out everything precisely and had the contractor that was doing reconstruction at Augusta National do the work, and I think they did a very good job of preserving things.  The only one I changed at all was the 14th -- I hated to change a Ross green, but it was very severe at the front, and when we dug it up, we discovered it had already been softened once in the past.  [The old green surface on the left side was a layer 6-8 inches below what was there when I started.]  I didn't see that on any of the other greens.


We had that same thing happen at Yarra Yarra last year . . . they had softened the 12th green at some point and I had no details, but when we started digging up the green we found that they had filled the front to take out the slope, and the subgrade seemed to be essentially the contour of the original green!

[Tom_Doak]

As Shel mentioned, Crystal Downs seems to have gone many decades without any of that, and Lawsonia too, and as Tommy and JE note, Holston Hills. And from reading here over the years, others come to my mind (rightly or wrongly): Fishers Island, Eastward Ho, Garden City -- they all seem to have gone decades without feeling the need to 'modernize' themselves to 'stay relevant' because of the 'new era' in design or the 'latest equipment'.

At Holston Hills it was lack of $, and at Garden City it was "tradition", but most of these others are summer clubs, and in my experience, those clubs seem most resistant to change.  Why?


a)  The members are only there a few months a year and don't want to disrupt their own vacation.
b)  They are mostly a second club for members, and nobody wants assessments from their second club!
c)  They are mostly for family and fun, and don't give a rat's ass about hosting tournaments or "staying relevant" or any other b.s. a golf course architect might come up with.


Other examples of well preserved summer clubs:


NGLA, Shinnecock, Maidstone, everything in Maine, Bald Peak Colony in NH, everything on Cape Cod, several in the mountains of N.C.


Unfortunately, several of these previously undiscovered places are now highly regarded in the top 100 lists, and that causes the green committee to take them more seriously and mess around with them.

[Tim Martin]

NGLA, Shinnecock and Maidstone though Summer clubs serve different masters as a result of their tournament involvement. I don’t know what year that Shinnecock learned they would get the 1986 U.S. Open but they have hosted four since and thus been in the major tournament business for close to forty years. NGLA gave up some measure of independence by hosting the 2013 Walker Cup although it seemed pretty independent for a long time prior. Maidstone underwent the C&C restoration for the enjoyment of the members. A club’s independence arcs in the opposite direction once they sign on to be a tournament host and most especially with the USGA as a partner.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I admitted I don't know much about Holston Hills but have a few friends who live down that way and have played it (I questioned their comparison to Pinehurst #2 and apparently it was not accurate).  I also found this on a search of reviews about the course, “The greens are subtle, but there are a number of steep slopes reminiscent of Pinehurst #2.”  Shows you can’t believe everything you hear or read on the Internet But now hearing from you that all the greens were rebuilt as USGA greens and one was softened; Peter would this still meet Britain’s definition of a course that has done almost nothing because "all change is bad"?  If this still fits that definition of stubbornly remaining the same then it opens the door to a much wider array of golf courses that "have left well enough alone" and resisted change. 


Mike,
I love Huntingdon Valley.  It is one of my favorite Flynn designs, but it has changed as well, even recently when work was done in the last half dozen or so years.  If you compare original drawings and old aerials to what is there now, you can see some of the change but granted it is not far from Flynn’s original vision.  Some green contours have been softened and bunker shapes have changed,.., but many of the trees that had been planted have been removed, bunkers that were lost have been restored,..., so they are bringing it back.  However, some things are hard to restore such as the par three 3rd hole which once played like a Redan.  I am just pointing out that it is not so simple to say what is and is not original. 


By the way, the work done at Maidstone by C&C is some of my favorite.  I played the course soon after completion with the club's historian and there was quite a bit of work to bring it back.  That just shows that it had changed over time a fair amount or C&C wouldn't have had much to do.  Frankly the before and after differences are significant with the after being brilliant!

[Tom_Doak]

By the way, the work done at Maidstone by C&C is some of my favorite.  I played the course soon after completion with the club's historian and there was quite a bit of work to bring it back.  That just shows that it had changed over time a fair amount or C&C wouldn't have had much to do.  Frankly the before and after differences are significant with the after being brilliant!

I have not been there "after" but what are the differences?  If it's mostly about bunkering I will submit that I don't think beautifying the bunkering is all that significant.

[Andrew Harvie]

Jasper is pretty authentic, to be honest. A couple new tees and I think Bill Robinson renovated 3 greens, but that's it. The bunkering is a bit weathered in spots, but mostly all in the correct spots from where Thompson left it. The bunker in the middle of 5 was removed at one point, but it back. I can't think of too many changes there.


Most of the classic golf courses have been bastardized beyond believe, and unless they had the money to bring it back, like Toronto, Victoria, Capilano or St. George's, they remain that way today. Some of it is slowly coming back, but very, very slow. Most clubs are scared to do anything radical to revive the golf course, but are more than happy to have McBroom bulldoze over it!

[John Emerson]

What about the Links Club?...stubbornness lead to its demise right?

[Tom_Doak]

What about the Links Club?...stubbornness lead to its demise right?

The stubbornness led to no money, which led to its demise, so yes, the stubbornness also precluded changes to the course.

[Mike_Trenham]

Mark Fine


Thanks for the information on HVCC, my test is within 100 yards of the green.  I want the greens being as untouched as possible, followed by bunker placement within 100 yards.  I really don’t care about fairway bunkers as long as they are not overdone.  Yes, tees need to be moved but not relocated to unsympathetic places/angles.


In Philadelphia there is so much competition and equal footing that there is a real risk of trying to keep ahead of the competition.  For a pretty frugal region there are very few courses with minimal changes.


What is your suggestion for the most untouched excellent course in GAP? 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think the work at Maidstone was done at least six or seven years ago so it has been a while since I was there.  I don’t have my notes with me but I know C&C cleared a ton of brush and overgrown clutter that had congested the course over the years (Maidstone’s version of clearing unwelcome trees).  They brought back many of the sandy areas that had been lost over time and/or had been planted with native grasses.  The fairways were widened and some of the forced carries were reduced.  They rebuilt I believe most if not all of the bunkers and several were added (though I don’t know if that was restoration of bunkers that had disappeared over the years or simply new ones).  They added some new tees as well and the course picked up a bit of length but not much.  The greens seem to be restored back to the edges of the fillpads but quite a few areas around them now feature short grass vs rough.  This is what I recall (maybe someone else will chime in) but I know from a visual standpoint (and a playability standpoint) there is a pronounced difference. The course had gotten tired but now it is fantastic.   

I love when courses respect their past, particularly the best of the past golden age designs.  Unfortunately, it is usually the best ones that garner the most attention and often these are the ones that have changed the most (some for the better and some for the worse).  But I am also a believer that change is an absolute necessity.  I used to say and still do in the businesses that I have run over the years, “If it is not broke, you didn’t look hard enough, fix it anyway!”  Stagnant things tend to die.  There would be no innovation and no progress if we were always content with what is there.  We have for example, been talking on this site about “the next cycle or trend in GCA”.  Why would we be doing that if we didn’t want change because as they apparently say in Britain, “any change is bad”?  Sometimes we go backward when we change, but if anyone should know, it should be the Brits because in football sometimes you have to go backward to go forward     


Mike,
I just saw you post but have to run for the moment.  I will give that some thought.