[John Kavanaugh]

be better in 100 years than they are now?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Let's just hope that the clubs will respect what they have and not make any unnecessary changes.

[Mike Sweeney]

I have never met Tom, and I have only had a few off line exchanges with him. Thus my impressions are probably 50/50 from playing his courses and reading his words in books and on here.


At the end of the day, good golf courses attract thoughtful golfers who appreciate good golf courses and they take care of those courses. In general - not always. Sure Tom has had a few courses go belly up, but that is the cost of success.


The biggest advantage that any Modern Architect has is Digital Legacy of their work. Tom's writings help that Legacy, but in the past, a "Thoughtful Golfer" or two on a Green Committee may have been pissed at a bunker or two, and that bunker magically disappears in the winter. No aerial for the Members to see, and the Architects writings are in the attic. Make course changes for 50 winters, and you have a very different course.


When there is so much documentation of their work from Digital platforms NOT related to golf (see Google Earth as one example), it is much harder for the next generation architect, Greens Committee, and Owner to justify changes when Tom (and we) are dead and gone.


Finally, I do think we are approaching some bifurcation of the game. Either the equipment changes for the Pros, or they start playing away from population centers. There is no more room at Winged Foot and Merion. If the distances slow down and come back to earth, Tom's courses have less chance of being lengthened which always adds other unintended changes to the design.


The Old Dead Guys did not have Digital Footprints, and the Governing Bodies have done their courses little good with this distance revolution.


John,


You loath Drones, but they are a fairly big part of a courses digital footprint and legacy.

[Tim Martin]

If you have just one aerial photo from around opening day that should be sufficient to protect the integrity of the golf course provided you have the right people minding the store. There will be someone that hangs a shingle promoting themselves as a Doak restoration specialist once we’ve all gone morto. They may well bill themselves as a “New Golden Age” restorer.

[Carl Rogers]

Let's just hope that the clubs will respect what they have and not make any unnecessary changes.

Tommy & et Al,
Riverfront has through the years filled and re-worked a significant number of bunkers.  Some work quite bad, IMO.


I wonder when current management will throw in the towel & sell.  Perhaps at that point, some of TD's current team will be available for a re-work of the course.  I do not see how the current or future maintenance budget can maintain all the original course bunkers.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike’s comment about digital information is very important.  These days a course can be photographed and GPSed to the point where you know where every blade of grass is and every undulation.  There would be little debate in the future about “what was once there at the beginning”.  The Golden Age architects didn’t have that technology and that is why it is so difficult to do true restorations as your efforts are only as good and accurate as your research.  I know projects where architects think they got it right but constantly come back to tweak things as they learn more (mine included), e.g. a new drawing or photo is found or a new old aerial discovered,…  Still, in my opinion the driving force for change of anyone's designs, not just Tom's, will be the game of golf itself.  If the golf changes dramatically in 100 years and the golf courses of today stay stagnant, they will just be a museum piece - something to go see and maybe play as they did 100 years ago with 100 year old equipment.  If the average drive is going 450 yards in 100 years or all the top courses are going artificial because water is so scarce, and green speeds reach 20, should today’s golf courses stay the same?  Yes I know that sounds crazy but who would have thought 100 years ago we would be where we are today? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree that a design pedigree and quality design do help a course survive.  The recent waves of closings have generally been mom and pop type courses with little to offer, given the overall quality of design went up with the big spending of the recent decades.


That said, TD, JN, Greg Norman, not to mention the rest of us, have had courses close.  Economic factors play a bigger part than design, including location and timeliness. I can think of a few JN housing courses that were simply built too far out or too soon and couldn't survive long enough to allow residential build out, for example.  We are all at the mercy of greens committees and the like, but even more so, the management committee or overseer, and their ability to manage a course for profit or break even.    Or, at the mercy of land values, which eventually force the land sale of many courses.  In some cases, just building a good course tends to raise land values in an area, perhaps weirdly adding to the pressure to close the course, LOL.

[Ira Fishman]

be better in 100 years than they are now?

Because Tom will live to a ripe old age so that he can tinker with them as Ross did at PH2. And I wish the same for the other professionals who are so generous with their insights here.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


That won't happen.  But, I wouldn't put it past Tom to taunt his protege's from the grave (or at least threaten to while he is alive) if they don't maintain his design principles when renovation his work when that time comes, LOL.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Will he threaten to maintain his "design principles" or what I sometimes call design intent or to maintain the actual design.  Isn't there sometimes a difference.

[Mike Hendren]

In the future there will be no wars, poverty and famine or golf courses.  But there will be Rollerball.


Moonpie

[Peter Pallotta]

be better in 100 years than they are now?

Because, with their early acclaim and high-ranking fame, there'll be more money for their owners in leaving them alone than in renovating them; and because, with the equipment available in 100 years, golfers then will enjoy the same experience we now do playing classic courses from the 1920s.

[Dan_Callahan]

Here's some wild speculation (which is a bizarre exercise when the person you are speculating about is present and active on this site) ...

With Tom's ownership interest in St. Patrick's, is that course more likely to see tweaks and changes in the decades ahead as Tom perfects it?

On the one hand, given its location overseas, that seems less likely. But on the other, where he has an ownership stake and therefor maybe less politics to fight through, I could see how that would make sense. If the course does receive regular attention from his design team over the years, I wouldn't doubt that over time it will be better than it is when it opens (and I think it'll be off-the-charts great when it opens).

[Tom_Doak]

Here's some wild speculation (which is a bizarre exercise when the person you are speculating about is present and active on this site) ...

With Tom's ownership interest in St. Patrick's, is that course more likely to see tweaks and changes in the decades ahead as Tom perfects it?

On the one hand, given its location overseas, that seems less likely. But on the other, where he has an ownership stake and therefor maybe less politics to fight through, I could see how that would make sense. If the course does receive regular attention from his design team over the years, I wouldn't doubt that over time it will be better than it is when it opens (and I think it'll be off-the-charts great when it opens).

You are free to speculate because I don't know the answer myself.


And it would be speculation for me, because I haven't actually seen the finished course!  We got all the greens finished in 2019, so when COVID hit, I opted to stay home this summer and let my associates complete the last few fairways and a lot of the bunkering on their own.  I'm as curious as anyone to see how they did without my guidance!  [Though, don't misunderstand, I had walked the holes with them a lot in 2019 so there shouldn't be a whole lot of surprises.]  From that perspective, there are almost certain to be a few early tweaks compared to most of my other courses where I signed off on every feature.


In general, though, I am a believer in "If it ain't broke don't fix it," as opposed to Mark Fine's approach of looking for something to break.  The only reason we'll change stuff at St. Patrick's is if it isn't working well, and I haven't had to do that very much on previous projects.

[Ally Mcintosh]

With links courses, one of the more likely tweaks that may have to be made post-opening is with mowing lines.


Until a lot of people are hitting balls, it can be quite easy to miss one or two areas that play tighter than they appeared during design. Sometimes these are easily rectified and sometimes - especially when you are dealing with big dunes - you just have to go with it.


St. Patricks is such a great property because it provides dramatic links land with a good mix of dunes and elevation; yet there are very few areas where potential hole corridors are constrained on both sides. So I am sure Tom’s routing has very few (if any) of these pinch points, especially given his love of width. From my memory of the land, where he has routed his first hole was constrained by dune on the left and boundary on the right. But I’ve no idea what kind of hole he’s put through there and it was a really cool piece of land. My guess is it’s a cracking opener.


Can’t wait to see it, if we ever get released from this blasted lockdown.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I am curious, was everything you did with your first design project your best work or have you learned and improved over time and are now a better architect?  If you haven't changed anything from day one then I guess nothing was ever broke or couldn't be improved upon including your own ability 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
Will he threaten to maintain his "design principles" or what I sometimes call design intent or to maintain the actual design.  Isn't there sometimes a difference.

Above my pay grade........

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
It probably is 

A long time ago, a highly noted architect who I respect but who I at times get in spats with (all in good fun plus if we all agreed on everything and this site was a love fest it would really suck) but anyway he stated that "only about 10% of all golf courses are worthy of restoration”.  Basically I think what he was saying is that 90% of all golf courses ARE worthy of change because they are NOT perfect, are NOT God’s gift to golf course design, are NOT something that should be preserved forever and are essentially courses that have potential for improvement,... as such he is saying that at least 90% are in some way broken

The secret in my opinion is to make sure you look and look hard before you decide what if anything should be done. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think I have said similar things, i.e., take Ross's supposed 400 course list, many of which he never saw in person.  Take out the NLE, those altered by new highways and the like, and even then, what % of the remaining 300 or so are among Ross best work and worthy of preservation to original intent, vs. maybe redesigning for the fact it was once private and now public, or was once long and is now short, etc.  100 would be top 25%.  We might preserve the top half, or 200.  No sense arguing over the 309th ranked Ross design, is there?  Heck, if we had a seance, he might secretly wish that course was blown up anyway, no one knows.


Of course, I would still attempt (on a case by case basis, but generally) at least a sympathetic renovation.   

[Tom_Doak]

I think I have said similar things, i.e., take Ross's supposed 400 course list, many of which he never saw in person.  Take out the NLE, those altered by new highways and the like, and even then, what % of the remaining 300 or so are among Ross best work and worthy of preservation to original intent, vs. maybe redesigning for the fact it was once private and now public, or was once long and is now short, etc.  100 would be top 25%.  We might preserve the top half, or 200.  No sense arguing over the 309th ranked Ross design, is there?  Heck, if we had a seance, he might secretly wish that course was blown up anyway, no one knows.


Of course, I would still attempt (on a case by case basis, but generally) at least a sympathetic renovation.

Jeff:


I think I counted that I'd seen 80 or 90 Ross courses and there were only about ten or twenty of them I'd blow up.  But, I do have good intel on which of his courses to go and see.  I'd guess there are maybe 150 of them that I would vote to preserve / restore / whatever.


The funny thing is, I bet the bottom 250 of them are just as keen to keep the Ross label and market it, because most of their customers don't know any better.  They might let Mark tinker around with it and pretend he's restoring it, but they're still gonna use Ross's name, not Mark's. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I am curious, was everything you did with your first design project your best work or have you learned and improved over time and are now a better architect?  If you haven't changed anything from day one then I guess nothing was ever broke or couldn't be improved upon including your own ability 

Mark:


My first design project was a pretty good course, even though it's NLE.  It was certainly very different than everything else being built at the time.  A couple of guys in the other thread actually nominated it among my top three! 


I had no idea how to build a flashed-up bunker at the start of it, because I hadn't built anything like that for Mr. Dye, so in the winter in between construction seasons I went to Australia for a month to figure it out, but it definitely took a few years to get better at that.


Those are the areas where I got better from courses 1-13 -- at implementation, rather than at design.  I surrounded myself with good people from the start, but it takes some practice to get to the point where you can really build what you want.


By the same token, I wrote The Anatomy of a Golf Course when I was 29-31, when I'd only built three courses, and there is not much of my design philosophy that is not well expressed in that book.  I've never been tempted to update it; the only thing it would gain is more diagrams of my own work at the expense of diagrams of other people's work.


So, I may continue to evolve as a designer, or not, but fundamentally I would prefer to leave the "early Doak" courses alone as examples of my early work, and later courses alone as examples of my later work, instead of going back and making them all the same.  You know I have tremendous respect for Pete Dye's work, but I was sorry to see him go back and change some of his early courses before he passed away for the same reason, and I do hold myself to the same standard.


If a course has a demonstrable problem, sure, I would change that, you've got to.  And if the mowing lines are all out of kilter and the trees have encroached too much, yeah, I'd be glad to see them repaired.  But moving bunkers and tees around to "restore shot values" is mostly b.s. from where I sit, and I do hold myself to the same standard there, too.




P.S.  For my original estimate of courses that are worth preserving, 10% of the world's 25,000 courses is a fairly large number.  But I did NOT say or intend to imply that the other 90% of them would get better by tinkering around, only that they aren't so good that tinkering is likely to make them worse.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Thanks for the detailed response.  It's appreciated.  Just a few things, for one I don't tinker or just change things to say I did something.  My goal if I am working on any kind of restoration is to leave no trace that I was there.  That is the whole idea behind restoration.  Renovation work might be another matter but even then, my goal is usually to make the course look like something the original architect might have designed. 

It is only natural that very few architects would ever want their courses tinkered with or altered (even their less than ideal ones).  But the reality is as Jeff said, there are a lot of courses out that that even someone like Ross did that he might be happy to see improved, etc because his name is still on it and it doesn't reflect his best work.  Furthermore, the game of golf is changing and most architects (even the Golden Age Ones) knew their courses would have to change with the evolving game.  Many talk about it in their writings as you well know.  You at least admit yourself that you have improved and learned (maybe a little) on some things you do now vs what you did earlier on.  You also admitted that "some courses" are broken (less than ideal).  With the right care and study, they can be improved.  That was my main point.  Yes they can get screwed up as well but this is the cycle of GCA (if I for example keep screwing them up, you can come fix them) or vise versa 

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,
Thanks for the detailed response.  It's appreciated.  Just a few things, for one I don't tinker or just change things to say I did something.  My goal if I am working on any kind of restoration is to leave no trace that I was there.  That is the whole idea behind restoration.  Renovation work might be another matter but even then, my goal is usually to make the course look like something the original architect might have designed. 

It is only natural that very few architects would ever want their courses tinkered with or altered (even their less than ideal ones).  But the reality is as Jeff said, there are a lot of courses out that that even someone like Ross did that he might be happy to see improved, etc because his name is still on it and it doesn't reflect his best work.  Furthermore, the game of golf is changing and most architects (even the Golden Age Ones) knew their courses would have to change with the evolving game.  Many talk about it in their writings as you well know.  You at least admit yourself that you have improved and learned (maybe a little) on some things you do now vs what you did earlier on.  You also admitted that "some courses" are broken (less than ideal).  With the right care and study, they can be improved.  That was my main point.  Yes they can get screwed up as well but this is the cycle of GCA (if I for example keep screwing them up, you can come fix them) or vise versa 

Mark,


I have worked in the world of Professional American Football for a bit over a decade. It was a fortunate happenstance late in my career. When I started, I felt pretty confident that I knew a lot about the game itself. My first year there I opined about a potential draft choice in a discussion with several former NFL Players who are on our staff all of whom played for at least 10 years in an extremely competitive sport. I believe that three of them were First Round Draft Picks and that they have three Super Bowl rings among them. They politely explained that I had no idea what I was talking about. It was a lesson well deserved.


On a thread a few weeks ago, I asked you to provide courses on which you had worked and what specifically you had done on them. You demurred based on competitive reasons. That made little sense to me given that if the work was done, it was done so no competitor could swoop in. I let it go because life is short.


However, I now renew the request. I learned from my colleagues that there is a big difference between being on the playing field and not.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I do have some clue what I am doing and if you read enough of my posts on this site I probably have mentioned dozens of courses I have worked with.  I don’t make a point of listing all my work and still don’t intend to do so here.  Feel free to think what you want.  But let’s put it this way, Forrest Richardson who is the President of the ASGCA thinks very strongly I should be a member.  I haven’t built any new 18 hole courses so that probably discredits me and I am different from most members. I have also talked to and worked with others like Greg Martin (past ASGCA President) and Gil Hanse who was an early mentor and they also think I should be a member as well.  References like those are good enough validation for me.


Note:  Feel free to pick up a copy of my book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards that I wrote with Forrest and published in 2006. We wrote it a long time ago but some courses are listed in there plus you might find the book enlightening. 

[Steve Lang]

    Tom Doak,


How many NLE's do you have?  I know of two up in northern Mich which are NLE due to owner issues, definitely independent of the gca..   


Any others?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()