To restore or not restore - Design Intent

[Mark_Fine]

Whether we like it or not all golf courses are aging and evolving and the game itself is changing and aging as well.  So when someone wants to “restore” a golf course does or should original design intent come into play as well? 

[Jeff Schley]

Whether we like it or not all golf courses are aging and evolving and the game itself is changing and aging as well.  So when someone wants to “restore” a golf course does or should original design intent come into play as well?

Mark, unless we are talking professional golfers I say yes. The intent that was laid out I think still applies for amateur golfers. When you talk about the plus handicaps and pro golfers it doesn't age well because of distance.
Also restoration to me isn't about adding distance, but is above clearing tree growth, restoring bunkers, upgrading irrigation, probably rebuilding greens or at least reclaiming green sq footage, and taking out any frankenstien "enhancements" over the years.

[Tom_Doak]

Whether we like it or not all golf courses are aging and evolving and the game itself is changing and aging as well.  So when someone wants to “restore” a golf course does or should original design intent come into play as well?

Mark, unless we are talking professional golfers I say yes. The intent that was laid out I think still applies for amateur golfers. When you talk about the plus handicaps and pro golfers it doesn't age well because of distance.
Also restoration to me isn't about adding distance, but is above clearing tree growth, restoring bunkers, upgrading irrigation, probably rebuilding greens or at least reclaiming green sq footage, and taking out any frankenstien "enhancements" over the years.

But how do you decide for whom the design was intended?  It's bias all the way down.


You've already eliminated Tour pros.  Most low-handicaps and club professionals just happen to think the course should be rearranged for a player like themselves.


Instead of saying "a scratch player hit it 240 yards then and hits 280 yards now" and rebuilding everything around that, why not just say the course was designed to treat 240 yard shots this way and 280 yard shots that way, and it still does?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - just to say, re your last paragraph: you've posted that sentiment/explanation before, in much the same words, and the first time I read it it was a complete eye-opener for me, ie it completely changed my understanding of 'original design intent' and my views on what a restoration means/should aim for in that context. It just might've been me and my own limitations that made the explanation so striking -- but something tells me that it's not just me, ie that you're getting to something that is fundamental and yet still not widely understood or appreciated.

[Jeff Schley]

Whether we like it or not all golf courses are aging and evolving and the game itself is changing and aging as well.  So when someone wants to “restore” a golf course does or should original design intent come into play as well?

Mark, unless we are talking professional golfers I say yes. The intent that was laid out I think still applies for amateur golfers. When you talk about the plus handicaps and pro golfers it doesn't age well because of distance.
Also restoration to me isn't about adding distance, but is above clearing tree growth, restoring bunkers, upgrading irrigation, probably rebuilding greens or at least reclaiming green sq footage, and taking out any frankenstien "enhancements" over the years.

But how do you decide for whom the design was intended?  It's bias all the way down.


You've already eliminated Tour pros.  Most low-handicaps and club professionals just happen to think the course should be rearranged for a player like themselves.


Instead of saying "a scratch player hit it 240 yards then and hits 280 yards now" and rebuilding everything around that, why not just say the course was designed to treat 240 yard shots this way and 280 yard shots that way, and it still does?

How many courses do you think were designed for tour pros? There wasn't a lucrative professional golf tour until the late 60's, most classic courses (which are restoration worthy) were built well before that. Most of those as wealthy private clubs. There weren't 5 plus tee boxes then either.

A club can do as they please, and unless they aim to attract pro events, why add tee boxes?  Should Shoreacres try and squeeze out more yardage?  Valley Club?  I know you consult at both of those and don't think the membership has any interest in that, and not even sure the land constraints would allow much.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You asked a great question; "how do you decide for whom the design was intended"?

A question just as hard to answer is "how could any of us possibly know what someone like Donald Ross or some other architect would do to their golf course today if they came back to "restore" it?

My opinion is that this is a big part of the reason some architects do research on these architects and their designs before changing anything is so you can try to better understand who they were and what they thought about their designs.  If for example you studied Flynn you would know his opinions about trees and what his opinion was about possibly needing to stretch out some of his courses to accommodate the need for added length as the game changed.  Some architects like Colt realized that trees were beginning to show up on golf courses so he thought ahead on some of this designs with recommended tree planting schemes.  You need to do research and try to find these things to know what he envisioned going forward.  Some architects like Ross for example wanted to see a long iron played by certain level players into some golf holes and he wrote and talked about it.  If this no longer is the case on a particular hole, would it be a logical decision to try to restore that intent if is was possible?  I realize it is controversial to some but my logic is if you study these things it will help you make more informed decisions about how the original architect might decide what to do when restoring one of their golf courses for a game that has changed.  We have to remember, most of these designs were changing (often times by the original architect themselves) and evolving as new balls and new equipment, etc were being introduced.  Architects knew their designs were not static pieces of art.  This is why I ask a sincere question about restoring design intent.  I don't think it is black and white.   

[Tom_Doak]

My opinion is that this is a big part of the reason some architects do research on these architects and their designs before changing anything is so you can try to better understand who they were and what they thought about their designs.  If for example you studied Flynn you would know his opinions about trees and what his opinion was about possibly needing to stretch out some of his courses to accommodate the need for added length as the game changed.  Some architects like Colt realized that trees were beginning to show up on golf courses so he thought ahead on some of this designs with recommended tree planting schemes.  You need to do research and try to find these things to know what he envisioned going forward.  Some architects like Ross for example wanted to see a long iron played by certain level players into some golf holes and he wrote and talked about it.  If this no longer is the case on a particular hole, would it be a logical decision to try to restore that intent if is was possible?  I realize it is controversial to some but my logic is if you study these things it will help you make more informed decisions about how the original architect might decide what to do when restoring one of their golf courses for a game that has changed.  We have to remember, most of these designs were changing (often times by the original architect themselves) and evolving as new balls and new equipment, etc were being introduced.  Architects knew their designs were not static pieces of art.  This is why I ask a sincere question about restoring design intent.  I don't think it is black and white.   

It could be black and white, but lots of architects seem to prefer translating it to bull and ****.


You can do all the research you want, but at the end of the day your take is YOURS, not Flynn's or Donald Ross's.


Sure, one of the reasons I get the call to work at some of these places is that they respect MY ability as an architect, as a proxy for the original designer.  But my general goal is not to tinker with things that don't need fixing.  You can write it however many ways you want, but in the end you are looking for things to do, so you are making it more complicated than it needs to be.


If Donald Ross came back to life tomorrow and wanted to force great players to hit long irons to greens, he might design more par-3's and par-5's, but trying to apply that to a course designed 90 years ago would totally change it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I hear you.  So your position is forget about design intent and/or trying to figure it out how to restore design intent. 


What did early architects mean when they talked about trying to make sure their courses had elasticity? 

[Jim_Coleman]

  If restoration means put everything back to where it was 80 years ago - same length, same bunker placement, etc., I say hogwash.  Whatever the architect intended 80 years ago, he intended it for the game being played then with the equipment being played then.  Some adjustment must be made for today’s game to restore original intent.  Discerning whether Flynn, Ross, McKenzie etc. intended their courses for a particular kind of player is a waste of energy.  A good architect will take a great course and make it better using his judgement. That’s what we’re paying for.

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom,
You asked a great question; "how do you decide for whom the design was intended"?

A question just as hard to answer is "how could any of us possibly know what someone like Donald Ross or some other architect would do to their golf course today if they came back to "restore" it?

It doesn't matter how much research you do. It is impossible to know what Ross, Colt or MacKenzie would have done today, and anyone who claims they can is a liar. QED 'restoration' means putting back what was originally designed. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is not restoration. It might be historically sensitive or whatever. But it's not restoration.

[Mark_Fine]

Adam,
By definition I guess you are correct.  But what I am asking is restoration more than just the physical restoration.  What about intent?  How do you address my question about architects saying their courses were designed for elasticity in the future as the game changed.  What did they mean?

[mike_malone]

In some cases originally designed championship classic courses become challenges for today’s average player when restored.


For me restore is
     Routing 50+%
     Features 50%
    Features are green size and shape, bunkering, trees, water hazard to name a few.


Even the original guys expected tees to be lengthened.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,
By definition I guess you are correct.  But what I am asking is restoration more than just the physical restoration.  What about intent?  How do you address my question about architects saying their courses were designed for elasticity in the future as the game changed.  What did they mean?

They meant they left room to add more tees later.


Did any of them ever write or say anything about moving their bunkers or other features someday in the future?  I must have missed that in Colt's book, and MacKenzie's, and Simpson's, and Thomas's.

[Mark_Fine]

So at least we seem to all agree (or most of us) that adding tees is ok! 


As we all know, sometimes we run out of that extra space or the club has sold off the buffer land around them.  So if adding tees isn’t possible what about fairway bunkers that used to impact the best players and now are just eye candy for them and impact only the higher handicappers?  Do we just leave them alone or if already removed, restore back to their original locations? 

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark:  I would say no to your question. Moving tees to 1920 locations when there is no ability to add tees only penalizes today’s mid to high handicapper.  Surely this was not the original architect’s intent when he placed the bunkers,

[mike_malone]

It’s often hard to know what was intended for those original  bunkers. When I learned of Flynn’s idea that fairway bunkers were meant to be a problem or provide a mode of play rather than to penalize it meant that they needed to be natural and not contrived.
I have seen bunkers moved for distance reasons that have unnatural buildups of land that are eyesores.


So I would forget about moving bunkers. It’s just a waste of money.


Now taking out the old bunker may not be a bad idea because restoration isn’t supposed to be preserving relics but restoring play.

[Tom_Doak]

Discerning whether Flynn, Ross, McKenzie etc. intended their courses for a particular kind of player is a waste of energy.  A good architect will take a great course and make it better using his judgement. That’s what we’re paying for.

Jim:


If you want me to change the course to whatever I think is best, fine, just don't call it restoration.


Your argument that bunkers should not penalize today's mid to high handicapper is off the mark by about thirty years.  That's Robert Trent Jones's philosophy of design, not MacKenzie's or Donald Ross's.  It is not a Universal Truth no matter how much you personally agree with it.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
As you know, some of the classic architects wrote/talked about a lot of their designs and design philosophies.  Some even wrote books.  I agree it is often hard to tell exactly what was intended but lets face it, some things are obvious.  Can you imagine walking around Rolling Green with Gil Hanse or Ron Forse or .... to have a look at your golf course for possible improvements/restoration,... and you ask the question, "so can you talk about this particular hole and what Flynn had in mind when he laid it out"?  And then Gil or Ron said, "I am not really sure and don't really have any idea what he was trying to do or why he designed the hole like he did!  And then you asked, "well why did he put this bunker here?" And the answer you got back was, "I don't know!"  I bet that would really inspire confidence    Don't you think they would have some clue why Flynn did what he did?  Sure they may be only making educated judgements, but that is what you are paying them to do and why they are supposed to be knowledgeable golf architects and have studied Flynn and your golf course. 


I agree with you that at times it makes no sense to move bunkers.  It might be because they were set in particular location because of a natural landform or if you move them down range they become blind or,...In those cases the answer is not simple.  But if you take out the hazard altogether as you suggested are you really doing restoration?


I have enjoyed listening to Gil Hanse talk about some of the U.S. Open courses during the telecasts and listening to him explain the design intent behind many of the holes that the golfers are playing.  It is helpful for many who don't spend their times on sites like this.  But how is he doing that or doesn't he have a clue and he is just making *&%# up 

[mike_malone]

Mark,
I agree with your thoughts. I’m just speaking of those instances where your knowledge of the original design/designer doesn’t give you a clue as to why something was done. There are some original bunker placements at Rolling Green which I can only think were for beauty.
And that’s fine.
So I advocate just restore and not try to figure out everything.


This requires a qualitative decision that the original was great enough to restore.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
We all know you will never figure out everything and as Tom and others have said, it you profess to know everything and state you know exactly what some past architect had in mind it is BS.  But I do feel some obligation to try to analyze and understand these "restorable designs" otherwise why bother studying these old architects and all their golf courses.  Of course some don't bother and that is why courses get changed with no regard to what was once there  [size=78%]  [/size]

[Jerry Kluger]

My question is whether these restorations are really becoming renovations and are they being done to make the course better or just to give it a different look?  To my eye it has become a trend to see courses being redone where the bunkers are totally redesigned besides possibly being relocated.  An example would be Raleigh CC which has always prided itself as being the last Donald Ross course,, although some very knowledgeable people take issue with the claim, but now it has been redone with bunkers that look nothing like any Ross course I have ever seen.  This look of bunkers with jagged or irregular edges is commonly used by many minimalist architects but was not something which was used by Ross.  It looks like Congressional has also gone to this look as has Woodmont CC which held the US Women's Open in 2020.  Richard Mandell had given this look to Army Navy Golf Club nearly 10 years ago and it is was quite unique at the time but now it has become quite common and my question is that a good thing?   [size=78%] [/size]

[Mike_Young]

It could be black and white, but lots of architects seem to prefer translating it to bull and ****.


You can do all the research you want, but at the end of the day your take is YOURS, not Flynn's or Donald Ross's.

Damn, this would make a great tee shirt...

[Sean_A]

I don't believe it's possible to achieve a true restoration because agronomy has moved on so much.

So many of our famous and well designed courses were very difficult tests for the day, I think generally much more difficult than today...basically they fitted the best players. I think this is partly what was meant with elasticity...and if the challenge fades too badly, in some cases there was space for additional length. However, if we are dead set on so called restorations, all that can be done is bring back what once existed. For some courses this would be brilliant. For some courses this would impossible. For some courses it may not be desirable.

I think more and more, as people recognise greatness beyond the top 100 lists, the "minor" courses of the great archies will garner more respect. As this movement continues, these questions of restoration will continue to rise in importance. I am definitely seeing a trend of an homogenised approach to redesign work. We are still ironing wrinkles on courses, a process that started over 100 years ago, ironically by many of the archies we came to greatly admire.

I too have a strong aversion to so called design intent restoration. If an archie wants to make changes the case should be made without invoking the spirit of a dead archie. Remember, we are all just passing through. Can an archie of today really be sure their alterations will be seen in good light 30 or 50 years later? Tread lightly.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As posted by Adam on another thread - http://golf-designs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/HorseArticle_coverandbodyg.pdf
Atb


See - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69458.0.htm

[Jeff_Brauer]

What qualifies as restoration worthy?  I ask because I had a recent project interview, and the committee mentioned that another gca had suggested they return the green contours to the original design.  It's a high play 1970's Floyd Farley muni course, who had the greens redone in the 90's, and now their time is up again.


My first reaction was, "Restore Floyd Farley?"  Then my sound bites, i.e., "no future in designing for the past" as well as some factual reaction - those greens were probably 4% slopes or more, and your greens wear out because there aren't enough pin positions.  To me, form follows function, and there are a lot of things I would do to those not bad greens to make them last as long as possible, i.e., flatter slopes, larger, pay attention to drainage and circulation patterns (both walkers and riders) that would make a true restoration a bad idea in that particular case.  I concluded my saying I will not come back from my grave to protest any future gca who sees a way to improve my greens for then existing conditions and needs.


I do not sense my argument got very far.  The restoration mantra seems to still be very much favored.  But, in typing this out, I am still muttering, "Restore Floyd Farley?"