Original Intent: a debate for 2024

[Ronald Montesano]

If there are other threads of this ilk, be sure to link them within your comment. Discussions on original intent go back as far as the first renovation/enhancement of a golf course. It might seem like an easy, means to an end for those wishing to achieve their goals, but is it an incorrect one?

Length seems to be the punto de partida, or jumping-in point, for architects and committees that wish to reclaim the original intent of the design. The problem with length alone are the losses of angle and perspective.


Immune and unattainable in the quest for original intent, is a dialing-back of human fitness. Perhaps that's a thread for another day. Would equipment limits have also limited the athletes who play golf? Would uber-powerful swings never have developed, because hickory shafts, or even steel shafts, would not have allowed the physical development to maximize equally the result?

What about through-the-green elevation changes? If it took an up-angle of 2 degrees to properly kill the drive in the fairway, or a down-angle of 2 degrees to compel it forward, should those elevations be altered for the advances in strength and equipment?

So much to consider when assessing original intent. Some of those who contributed to prior threads (if they exist) have moved on. Some points taken as gospel truth, may have evolved or may have been disproved.

It's links golf season on the flat screen, and no courses go under the knife as publicly as Open Rota ones. That's the genesis of this piece.

Have you a thought on original intent and the role that it plays in reconsideration of a golf course? Chime in.

[Carl Johnson]

My question is, "Why is original intent important?"  For the architecture aficionado, the purist, it's important, well, because that's what those folks are all about.  For the vast majority of golfers today, I don't think it's important at all.  What is important is the here and now.  Maybe the original architect's intent could be replicated taking into account today's equipment, but I don't think that would have much value for most golfers.  I wish it did.

[Craig Sweet]

Bingo, Carl Johnson!  It isn't important so long as it is tasteful...and thoughtful. But what if the "original intent" was to provide the best possible test for the best golfers at the time of its construction?  Do you turn the Postage Stamp into an island green surrounded by water?

[Jim_Coleman]

Ron:  You asked for old threads discussing this topic. Here’s one of mine from a long time ago. Not that I’m in the league with the majority of contributors here, but my opinion, for what it’s worth, hasn’t changed. I think it was an interesting discussion.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,22290.msg405475.html#msg405475

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Thanks for digging out that old thread.  I miss those discussions   

[Sean_A]

I am suspect of any archie that talks about original intent without specific comments from the original designer to back it up. Plus, even if the original intent is know…I ask for whom? I am not convinced there are many archies that would recreate “original intent” if they didn’t like the original concept. Intent is often a judgement call…not black and white.

If archies want to alter holes stand up and say why. Don’t hide behind the coat of the original archie unless the original work is actually being restored.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

My question is, "Why is original intent important?"  For the architecture aficionado, the purist, it's important, well, because that's what those folks are all about.  For the vast majority of golfers today, I don't think it's important at all.  What is important is the here and now.  Maybe the original architect's intent could be replicated taking into account today's equipment, but I don't think that would have much value for most golfers.  I wish it did.

Carl, that's why I posted it here, and not in my CNN or Fox News columns. It's a topic that has me on the fence, so I wanted to read what the denizens think.

[Ronald Montesano]

Bingo, Carl Johnson!  It isn't important so long as it is tasteful...and thoughtful. But what if the "original intent" was to provide the best possible test for the best golfers at the time of its construction?  Do you turn the Postage Stamp into an island green surrounded by water?

Craig, love the use of the word BINGO. However, the Postage Stamp is showing us that it never needs to be altered. Why would you think that the original architect would have wanted an island green?

[Ronald Montesano]

Ron:  You asked for old threads discussing this topic. Here’s one of mine from a long time ago. Not that I’m in the league with the majority of contributors here, but my opinion, for what it’s worth, hasn’t changed. I think it was an interesting discussion.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,22290.msg405475.html#msg405475

Thank you, Jim. I'll have a read. Hope your are well!

[Ronald Montesano]

I am suspect of any archie that talks about original intent without specific comments from the original designer to back it up. Plus, even if the original intent is know…I ask for whom? I am not convinced there are many archies that would recreate “original intent” if they didn’t like the original concept. Intent is often a judgement call…not black and white.

If archies want to alter holes stand up and say why. Don’t hide behind the coat of the original archie unless the original work is actually being restored.

Ciao

Thanks, Ciao! This is what will help me carve out a place on OI

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


I agree with the idea that if a gca wants to change a hole he ought to be able to describe and justify the why in 3 or less concise sentences.  Most good ideas are almost self apparent, and most bad ideas can be talked about for a week and never get any better due to a long explanation.  The three sentences can be:


- 1) say why the existing hole is a problem now (and in the future),
- 2) say what the goal of the change is, and
- 3) tell us the proposed solution, starting with the most thorough, down to a middle ground scope of work, and finally, the least expensive option, which, more often than not, doesn't entirely solve the problem but is cheap! 


The "do nothing" option is always implied, but if the problem in sentence no. 1 isn't clear on its own, that may be the best option.  The cost of doing nothing is often substantial, and that should be pointed out.


The problem can be many of the ones mentioned: bad drainage, poor circulation (air or traffic), more play, which means greens and tees should be larger, there should be a greater variety of playing lengths, and holes that are similar to others (i.e., bunker left, bunker right), and so on.  Maybe the course has changed from private to public or something else, which changes the design brief.


No golf course can afford a design that causes continued problems and maintenance expenses.  Any proposed design should address the long term effects on the business and fun aspects of the course.


If it is just a "I don't like the design" issue, I suppose either green chair or gca (whoever has that opinion) should tread lightly, but then most are just opinions anyway.  Of course, there are tweeners.  CBM put OB left because he sliced.  Should that selfish design to his own game be considered for partial change to balance OB?  How about Jack's greens angled hard right?


We really don't know what the gca was thinking, do we?  I always bring up that scene from Woody Allen where they are standing in line discussing what the director thought as he made that scene, and then he comes up and tells him he was drunk that day and an assistant did it.  If you think that didn't happen back in the old days of gca, you haven't been reading your history!


I don't know the exact answer to this, but is it possible that every course from the Golden Age that was worth restoring to original intent has already done so?

[cary lichtenstein]

This is a topic where everybody has an opinion, just take em out to any hole on any course and they will pontificate...the 17th at Sawgrass will garner a million opinions. Let architects be architects

[Ira Fishman]

The case for changing anything that originally existed on a very good to great course must be very compelling and the architect very skilled. Close to true restorations over the past 25 years have been so successful precisely because skilled architects were fixing problems that never needed to exist. PH2 is but one example. Yes, I know that C&C did not just put back a vintage Ross version, but they did fix a course that had been screwed up during “renovations”.


My fear (although realistically I won’t be around to see it) is that “renovation” experts will do damage to both great new courses and Golden Age courses that already had been screwed up and then restored.

[Sean_A]

Thanks Jeff.


Ciao

[Greg Hohman]

I always bring up that scene from Woody Allen where they are standing in line discussing what the director thought as he made that scene, and then he comes up and tells him he was drunk that day and an assistant did it.

OT: Jeff, Woody Allen is one of the legions of “creatives” to propagate this line, which ought to be withstood. The deflection of positing drunkenness and delegating an assistant is “classic” Woodman, an “amusing” obfuscation. Even if true, the scenario is fair game for assessing intent—and results.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I wonder how many restorations were undertaken because the course changed either by neglect or by club committees or supers who tried to be architects, as opposed to due to an architect’s input. I suspect most. That’s why an architect should always be involved in all course improvements.

[Joe Hancock]

The *way* the game of golf is played today vs. 80 years and more ago is so different that I don’t believe original intent in design is all that relevant. Clubs, balls, maintenance, irrigation, physicality…you name it, there is nothing about the modern game that can relate to design intent from decades ago.


That doesn’t mean every old course ought to go a’changin’ things willy nilly, but to ignore how different the game is today under the presumption of design intent is unrealistic and myopic.

[Jim_Coleman]

Joe: +1

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald:


My feelings on this topic are pretty well known:  you can restore a course to what was built originally, or you can change it, but don't move the bunkers around and say you are restoring the original intent, because nobody really knows what that is.  As far as I'm aware, neither Donald Ross nor Alister MacKenzie ever wrote on their plans that some hole was supposed to be a drive and a 4-iron and you should keep moving the tee back to preserve that.


That is certainly not how I think of it.  I am trying to design my holes for the full spectrum of players.  No matter where I put a fairway bunker, some will be able to carry it, and other players will not reach it, so I just try not to repeat myself and favor one player over another.  This has been incorrectly described as "random" bunkering by Ron Whitten and others, but I assure you it is not random at all . . . I am trying for different distances, but always based on tying the features into the natural contours of the ground.


Part of the reason for this is that I have no control over the future of the game and especially over what the governing bodies may or may not do . . . whether in fifty years people will be hitting it way further, or not as far.  Either way, I'm partly covered.


Of course, not every architect thinks that way.  Too many think of a 265-yard drive [or 290 or 310 or however far they think "good" players hit it] as a "good" drive that should be rewarded with a chance to carry a hazard.  I suppose, for that limited worldview, you could adjust many courses to conform.  Indeed that's exactly what is happening with all of the Open Championship courses, as discussed on another current thread.  But at least they never pretend that they're restoring the course.

[Niall C]

Tom,


I'll comment more on the Open championship bunkering thread but just let me say meantime that if M&E tried to make changes to Open courses in line with "original intent" they'd need to be schizophrenic given how many gca's were involved previously.


More generally, my issue with "original intent" is that it is used to promote the idea that everyone should have the chance to carry the same hazard off the tee which in turn leads to multiple tees. A hazard shouldn't necessarily mean the same to all classes of golfer.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

For those interested in this topic I recommend going back to this old thread from 18 years ago. 


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,22290.msg405475.html#msg405475


If nothing else, it is interesting to hear the views of many who had been on or who are still contributing to this site for a long time. 


I happen to be someone who feels there is merit in at least attempting to understand and uncover if possible what the original architect was thinking or had in mind when they designed the golf course.  If one is going to do any kind of restoration they darn well better be trying to figure this out.


Many (not all) architects wrote extensively about their designs and design philosophy. Some even wrote hole by hole descriptions about each golf hole on certain courses and  how they expected them to be played. When diligence and careful research uncovers this kind of thing, it can be invaluable to restoration work.  If Ross or Tillinghast for example described a particular hole as a true “three shotter” for the best players and now it is a drive and mid iron, that might tell you something about original design intent.  If architect talks about how certain holes or particular design features are meant to impact play this can be very useful in restoration.  If for example the original architect explains about the beauty and deception of a “skyline green” on #4 and that green now has a row of pine trees behind it by some golf committee chairman who liked “framing” doesn’t that give some idea of the architect’s original design intent?   


With all due respect, golf architecture is not always rocket science.  With some thoughtful study and research, some things the original architect did or intended can be figured out. And for those who don’t bother or want to try, might as well just bring in the bulldozers and change as you please.   Sadly that is one of the reasons many courses evolve/end up as they are.   The people making the changes just don’t bother to look or care to try to understand what was originally there and why.  They all have good intentions but proceed with changes under the guise of, “How am I supposed to figure out what some dead guy did or thought about 100 years ago! The game has changed so I will just do what I think is best for golfers today.”


One final thought which has been said many times that needs to be taken into consideration in restorations is that golf courses are living things that change and evolve with or without human intervention. How many living things are the same ten or twenty or 100 years after they were created?  As the grounds keeper at The Old Course once said to a TV commentator’s question about what has changed over the years on the golf course; he looked over the grounds as the wind howled and swept sand across the landscape and said “it is hard to say but the course is changing by the minute.” 


We will never agree on all of this but it does make for interesting discussion.  Again, look through that old thread that Jim dug up.

[mike_malone]

Mark,


 As I watched our Hanse Design course improvement project over the last three years I thought a lot about original intent. It’s a different issue when discussed here versus happening on your beloved course.
 I can’t seem to come up with the right words.


  We had considerable photos available from the opening year, two years later which showed no changes, and mid 30’s photos showing significant changes. Hanse had access to all of this. We have a late iteration of the original design for each hole and a routing map as well.


Even with the writings of Flynn and the Morrison/Paul book on Flynn ,The Nature Faker , there is still much interpretation.Another member,Dave Staebler, and I have had countless discussions about the photos and designs and while we agree substantially there are things we look at that we disagree about.


I have seen those photos thousands of times but have had people point out things of significance that I didn’t notice.


It’s a tough task to do. Certainly using experts helps.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
As you say, it is a very challenging task and one of the reasons some don’t even bother trying to figure out what was once there and how and why a course evolved over the years.  Even if you have the original plans for a course (most old ones are conceptual vs “for construction”) as well as old photos and early aerials and writings from the architect, it is not easy to precisely determine what was actually built and the true design intent.  I contend and have given many examples on this site over the years, that many factors influenced what ultimately got put in the ground.  Budgets, the expertise of different construction crews, weather, tournaments, an architect’s schedule, timing, pressure or lack there of to open, land availability,….the list goes on and on of things discovered researching many old courses as to how and why a course got built and evolved like it did.  These are all reasons some say it is impossible to determine original design intent.  Maybe they are right, but it sure is worth the effort to try. 

Restoration of a golf course is very different from restoration of a static object like a car or a building.  You don’t just find an old set of course plans for example and say this is what the architect designed and base your restoration on that.  Plans are but one piece of a complex puzzle. Furthermore, even if somehow you do know exactly what was first built, many architects adjusted/modified their own designs over time for an infinite variety of reasons.  As such, how do you decide what should be restored?  This all goes back to trying to understand how and why things changed - what was the architect’s true intent? 

[Ronald Montesano]

Jeff, your sentence "The cost of doing nothing is often substantial, and that should be pointed out" is a marvelous one. It's the end game that is overlooked, only to be recognized later. Buffalo had a chance to expance its metro system in the 1980s, opted out, and now the cost is astronomical. Doing nothing was substantial. I appreciate the "drunk and assistant" reference as well. Those sorts of reveals don't always make it into history books.

Sean,


I agree with the idea that if a gca wants to change a hole he ought to be able to describe and justify the why in 3 or less concise sentences.  Most good ideas are almost self apparent, and most bad ideas can be talked about for a week and never get any better due to a long explanation.  The three sentences can be:


- 1) say why the existing hole is a problem now (and in the future),
- 2) say what the goal of the change is, and
- 3) tell us the proposed solution, starting with the most thorough, down to a middle ground scope of work, and finally, the least expensive option, which, more often than not, doesn't entirely solve the problem but is cheap! 


The "do nothing" option is always implied, but if the problem in sentence no. 1 isn't clear on its own, that may be the best option.  The cost of doing nothing is often substantial, and that should be pointed out.


The problem can be many of the ones mentioned: bad drainage, poor circulation (air or traffic), more play, which means greens and tees should be larger, there should be a greater variety of playing lengths, and holes that are similar to others (i.e., bunker left, bunker right), and so on.  Maybe the course has changed from private to public or something else, which changes the design brief.


No golf course can afford a design that causes continued problems and maintenance expenses.  Any proposed design should address the long term effects on the business and fun aspects of the course.


If it is just a "I don't like the design" issue, I suppose either green chair or gca (whoever has that opinion) should tread lightly, but then most are just opinions anyway.  Of course, there are tweeners.  CBM put OB left because he sliced.  Should that selfish design to his own game be considered for partial change to balance OB?  How about Jack's greens angled hard right?


We really don't know what the gca was thinking, do we?  I always bring up that scene from Woody Allen where they are standing in line discussing what the director thought as he made that scene, and then he comes up and tells him he was drunk that day and an assistant did it.  If you think that didn't happen back in the old days of gca, you haven't been reading your history!


I don't know the exact answer to this, but is it possible that every course from the Golden Age that was worth restoring to original intent has already done so?

[Tom_Doak]

No, it is not easy to determine original intent.  There is tons of room for bullshit and new ideas disguised as Flynn's or MacKenzie's or whomever.  That's why anyone talking about original intent should be looked at with suspicion.


By contrast, it is pretty easy to determine what was on the ground originally.  It's all there in black and white [photos] and sometimes just underneath the grass.  Although, it is quite hard to get the third dimension correct; there is still plenty to interpret. 


We have seen many clubs now complete a second "restoration" [I believe Rolling Green is in that category], and a few are on their THIRD.


Mike, can I ask why the first restoration of Rolling Green was found inadequate?  Was it misinterpretation, or club politics, or unwillingness to spend what was necessary, or something else?