Original Intent: a debate for 2024

[Ronald Montesano]

Cary, you are correct, and it's those opinions that I'm after. I don't know that "let architects be architects" is germane to the original question that I posed, as what I'm after demands more targeted opinion. We know that the original intent of the 17th at TPC was a green surrounded by waste bunkers, and it was Alice Dye who suggested the lake. I'm at least 70% correct on that one. 

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

[Ronald Montesano]

Ira, I like these points. I like what you write about PH2, and my read is We're way closer in 2024 than we were in 2004 to what Ross wanted. The answer to your post-mortem fear is that we don't yet know who those reno experts will be. GCA tends to attract architects and soil people with a true interest in what is on and in the ground. The GCSAA and the universities are tasked with gently guiding the students to identify what efficient and effective GCA is. Finally, the established archies, diggers, shapers, finishers themselves are responsible for polishing the new generation into torch-bearers for the future.

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.

[mike_malone]

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?

It’s always difficult to pinpoint why things happen but eventually we decided to go with Hanse and they had the status to bring the majority of the membership along. We would accept a total plan from them rather than a piecemeal one because of their history at the club , our finances, and their reputation.


 We built on previous work of Forse Design and Riley Johns/ Keith Rhebb.


You could probably get several other takes on this that are quite different and equally correct.


 I also would suggest that professional leadership has a big impact.


In my opinion the final result is a course as great as it has ever been. You need to reevaluate that 7!


 

[Jim_Coleman]

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?

Tom:
    No, Rolling Green did not go through 2 restorations. I will try to explain the story.
   RG hired a new superintendent who recommended that the club hire 2 inexperienced architects to prepare and execute a restoration plan.  They prepared a plan and “restored” 1 hole as a pilot project. What they produced was pretty much universally rejected; the hole that they “restored” was returned to its pre restoration state; the club rejected their overall plan and decided to go in another direction. Needless to say, this was an expensive lesson.
   The superintendent then undertook a major tree removal program without input from an experienced architect. The club then hired Gil Hanse to undertake his version of a restoration, which has been completed. Gil’s plan has included replacing some of the trees that had been removed.
   So no, RG did not undertake two plans. As you might imagine, it has been a bumpy road.
   

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:
    No, Rolling Green did not go through 2 restorations. I will try to explain the story.
 

Jim:


I was referring to Ron Forse's work years ago as the first "restoration" and Gil's as the second.  I knew that Keith and Riley had been hired in between but didn't think they'd done much.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Jim Nagle was RG’s consultant for probably 25 years. He never undertook an overall restoration. He supervised rebuilding bunkers, expanded  greens, and offered periodic and valuable advice. So again, no, we did not undergo 2 restorations.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Was an iconic course like Cherry Hills CC with all it’s history “restored”?  As you said, it is pretty easy to determine what was on the ground originally especially if you do all the work. 


Why do we encounter so many courses that are “restored” then get “restored” again and again.


What I am most suspicious about is when an architect doesn’t really care about what was there.  That concerns me MUCH more than one who takes the time and effort to try to figure it out. 


I remember working on an old Tillinghast course going around with soil probes discovering old bunkers.  The super didn’t even know some of them were there.

[mike_malone]

    Jim Nagle was RG’s consultant for probably 25 years. He never undertook an overall restoration. He supervised rebuilding bunkers, expanded  greens, and offered periodic and valuable advice. So again, no, we did not undergo 2 restorations.

Forse Design did a Master Plan and executed it.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Was the Forse plan meant to be a restoration?  If not why not and what changed with the Hanse plan?  Maybe everything original wasn’t that obvious and easy to determine as Forse is usually pretty good at that.  Would you call what Gil has done a pure restoration or more a good/better interpretation?


We talked about the greens at Pinehurst #2.  Good example of the difficulty in doing restorations.  Even if C&C were allowed to “restore” them, what would they restore? It’s not that obvious. 

[mike_malone]

Mike,
Was the Forse plan meant to be a restoration?  If not why not and what changed with the Hanse plan?  Maybe everything original wasn’t that obvious and easy to determine as Forse is usually pretty good at that.  Would you call what Gil has done a pure restoration or more a good/better interpretation?


We talked about the greens at Pinehurst #2.  Good example of the difficulty in doing restorations.  Even if C&C were allowed to “restore” them, what would they restore? It’s not that obvious.

Mark,


  I was in the witness protection program when the Forse golf course plan was developed. The Green chair did let me see it before completion and I suggested a few simple changes like not putting cart paths in certain places. It was on very large paper so wasn’t copied. I recall talk of restoration but I was pretty much in the dark. I had a good friend who was on the board who showed me the final version. This could be why Jim thinks there was no plan.


The charge to Hanse was to make the course as great as it could be. His communications spoke to reverence of Flynn. We received notes of the specific work to be done before each stage.


We avoided the term restoration although I certainly felt we would have had the best result by just doing what Flynn did. The result has me feeling very proud of all the work done over the years and I think we achieved the goal of making “ the course as great as it can be”.


  I loved the way Hanse Design did their work. They were open to receiving research.  They took it and then proceeded to the work.

[Cal Carlisle]

Some things never change - restoration threads included. This one isn't about intent as much as the accuracy of what was originally there. This is one of my favorite restoration threads is an oldie from 2006 (man, I miss Tom Paul):



https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,24296.msg450333.html#msg450333


The highlight of the whole thing belongs to Tom Paul in response #119:


"Seems to me this Tom MacWood would be a lifelong fan of Tripp Davis, if Tripp could've figured out some way of restoring every single atom of Engineers right back to the way Strong originally had it and then framed the place and took it into NYC and hung it in the Metropolitan Museum of Art----then told the entire membership to just go F...off about playing the place and if they wanted to look at it they'd have to go to the MET."

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  From the first time I saw our 1926 photos in the 90’s I thought even Ray Charles could see the original almost completely. The trees were the easiest. The greens and bunkering on 13 through 18 were more difficult because of the shade from trees. Wayne found some lower and different angled photos that were great.


I’m an amateur so I can tell where something was but not the original depth of bunkers. That’s above my pay grade. Then some greens were changed which changed the relationship to the bunkers.


I think Hanse Design did a great job of removing bunkers that were not original.




It may have been 15 years before I realized the original creek on 8 was farther from the tee than the ditch we have now.


I don’t want to hog this topic. It was a massive amount of details over three years that were affected by the original design, build, and intent.


All of this makes me respect professionals but work harder.

[mike_malone]

I remember trying to figure out where the original fairway bunkers were on 18. I thought I had figured it out based on the relationship to the trees at the dogleg. Then Brian Chapin educated me that trees were added to those there originally so my calculations were wrong.


It’s tough.

[Jeff Kallberg]

In my experience, a sure-fire way to make a favorable impression on a discussion board is to point participants to a 5-screen long Wikipedia article that explores the background to the topic at hand:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent


 


Seriously, though, the questions we're exploring here lie at the core of a number of wider debates, not only among academics like me (a good chunk of what I write about Chopin requires wrestling with these issues), but (more impactfully) in the legal domain (in the US, think of the debates around whether "originalism" is the correct standard for the Supreme Court to bring to bear on its decisions).


All of this is to say that it would be very surprising if there was anything like unanimity on the topic as it applies to golf architects work from the past.


Jeff Kallberg

[Kalen Braley]

Not to throw a wrench in this topic.

But isn't the owner(s) the arbiter/judge and ultimate final decision maker on what original intent may have been? (Hopefully after all the facts/data has been reviewed)

Even Tom has basically said time and time again regarding his projects, its theirs not mine.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


That's a good article to throw into the debate.


I will throw in one other point:  the question of whether any artist is meant to be taken at his exact meaning.  I like to see the musings of Rick Rubin from time to time, and his thought is clear that once a piece of art is finished and in the public domain, it's out there.  Other people will take it for what they want, and assign meaning to it based on their own interest [and in this case, their own golf game].  And just like the course will change over time, how it's interpreted will change, too.


Perhaps some architects DO mean for their course to give precise rewards to players of a certain ability.  But it is impossible for them to control this across the wide spectrum of golfers.  It is always assumed that most courses are designed for the best golfers of the day [whether that means 1-handicaps or +6 handicaps depends on one's view], but I don't believe that is necessarily the case . . . anyway, it is not the case for my own designs.


The only thing I really know for sure is that if someone changes one of my courses thirty years from now, they will probably not be interpreting me correctly.  I believe a good design will stand the test of time, even as circumstances change.  Certainly, it will yield lower scores, but it will still provide examination and exhilaration in proper measure, and it shouldn't have to be changed to do so.

[Tom_Doak]

But isn't the owner(s) the arbiter/judge and ultimate final decision maker on what original intent may have been?

Kalen:


The owner may not care at all what the original intent may have been; he may want something different.


But the other big problem with your statement is that it's impossible to say who is the owner of a club like Rolling Green.  That's political, and constituencies change over the years.  Which is why it's extra difficult to do a restoration that will be universally accepted.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You said:

“The charge to Hanse was to make the course as great as it could be”

We said that 25+ years ago to an architect looking at Lehigh CC and they put a master plan together without even knowing who originally designed the golf course

There probably isn’t an architect alive who doesn’t think they could make some improvements to any existing golf course if given the license to do so. 

At the end of the day, the word restoration is probably not an ideal term for describing work on golf courses.

[Ira Fishman]

I know that Peter Flory is not in the gca business even part time as business, but I am surprised that an architect/firm has not tried to develop his expertise as a way of trying to develop business. I am sure of what he does is expensive but given the price tag on restorations, it seems a worthwhile investment.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
You said:

“The charge to Hanse was to make the course as great as it could be”

We said that 25+ years ago to an architect looking at Lehigh CC and they put a master plan together without even knowing who originally designed the golf course

There probably isn’t an architect alive who doesn’t think they could make some improvements to any existing golf course if given the license to do so. 

At the end of the day, the word restoration is probably not an ideal term for describing work on golf courses.

Mark,
I remember that horror story. I think Hanse’s respect of and experience with Flynn make that possible as a charge. Follow Flynn but use your judgement.

[mike_malone]

Jeff,
  You need to get back to school work. I read some of that and it reminded me of my Philosophy of History class. It is very hard to understand history when you come at it from a different time. In this case it would be how the game has changed.


   Has the game really changed that much for the average golfer? I find myself engaging with the architecture on almost every shot at courses that I enjoy. Rarely am I just sitting in the middle of the fairway hitting to a flat green without bunkers to worry about or some other hazard. My favorite courses entertain me with choices.
 When the original architect created those choices and they are engaging still we should preserve those choices.  Is that the original intent? 


We could use the three schools of golf architecture to classify original intents. Penal, heroic, and strategic are three ideas we could start with. 


So I will use the 7th hole at Rolling Green now. Originally there was no bunker right by the green. The green could have been much farther away but it was placed just past a small hill running down to the front of the putting surface. I would call this strategic design because it rewards the approach shot coming from the left. So you need to take on the left creek for the best approach. So let’s call the original intent a strategic hole promoting a run up shot.
What happens if you put a bunker in the way of the run up? I think you have moved away from the original strategy and now it’s a little heroic. You are rewarded for carrying the bunker.
Another consideration is that the 17th hole is also a short par 5 which clearly favors a carry to the green. Originally there were trees just behind the green so you wouldn’t want to run it over. A great architect would want variety among the holes which is achieved by the differences between 7 and 17.




Why not forget all of this talk and just make it the way it was ? Assume a great designer had something in mind when he built it.


So I favor ORIGINAL DONE   

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
All good points.  But to clarify, do you favor original over better?  The answer is easy if making the course “as great as it can be” is just trying to restore the original design.  It gets much trickier when an architect (especially one with the experience of Hanse) thinks he or she can make further improvements. 

[mike_malone]

Mike,
All good points.  But to clarify, do you favor original over better?  The answer is easy if making the course “as great as it can be” is just trying to restore the original design.  It gets much trickier when an architect (especially one with the experience of Hanse) thinks he or she can make further improvements. 

Mark,


There’s what I want and there’s what I must accept. I found a photo of our 16th hole showing the shape of the bunker quite clearly. This was welcomed. Vague things like original intent aren’t for amateurs.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
So your answer is - leave it to the experts to decide what to restore and where to make things better!


What you are saying makes total sense but you realize this is exactly how courses constantly get changed over and over again - people (both experts and non experts) all with good intentions trying to make changes for the better.  Trees get planted, bunkers added or moved or removed, water features like ponds instated, grassing lines changed, greens altered or relocated, entire holes altered,…. Some of this is very much needed or warranted for one reason or the other.  At Berkeley CC for example where we did a major restoration/renovation, a driving range had been added years ago which required land and changing around holes to accommodate it and they needed to add a new golf hole.


This is where I believe it was Tom Doak’s idea for architects to choose a few courses they designed that would never be purposely altered or “improved”    The idea definitely has merit but not sure how it gets/stays implemented long term.

[mike_malone]

Mark,


 The main problem is that times change and those in power will do what they want. It only took a few years before major changes happened at my home course that significantly changed the idea of some holes.  It has taken 90 years to just basically go back to the beginning.


  It is important which professional you hire. We have a pretty decent history of that.


My personal belief is that you need some North Star to guide you.