Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom Doak on February 19, 2003, 12:20:57 PM
-
What courses do you feel should be preserved exactly as they are for future generations? (Please limit yourself to your top 2-3 candidates.)
If you feel that every course should renovate as the game changes, say that.
-
In Tennessee, Holston Hills and Memphis CC, both DJR.
BTW, I hear Belle Meade CC here in town is about to spend some major quiche on a renovation. Have you heard anything, T. Doak?
Regards,
Mike
-
I hate to be obvious but Prestwick should be preserved.
-
Is it possible to preserve any golf course as it was presented in its complete concept by a master architect upon finishing the project or after reasonable time for grow-in maturation? Time, wear and tear, erosion, evolution does not permit this in my opinion.
Isn't this sort of like the story of Dorian Grey, making compromises to preserve youthful appearance, brings about perverse consequences. (I only vaguely remember the story)
Like that beatifully aged woman in the opening of the movie Titanic, what was more lovely? Her gracefully aged face and the light within her knowing eyes, or her youthful beauty in love on board the fated ship. I might think of Cypress Point as something like that, even if I haven't actually played there.
-
Off the top of my head the best candidate for preservation as is IMHO would be NOrth Berwick. The combination of site, strategic elements, fun and whimsey make this #1 on my list. It does a great job of combining the natural and manmade elements into a seemingly natural and unforced layout. It is one of those courses that I wanted to go around again immeadiately after finishing, like CPC, PD, SFGC.
Cheers
Stan
-
Cruden Bay
Cape Breton Highlands
North Berwick (West)
Wild, woolly, funky, fun, well-routed, and with no pressure to hold championships. Keep 'em as they are.
-
I think that "None of the Above" is a bit extreme, even for me. If you are going to "preserve" it's the greensites that count. So, NGLA rather than Shinnecock, Dornoch rather than Muirfield, The Old Course rather than Cypress Point.
-
Crystal Downs.... Pine Valley...... Merion. Never touch em.
-
Keep Oakmont as it is today. Never let Johnny Appleseed anywhere near that course again.
-
Pinehurst #2
Prairie Dunes
Pacific Dunes
-
I don't think I'd touch Carnoustie, and I have to agree with Dornoch
BF
-
NGLA
-
I wouldn't change Shinnecock or National. I'd leave them alone, in tandem, for the rest of time.
Well, maybe I'd knock more trees down but that's no big deal.
-
Agree with all the above and add Pasatiempo.
-
And Somerset Hills.
-
Confining myself to the Chicago area, I would start with Chicago Golf. Shoreacres is a candidate assuming the work Tom has done (is doing?) is completed. Old Elm is pretty authentic Ross although it is not a "great" course. I like Skokie as it is now, query was it renovated or restored?
-
Of the courses I have played in this country, NGLA is the course that most feels like a timemachine. I would hope it would remain that way forever.
-
Toronto Golf Club, restored to plans
Except two, which one is passable, the course has been restored back to the plans (even the collar widths). It's historically important, and should remain as is.
-
Ian,
I have to disagree. Two isn't passable. And there's definitely a potentially unique aesthetic missing at Toronto these days. See Henry Leach's 1912 observation posted under Doak's 'sister' thread about candidates for restoration.
My hat's off to Colt :)
-
If I was forced to choose three, I'd chose St.Andrews, NGLA and Cypress Point. The problem is limiting the number to three, as you can see every region has at least three deserving courses. I look at my three has being fairly universal, but mine is also regionally influenced. If you were in Australia how could you not list Royal Melbourne or in Ireland County Down, Portrush or Ballybunion or in Japan Hirono, and so on.
-
Rich -- Why do you feel the greensites are key? You must place an awful lot of weight on greensites.
-
Forest
My thought is that if you change a greensite, it's very hard to get it back if you change your mind. Changes to fairways and/or new tees can be rectified much more easily. Also, I think that great greensites are the key to great golf.
-
Tom Doak.
From an Australian perspective, probably only Royal Melbourne W&E, or maybe Kingston Heath, possibly Victoria, would fit the bill. Too many others have been messed with so much that their original design integrity has been compromised, and therefore preservation is not an optimising option. No sense in preserving alterations which dont compliment the original design.
In re-reading your original post, I get the feeling that you are angling at something else here. Is it a case of letting evolution of a course get to the point where the best design is in play, and then leaving it alone. How many exact (your words) original designs are there?
-
Royal Worlington and Newmarket- a real stunner to play. Although I doubt it will be ever thrown out of office and become a candidate.
Camden CC- even with recent changes, worth preserving as an example of a 6200 yard par 70 course that technology has not made "obselete" due to angles and .
-
Jeff, Iwas refering to the short par three 14th as passable. The second green sadly is not. I'm not sure what you refer to as missing.
-
I think Rolling Green would be an excellent candidate for preservation.First of all it is a classic example of Flynn's championship courses(thanks to Wayne and Tom for uncovering this category).Secondly,very little has been changed over the years so that preserving it would not necessitate great expense to restore it.
Also,there is adequate material to see the original intent,so the debate could be subdued as to what constitutes "the way it was".
You could also preserve it and yet still tweak it for lengthening without changing the spirit of the course.The green complexes are its most important signature,so this is what needs to be preserved the most.I think the present size and shape of the greens is 99% near the original.Of course the speeds are markedly different but that change seems to be consistent with the change in technology.
So this tells me preservation is best for classic courses that represent some important value and are very close to their original.Finally,the membership must be proud of this heritage and wish to preserve it.It seems clear that through the years our members have resisted radical change,so we have something worth preserving.
-
US:
Pine Valley
Sand Hills (it isn't nice to mess with Mother Nature)
Abroad:
Royal County Down
Royal Dornoch
Royal Melbourne West/East
-
I agree with Rich that I would put the emphasis on courses with great greensites/surrounds. My favorite courses all have that in common. That could be due to the state of my game which requires getting up and down a lot to score. To me using my imagination and creating shots is the fun of golf.
Courses (greensites) that I would preserve:
NGLA
Kingsley Club
Prairie Dunes
-
Another unique gem I would like to see preserved as is... Braid Hills #1. A course I would use as an introduction to Scottish Golf. Wonderful green sites, quirky tee shots and great views.
-
People keep saying Pine Valley but wouldn't you like to see a whole bunch of trees removed and more of the sandy areas that used to be there returned?
I am in no way saying that Pine Valley is not an amazing golf course but I just think that it could be brought back a bit more.
-
M.W.
They must have heard you. It's quietly going on as you speak.
-
Agree with most of the above mentioned, I would like to offer;
- Myopia
- Essex County Club
- Yeaman Hall
- Teugega
- Linville Golf
BT
-
Bullthistle:
I hear that Yeamans Hall is now interested in restoring most of its original bunkering -- something that wasn't even in their thought process 2-3 years ago. Is that something we should do?
If so, that's restoration and NOT preservation. It's crucial to understand the difference, which is why I posted the two topics simultaneously to begin with.
All of the candidates for preservation are constantly under siege with ideas for change, most of which are thrown in under the guise of "restoration." (i.e., Let's lengthen this hole to restore the shot values Donald Ross intended.) Clubs which are not swayed easily by such arguments are often portrayed by others as "sticking their heads in the sand," although it is important to consider the source. (Any time it's an architect, you must consider that they would like to do the restoration work.)
I do believe that a few courses ought to be preserved as they are ... the best one or two remaining examples of a master's work, and perhaps a few historic venues if it's not way too late. Prestwick is a great example ... certainly National though it has been lengthened ... and I was glad to hear discussion of Rolling Green. (It would be great if Wayne and Tom's book could have influence in this area for Mr. Flynn's career ... although at Rolling Green, you have to look at how many of the trees to preserve.)
Why do I think this? Partly for the same argument as whether Merion could have hosted another U.S. Open. Just suppose for a minute that the answer was yes, it could have, that it would have stood up better than most people thought, and produced a worthy champion.
But what would have been the fallout if that had happened? The fallacy of length would have been unmasked. Rees Jones wouldn't be needed to lengthen every US Open course to 7400 yards to preserve them. Callaway might not sell quite so many $500 drivers (although many people want to add twenty yards, irrespective of the fact it hasn't helped their handicaps any more than it has helped Phil Mickelson vs. Tiger). Developers wouldn't hound me so much to add length to my golf holes, and wouldn't have to buy as much real estate or as many sprinkler heads or as many lightweight fairway mowers.
There are a lot of forces in the golf business who think change is good, and the last thing they want to see is some examples of courses which haven't changed and still stand up. This is why I'm interested in preservation -- to set a benchmark so we can see what's really happening. I'm convinced that a lot of it is being blown out of proportion so that we'll believe everything needs to change.
I'm not saying the golf ball isn't getting longer -- that's a real change, and a change for the worse in my opinion. But there are many ways to deal with that change. Let's see, we could lengthen and toughen every golf course in America -- what would that cost? Or we could retool the Titleist factory. Or we could call everything under 500 yards a par 4. Unfortunately, it looks like there is no one left to make a rational choice between those options.
-
Tom: How about Royal Portrush for preservation. I don't think they have done much to the Dunluce course since Colt built it. Have they? It is so far up there that people might leave it alone.
Does restoration mean to you that a course is trying to restore the original shot values, and preservation is returning the course as close as possible to how it played when opened?
Also on an interesting note, last year I broke out some of my wooden drivers and I still have a bunch of Tileist tour balatas, and went and played. It does make a significant difference, especially when it comes to carrying the ball.
-
Dan: By preservation I mean refusing to do anything physical to the golf course ... leaving it alone.
When I talk about restoration I mean trying to put a golf course back physically to where it was originally ... but others use the same term to rationalize physical changes in the name of preserving the shot values. It would be nice if there was a separate term for the latter.
Or perhaps there is ... it's called "salesmanship."
-
Tom,
My guess is you've built a few courses worthy of preservation. So my question is, how do you go about trying to make sure your designs are preserved? There's probably little you could do if one of your course changes hands and the new owner decides to "improve" it. Do you make any attempt to prevent this from happening? Is there anything you can do?