Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Erik J. Barzeski on June 23, 2022, 05:02:58 PM
-
In this podcast (links below) from Fried Egg Stories, Robert Trent Jones Jr. is quoted as dissing Gil Hanse's historical renovation (restoration, whatever you want to call it) as pure "nostalgia" and as "wiping the memory" of what made the course famous to begin with (i.e. his father's redo of Ross's work that led to Ben Hogan calling it "the monster").
Those are paraphrased.
Some quotes from RTJJr. or the podcast (around 34:00 in to part three):
- "I am not a believer that we are in a new golden age of golf. I believe we are in a nostalgic age."
- "I haven't seen what was done recently, but I'm told it was based upon a program from the 1929 Amateur, which to me is like putting a classic Charleston dress on royalty. When you have someone as famous as Hogan defining your golf course as a monster, and when you revert to something with an old dress on that monster, like Beowulf, you've killed that monster and you've also killed your history. So if you decide that you want to erase that, the minute you put a bulldozer on a golf course and take the greens down to their base to put in sub-air or some other technical need, you've lost the art. It would be like chipping away at a marble statue, you can't put it back."
- "So there's many, many elements in here that I think are programatic, and a kind of fashion, and I think you should think very carefully if you want to erase your literal history."
- He also said "I haven't seen the work at Oakland Hills but I'm sure it's competent" and "but it comes from a point of view of nostalgia."
https://overcast.fm/+DDTXNPPkQ (https://overcast.fm/+DDTXNPPkQ)
https://thefriedegg.com/fried-egg-podcast/fried-egg-stories-how-to-slay-a-monster-the-open-doctor-and-his-monster-part-3-3/ (https://thefriedegg.com/fried-egg-podcast/fried-egg-stories-how-to-slay-a-monster-the-open-doctor-and-his-monster-part-3-3/)
Just curious what others here think. Is he just salty that his dad's work (and his work?) was panned simply because it was undone? Does he have a point? What?
-
He's salty about anything that diminishes his father's reputation.
But, Bobby didn't do any work to Oakland Hills as far as I know. His brother did the previous round of renovations in the 1990's.
-
But, Bobby didn't do any work to Oakland Hills as far as I know. His brother did the previous round of renovations in the 1990's.
Yes, thank you. I glossed over that part of the podcast until he said what he said about "erasing the past" (paraphrased).
-
On the other hand, it seems to me that an architect who references Beowulf, Ben Hogan, sub-air systems, and programatic elements when discussing a modern day renovation ought not to be dismissed too lightly.
-
The weather was just slightly less than ideal on my visit to Oakland Hills South a little over a month ago. But I still put together a fairly comprehensive hole-by-hole tour of the layout, complete with the Hanse hole drawings.
Go here:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/OaklandHillsSouth/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/OaklandHillsSouth/index.html)
And, as always, enjoy!
-
On the other hand, it seems to me that an architect who references Beowulf, Ben Hogan, sub-air systems, and programatic elements when discussing a modern day renovation ought not to be dismissed too lightly.
Who's dismissed him? I'm asking for your thoughts on what he had to say. What do you think? Do renovations "erase history"? Do they put a "Charleston dress on royalty"?
-
I don't know.
But I'd suggest that, as the original and most recent US Open doctors respectively, RTJ and GH may have more in common than either RTJ Jr. or GH are able to recognize or admit.
And I'd say that perhaps RTJ Jr. isn't criticizing nostalgia as much as he is what would be better termed a 'false nostalgia', ie a celebration of and return to not the way things were (and to the way golf courses actually played) back then but to what we now, with our modern day championship needs and architectural conventions, would like to think of as their original and ostensibly uncompromised state.
PS - thanks, as always, Joe B for your excellent work.
PSS - I read that Oakmont is up next for GH. I didn't realize there was anything still left to restore there.
-
It's only a nostalgic age for those who don't think the golden age architects were right.
The irony isn't lost on me when RTJ Jr. is talking about erasing the past of his father who deliberately erased the past of original architects' work.
RTJ Sr. and Gil Hanse are polar opposites. Their commonality isn't inherent to their work, only the fact that they've both become, in their respective eras, the favored hire of the USGA. That commonality attests to the changing of tastes more broadly, not to the two men. One believed in completely transforming a course, without any respect or consideration for the original architect, into a layout that increased challenge and resistance to scoring. The other has been directly quoted as saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that maybe all along we should've trusted that the original architects were right.
Yes, Gil makes concessions on where bunkers are placed in order to accommodate current-day length, but his approach (and Tom's, and Bill and Ben's) when it comes to restoration is unequivocally considerate of what the original architect first did. That can never be said of RTJ Sr., Jr, or Rees' work.
Perhaps a more telling line from the podcasts is that when Tillinghast was brought in to Oakland before RTJ Sr., he couldn't find a fault with Ross's course.
-
I think Bobby was mainly focused on the work to the greens. Neither his father or brother touched them and he seemed to feel that the installation of the PrecisionAire system and re-shaping of the greens was erasing history instead of what could be considered restoration.
So in effect, Gil is mowing down the Ross greens and replacing with his interpretation of them, based on photos from a golf program. At least that's what I took away from Bobby's statements. I suppose he feels work to the greens is different than work to bunkers, fairway width, mowing lines and tees.
Do renovations erase history? Yes. Flynn erased history when he renovated Macdonald's Shinnecock, Ross erased history when he renovated Essex County, Tilly erased history when he renovated Baltusrol, and so on. It's a different course after the work, some times it ends up better afterwards.
Renovations have been going on since the dawn of time yet what seems to change is the stated purpose behind them. Up until recently, it was ok to renovate for the sole purpose of making the course better, without much regard for what existed before. The last few decades, however, have moved to something else. A course undergoing work is returning to something in the past more often than not. It's still a renovation and it's still erasing history, but it's under the guise of erasing a more recent iteration of the course to return to an earlier one. Sure there's nostalgia built into it but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing to some degree. I'm also not sure whether a second Golden Age and Nostalgic Age have to be mutually exclusive.
Gil did say about his work at Oakland Hills that I think relevant here and I wonder whether Bobby had read or heard, “we’re undertaking a restoration of the South Course at Oakland Hills. Donald Ross did the original, of course, and it was Robert Trent Jones who did the renovation that created “The Monster” Ben Hogan conquered in winning the 1951 U.S. Open. Rees Jones later revised his father’s work. The plan is to restore kind of a hybrid of the Ross and Jones designs, the best elements of each. The course will be closed for nearly two years beginning in 2019, but when we’re finished, without a doubt it will be a Monster again, albeit one a little different than the one Hogan brought to its knees.”
I played Oakland Hills South last month and while I was not able to play the course before Gil's work, I was taken aback by how good it was. Whatever you want to call the work and to whatever extent history was erased, they have a remarkable course currently.
-
Just to say, in the name of trying to be fair minded, that asking RTJ in 1951 to have our kind of reverence/nostalgia for Oakland Hills is a bit like asking a top modern day architect to have reverence /nostalgia for a course built in the mid 1980s, by one of their contemporaries or immediate predecessors. With a course like Peachtree to his name, is it really so surprising -- especially given his USGA remit in this case -- that RTJ didn't honour a recent predecessor's work as much as we do nowadays? Note: I'm not saying RTJ was 'right' (or 'wrong') to alter Ross' original design, only that such judgements are well above my station, and that I think we can make them too easily and automatically. Had history even become 'History' at that point, and had Ross already become the towering figure of the (yet to be named) Golden Age, or are we instead projecting backwards a latterly developed value system and significance? And I mean, re: the question of 'erasing history', will GH's current work on Oakland Hills itself be considered 'historical' and sacrosanct when the course hosts the 2051 US Open and protected against erasure?
At any rate, I guess I'm just uncomfortable whenever we fall into our shooting fish in a barrel mode, eg with Nicklaus, or Fazio's renovations, or RTJ Jr's dissing of Gil Hanse on a Fried Egg podcast etc. I start feeling a little sorry for the fish.
-
It's only a nostalgic age for those who don't think the golden age architects were right.
The irony isn't lost on me when RTJ Jr. is talking about erasing the past of his father who deliberately erased the past of original architects' work.
RTJ Sr. and Gil Hanse are polar opposites. Their commonality isn't inherent to their work, only the fact that they've both become, in their respective eras, the favored hire of the USGA. That commonality attests to the changing of tastes more broadly, not to the two men. One believed in completely transforming a course, without any respect or consideration for the original architect, into a layout that increased challenge and resistance to scoring. The other has been directly quoted as saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that maybe all along we should've trusted that the original architects were right.
Yes, Gil makes concessions on where bunkers are placed in order to accommodate current-day length, but his approach (and Tom's, and Bill and Ben's) when it comes to restoration is unequivocally considerate of what the original architect first did. That can never be said of RTJ Sr., Jr, or Rees' work.
Perhaps a more telling line from the podcasts is that when Tillinghast was brought in to Oakland before RTJ Sr., he couldn't find a fault with Ross's course.
Thanks for sharing the story about Tillinghast. Never heard that before.
-
The weather was just slightly less than ideal on my visit to Oakland Hills South a little over a month ago. But I still put together a fairly comprehensive hole-by-hole tour of the layout, complete with the Hanse hole drawings.
Go here:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/OaklandHillsSouth/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/OaklandHillsSouth/index.html)
And, as always, enjoy!
Excellent photo tour Joe. Looks like the newly installed drainage got a workout.
The other thing to remember is by the time RTJ got to Oakland Hills many of the original Ross bunkers had been filled in for various reasons - cost saving in the depression, obsolescence. It would have been surprising if he had "restored" the course in 1950 to the 1918 version.
1949 aerial:
http://golfcoursehistories.com/OaklandHills.html (http://golfcoursehistories.com/OaklandHills.html)
-
I’m sure Tom is right: He is being a little salty to protect a legacy that is getting quite butchered in recent years.
But thank you to Peter and Chris for their posts that give a more balanced view without rose-tinted glasses.
-
If the course had been a Jones original and hadn't dated back to the days of Ross, and Gil Hanse was asked to look at working his magic on it, I wonder what approach he would have taken ?
Niall
-
The nostalgia era may not be all that incorrect. Just look at what happens to Congressional. The blue course was predominantly RTJ, but rather restore the course back to what RTJ created 60 years ago they redesigned the course base on what Emmet “may” have done 100 years ago.
-
The nostalgia era may not be all that incorrect. Just look at what happens to Congressional. The blue course was predominantly RTJ, but rather restore the course back to what RTJ created 60 years ago they redesigned the course base on what Emmet “may” have done 100 years ago.
Yes, but the stated goal of the project at Congressional was to blow the course up and make something better.
It's only telling that the solution they accepted was a new design that pretends to look old.
[NOTE: I've not seen the course since the renovation, but that certainly seems to be the way it's being portrayed.]
-
How many examples are there of restoration/renovation/restovation jobs by Doak, C&C or Hanse where the work was panned compared to what was there prior? In every case I can think of they improved the playing experience.
-
Man, what a slippery slope. Every famous touring professional in every era described almost every golf course they played in that light.
Polite, cocktail architecture, at its finest.
All we need is someone with the wit of Jimmy Demaret to make a similar quip about the current work to cement its current legacy.
“Just played a course you’d love, Gil, on the first tee you drop from your knee.”
-
RTJ II was protecting his father's legacy a bit, as he should. The POV isn't all that different from other courses. Did Merion restore to 1909 origins or it's highlight 1930 presentation for the Open?
I think OH seminal moment as a course was that 1951 open, and surely there is room in the big world of golf to restore the course to that era. It is certainly one of the courses that got RTJ going in the style he later became famous for.
If you tell the story of Tillie visiting OH and saying there was nothing wrong with the course, you should probably also tell the story about Ross preparing a plan for OH to host the open that looked remarkably like what Jones ended up doing, i.e., Jones was following the Ross vision, i.e., the 1947, I was hired by the USGA to toughen up one of my original designs, vision.
I have told the story before, but I used to fly to see my mother near Detroit, took a flyer and stopped by the super's office to see if I could get a tour. No one was in the office, but the original Ross plan was laid out on a table. It was as close as goody two shoes me was ever tempted to steal something. :-[ Of course, I would have taken it to Fed Ex Kinko's, color copied it (the Ross changes were in red pen over an old blueline print) and snuck it back in.
-
I think OH seminal moment as a course was that 1951 open, and surely there is room in the big world of golf to restore the course to that era. It is certainly one of the courses that got RTJ going in the style he later became famous for.
If you tell the story of Tillie visiting OH and saying there was nothing wrong with the course, you should probably also tell the story about Ross preparing a plan for OH to host the open that looked remarkably like what Jones ended up doing, i.e., Jones was following the Ross vision, i.e., the 1947, I was hired by the USGA to toughen up one of my original designs, vision.
Jeff,
This comment reminds me of something I once heard about car collectors. There are two types: one who covets examples of cars from their release year as it is the best representation of the designers true vision; and the other covets cars from the final year of a cars generation as it reflects the engineers pursuit of refinement, have had time to improve and perfect the car.
As it would appear, golf courses could be viewed in the same light. They’re constantly evolving nature means while the opening version may best reflect the architects vision, the evolution of the course may produce the best playable condition.
Augusta National may be the best example of this notion. If the course was restored to how it looked and played back in 1934 it may be more visually attractive but it may also be a worse venue for play. So what level of benefit would there be in making that decision?
Similarly Aronimink went through 2 restorations in a short period of time. One based on Ross’s vision and the current based on what was built. If the vision was the correct approach, then the second was not necessary. One of them had to have been performed as an exercise in vanity, even if not known at the time.
-
My understanding is that the greens were extensively laser measured and original footprints found through drilling prior to any work done on them...not merely interpretations from photographs.
-
IIRC, RTJ didn't take away the Ross greens, he merely added wings to existing greens to implement his philosophy of six pin positions and larger greens with rolls subdividing those greens. I suppose some of those drills would get you pretty close to the truth of the original design.
And, while I have seen that Ross plan for the Open (done just before his death in 1947) frankly, I don't recall there being a lot of red marks on the greens, just bunkers to reposition. So, it is possible, based on my faulty memory (a great source, eh?) that Ross didn't think it was required to change the greens for the 1951 US Open.
So, like anything else in restoration/renovation, I guess there is room for interpretation when doing the work, and as always, lots of room on the internet for post renovation reinterpretation.....
-
I think OH seminal moment as a course was that 1951 open, and surely there is room in the big world of golf to restore the course to that era. It is certainly one of the courses that got RTJ going in the style he later became famous for.
If you tell the story of Tillie visiting OH and saying there was nothing wrong with the course, you should probably also tell the story about Ross preparing a plan for OH to host the open that looked remarkably like what Jones ended up doing, i.e., Jones was following the Ross vision, i.e., the 1947, I was hired by the USGA to toughen up one of my original designs, vision.
Jeff,
This comment reminds me of something I once heard about car collectors. There are two types: one who covets examples of cars from their release year as it is the best representation of the designers true vision; and the other covets cars from the final year of a cars generation as it reflects the engineers pursuit of refinement, have had time to improve and perfect the car.
As it would appear, golf courses could be viewed in the same light. They’re constantly evolving nature means while the opening version may best reflect the architects vision, the evolution of the course may produce the best playable condition.
Augusta National may be the best example of this notion. If the course was restored to how it looked and played back in 1934 it may be more visually attractive but it may also be a worse venue for play. So what level of benefit would there be in making that decision?
Similarly Aronimink went through 2 restorations in a short period of time. One based on Ross’s vision and the current based on what was built. If the vision was the correct approach, then the second was not necessary. One of them had to have been performed as an exercise in vanity, even if not known at the time.
I'm not a car guy, but I understand the collector's differing points of view. But, as Steve Jobs (and others) have said, design isn't just about how it looks, it is about how it functions. In car collecting, you can set either criterion.
For Open courses, the Masters, etc., there is no doubt that previous generations have decided that how it plays for tournaments trumps what it used to look like as the main design criteria, and sometimes, those criteria just cannot be reconciled, i.e., you can't restore a course to 1922 AND make it play well for modern tournament golf.
Even in golf restoration, I tend to believe that if old courses were renovated based on playing experience being less than stellar, shouldn't each hole be restored to (if applicable) a consensus of how it played best?
If something has changed over time, i.e. a course being asked to hold a tourney or more common, a private course being turned into a public golf course, why should original design intent be so important? And, I really doubt it is to this group, i.e., if we think we might know what Ross did in 1921, redo it. If we know what RTJ did, forget it, we don't care about his original intent because we have decided we don't like it. That isn't supporting original design intent, that is pushing your own vision, which is exactly what many here trash those in the 1950-90's for, no?
-
Just to say, in the name of trying to be fair minded, that asking RTJ in 1951 to have our kind of reverence/nostalgia for Oakland Hills is a bit like asking a top modern day architect to have reverence /nostalgia for a course built in the mid 1980s, by one of their contemporaries or immediate predecessors. With a course like Peachtree to his name, is it really so surprising -- especially given his USGA remit in this case -- that RTJ didn't honour a recent predecessor's work as much as we do nowadays? Note: I'm not saying RTJ was 'right' (or 'wrong') to alter Ross' original design, only that such judgements are well above my station, and that I think we can make them too easily and automatically. Had history even become 'History' at that point, and had Ross already become the towering figure of the (yet to be named) Golden Age, or are we instead projecting backwards a latterly developed value system and significance? And I mean, re: the question of 'erasing history', will GH's current work on Oakland Hills itself be considered 'historical' and sacrosanct when the course hosts the 2051 US Open and protected against erasure?
At any rate, I guess I'm just uncomfortable whenever we fall into our shooting fish in a barrel mode, eg with Nicklaus, or Fazio's renovations, or RTJ Jr's dissing of Gil Hanse on a Fried Egg podcast etc. I start feeling a little sorry for the fish.
I think this is insightful take on the restoration/renovation exchanges we observe...golf courses cant be inviolable, some of their noted architectural voices have proclaimed that they are bound to change, and cultivate over time... and more to Peter's point, isn't the gasping reverence for ODG's a product of THIS era, which itself will change, and whose architecture will need addressing at some point?
-
My quick take is it might be wise to at least consider his POV. I realize in this era of untouchable brands that makes you a contrarian.
I really like Kye Goalby. Mostly because he’s just a good guy but also because he’s been around and isn’t afraid to tell the young know it alls that it is possible to learn from people that have been part of creating golf for many years, even if they weren’t doing with the cool brands.
Golf architecture has never been so close minded as it is today.
-
My quick take is it might be wise to at least consider his POV. I realize in this era of untouchable brands that makes you a contrarian.
I really like Kye Goalby. Mostly because he’s just a good guy but also because he’s been around and isn’t afraid to tell the young know it alls that it is possible to learn from people that have been part of creating golf for many years, even if they weren’t doing with the cool brands.
Golf architecture has never been so close minded as it is today.
Your last line is ridiculous. There are 100x as many people interested in golf architecture today, than there were 40 years ago. There are fan clubs for designers doing all different sorts of work.
Now contrast that to when it was just RTJ or Dick Wilson.
Golf Club Atlas may be something of an echo chamber, but as a corollary to the Big World Theory, the world is much bigger today than it used to be.
-
We’ll disagree on how ridiculous I am. The restoration experts are focused on a look. Based on black and whites or computer renderings and it’s all “authentic”.
It’s their own design ideas under the cover of revisionist history. No different than what RTJ did. Just looks better today
-
You're right, Tom, that with social media there are a hundred times more 'voices' out there today than ever before. And yet: doesn't it sometimes feel to you that a Herbert Warren Wind had broader and more catholic tastes in golf course architecture than, say, Ran M and Brad K do today? Or that a Bernard Darwin could appreciate and celebrate a wider variety of design approaches and resulting challenges and tests -- for rabbits and tigers both -- than, say, a Geoff S or an Andy J can nowadays? As I noted above, it's just a feeling I have, and I certainly can't prove it, nor do I want to be unfair to anyone; but I've done a lot of reading over the years, and it does seem to me that the voices today are much more certain about their architectural judgements -- their praise and their condemnations -- than in the past, often talking not as if there is *a* way among many to build a top quality golf course but instead as if there is only *the* way to build one, ie the best way, the one way, their way. Do you remember Brad K's 'open letter to Tiger Woods' from a few years back, or DMK's mea culpa from around the same time? Would Ron Whitten have penned the former (to make sure Tiger did it 'right'), or Pete Dye ever offered the latter (so sure that he'd been doing it 'wrong')?
-
This is an interesting topic:
I think back of an Architectural Design class I took in college, (best elective class ever). We studied building types from various eras all the way from classical Greek and Roman to modern styles, and while most were appealing the 1950's cold, sterile, concrete buildings in general were fairly off-putting to my senses. The style, known as Brutalist Architecture, seems apropos, with many fugly structures like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/University_of_Leicester_Engineering_Building_from_Victoria_Park.jpg/800px-University_of_Leicester_Engineering_Building_from_Victoria_Park.jpg)
And when i think of RTJ golf courses, which correlate to the same period, they tend to evoke the same kind of response...once again just to my eye as I've only seen his stuff primarily in pictures. But as always there are exceptions like Spyglass, as with structures, such as this, which is nothing short of amazingly beautiful.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Habitat_67%2C_southwest_view.jpg/1280px-Habitat_67%2C_southwest_view.jpg)
-
The late Desmond Muirhead had a great line about the Jones Boys. He had said this to me and I’m sure he said it to Forrest as well, followed by Desmond’s bellowing laugh knowing he just nailed those pompous wind bags! “Do you know what the problem is with the Jones boys?!?! Bad breeding!!!” (Desmond did in fact like Rees very much, but detested Bobby, who is the perfect neer-do-well!)
Bobby has been and will always be nothing more then the pompous, spoiled and vastly under talented windbag who has always relied on the people he hired to do the job for him. He’s a figure head living of the bygone name of his father who, by “a difficult par” took golf into the dark ages of 50’s, 60’s & 70’s. If he truly did say those things about the recent work, what about the work his brother did there that changed what his father did? If the shoe was on the other foot, and Bobby was doing the work, don’t think got one second he’d call himself out on the same bull crap!
Tom is correct. Bobby will stick to his guns to protect his Father’s work. He’ll try to use his political will and might to change the narrative too! But thankfully, the Doak’s, the Hanse’s the Coore’s & the Crenshaw’s and many more changed the game for the better in this new “Golden Age.” Which is the return to strategic and whimsical golf that makes one feel giddy to go play!
While I haven’t listened to the podcast, I can honestly say here, that the work of Donald Ross was highlighted at Oakland Hills. Not this over-saturated mess of penalty golf that he claims is the “Heroic School.” FWIW, each green at Oakland Hills was Greenscanned. Reclaimed areas found and pins restored! Gil, Jim, Kye & Blake did a fantastic job!
-
Tommy's response pretty much sums up why I wrote "golf architecture has never been so close minded as it is today" I realize that sentence really doesn't make a lot of sense and should have been more "the discussion of golf architecture has never been so close minded...or something like that.
An architect, granted someone who isn't revered here, makes some comments, that were generally respectful while trying to make a point. And because he appeared to be critical of a most revered here, he is now pompous windbag. And he relies on people to help him..oh how dare he (but be sure to the list those who helped the renovation...all extremely talented BTW and deserving of credit, but maybe I'm the only one that sees that as ironic.)
a few years ago another architect, not a member of the triumvirate mention by Tommy, mentioned building golf course with GPS equipped dozers and was roasted. Now, it's cutting edge.
We used to be critical of super high budgets that the well known architects used to require, but now that others have ascended into the big budget atmosphere, it's all good to build uber expensive engineered greens in temperate climates, and don't dare ask why as you'll be in danger of being called a pompous windbag.
Group think isn't what we have here or in the golf press. It's way beyond that. I don't know Bobby Jones JR and I've heard all the stories, but I don't see the type of tone in his words that deserve to be called out like he was by Tommy.
I found his nostalgic comments interesting and at least worth considering, while also knowing he's got personal reasons for his words just as Tommy does.
My take on the state of golf architecture; the work itself, the shaping and construction work has never been better. The level of talent building golf is deep. But to me, I feel like a lot of shapers have graveted into designer roles, but seem to hang onto to their shaper's hat a little too much, and might be better served to put on an architect's hat. They are super talented and the tie ins are perfect. But I'm not so sure the business couldn't use a few less shapers calling the shots and a few more architects. And i think one person can perform both roles. But design should come before methods. If we had more of that we'd have more interesting golf to play.
-
We’ll disagree on how ridiculous I am. The restoration experts are focused on a look. Based on black and whites or computer renderings and it’s all “authentic”.
It’s their own design ideas under the cover of revisionist history. No different than what RTJ did. Just looks better today
If your comments were limited to talking about restoration work, then I take it back, we can mostly agree. I just don't consider that all of "golf architecture" or even a substantial part of it, as you made it sound.
-
You're right, Tom, that with social media there are a hundred times more 'voices' out there today than ever before. And yet: doesn't it sometimes feel to you that a Herbert Warren Wind had broader and more catholic tastes in golf course architecture than, say, Ran M and Brad K do today? Or that a Bernard Darwin could appreciate and celebrate a wider variety of design approaches and resulting challenges and tests -- for rabbits and tigers both -- than, say, a Geoff S or an Andy J can nowadays? As I noted above, it's just a feeling I have, and I certainly can't prove it, nor do I want to be unfair to anyone; but I've done a lot of reading over the years, and it does seem to me that the voices today are much more certain about their architectural judgements -- their praise and their condemnations -- than in the past, often talking not as if there is *a* way among many to build a top quality golf course but instead as if there is only *the* way to build one, ie the best way, the one way, their way. Do you remember Brad K's 'open letter to Tiger Woods' from a few years back, or DMK's mea culpa from around the same time? Would Ron Whitten have penned the former (to make sure Tiger did it 'right'), or Pete Dye ever offered the latter (so sure that he'd been doing it 'wrong')?
Oh, to start with your last one first, there is no way on earth Pete Dye would have ever apologized for any of his design work. I was very lucky to have him as a mentor, and one of the first things I learned from him is that you've got to believe in what you are doing, and not worry about what other people say. That's not the same as being overconfident -- I did spend two days with him watching golf at the TPC at Sawgrass in 1982 so he could verify that all the holes played as he intended, and all of the criticism was just venting by players who hadn't played well [or who wanted to register their interest in a future design career].
I'm not sure that Mr. Wind had the broadest of tastes, but there certainly was a difference between him and Bernard Darwin, vs. any of the critical voices today. It starts with the fact Mr. Wind and Mr. Darwin were on the staff of The New Yorker and The Times of London, respectively, bound by the rules of journalism and the times to remain somewhat neutral. [Golf magazines do not have the same high standards.] Everyone today is ADVOCATING for what they believe to be important, favoring certain styles and certain designers over others. Not to mention that Brad and Geoff and Ron and Darius Oliver and even Tommy N make $ by selling their services as consultants or helping out certain designers.
So, yes, as Don objects above, there is a sense that certain designers can do no wrong and everything they do must be praised. I'm not sure if that's really in deference to those designers, or to their powerful clients. Today's developers all seem to want to control the narrative, and most writers seem unwilling to risk their access to those places by printing anything other than unstinting praise. But on that score, there are many worse offenders than those listed above.
-
Tom,
My entire Golf Life has been striving for what I believe to be the best golf course design possible, based off of Golden Age ideals, as well as those I’ve read about and learned about for years. I don’t think you have ever been blind to my passion, certainly others haven’t been.
As far as making a living off of it, we’ll, I threw away an electrical career, literally sacrificing myself for not just this site but others and architects I believed were trying to make a difference; to help people learn and access courses..even making sure people were invited to every event I was ever part of.. I did it all for making what I believe to be the betterment of this game for everyone, via camaraderie and good will.
Yeah, I’m closed off!
I believe that the age of RTJ was not a good time for Golf Course Design during a growth period after WW II. Don, prove it otherwise!
Let’s look at the list of great designs from that period. How do they compare to 1909 to 1937 (the actual end of the Golden Age despite being in the depression) Peachtree?(mostly because of Bobby Jones involvement). What else? Golf lost its whimsical fun during that period, instead going for brutish heroic shots and bunkers placed outside of doglegs. Etc. much of it was because of housing developments or just simply, building something that was hard and get noticed. The school of strategic fun was lost to grip it and rip it. Clubs went from names to numbers. The golf ball just keeps on getting longer and longer.
Tom, I always thought you felt much the same architecturally, but as Captain Geo. C. Thomas Jr. said, “We all have our preferences and biases!”😉 And that’s the way it should be!
-
Tommy, my only point is why can’t Jones Jr have an opinion that is at least worthy of consideration?
How you start tying that into some design era is a total deflection. His family worked on that golf course and he has an opinion about it. Parts of which I found moderately interesting. But because he’s not in your architectural camp, you don’t think anything he says should ever be considered.
While I think there are better design eras than the “Jones era” I’m not so sure it’s not part of the evolution, and thus at least, to me, worthy of some study.
BTW, you mention that the greens were scanned? Why? I mean there not originals are they? If you were putting them back, and finding “reclaimed areas” and new pins, were you doing that using scans of greens that have been rebuilt multiple times? Not a rhetorical question. I’m seriously trying to understand what you are saying about the greens.
-
Is it safe to say that, whatever has been done to the them, they are now a set of greens that GH would be proud to call his own?
-
Is it safe to say that, whatever has been done to the them, they are now a set of greens that GH would be proud to call his own?
If there was anyone who wouldn't have been proud to call the greens at Oakland Hills their own, before the work to them, I would seriously question their sanity.
-
Is it safe to say that, whatever has been done to the them, they are now a set of greens that GH would be proud to call his own?
If there was anyone who wouldn't have been proud to call the greens at Oakland Hills their own, before the work to them, I would seriously question their sanity.
Tom,
I may be reading it wrong, but are you implying what is there now is inferior to what Rees Jones or RTJ did? Or is the "before the work to them" refer to the original work RTJ Senior did. There was at least 3 major renovations if i'm tracking it right, and perhaps more...
-
Tommy, my only point is why can’t Jones Jr have an opinion that is at least worthy of consideration?
This whole topic is to consider and discuss his opinions.
-
If there was anyone who wouldn't have been proud to call the greens at Oakland Hills their own, before the work to them, I would seriously question their sanity.
Tom,
I may be reading it wrong, but are you implying what is there now is inferior to what Rees Jones or RTJ did? Or is the "before the work to them" refer to the original work RTJ Senior did. There was at least 3 major renovations if i'm tracking it right, and perhaps more...
Kalen:
I haven't seen the course since the last PGA Championship there, so I wasn't opining on the new work. But the greens as they were from 1981 when I first saw them, until 2008, were one of the great sets of greens in the world. That was mostly the work of Ross with some refinements by RTJ.
From what I understand, the intent of the current restoration was to preserve most of the contours as they were, albeit with a bunch of voodoo stuff underneath them.
-
Just to say, in the name of trying to be fair minded, that asking RTJ in 1951 to have our kind of reverence/nostalgia for Oakland Hills is a bit like asking a top modern day architect to have reverence /nostalgia for a course built in the mid 1980s, by one of their contemporaries or immediate predecessors. With a course like Peachtree to his name, is it really so surprising -- especially given his USGA remit in this case -- that RTJ didn't honour a recent predecessor's work as much as we do nowadays? Note: I'm not saying RTJ was 'right' (or 'wrong') to alter Ross' original design, only that such judgements are well above my station, and that I think we can make them too easily and automatically. Had history even become 'History' at that point, and had Ross already become the towering figure of the (yet to be named) Golden Age, or are we instead projecting backwards a latterly developed value system and significance? And I mean, re: the question of 'erasing history', will GH's current work on Oakland Hills itself be considered 'historical' and sacrosanct when the course hosts the 2051 US Open and protected against erasure? At any rate, I guess I'm just uncomfortable whenever we fall into our shooting fish in a barrel mode, eg with Nicklaus, or Fazio's renovations, or RTJ Jr's dissing of Gil Hanse on a Fried Egg podcast etc. I start feeling a little sorry for the fish.
But for a few comments, I don't think RTJ Sr. or Jr. is being mistreated in this thread, and there's some decent argument occurring here about different styles of architecture, different eras, and a few recognizable architects in each respective time. The OP was impartial and highlighted notable quotes for opinion.
More importantly, the podcast--in the first two episodes especially--did a wonderful job contextualizing RTJ Sr.'s design philosophy across multiple (possible) factors. 1. Market forces of the golf industry, and the country in general, coming out of Great Depression and WWII, and the need for RTJ Sr. to find a pathway for his career, which, with the abetting of then USGA leadership, took the form of telling clubs their courses needed to be redesigned to accommodate the skill and technology of the professional game. 2. Club and ball technology. 3. Post WWII enthusiasm for newness, modernity, growth, and an understandable repudiation of the past 20-30 years.
If something has changed over time, i.e. a course being asked to hold a tourney or more common, a private course being turned into a public golf course, why should original design intent be so important? And, I really doubt it is to this group, i.e., if we think we might know what Ross did in 1921, redo it. If we know what RTJ did, forget it, we don't care about his original intent because we have decided we don't like it. That isn't supporting original design intent, that is pushing your own vision, which is exactly what many here trash those in the 1950-90's for, no?
Jeff, has a notable RTJ Sr. original design ever been completely redone by anyone not in his family? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I could be mistaken.
My quick take is it might be wise to at least consider his POV. I realize in this era of untouchable brands that makes you a contrarian.
Golf architecture has never been so close minded as it is today.
I've tried considering RTJ Jr.'s POV in light of the quotes Erik selected, and from the podcast overall, and what I interpret (as I mention in an earlier comment) is that he and his father held/hold very different regard for Golden Age architects compared to Gil. RTJ Sr.'s brand was robust enough that the Open Doctor moniker followed him. His professional work, excluding his original designs, were meant to transform courses into a challenging layout that would be identifiable to the tour, media, and members as his work, not the original architect. In stark contrast, at the end of the podcast series, Gil's quoted that after his projects are complete, he wants members and guests to become more enthusiastic about who Tillinghast was and the work he did, or Ross, or Raynor, etc. I'm not sure I can emphasize that difference enough. It's not about humility here, it's about the regard for the design ideals and philosophies of who we now refer to as Golden Age architects. You can entertain plenty of reasons for why RTJ Sr. may have distanced himself from those architects and their work--for the sake of earning a living, or because maybe he really thought they were weak courses, etc.--but time has proven that RTJ Sr. and his ilk are the contrarians of commonly held design values shared across Ross, Hanse, Doak, MacKenzie, Thomas, Tillinghast, so on and so forth. I'm not passing judgement on RTJ Sr.'s divergence, but it's not "close minded" to recognize RTJ Jr.'s words and still find them to be critically unsubstantiated.
It’s their own design ideas under the cover of revisionist history. No different than what RTJ did. Just looks better today
Who are you referring to here? Because this, too, sounds unsubstantiated. If it's Hanse, that'd be tantamount to calling his historically based, thoroughly researched thesis he presents to memberships of the various notable clubs he's worked with an empty, duplicitous marketing ploy. Which would also imply that leadership among the USGA and a dozen or so of the country's finest clubs have all been hoodwinked. I find that difficult to believe.
-
There's a bunker in Delco that can't comment on this thread.
-
I wonder how RTJ Jr. feels about Andrew Green's total redo of his Dad's and brother's work at Congressional.
-
Does anyone actually know what Gil was using as a reference point for his restoration?
There were multiple iterations of the course prior to RTJ showing up.
1. The original 1918 Ross design.
2. The reworked course (by Ross) for the 1937 US Open. (This is the version of the course that Tillie commented on.)
3. The never implemented Ross design from 1947 for the 1951 US Open (The plans Jeff discussed and noted by Ron Whitten in this article - https://www.golfdigest.com/story/gw20070914whitten).
From what I understand Gil was using a 1929 Women's Amateur Program as his primary source of historical information.
Why were the 1937 changes not contemplated, nor the 1947 proposed evolution?
Here's a previous discussion of the 1937 changes - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62242.msg1479508.html#msg1479508.
Sven
-
Michael,
You're last paragraph is nothing more than a hyperbolic leap from what you quoted. Do you think in RTJ's time there wasn't members who had to approved planned work, and that there wasn't input from the USGA? You think he just came in and said hire me and I'm doing what I want how I want and with as much of your $$$ as I need? I promise you he had to get sign off by the club and the USGA if the work was about prepping for a US Open. That is my opinion, if you know better, please set me straight. He and the club thought at the time that they were improving the golf course.
Regarding modern day "restorations". If I want to restore a 100 year old golf course, the first thing I have to decide is what will I restore. As Sven notes, the club and GH probably had some decisions to make. Then they had to decide exactly what to restore from that period, and where to add "new" design. Please set me straight again but I think the club has visions of hosting major tournaments. Do you think the 1929 version could hold up to the modern equipment if it was actually "restored"? You think the greens from 1929 would perform with US Open speeds? I honestly don't know the difference between what was there in '29 to what is there now, but I'm guessing the '29 greens were not "restored". If they weren't, someone had to design new surfaces.
I believe the work GH performed and much of what we call "restoration" would be better termed, "influenced by". I believe the reason you hire GH is because you know important design decisions will need to be made every day.
If I'm restoring a classic car like a 1929 Rolls-Royce Phantom, I don't need a designer, I need a craftsman. If I'm restoring a famous old house or building, I might need an architect because the systems will be modernized, but I will upgrade systems while trying to maintain the look. If I'm restoring I'm not making the rooms bigger or raising the roof 10 feet. But If I'm restoring a 100-yr-old classic golf course AND I want it capable of hosting a major championship in an era where the average drive is well over 100 years longer than the period I'm using as a template, then I'm not restoring, I'm doing work that is influenced by an architect's work from 95 years ago. I don't have green scans from 1929 and I can't pull up LIADR. And no matter how talented anyone is in creating renderings or any other digital medium, it's all educated guesses made by talented professionals, but it is their interpretation. The REASON I hire GH or any other highly qualified architect is because there will be design decisions made every day. If he can educate members' about the architect, great. If he teaches them about their own history, great. But somebody has to make the design decisions, and it ain't Donald Ross. My issue is with the "restoration" marketing. It is not with the work. There is a difference, and there are many, many levels of these so called restorations. And I don't get why we don't just call it what it is. Architects have design options and they pick what they think is the best one. That's design, their design. I call it revisionist history because for some reason we in the industry feel like we have to hide that and claim we are restoring something when what we are doing is taking design work from 100 years ago and using it as an influence as we modernize golf courses. [/size][/font]
-
Very good series of posts here.
As an industry insider, Don ends his post with: "What we are doing is taking design work from 100 years ago and using it as an influence as we modernize golf courses."
As a complete outsider, reading about these renovations and looking at the results from afar, I'd say: "What we are doing is building modern golf courses in exactly the ways we nowadays think best, but if/when we can find and utilize enough historical elements that align with own current sensibilities we can then call that work a restoration."
I think salty RTJ Jr was nonetheless quite insightful with his use of the terms 'programatic elements' and 'nostalgia'. It's not that modern-day architects are falsifying or misremembering the past, but that they are selectively picking out from that past only those elements that serve their design needs and narratives today. The nostalgia lies in not being fully open to or acknowledging the entire picture from the past.
And, to Don's point: I don't think there is anything wrong or unprofessional or unethical about that; but it does seems neater and cleaner to just "call it what it is".
-
Jeff, has a notable RTJ Sr. original design ever been completely redone by anyone not in his family? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I could be mistaken.
Royal Golf Daressaalaam's Red course in Rabat, Morocco. Built in the early 70s by Jones and Cabell Robinson, but the greens were not built to Jones’s original design because he left town in a hurry as a result of an attempted coup against King Hassan and never went back. A few years ago, the Moroccan golf federation, which is basically run by Prince Moulay Rachid, hired longtime Coore and Crenshaw associate James Duncan to renovate the course. James visited the Cornell archive, where Jones's files are stored, and stumbled across the original green plans -- so rebuilt the greens to those plans, while also rebunkering, removing some trees, etc.
The course was always pretty much the most difficult on the European Tour when the Trophee Hassan II went there, but after James had redone the greens, it became seriously, seriously tough. I was there for the first Trophee, and James, who is a friend, was seriously on edge to see how the scoring went -- if nobody had broken 75 I think he thought he'd be for the high jump. However there were several rounds under par, though nothing below about 68, and he relaxed. Fine course.
-
Hayzeus Chreestay!
The course is so much more playable and interesting for the average member/golfer with width and reasonable options. The greens are still exacting and ferocious and really make you think from the tee.
To suggest anyone but Hogan enjoyed the wasp-waisted fairways lined with rows of bunkers is a stretch.
-
Royal Golf Daressaalaam's Red course in Rabat, Morocco.
Adam, thanks for this info. Fascinating context too.
Michael, You're last paragraph is nothing more than a hyperbolic leap from what you quoted. Do you think in RTJ's time there wasn't members who had to approved planned work, and that there wasn't input from the USGA? You think he just came in and said hire me and I'm doing what I want how I want and with as much of your $$$ as I need? I promise you he had to get sign off by the club and the USGA if the work was about prepping for a US Open. That is my opinion, if you know better, please set me straight. He and the club thought at the time that they were improving the golf course.
Don, thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I don't follow your rebuttal here, because I didn't make any point about RTJ Sr.'s hiring process. I agree, it's safe to assume RTJ Sr. and the club were focused on improving the course. The broader argument has been more about whether their working definition at the time is still valid (or was ever valid). RTJ Jr. certainly thinks so. But their thesis then was to move beyond Ross. Gil, decades later, presents to the membership that he's going to improve the course by bringing Ross back. That's the simple contrast that's fascinating me most here.
Regarding modern day "restorations". If I want to restore a 100 year old golf course, the first thing I have to decide is what will I restore. As Sven notes, the club and GH probably had some decisions to make. Then they had to decide exactly what to restore from that period, and where to add "new" design. Please set me straight again but I think the club has visions of hosting major tournaments. Do you think the 1929 version could hold up to the modern equipment if it was actually "restored"? You think the greens from 1929 would perform with US Open speeds?
No, I don't think a 100% faithful restoration to 1929 yardages would hold up. In my initial comment on this thread I mentioned that Gil's work reflects the necessity to move back teeing areas and occasional bunkers to accommodate for the modern game. He himself uses the term historic renovation. I can accept your disagreement with using the term restoration, and I'm not belaboring on this for the sake of semantics, that doesn't interest me.
If I'm restoring a 100-yr-old classic golf course AND I want it capable of hosting a major championship in an era where the average drive is well over 100 years longer than the period I'm using as a template, then I'm not restoring, I'm doing work that is influenced by an architect's work from 95 years ago. I don't have green scans from 1929 and I can't pull up LIADR. And no matter how talented anyone is in creating renderings or any other digital medium, it's all educated guesses made by talented professionals, but it is their interpretation. The REASON I hire GH or any other highly qualified architect is because there will be design decisions made every day. If he can educate members' about the architect, great. If he teaches them about their own history, great. But somebody has to make the design decisions, and it ain't Donald Ross. My issue is with the "restoration" marketing. It is not with the work. There is a difference, and there are many, many levels of these so called restorations. And I don't get why we don't just call it what it is. Architects have design options and they pick what they think is the best one. That's design, their design. I call it revisionist history because for some reason we in the industry feel like we have to hide that and claim we are restoring something when what we are doing is taking design work from 100 years ago and using it as an influence as we modernize golf courses.
Here I agree with you on the perceived amount of decision making and new work/shaping that goes into restorative design. But I don't think "influenced by" encompasses the amount of effort, nor the amount of ego that gets set aside, that goes into restoring Ross's OH South, Thomas's LACC North or Bel Air (for Doak), etc. Because in my POV Doak, Coore & Crenshaw, and Hanse become chameleon-like in their restorative projects. Of their courses I've seen, both original and restored, the restored examples don't possess any trademark or signature elements oftentimes found in their originals. They intentionally take a backseat. All creative, modern-day decision making is still funneled through the lens of the original architect.
I personally think the best compliment that can be given to architects working in restorations today is the belief that, if the original architect were able to return to the site, they'd still recognize the course they saw. That couldn't be said for Ross five years ago. That couldn't be said for Maxwell at Southern Hills or Old Town until the last decade or so. That still can't be said for Behr at Lakeside.
My primary disagreement with you is that your usage of revisionist history, and suggestion that RTJ Sr. and Hanse operate similarly, discredits (in my view) the reverence an architect like Gil has for the original architects of the courses he's hired to renovate. Revisionist history implies (to me) that you're criticizing Gil for using his historically based approach as a tactic for gaining personal fame in the industry. However, I appreciate you expanding on your thoughts and demonstrating your affection for the quality of the work that is being done.
RTJ Jr.'s use of the word nostalgia strikes me as deliberate, delivered with a clear tone of condescension, intended to demean Gil and all other architects working today who carry out renovation work with a respect for the past rather than turning a blind eye to the original architect the way he and his father did. The question I posed to Jeff, which Adam helpfully answered, came in part because I myself had to search online to figure out just which courses were RTJ Sr. originals and which were the ones where he erased the first architect, because their differences are hard to discern. Chameleon he was not.
-
Michael,
RTJ and GH worked in different eras and their styles are not similar. If they traded places in time do you think they'd be doing the same work?
When you tell me you know what a long dead architect would recognize should he return, then you've had a little too much kool aid in my opinion.
The thread is yours and I leave with this question. If an architect "restores" a golf course to an earlier time, say 1929, but keeps some elements from a 1950's"renovation" performed by a different architect, what do you call that? How does all that fit into your narrative. I'll give you my answer, if the architect thinks it makes it better and the client agrees, then I believe its a good decision. Makes it difficult to slap a label on it, and it probably won't be a talking point, but in the end no matter what you describe the work as, it's the architect's job to improve the golf course. I am interested in hearing your answer.
-
I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out. I talk a lot about preserving history, but what happens when you have history on top of history (ie - an RTJ renovated course that carved its own history, on top of a Ross original)? At the moment, the default is to revert to a Golden Age history, but some courses might 'restore' at the expense of more recent history. No one can ever go play the exact course that Hogan played to make that claim, which is maybe what RTJ Jr was getting at?
Now, before the pitchforks come after me - I'll caveat by saying personally, I think in Oakland Hills' case, it seems like they made the right decision as restoring older history will give a playing experience that is in line with how golfers want their course to play in today's era (more variety, fun, etc). Also, I believe Rees did some work, so it's not as if the 'Monster' that Hogan encountered, was still there for 100% preservation.
But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...
-
RTJ Jr.'s use of the word nostalgia strikes me as deliberate, delivered with a clear tone of condescension, intended to demean Gil and all other architects working today who carry out renovation work with a respect for the past rather than turning a blind eye to the original architect the way he and his father did.
I can't speak to the work his father did in the 40s or whenever that was, but I felt similarly (hence this topic) about the way he talked.
The thread is yours and I leave with this question. If an architect "restores" a golf course to an earlier time, say 1929, but keeps some elements from a 1950's"renovation" performed by a different architect, what do you call that?
Doesn't that just get into the old conversation about design credit? How much work is required — particularly given the routing remains — before you can take partial or even headliner credit on the design?
I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out.
Seeing as how no high-level (PGA, U.S. Open) championship has been held since it was renovated, who is to say it will not be just as much of a monster while being a bit more playable day-to-day for the members?
-
I wonder how that interview would have went if an architect had been called in to restore one his dad's course that had been significantly changed over the years...
P.S. When did the tree house start hanging on every word spoken by past legends of the game? Jones, Hogan, Palmer, Player, etc...since when did their architecture opinions matter? Hogan was no doubt one of the greatest players ever, but why does it matter if he dubbed OH the Monster?
-
Michael,
RTJ and GH worked in different eras and their styles are not similar. If they traded places in time do you think they'd be doing the same work?
When you tell me you know what a long dead architect would recognize should he return, then you've had a little too much kool aid in my opinion.
The thread is yours and I leave with this question. If an architect "restores" a golf course to an earlier time, say 1929, but keeps some elements from a 1950's"renovation" performed by a different architect, what do you call that? How does all that fit into your narrative. I'll give you my answer, if the architect thinks it makes it better and the client agrees, then I believe its a good decision. Makes it difficult to slap a label on it, and it probably won't be a talking point, but in the end no matter what you describe the work as, it's the architect's job to improve the golf course. I am interested in hearing your answer.
Don, thanks. I've enjoyed our debate and I too agree it's time for it to end, partly because I don't think we're focusing on the same points for argument any more. I'm not going to answer your trading places question, not because it's speculative, but I said in a previous comment that I'm not judging RTJ Sr. whatsoever for the motivations or rationale for the actions he took as an architect. My interest has been comparing RTJ Sr. and Gil's relationship to original architects in renovation work.
I didn't tell you that I know what a past designer thinks. In my example about whether Ross would recognize today's OH South as his own more so now than how the course appeared before Hanse's work, I used the word belief. And I do believe he'd favor Hanse's iteration over RTJ Sr.'s.
I'll answer your final question since you've requested it, but I find it connected to the point I conceded to you in my previous reply regarding your dissatisfaction with the terminology of restoration. It doesn't much bother me whether it's called renovation or restoration, I'm again more interested in how the hired architect either enhanced or diminished the work done by the course's original architect. In your example I'd describe it as: a restoration based from 1929 that retained elements from a 1950s renovation performed by a different architect.
Appreciate you taking the time to discuss over multiple replies.
But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...
Tim--good point! I think this entire discussion would and should be different if Peachtree or Hazeltine National were to hire someone not in the Jones family to completely transform their course. That would be an erasure of history, whereas Oakland Hills decided to excavate/recover/restore/renovate (pick your synonym) an iteration of their original Ross history.
-
Jeff, has a notable RTJ Sr. original design ever been completely redone by anyone not in his family? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I could be mistaken.
Michael,
Off the top of my head, Congressional and Shady Oaks. Hopefully Mike Clayton can pop in and comment on the missions behind their redesign at Shady Oaks.
-
It’s rare that a thread proves every contradictory point correct by the nature of the contradiction, yet, here we are.
In four page the close-mindedness AND the open-mindedness is shown by people attempting to uphold the opposite.
Big world, indeed.
I haven’t played an RTJ, Sr. original that I don’t wish to return to.
-
I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out. I talk a lot about preserving history, but what happens when you have history on top of history (ie - an RTJ renovated course that carved its own history, on top of a Ross original)? At the moment, the default is to revert to a Golden Age history, but some courses might 'restore' at the expense of more recent history. No one can ever go play the exact course that Hogan played to make that claim, which is maybe what RTJ Jr was getting at?
Now, before the pitchforks come after me - I'll caveat by saying personally, I think in Oakland Hills' case, it seems like they made the right decision as restoring older history will give a playing experience that is in line with how golfers want their course to play in today's era (more variety, fun, etc). Also, I believe Rees did some work, so it's not as if the 'Monster' that Hogan encountered, was still there for 100% preservation.
But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...
Absolutely. Oakland Hills is mostly famous for the Ben Hogan Monster narrative and the continuation of that narrative for future major championships. But that narrative is somewhat false and it has the benefit of recency bias. I recall it took some doing to convince the membership to approve the plan in part because the Monster would be erased, but the narrative will still exist.
I was never fond of the Monster. Unbelievable set of greens and wonderful terrain, but the Monster characteristics of high rough and pinch bunkers robbed the course of its full compliment of playing characteristics.
At the end of day, Oakland Hills is famous championship venue. If the USGA/PGA continue to call upon OH it will remain famous. Not many clubs have hosted more high profile events.
Ciao
-
This is an interesting topic:
I think back of an Architectural Design class I took in college, (best elective class ever). We studied building types from various eras all the way from classical Greek and Roman to modern styles, and while most were appealing the 1950's cold, sterile, concrete buildings in general were fairly off-putting to my senses. The style, known as Brutalist Architecture, seems apropos, with many fugly structures like this:
And when i think of RTJ golf courses, which correlate to the same period, they tend to evoke the same kind of response...once again just to my eye as I've only seen his stuff primarily in pictures. But as always there are exceptions like Spyglass, as with structures, such as this, which is nothing short of amazingly beautiful.
It would be one thing if Brutalism was the only architecture style present in post-war times, or even the most prominent. But it wasn't. Ignoring a prolific style such as Mid-Century Modern or even Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian style is being disingenuous to the time and place.
In the same way of trying to associate modern minimalism architecture:
(https://www.caandesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/modern-minimal-home-pristine-box-seemed-landed-desert-foothills-tucson-arizona-03.jpg)
with modern minimalism golf course architecture:
(https://cdn.allsquaregolf.com/pictures/pictures/000/022/301/large/sand_hills_golf_club_cover_picture.jpg)
(https://www.executivetraveller.com/photos/view/size:1200,675/5bd9082104044408979d463bdd799463-minimalist-golf-courses-1.jpg)
-
When I read about people objecting to restorations at golf courses on historical/nostalgia grounds, I always think they are missing one very important fact--No golf course stays the same forever. They are living, changing, evolving entities. Grass and trees grow; sand dunes shift, wind blows material around, ground shifts and slides, etc. So the idea that restoration itself changes a course is wrong--it may just be restoring what nature has already changed. I think maybe RTJ Jr. misses that point.
-
Sean A brings up an interesting point on the Oakland Hills membership, not everyone did want it to be or stay "Monstered". My grandfather along with friends joined at some point in the 30's to help save the club. They also switched the Cranbrook school dances from their primary club, Bloomfield Hills to Oakland Hills to help it survive. One member of the group, Mr. Wilson, had an ulterior goal because it was an executive benefit for his executives at GM. My grandfather left sometime before or after the Open. Considering that he was a rather poor golfer in spite of playing at least 5 times week, he preferred playing his other less challenging clubs.
-
Ben,
I'm not sure if you're being serious. Frank Lloyd Write designed virtually his entire portfolio prior to WW2 and he passed in the 1950s, as the brutalist period was just going main stream. His body of work far better aligns to the Pre-Golden Age of golf if we're going to try to draw that line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works)
But sure there will always be exceptions, but Brutalism was by far and away the rule of the time period with structures literally being built in this style all over the world.
-
Kalen,
The Usonian style may have been FLW's greatest gift to architecture. It was a design mentality that was more suited to the every day suburban home and became a template that other architects followed after his death. Thus why I specifically mentioned it in my comment and did not speak of his entire career.
Brutalism on the other hand is a specific design style who's term is often misappropriated to describe other designs. Often those designs who significantly utilized exposed concrete in their construction are classified as brutalist when they may not be. While it was most commonly seen in municipal and educational buildings, it was rarely the style of residential construction, especially single family home. At a time when large portions of the US population were moving out of the cities and into the suburbs, they were not moving into brutalist homes.
Now, why did I focus on residential suburban design? for 2 reasons. 1, the majority of architecture that is constructed and that we interact with on a daily basis is residential. 2, Post war golf courses were not build in the cities.
-
Ben,
Thanks for the clarification, I certainly agree with all of that.
In my mind, I was associating larger buildings as you mentioned as big scale projects, much like a golf course, that take years to complete from inception to opening day...as opposed to residential dwellings that are built far more abundantly and much quicker.