[Patrick_Mucci]

Hollywood was intended to be a championship golf course. Those who have been on GCA for a number of years are probably familiar with the old aerial of Hollywood that I had someone post.  The aerial was quite impressive, with an incredible number of bunkers, including numerous cross bunkers.  Over the years, bunker after bunker disappeared as the membership and purpose of the golf course for THEIR use changed.

Members aged, more women began playing, and junior golfers, virtually non-existant previously, emerged as a part of the membership.

The early bunkering ferociously defended the golf course.
But, as the membership moved away from its entrepreneurial and founding roots into a club run through democratic principles, committees, etc., etc., the needs and desires of the membership shifted from a championship golf course to a membership FRIENDLY golf course.  Hence much of the bite in the golf course, the bunkers, were removed and/or shifted.

Pine Valley was created for the championship golfer.
Over the years it has been subjected to very few changes.

But, If, instead of ruling czars, the club evolved into a general membership club, like so many others, with revolving presidents, boards, committees, memberships and diverse membership demographics, including wives, daughters, juniors, advanced seniors, couples etc., etc.. do you think the course would have remained in its present state, or would it have been altered to suit the needs and desires of its changing and evolving MEMBERSHIP ?

What changes do you think would have been made on a hole by hole basis ?

[Mike Nuzzo]

"You can't have a blind shot to that green!"

I would guess that the coolest green on the course, #2, would have been "softened" considerably.

[Gene Greco]

#5 comes immediately to mind. It would have to be cleared on the left side to build a tee with shorter yardage, an easier angle to the green and some bailout room.

[TEPaul]

The most speculative thread I've ever seen on Golfclubatlas. The point is it didn't happen that way at Pine Valley for a very good reason. In over 90 years the club has only had six presidents and they ran the show. Probably steering clear of big time tournaments and all that seems to produce may have helped the preservation of the place too. They also honor their creator and that's a good thing to do--right from the day he died the club was hesitant to do much at all that would have been against what they preceived to be his wishes and plans. Not a bad way for any real class course to go into the future.

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick:
The reason we don't have good gun control laws in this country is because a gun could be used on anyone who would consider touching Pine Valley.
Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

Dave;

Did you know it was the former hunter, George Crump himself who when he began to build the course banned hunting (guns) from Pine Valley?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Early Hollywood appears to be far more penal than Pine Valley.

The two could have easily swapped their evolutionary processes.

It's not such a quantum leap, or difficult exercise to imagine the homogenized changes that would have taken place had Pine Valley become democracized.  

You, of all people, should be able to visualize the potential changes.  Tax your mind, give it a try  

[TEPaul]

I don't tax my mind on worthless speculation particularly as you might try to make some ridiculously incorrect point if I speculated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

So you don't see the merits in tracking the evolution of two championship, penal golf courses, one that kept an authoritarian reign on its governance and direction, and one that evolved democratically and became a family club, and the impact of those chosen paths upon the golf course ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I shudder to think of Pine Valley being anything different then it is.

I say lock up the place and throw away the key--with me inside! Long live the Benevolent Dictatorship!

(Mayor, I'll need a place to sleep. I'll be fine with my corner room, upstairs in the last dormitory, with the view of #5!)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I've always favored dictatorships at golf courses, benevolent or otherwise.

But, not all clubs have enjoyed that stewardship.

And, the reality is, that the membership often shapes the golf course to suit their perceived needs, especially when it's a country club and not a golf club, in name and in spirit.

I've been at many a green committee and Board meeting when a member wants the golf course altered to suit the particular needs of other family members and friends.  
Multiply this by 200 to 400 or more members and the process usually results in the golf course bearing the scars of those requests.

Sometimes compromise is required to ameliorate a more drastic alteration.

Theory and reality are often light years apart.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm not familiar with Hollywood, so I can't imagine the  transition from penal to friendly. I AM familiar with Pine Valley, but still I can't imagine such a change there either. It seems like you would have to totally butcher the place. There are just too many shots that require a miminal level of playing ability.

Holes that might require some change:

1 - fall off around green
2 - green
3 - eliminate the island like green
4 - bulldoze the hill, flatten it out
5 - start over
6 - tee shot too intimidating
7 - fill in Hell's Half Acre
8 - drastically enlarge the green
9 - seriously widen landing area

10 - remove that bunker
11 - okay as it is......maybe
12 - okay as it is......probably
13 - okay as it is......probably
14 - start over
15 - fill in the lake
16 - fill in the sand
17 - grass over area around green
18 - eliminate the forced carry approach

Long live the czar!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Over an eighty (80) year period those changes aren't as radical as you might think.

Have the czarist clubs fared better in preserving their golf course architecture ?

ANGC, Pine Valley, Seminole, Shoal Creek, The Honors, The Floridian.

What other clubs fall into the czarist category, and has their architecture remained intact ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm inclined to think you really have to look at each club on a case by case basis. The czar tradition at Pine Valley is well known and it served to maintain the golf course very close to the original design. However, doesn't Augusta National provide us with another case entirely? There certainly was a czar, but that didn't stop numerous changes from being made to the golf course.

Then, let's look at place like Crystal Downs. It remained very well preserved, but why? Was it a czar? Remote location? Decades of obscurity?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Is Crystal Downs strictly a golf club, or is it a country club ?

Sometimes that distinction makes the difference.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
So you don't see the merits in tracking the evolution of two championship, penal golf courses, one that kept an authoritarian reign on its governance and direction, and one that evolved democratically and became a family club, and the impact of those chosen paths upon the golf course?"

Pat:

Sure I see the merits in comparing them but instead of speculating how a democratic management would've screwed up Pine Valley how about speculating on how a preservationist management at Hollywood would have architecturally preserved that course? Only trouble for me with speculating about that is I've never seen Hollywood so I have no idea what's happened there over the years. And I can't see the point of speculating about what a membership of Trudy Twitchtits would do to a golf course like Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As Tim Weiman pointed out with the vastly different czarists histories (to the architecture) between Pine Valley and ANGC obviously just because a club has a czar doesn't mean its architecture is going to be preserved. In fairness to ANGC though, if it hadn't had the Masters all these years it's architecture probably would have been largely preserved too.

Generally speaking Czar run clubs seem to hold onto their orginal culture better than democratic clubs with revolving administrations. But who knows, Gulph Mills is a pretty democratic place and basically has a new President and administration every two years but has managed to hold onto its original culture remarkably well. People over the years have proposed to put in tennis courts and stuff--and actually they did put in two about 20 years ago but they took them out again. And after about 80 years the place still remains just a fairly sleepy little golf course only.

So who knows--it's all in the membership and the culture that's part of the club. Our club has changed a little but not much--it's seems like the membership is very aware of the original culture and that's something most all of them seem to value and want to preserve.

Frankly, probably the best way to preserve any golf course and its architecture too is through an avenue that's almost never talked about on this website.

And of course that would be a club's membership committee and its policy. If that remains preservationist to the original culture of the club and course things will probably be just fine!

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Ballybunion is another golf club that demonstrates there is no direct link between having a czar and course preservation. True, Sean Walsh served as the Secretary for many years, but Ballybunion has really been run by a Committee with short terms of service (though one can serve on a continual basis). Nonetheless, a strong emphasis has been placed on preserving the golf course. Even when Tom Watson was hired several years ago to make some changes to the course - in part to due an anticipated Irish open - the changes were so subtle that most people probably wouldn't even notice.

Tom Paul used the word "culture". This applies to Ballybunion. Nobody ever thinks they are bigger than the club itself and I've never seen anyone who wants to make a name for themself.

Ernie Ransome has, of course, maintained close ties to the club, but Ballybunion has preservation well engrained into the entire mindset of the place......at least when it comes to the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your wonderful book, "Gulph Mills Golf Club, Design Evolution
1916-1999" chronicles all of the MANY changes that took place at Gulph Mills over the years, so I'm puzzled at your reference to the static nature of the architecture from inception until today.

The financial condition of a club often has a dramatic influence on the admissions committees policies and recommended candidates.

Club politics, not architects are the primary forces that shape golf courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'd be interested in this subject as it pertains to Winged Foot. The club has never had a czar reputation, at least not to my knowledge. But, I think the architecture has remained pretty stable. Even the recent Fazio/Latshaw work was pretty much limited to some tree clearing, as I understand it.

[TEPaul]

"so I'm puzzled at your reference to the static nature of the architecture from inception until today."

Pat:

You'll notice I mentioned the preservation of the culture of GMGC not the architecture. I wasn't referencing the architecture.

But now that you mentioned the architecture of GMGC and the changes perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a look at that. Somebody might be misled into thinking that GMGC was like a "revolving administration changing the course all the time" kind of place if only looking at the fact which I mentioned in my book that to date eight architects have done things at GMGC.

But to look at it only that way is deceiving. The first six holes of the course are the same as they've always been as are the last four. The middle holes have been changed. But of course one needs to understand why that happened in the middle of the course. Was it a whim driven thing with various administrations and members? No it really wasn't.

If one looks back on why those middle holes changed there are basically two primarly reasons;

1. We had no practice range. That alone altered three holes (#10, 12, 13).

2. The remainder of the holes that were changed (#8, 9, 11, 14) were just not very good holes or they were clearly not working well for the membership and that was apparent for well over 15 years. And so they were changed. Most of them were changed by Perry Maxwell and became much better holes.

There's occasionally on here a sentiment that if something is changed it automatically has to be a bad thing. That is simply not true and looking at architecture like that is basically really short sighted. I don't mean to say that all change is good but every situation has to be looked at on its own individual merits and looked at objectively. Part of that certainly has to do with a membership. If something isn't working for a memberhip over time it really isn't very good is it?

And also saying that any change to an original course is bad overlooks the obvious reality that even the best of architects--even a Donald Ross made mistakes and made holes that were mundane or even poor holes. At GMGC originally there were probably 1-4 holes like that--and so they were changed--and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the changes made those holes better both architecturally and for the members.

And frankly, there's another reality at work here which although I can't exactly think of a situation where it's happened it certainly could if some people push the point that an original architect's work should be restored no matter what.

And if that were to be done a club could be repeating a mistake made by the original architect in the first place? What the hell good would that be? If that happened it would probably eventually be changed again just as it once was.

Don't think some clubs don't think about that either--they do! During our restoration planning some members got all gungho about Donald Ross and thought even some of those middle holes should be restored back to the way he originally built them.

I said--WHOOOA WHOOOA WHOOOA--Perry Maxwell redesigned some of those holes what's wrong with them? Some of them are as good or maybe better than the Ross holes that have never changed. So thankfully those Maxwell holes will be preserved (and restored back from basically evolution and maintenance practices).

To me that's only sensible and objective case by case architectural analysis and restoration. So will we have holes that look like Ross and holes that look like Maxwell? Of course we will. So what? It's even better that way than it ever was with Ross's original course (meaning those original weak holes).

[Paul_Turner]

Hang on.

Pine Valley might not have had architectural features removed ; but even from pictures, I can tell that the course is not nearly as rugged as it once was.  Just have a look at early pics-Hell's Half Acre being the most obvious example.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I would definitely challenge you to show me a single golf course in the world that looks like some of the old photographs. And I'm even talking about courses that have been recently really well restored. Golf courses that have had not a single think done to them architecturally can look very different than those old photos. Maintenance alone can have much to do with it but mostly just maturation is responsible. Certainly a treed site--then or now has much to do with that different look compared to a site that never had trees and never will---like a Maidstone!

I think it's pretty damn ironic really that so many of us seem to look at those old photographs and assume that was as good as it could get but most of those architects back then would look at the way it was then and wish that the maturation process could speed up somehow.

All this and the irony of it actually makes me value more than ever a remark Bill Coore once made when we spent a week or so walking and analyzing a property for a golf course (Ardrossan Farm).

Coore is sometimes a man of few words and I was a novice and he said so little about the place I was beginning to get worried. So I asked him if there was something wrong with the place and he basically said--"Oh no, this place is really good--it's instant maturity."

That 'instant maturity' part means far more than most would ever know!

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I agree, you're right for many of the old courses.  I've posted many pics showing as much. ( Although there are a few that are pristine, to my eye)

It's just that Pine Valley is so spectacular, it shoudn't be tamed.  Take a look at the old photos of the 10th, the DA may not be there, but the current (flat?) waste bunker just doesn't cut it.  Compare this with the old pics from Shackelford's book and Carr's GI article.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Chicago GC, Crystal Downs and Franklin Hills off the top of my head, but I agree there aren't many. The reason no doubt some are because of the realities of natual maturation/change, but too many are due to human nature and the idea that change is good. I wouldn't call that   maturation.

I've never read an architect of that era mention the maturation process, in fact quite a few high profile courses of that era seem to have 'instant maturity'.

I agree with Paul PV was clearly more natural and rustic (spectacular), the changes to the 2nd and 18th greens are what stands out to me, all that green grass today looks foreign. And the trees that now choke the course are not a postive change.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()