News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2003, 12:25:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
AKA Mayday

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2003, 03:44:08 PM »
US:

Pine Valley
Sand Hills   (it isn't nice to mess with Mother Nature)

Abroad:

Royal County Down
Royal Dornoch
Royal Melbourne West/East
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2003, 08:51:35 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Stan Dodd

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2003, 09:07:56 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

M.W. Burrows

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2003, 02:57:54 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2003, 03:42:42 PM »
M.W.

They must have heard you. It's quietly going on as you speak.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bullthistle

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2003, 06:18:17 PM »

Agree with most of the above mentioned, I would like to offer;      
         - Myopia
         - Essex County Club
         - Yeaman Hall
         - Teugega
         - Linville Golf

BT
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2003, 10:28:47 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan_Belden (Guest)

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2003, 12:41:06 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2003, 05:27:45 PM »
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."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Best Candidates for Preservation
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2003, 07:11:11 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back