[wsmorrison]

"Rather, I am arguing that there should not be an indiscriminatory red light that says all progress is inherently bad. "

Rich, I couldn't agree more with this statement.  Tom MacWood doesn't seem to see the merits of this open-minded view.  He is a hopeless pessimist and his glass is half empty; maybe less  

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Who is arguing that every old course should preserved? You appear to have fallen for this fictional purist stereotype.  IMO a relatively small number of significant designs should be preserved....I have I said this often. One more time won't hurt.

"The old architects were making changes to their courses when the could and certainly to other courses all the time. They didn't believe they were these venerated works of art that had to be preserved as is.  They recognized changes in the game and adapted to them when allowed to do so."

Wayne
Your argument played well when Cherry Hills was redesigned. And at Augusta National. And at Riviera. And at Bel-Air. And at Hollywood. And at Sea Island. And at the CC of Detroit. And at St. Georges. And at Ponte Vedra. And at Dornick Hills. And at Pepper Pike. Would there be a need for so many restoration specialist today if your arguemnt wasn't so appealing?
 

[wsmorrison]

I don't think you understand my argument, Tom.  Because it might get screwed up, nothing should be done?  Is that what you are saying?  That makes no sense.  Granted, there are degrees of competency in golf course design and restoration, in construction and in finish work.  Some components get it wrong individually and sometimes they all screw up (as in some of your examples).

Still, there are times when the work should be done where necessary (for the membership) and hopefully the club selects the right architect to plan the work and a construction crew to implement it.  My argument does not play well when the work was poor from start to finish.  Does that mean you dismiss the entire concept?  That is pretty dumb to me.  Why do you only list courses that suffered because of the work being crap?  Can't you think of any where it was worthwhile?  I know you can and for that reason you do not argue your point well at all.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Please tell me how the recent restoration at the Country Club in Pepper Pike is not a success to the members.  Do you know what the members think of the work?  Do you care?  How does the work stray from Flynn's design?

I encourage anyone travelling through Cleveland (does anyone travel to Cleveland  ) to stop and see this great golf course.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Honest to God I just can't imagine what's going on with you. Are you healthy? Just look at what Rich and Wayne are saying to you---it doesn't take that much to offer an intelligent response rather than always answering with a negative question---basically the same one in the same vein!

Sure, there have been redesign and restoration project mistakes, you just named some, even in the name of pure  restoration but what about the successes in both redesigns of the past and the wave of successful restorations in the last 10-15 years. Look at NLGA, Shinnecock, Kittanset, Brookline, GMGC, Plainfield, Essex, PCC, and so many others now---the list is getting longer and longer every day.

Do you think the attempts to emulate those successes by other courses should stop because of Riviera or ANGC, and the others you listed?

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that the second Shinnecock should have been preserved at the expense of never having the current one. Please answer that for me because if you do think that you really are nuts or in some dream-world where your opinion should never be taken seriously be anyone, IMO.

Aronimink is another universally successful restoration despite what you think about the bunker decision. Everyone else seems to like it other than you. So do you think they should've left the course the way it was before the restoration under the theory that if they did a restoration they may make a mistake? They weren't doing this with you in mind. They don't even know who you are. They did it for the membership like the others and they were successful.

And you're still up there in your ivory tower saying despite all that these restorations shouldn't be considered? What do you think these courses should do---do things for you although you've never been there and never will be.

You're logic is madness---it really is. Courses like Shinneock, NGLA, CPC, etc should be preserved from here on out. And following a restoration project at each they probably will be. They're more admired now than they were before---and their restorations are much of the reason why! Why can't you see that? Why do you always have to fixate on the possibility of a mistake? Look on the bright side. Do you even know what hard work to this end is? Have you ever heard of the word optimist?

If you'd been a member of GMGC six years ago and they put you on the master plan restoration committee would you have recommended they not touch the course for fear of making a mistake? If we'd done that the course would not be so much better now compared to the way it was.

[T_MacWood]

"The old architects were making changes to their courses when the could and certainly to other courses all the time. They didn't believe they were these venerated works of art that had to be preserved as is.  They recognized changes in the game and adapted to them when allowed to do so."

" 'they' also called IM Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and Flynn's redo of Shinnecock and Johnson's Seagram Building "progress" and they were right!"

TE
Do these quotes from Wayne and Rich imediately make you think of restoration? Not me. They imediately register redesign/renovation in my mind.

Yes. I'm feeling fine. Thank you.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
I was referring to Pepper Pike, not Country Club. I haven't seen TCC since they restored it.

[TEPaul]

""TE
Do these quotes from Wayne and Rich imediately make you think of restoration? Not me. They imediately register redesign/renovation in my mind."

Tom MacWood:

No they do not--not in the slightest. Perhaps Tom, for some odd reason you're unaware that the idea of restoration architecture has only been around for no more than 15-20 years. What went on in the redesigning phase of the early 1930s and on up until maybe to the mid-1980s wasn't restoration, my friend. The word and concept as it applied to golf course architecture was scarely even known---most definitely rarely if ever used. It's different today. I thought you considered yourself an historian? What kind of myopic historical analysis are you into anyway? Maybe you're also of the mind that cars shouldn't have been invented because someone had an accident in a carriage or a horseless carriage.

Just answer me straight this time----do you actually NOT think restoration architecture should take place? Yes or No? and if the answer is yes---just tell us how you think so and then we can then intelligently discuss the subject.

[BCrosby]

I don't get all the acrimony on this thread. I'll leave that to Dr. Katz.

I also don't get the substance of the debate. Or maybe it's just that I don't agree with either side.

Over time, things attain a historical "patina". N'est pas? They develop an intrinsic historical value.  

I go to visit Monticello to see a historic building. I don't want to see a new, improved version, even though we can all think of ways to "improve" it. It's drafty, the lighting system stinks, there is no phone or entertainment room with Tivo or HD TV, etc.

Similarly, I want to play the historic Eden hole. There are ways one might improve the Eden Hole, no doubt. But that is not the hole I am willing to travel 5,000 miles to play. The historic 11th on TOC has value in and of itself, whatever its shortcomings.

People who control important historic things often figure out that the historic status of these things alone gives them enormous value. It is for that reason that preservation societies exist. I am a member of a couple. They do big business based on that simple insight.

Along those lines, a Prestwick might decide that its best economic interests lay in preserving the course on which so many famous matches were played up until the '30's.

That is the course American tourists like me want to play. Notwithstanding the fact that with a little tweaking Prestwick might be a much better course for the modern game.

(I can assure you that the day Prestwick advertises itself as the "New and Improved Prestwick" is the day their green fee revenues from outside play go poof.)

I would think it quite rational for a club to decide to preserve its course in a form that ties back to an earlier era.

My read of Tom Mac's comments is that he believes:

first, more clubs ought to understand the intrinsic value of their historic courses; and

second, how well the course stands up to the modern game shouldn't be given as much weight as it usually is when deciding how or whether to undertake changes to these courses.

Some clubs may heed Tom's wishes, some won't. You may disagree about the emphasis he puts on history. But I'm not sure not why his views merit the virulent responses he's gotten on this and other threads from so many of my good friends.

Bob    

 

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Good post!

"I don't get all the acrimony on this thread. I'll leave that to Dr. Katz."

Bob:

You want to see some acrimony? Just wait 'til I confront that "ultra quack" KATZ! And if I find out he's one of them "so-called ultra purists", well, then, it might get real ugly!

"I go to visit Monticello to see a historic building. I don't want to see a new, improved version, even though we can all think of ways to "improve" it. It's drafty, the lighting system stinks, there is no phone or entertainment room with Tivo or HD TV, etc."

You got a good point there---only trouble is Monticello ain't got no "distance problem" to deal with to stay relevent! TJ was a pretty speedy cat from what I've heard---you know, he used to chase the skirts all over Monticello and I even heard he caught and nailed a few but TJ's been gone for a long time now so Monticello doesn't need to stay relevent!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()