[TEPaul]

.....provided they are not exactly one and the same thing;

1. That a good golf course of a classic architect be preserved and restored as designed and built?

or,

2. That the course and its architecture work best for the membership?

And the second question is;

How do you think any of the old guys would answer that question when they were being considered for the job in the first place?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I feel that since the buck stops with the membership, that's where the best fit should be - regardless of the mixed results of the past. Unless the course exists explicitly as a "museum piece" it should go with the whims of the dues paying members, regardless of effect or intent.

Just gotta beat it into the dues paying members (are you reading Mayday?  ) what is and what should never be about the golf course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I think that if the dues are being paid now, the course should be built for the here and now, with the possible exception of trying to predict the future as it may exist for the club.

I think the dead guys, if they came back in a seance would say the same thing.  They probably said it then when renovating older courses of the earlier masters.  Golf in 1920 was a lot different than golf in 1895, for example. In fact, the improvements to the ball back in that period may dwarf what we see right now in terms of game change.

The biggest thing gca's of all eras have in common, despite different course styles, etc., is that most tried very hard to give the client the best possible course for their needs.

That doesn't mean that perserving the best of their designs, and the overall style is eliminated from consideration in favor of a total blowup, nor does it preclude a few exceptions - like some of the top courses of each, where preserving them as designed might be a great study subject for everyone in golf - like NGLA.

[RJ_Daley]

This sort of goes to Mike Young's thread about how long it takes to become a classic, or what myth goes into the making of a legend or classic.

I think courses need to be remodelled or modernized when and if they don't function anymore as the original archie intended and the paying membership clearly realizes that.  I think the original archie should take care and leave specific suggestions to future remodellers of what his intentions for each hole are.  Then, when it comes time to change things, there is a guide.  Not that the guide or original intent must be followed.  But, it should make changes more defensible.  

If a course has reached the status of classic-legend with widespread recognition over time that it represents and still holds great value to the playing of the game, and is part of historic significance to the game, then the bar is much higher to willy nilly remodell it without great care to do so in a restoration ethic faithful to the original design.  But, that list of courses would be pretty short.

Otherwise, the oversight committees have to look at the effective and efficient best solutions for their members.  That is a reality any good architect from the past or present probably knows from the begining, and only hopes that the spirit of his work and intelligence of his design survives in successor works.

[TEPaul]

"This sort of goes to Mike Young's thread about how long it takes to become a classic, or what myth goes into the making of a legend or classic."

RJ:

That's why I posted this thread, but the subject is a bit different. It seems to me some are so critical of some memberships of clubs (to which some critics don't belong or in some cases have never even been to courses they criticize) that it almost seems as if in their minds (the critics) the opinions of memberships should not matter at all.

That, and I'm a fairly firm believer in the principle of "The test of time" when it comes to MOST architecture.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

    #2 is the answer for clubs owned by the members. This is why it is incumbent on those who want to preserve the course to be involved in the politics of the club and provide education to the members about the value of preserving a classic course and the best methodology to do so. Hiring consultants who work with the club is my favorite method of changing things. This may lead to a master plan or only to ad hoc advice.

       Since there is no God to assure #1 it happens in the give and take  world of club politics.

[mike_malone]

 Do people see the impact of a master plan waning as the years go by and the proponents of its creation are no longer in power ? I would think so. Therefore the education process is ongoing.

[mike_malone]

   I think the main reason people want to preserve a classic is marketing. They think there is a value to the original architect's name. They don't want to do it out of some reverence for the guy . They want to use him. Now that is okay with me because it can  be used  to work back to the original design. As long as people are willing to agree that a fairly close adherence to the original intent is necessary to use the architect's name. Once this agreement is lost I don't have a clue what to do.

    It still seems to work to argue that without reference to the original we end up with a chaotic situation where power determines changes. Things get out of control and the members end up wasting money.


  However, I find that many members just dismiss the original architect because they know nothing about his ideas and don't want to learn about those ideas. They tell you  he is dead and gone so let's just make the best course we can.


    Unfortunately , this opens a can of worms . The framework of original design intent at least gives some boundaries to a discussion.


   The only strategy that I believe works for the preservationists is continuous education.

[SL_Solow]

If the question is "who controls?", the answer is easy.  Those who are paying the freight ultimately can do what they want.  But the broader question is "who should control?".  I'm not so sure the classic architects would agree that the members decisions should govern.  The Good Dr. often railed against the judgment displayed by committees.  Does anyone think that MacDonald would have listened to a green committee?  We constantly comment on the problems created by green committees via overplanting, removal of bunkers, changing courses to follow fads etc.  Those of us who have sat on such committees understand the lack of architectural sensibility that exists at many clubs.  So while the members have the final say, it is clear that their exercise of that power is more likely to hurt rather than help good architecture.  Solutions?  Its not clear that there are many good ones.  Adoption of a sound long range plan which is difficult to amend pursuant to the club's bylaws.  Education of members on an ongoing basis regarding the architectural heritage of the club.  Retention of a greenkeeper and pro who are supportive of the existing architecture.  Retention of a consulting architect who will help in these efforts.  Allowing those who are in charge of the green committee to have long tenures while encouraging them to train the next generation of club leaders.  All of these steps can help the effort to maximize the liklihood that members will exercise their power wisely.  Most of the time a minority makes the decision and the majority endorses it.  Therefore, the trick is to educate the minority running the club and to train the next generation of leaders.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  Your last point is about how the dead guys would answer your question. I am currently reading "The Spirit of St. Andrews " and I get the feeling that MacKenzie thought he knew best.

[TEPaul]

"Do people see the impact of a master plan waning as the years go by and the proponents of its creation are no longer in power ? I would think so. Therefore the education process is ongoing."

Mayday:

Definitely. A Master Plan should be a plan that's proactive (the project it's designed to carry out) as well as preservative (to protect in the future the work done in the project for which Master Plan was designed).

It can be very hard sometimes to do the latter. Basically that Master Plan has just got to be put in a place with the club so it cannot be avoided for the forseeable future. It would seem easy to do that but it isn't always. Probably the best way to insure it can't be avoided in the future is to just put the Master Plan right into the club's By-Laws, the way Aronimink did.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Ultimately, the membership is paying the freight and is going to have the final say in the direction of the evolution and/or preservation of their course and that is as it should be.

However, if one views the question from a historical perspective, they do seem to screw up a lot, doncha think?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Your last point is about how the dead guys would answer your question. I am currently reading "The Spirit of St. Andrews " and I get the feeling that MacKenzie thought he knew best."

Mayday:

There are a few architects who were known to be fanatics that their original architecture not be tampered with. I think Mackenzie was one and Herbert Fowler definitely was one.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The last thing you want to do is restore a golf course that the members don't want to play.  If the original design is better (that is always subjective) then what is there now, restore it.  If it is not, why go back to something that is worse?  

I stand by my statement that not all golf courses should be restored (maybe less than 10%), but 100% of all courses deserve at least a good look at what was originally designed and how the course has evolved (for better of for worse).  Then a more informed decision can be made as to how to proceed with "improvements".  

When the architect leaves, it will be the members who have to play there!
Mark

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I stand by my statement that not all golf courses should be restored (maybe less than 10%)  
Mark

I thought I read that statement originally from Tom Doak.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
One other point to think about, if the Master Plan is done poorly, do you really want it in the bylaws?  Lehigh has a Master Plan that dictates a complete redesign of the golf course.  Fortunately (at least in my opinion) they are not using it.  What would have happened if the club put that one in their bylaws?  
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
I'm glad Tom agrees with me  Actually I think Geoff Shackelford commented along the same lines years ago.  Regardless, I stand by that statement (whoever said it first).  

I should add that probably the most important part, however, is the aspect that all courses should be studied first before being changed.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

"However, if one views the question from a historical perspective, they do seem to screw up a lot, doncha think?"

MikeC:

Not necessarily. In something like a restoration project one definitely needs to understand what's meant by "a historical perspective".

In other words, it's pretty necessary to know as best as can be known WHY something may've been changed in the first place, otherwise one runs the risk of restoring something that may not have worked well in the first place.

The thing one always needs to keep in the back of one's mind is even the greatest of those old guys were not infallible---eg they did make mistakes too.

These kinds of things architects who do restorations must be shown or told by the club as it can be pretty hard for them to pick up on it sometimes.

It's pretty safe to say that a club's membership knows the intricacies of how their golf course plays a whole lot better than any golf course architect they hire.

Some may not like to hear that but it's definitely true. On the other hands "a set of fresh eyes" can often help club's improve on things that they may've become used to even if not all that happy with.

The longer I get into all this stuff the more I realize that a real understanding of what "The test of time" and its inctricacies means is of ultimate importance.

[mike_malone]

 A concern we had about voting a PLAN into the bylaws was about how it would be amended. Good master plans have a general section that discusses values such as the proper use of trees on the course. This can create  a good long term guiding principle. But when it gets down to the detail of which trees to take down on a specific hole it gets tricky.

   For instance we did a complete regrassing of our greens a few years ago and took down many old hardwoods to increase airflow and sunlight. Hardly any of those trees were earmarked for removal in the plan.

       I agree that the best master plan is one that is funded and intended to be implemented as soon as possible.


   We have evolved into a tactic of bringing in a qualified consulting architect who uses the master plan as a guide to make recommendations. This makes sense to me.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
One other point to think about, if the Master Plan is done poorly, do you really want it in the bylaws?  Lehigh has a Master Plan that dictates a complete redesign of the golf course.  Fortunately (at least in my opinion) they are not using it.  What would have happened if the club put that one in their bylaws?"  

Mark:

Obviously I'm only talking about putting a Master Plan into the By-Laws that was done. You can't very well preserve something if it wasn't done.

If the membership feels the Master Plan and its project was done poorly then they should be able to make changes. The only difference is there should be a much more rigid process of making changes to the golf course, at least in my opinion.

The days when revolving green committees and such just do anything they feel like should be over with and Master Plans can help in that regard.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I think you loaded the question when you said a good classical course - what do you mean by that - did you purposely use the word "good" in describing the course?   Sometimes we think that every course that a particular designer did deserves to be restored as it was originally but I don't know if that is necessarily the case.  The next question then is what should be done with the course and who should do it - this is where it gets dicey - just ask Craig Disher.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

The question is "which members" know the intracacies of how the course plays better than the architect(s)?

The low-handicap, the high-handicap, the senior, the woman golfer, the person with historical knowledge of the evolution of the course, the guy who wants the course long enough and tough enough to challenge Tiger Woods even though he'll never play there, the once a month golfer, the member who heads the "beautification and foliage committee", the junior who's just learning, the player who's seen and played maybe 10 courses in his lifetime, the well-travelled golfer, the guy who mostly learns and yearns for architecture like he sees the pros play on television??

Are they all going to have the same priorities, understanding, and agenda(s)?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tom Paul,

I think you have illuminated two very important concepts:

1) Those that play the course day in and day out are going to have  intimate knowledge that the architect will never have time to acquire, at least prior to work commences, hopefully the relationship is long term and the architect playing knowledge of the course approaches that of the members;

2) A fresh set of eyes can open up things to the membership they could have never come to know on their own.

Two very important concepts that should be at the heart of the bond that forms between the architect and the club.

Mark,

Just trying to keep ya honest, I was told you have to keep an eye on you and taking credit for things

By the way is the master plan you seem adament to disparage the one developed by Ron Forse or was there a plan developed prior to Ron.  I thought he was the guiding force behind the improvements to Lehigh.

[Mike_Young]

Do what the membership wants....
Don't ever think some of these dead guy courses could not be improved...some were just bad....
I think all  architects are a harsher critic of their work than anyone else would believe...you see the little things that you know are there and no one else even knows exist.  And I think we all end up with a bad project here and there...not on purpose but circumstances create it.....I did a course once in columbus Ga where the owner had to have a certain contractor because he had worked for some big signatures...well he rode all over me and the owner....I knew where the problems were and did everything in my power to fix them over the next few years....eventually  another architect came in to try and fix things....I hear he did a pretty good job but no matter what it is just a site that will never be a great golf course.  In twenty years it could be redone 3 more times but don't ever take it back to what it was.

[mike_malone]

 This can often get very philosphical and complicated. But in reality isn't there a Rubicon of change that exists for these classicly designed courses. Once you have gone beyond it, even though it is invisible , there is no going back. The costs are just too prohibitive for the benefits to be gained.

    So, restorations seem to get recommended for courses that have just sort of wandered off track a bit.

  For instance , when I think about Torresdale Frankford as a restoration candidate I see that the routing is substantially the same , the bunkers seem to  be  pretty close to the original placing around  the greens, the green surfaces and contours, I have been told ,are fairly close. It is  mostly just the addition of trees that has changed the original lines of play. So, if I were at TF I would be excited that restoration could be successful there.

     When I first saw the 1926 photos of Rolling Green it seemed that recovering THAT course would be attainable.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()