[TEPaul]

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

MikeC:

No they are not, of course not. To me the trick is that the concerns of all levels of player within a membership should be considered as so often their concerns are very different and about different things than other levels of players within the membership. In other words, a good Master plan and architect can accomodate the desires and concerns of a lot of different people, particularly different levels of player if he just puts his mind to it and considers them all intelligently.

Where one runs into a problem with members is when a few or a lot of them want something different for the same thing. In that case the idea is to go with what the Master Plan committee and the architect agree works best for all and simply tell the rest whose opinions were not enacted; "Look, we have app 300 members and potentially 300 different opinions on one thing and obviously we can only do it one way,---so sorry about that."

Then tend to understand that---I promise you.

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
The Master Plan I am talking about at Lehigh is not the one done by Ron.  Lehigh has been following Ron's plan (thank goodness) for many years now.  The Master Plan I am talking about was done by another architect who will remain nameless (I don't want to hurt any egos and evidently there are some sensitive ones out there)
Mark

[mike_malone]

 If you hire an architect who is knowledgeable in the work of the original designer and wants to work with the club's appointed committee to develop specific recommendations then I think this works best.

   If the committee consulting with the architect represents different players from the club it can help in idea generation and the eventual selling of the ideas.

  I certainly agree with Kelly that having the consultants play the course on occasion is also helpful.

[Kyle Harris]

Do any architects attach 5-10 year plans on their original work? Has there ever been any request for such?

[mike_malone]

Where one runs into a problem with members is when a few or a lot of them want something different for the same thing.


   Tom ,

   I am having problems understanding this sentence.

[Phil_the_Author]

You know that I will reference Tilly in this. He is as good an example of one of the "dead guys" as any.

He believed that his courses should be able to withstand the test of time, including by being altered to keep pace with technology. That being said, he would always demand that the changes be in line with the design concepts of the course and the individual hole.

An example of this is the 12th hole at Winged foot West. Tilly designed this hole to be an ultimate risk/reward, do i go for it in 2, par-five of 487 yards. Both Jones andEspinoza went for it in 2 during their 1929 US Open playoff. With it now being pushed back well beyond 600 yards with the new tee, this risk/reward option has been taken out of play for the vast majority of the field.

Guess who lengthened it that much? The membership, not the USGA.

Was the membership right in doing so, changing the design concept of the hole as Tilly desired it? They certainly had the right to do it, but changing the colors of a Van Gogh painting to ones that you like better simply because you own it doesn't make it the proper thing to do.

Another example is the Dellwood Country Club, another Tilly design. Several years back the membership decided to rebuild all of the greenside bunkers, moving them away from the greens because they felt that their locations made them too difficult a challenge. Yet Tilly was told by Zukor, who he designed it for, to build him a championship course.

At what point does the current membership have the long-term right to make drastic changes to a course that will change what the original owner/membership had commissioned be built.

The powers that be at Winged Foot said "Build us a man-sized course" and he did so, twice. What if a controlling group said, "change it so it is a lot easier for us to play. The greens should be a lot flatter so we can make putts."

It is the fear of changes that will destroy history and greatness that concern me.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Then perhaps I'm not understanding where you're heading with your original question.  

If you're saying that the way to do it is to find an architect who is sensitive and knowledgable about the history of the course and its evolution who will then work with the needs and wishes of the entire membership in a professional advisory way to come to the "right" democratic determinations, then obviously that's the ideal.

How often would you say that's happened, historically?  

 

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
Colt was the first I know of to provide plans for how his course would evolve (such as tree plantings).
Mark

[mike_malone]

 Philip,

   Did Tilly provide something written about #12 WFW or is your statement just your interpretation of the purpose of the hole. I don't ask this to be difficult. I wish Flynn had provided some writing for  Rolling Green.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Then perhaps I'm not understanding where you're heading with your original question."

MikeC:

Where I'm headed with my original question is at architectural critics and they aren't necessarily architects.    

[Tom_Doak]

Mayday:  I would be concerned that if I wrote something down about what was intended for the design, some designer's grandkid would use it 40 years from now to blow up what I had done to "restore" it (and to put his kid through college).

To me, a great golf course is a product of the contours of the ground, and every tee and landing area and green relates to the other points in the very foundation of the design.  When you start messing with some of those points to preserve others, you start getting away from the foundation.

If I design a par five hole today, I design it with the idea that some people will require three shots to get there and some will get there in two.  Even if no one can get there today, it should be designed as a good hole if someone can go for it 20 years from now.  Therefore it won't need a new tee in 20 years to "preserve" the design concept; we have already factored that in.

I appreciate Ian's thoughts on the subject as they closely mirror my own.  However, I do agree with whomever suggested that there is a "Rubicon" of work done to a course beyond which it is ridiculous to try and restore it.  At some point the restorer is just building his own interpretation of the original design instead of restoring it, because there is nothing left in the ground.  At the few courses we have really worked toward restoring -- Camargo, The Valley Club, Pasatiempo -- a lot of the original design is still there in the dirt, easily found just by digging it up carefully.

[Patrick_Mucci]

.....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?

TEPaul, the problem is, what works best for the membership changes from time to time.  It's not as if what works best for the membership is static.  Membership whims change, and they can change rapidly and frequently.  

If a club continues to persue the latest fad or whim, it won't be long before the golf course shows the scars of repeated surgery and therefore loses its original, distinctive architectural integrity and its continuity.[/color]

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?

It depends.

If it was their course being altered they'd scream bloody murder.

If they were called in to evaluate if another architect's course should be altered, I think they'd have another point of view.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Where one runs into a problem with members is when a few or a lot of them want something different for the same thing.

Tom,
I am having problems understanding this sentence.

Mayday:

Tomorrow I'll try to give you some good representative examples from our project.

Phillip Young:

Your WFW example is a very fine one and well explained. Even for those who don't know the hole, those yardage numbers can't lie! An 113 yard differential, even if consdering the most outrageous technological advancement is just way too much to even remotely maintain the strategic concept.

That kind of thing is what I call a "conceptual disconnect". It tends to happen too frequently when golf clubs try to pick up total card yardage without thinking it through per hole.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mayday, you asked, "  Did Tilly provide something written about #12 WFW or is your statement just your interpretation of the purpose of the hole. I don't ask this to be difficult. I wish Flynn had provided some writing for  Rolling Green." My answer is in fact a combination of several things, among them Tillys writings on the hole and the historical perpsective of how it was played in the same month as when he wrote about it.

Before I answer though, because of what Tilly wrote, I believe that what Tom Doak commented with is salient to the question and his own design philosophy. He was a bitprophetic when he wrote, "To me, a great golf course is a product of the contours of the ground, and every tee and landing area and green relates to the other points in the very foundation of the design.  When you start messing with some of those points to preserve others, you start getting away from the foundation... If I design a par five hole today, I design it with the idea that some people will require three shots to get there and some will get there in two.  Even if no one can get there today, it should be designed as a good hole if someone can go for it 20 years from now.  Therefore it won't need a new tee in 20 years to "preserve" the design concept; we have already factored that in."

Note what Tilly wrote when describing this hole the week prior to the Open. "No. 12: 482 yards. Cape. Three distinct hummocks make into the left of the fairway, from which side the green is not visible. The drive should be placed to the right as well as the second."

At 482 yards this hole was a pretty short par-five for the accomplished player and Tilly expected it to be challenged in two shots. The wonderful part of the holes design is the fairway bunker that is about 50 yards short of the green. Since the lay-up area was the flat in front of this, the player standing over his second shot would be faced with a true risk/reward decision. Go for it in two and be rewarded, miss it just a bit right and the bunker and, even worse, the rough right of it would about guarantee a bogey or worse.

Yet the lay-up had to be perfect, otherwise even if it was on the fairway, the next shot would have to carry both short & greenside bunkers and come in at an angle that would leave very little green in which to land. So to leave oneself with a good lie for the third shot, the player would have to flirt with the front portion of the bunker as the closer they put their shot in there, the better the leave. This hole as a reachable par-5 five brings every one of these choices into play for every level of player. As a full 3-shot hole, it becomes easier as the lay-up for the third shot is much further back and now being hit by players with far superior equipment.

I do understand that there is some consideration in the hole being played from forward tees on two of the days for this specific reason.

So Tom Doak, be so quick to NOT write how you want a hole to be played; maybe someone will need to be reminded of the vision you had for it.  

In the 1929 Open, both Jones and Espinoza went for the green in two several times, including both on Sunday during the playoff. They believed that the risk was worth the reward.

By the way, Jones was among the 4 players who Tilly predicted had the most likely chance of winning.

Tom Paul, thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil Regan,

When were the trees planted on the left side of # 12 fairway leading up to the green ?

What about the trees on the right past the last right side fairway bunkers ?

[mike_malone]

Philip,

   Thanks for your reply.

   Tom Doak,

      I agree completely with you . So should we just leave manmade hazards in place even if the ball is going farther?  Would it hurt to state the features that you think are critical to each hole?

   This is an example. On #11 at Rolling Green there was a fairway bunker that sat on a small plateau about 200 yards off the tee on the left side.  The bunker appears to have been just off the ideal line of attack.The teeshot is significantly downhill.

    At some point it must have been decided that the bunker was getting too little use. So, it now sits more to the right and at the bottom of the hill--RIGHT IN THE IDEAL LANDING AREA.
   Ron Forse pointed this out on his first visit to RG.

    Would it have been helpful if Flynn had stated his intent that this bunker was to be just off line?

[Scott Cannon]

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?

Mr. Paul,

In Austin there is a course called The Hills CC. Its one of Jack N. first designs. Very good, small fairways, small greens. Its is strange that it play best in a north wind, when in TX the south wind blows 10 months out of the year. For example, the 3rd is a very long uphill par 4 that is almost unreachable in the "season" and is a nice mid iron in the winter. As you turn to the 4th, 5th, and 6th, if you are playing them in the "season" they are 3 wood wedge. If you play them in the north wind, the are driver 6,7,8 irons holes. Anyway I digress.
Jack was asked to build a second course on the property. The membership is 75% WWII ers. They enjoy the Hills because there are old school run up shots, no long forced carries, yet very challenging tee shots and VERY challenging greens.
The new course, Flint Rock Falls is IMO one of the best courses in the state. That comes for someone who isn't the biggest Nicklaus fan in the world. It has everything that a member could want. You must play the course many times a really break down each hole individually and ask yourself, what does he want me to do here? Its a great match-play course (we should all be playing match play). Its is a "Bear" of a course. Very difficult, with long carries and Brutal greens. Its something, I think that will hold up to the test of time. It will be a strong course in 40 years, but.............

The membership hates it. They wont play it. Its is a financial failure. Jack shot in the low 80's on opening day. I have read that Jack builds courses for the people that will be playing them. In this case an olderish retirement community that will always be that. Sure there will always be some younger members and some sticks there, but the membership will probably never play this course unless forced.
What's up with that??

[RSLivingston_III]

With the USGA looking at doing something relatively soon about the technology problem, how is this going to affect some of the restorations done to classic courses? If I am properly estimating the amount of equipment restriction, it seems like the original versions of these courses would be, or would have been, all most members would want especially in combination with today's turf conditions.
Is there any anticipation the members tees will become the medal tees and did most restorations/renovations leave in place the original tees?

[Tom_Doak]

Ralph:  As Pete Dye said many years ago, if they change the equipment, there is always room for more forward tees.

I have resisted making my courses ridiculously long because I keep hoping that SOMEDAY the USGA will act.  So far my hopes have gone for naught.  Perhaps that will change, but at this point I sure wouldn't bet my money on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ralph:  As Pete Dye said many years ago, if they change the equipment, there is always room for more forward tees.

I have resisted making my courses ridiculously long because I keep hoping that SOMEDAY the USGA will act.  So far my hopes have gone for naught.  Perhaps that will change, but at this point I sure wouldn't bet my money on it.

Tom,

You raise an interesting issue.

If more architects took the same position, wouldn't that have sent a message to the USGA ?

I also wonder, if courses that host/ed Major events had refused to lengthen and alter their courses, would that have sent a message to the USGA ?

It would appear that all of these messages have coalesced and that something may finally be done with respect to distance.

Sporty courses with quirk have been hidden to the public, via the media, because they never host a meaningful event.

That's why I keep hoping that NGLA will get the Walker Cup.[/color]

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You stated, "Sporty courses with quirk have been hidden to the public, via the media, because they never host a meaningful event."

Define a "meaningful event."

As an example, the MGA Met Open. Look at the courses they use and the names of the competitors. Although this event is never televised, I would challenge anyone to say that it isn't a meaningful event. Since 1990 the list of courses include:

Westchester, Hollywood , Nassau, Quaker Ridge, Ridgewood, Atlantic, Stanwich, Plainfield, The Creek, Tuxedo, Mountain Ridge, Bethpage Black, Winged Foot West, Metedconk National, Hudson National.

Over the years the names that now grace the list of winners include Alex & McDonald Smith, Walter Hagen, Gene Sarazen, Tommy Armour, Olin Dutra, Paul Runyon, Byron Nelson, Claude Harmon, Doug Ford, Miller Barber, James Albus, Don Massengale, Darrel Kestner, Bruce Zabriskie, and many others both known and not. This list contain a large number of players who would also win golf's major championships, PGA & other tournaments.

I would say that is one hell of a list of great courses playing host to what most, especially outside of the northeast, would have a hard time listing it under the term meaningful event, and an impressive list of champions.

I think that part of the problem is that we have grown beyond national so that only internationally important events are what the media view as reportable or even coverable, and that is what is translated to the average golfer.

Watch the US OPen on a Sunday afternoon - of course! Go to watch the Met Open on a Saturday morning... why?

In my opinion, reestablishing these championships on the great unknown courses (to the average golfer) is very important to the growth and long-term health of the game.

[Scott Cannon]

Pat,
 the growth and long-term health of the game.

Phillip,

Not to be argumentative, but what's that mean and why should we care?

[Phil_the_Author]

Scott,

No problem. I believe that it is very important that golf remain a world-wide game played on a local level.

Think about how the coverage of sports and therefor the importance given to individual events have been changed by how the media has portrayed them.

Each of the major television  networks will, from time-to-time, do a commercial highlighting the sporting events that they cover. If you aren't careful you will be convinced that only events such as the US Open, the World Series, the Super Bowl, etc... are important enough for us to spend our time watching.

How many people today attend local high school baseball games with their children without one of them being involved? We have gotten away from small-towns, communities and neighborhoods, and people who enjoy day-to-day life in general in a simple fashion.

OOPS... there I go preaching again...

Anyway, what I meant is that the more that we embrace the meaningless or small tournaments of the game, the more likely we will be to be involved in the directions that the game grows and how we as individuals, families and communities may enjoy it.

Without involvement by many on a grass roots level the decisions that have the greatest influence on the growth and direction of the game, especially in areas such as the technology of the equipment which cost everyone both competitively and from a dollar standpoint. The longer the game, the larger the courses, the greater the costs. When the masses don't care, the few at top don't as well.

Hey, I admit it, sometimes I go a little overboard on issues like this...

[Kyle Harris]

Scott,

No problem. I believe that it is very important that golf remain a world-wide game played on a local level.

Think about how the coverage of sports and therefor the importance given to individual events have been changed by how the media has portrayed them.

Each of the major television  networks will, from time-to-time, do a commercial highlighting the sporting events that they cover. If you aren't careful you will be convinced that only events such as the US Open, the World Series, the Super Bowl, etc... are important enough for us to spend our time watching.

How many people today attend local high school baseball games with their children without one of them being involved? We have gotten away from small-towns, communities and neighborhoods, and people who enjoy day-to-day life in general in a simple fashion.

OOPS... there I go preaching again...

Anyway, what I meant is that the more that we embrace the meaningless or small tournaments of the game, the more likely we will be to be involved in the directions that the game grows and how we as individuals, families and communities may enjoy it.

Without involvement by many on a grass roots level the decisions that have the greatest influence on the growth and direction of the game, especially in areas such as the technology of the equipment which cost everyone both competitively and from a dollar standpoint. The longer the game, the larger the courses, the greater the costs. When the masses don't care, the few at top don't as well.

Hey, I admit it, sometimes I go a little overboard on issues like this...

Phil,

I am going to agree with you on the importance of supporting local tournaments. Here in Philadelphia at least, it seems there is a healthy and dedicated group that follows the various GAP tournaments and matches very closely. Granted, it seems that members only care when the tournament or qualifier is played at their course - but there is some turn out. Interestingly, these are more-than-likely the same members who realize or understand very little about their own golf course - let alone an away course for them.  

I had some of the most enjoyable spectating experiences this past summer at the PA Amateur at Huntingdon Valley and the US Amateur Qualifier at Rolling Green. I also attended the US Am at Merion and Philly Country, but that hardly fits in your "small and local" category. It was also neat to see how the courses played and how they were played by some of the better amateurs in the area. Chris Ault smoked Rolling Green for a 63 on the first day - which can be attributed to fine play on his part, since the rest of the field was at least 5 shots back. Seeing the course the day after under the same setup lead me to believe he was "in the zone" and holing everything he looked at... because it certainly wasn't easy.

I feel it necessary for this upcoming season to try and make it to the tournaments and qualifiers in the area in order to get a better picture of some of the GCA and also tournament level integration with the GCA - and this could be the best way I can see to educate myself regarding conditioning and course set up, since most greenkeeping work I would be doing, I am guessing, wouldn't involve my actually seeing the play of the coruse on any given day.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  Yes, I think if more architects had taken the same position as I have regarding length, the USGA would have had to act sooner to do something about equipment.

Instead it has been just the opposite.  The three biggest promoters of adding length to golf courses over the past 15 years have been the USGA, Rees Jones, and Augusta National [not necessarily in that order].

Shinnecock Hills did resist wholesale additions of length, and yet there wasn't much attention paid to that fact in the fiasco that followed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()