[wsmorrison]

John Gosselin, in the Manufacturers GCC thread talked about the evolution of bunkers over time.  

A question for restoration architects and all on the website would be do you keep the evolutionary build-up or go back to the original bunker-green integrations?  I know of architects that are on either side of the issue.  I believe in most cases that the evolutionary build-up is a good thing.  Technology evolves and impacts the game.  Why shouldn't natural evolution be allowed to take place on a golf course with respect to sand splash?

I have to go out for a bit, but I'll post some photgraphic examples of evolutionary build up later in the day.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

My only reservation, apart from some rather steep changes in playability (Road Hole bunker, for example) would be agronomic. I've noticed that a lot of areas wheer sand splash has occured can become a maintenance nightmare in a hurry and those areas need special attention - so more labor and more cost.

When a bunker's collection area also becomes affected by the sand build up (for example: Did the front of the 13th or 8th at Merion feed into the bunker at all, allowing for a shot to roll back in?) I would also have reservations about keeping the present situation.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, it's just a judgement call, and if it's done well and done faithfully on either end of the spectrum it's just fine.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

It's a judgment call depending on the location and the degree.

Riviera has some of the biggest buildup I've seen; it's one of the main factors which makes those bunkers look dramatic, so the club didn't want to take it out when they rebuilt the bunkers.

However, sometimes the buildup prevents you from putting hole locations close to the edges of the greens or regaining lost green space, if the buildup has resulted in a slope of more than 3% in a tight corner.

[TEPaul]

"Did the front of the 13th or 8th at Merion feed into the bunker at all, allowing for a shot to roll back in?"

Kyle:

They did indeed originally, and according to a most interesting consultant, Mel Lucas, who did a report for Merion on that very issue, in his opinion going back to that original design would create some unintended problems.

What did he see as those problems? Well, among other things the most significant problem would be the effects of the vastly different green speeds today compared to when those greens were originally like that.

[paul cowley]

I concur with Tom and Tom who seem to have the forum running smoothly.....excuse me then while I go build a cypress night stand....

[Joe Hancock]

...a cypress night stand....

Interesting innuendo, considering this fine group.....

Joe

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

Are you speaking or asking about a 'true' restoration? If so, then why would we not return to the original "bunker-green integrations" as you say?

"Technology evolves and impacts the game"  While this is true, do not most on this site constantly support the existence of the classics as they were originally designed and built and so does this not apply to returning the built up faces and slopes after they have reached a point design departure?  This approach of course does become muddy when considering the discussion and thoughts of the bunkers at Pac Dunes, Sand Hills and other similar venues, however, I don't think this is what you are directly speaking about?

Tom Paul seems to want to have it both ways, but who makes the decision on his "judgment call"  Tom Doak's point of view, and I agree in some cases, that it becomes the club's decision, but this too must be weighed against agronomic and playability issues such as slope.  In the end, I think it is still comes down to the level of interest and commitment to actual restoration vs someone's interpretation or their acceptance of what they currently have.  To me it goes back to making a wise decision through proper research of whether or not the feature should be restored and is it worth restoring for the sake of history and integrity, or just carefully improving, also open to much interpretation, for other related reasons such as playability, maintenance (green speeds) and agronomics.

[paul cowley]

Well....lets add Scott to all those in agreement ....gotta get back, just broke for lunch.

cia

[T_MacWood]

The circumstances of each course should be evaluated individually but as a general rule I'd lean toward leaving the bunker as is (with perhaps some minor maintenance or aesthetic adjustments) because:

1. The passage of time and natural forces often have a positive effect
2. Bunkers often evolve for good reason (maintenance for example)
3. You start digging up these old bunkers and you will lose/destroy the original work
4. Restoration architects are often unable to replicate the original work
5. Restoration architects often ignore or are uninterested in an accurate representaion of the historic work; preferring to restore a stylistic version they prefer

[wsmorrison]

Scott,

A true restoration would probably mean going back to the original set-up of the green complex.  But there is the question of whether or not the designer knew there'd be evolutionary sand build-up.  I guess that was a pretty unlikely event.

I'm not a purist in the sense that I think we have to go back to a particular time and place and keep things frozen in time as regards hole presentations.  There seems to be a number on the website that do feel that way.  I'm pleased that Tom MacWood doesn't seem to be rigid in his philosophy and that "time and natural forces often have a positive effect."  I completely agree with that statement.

I don't know how fair it is to say that restoration architects don't know how to go back to original.  Some don't, others may be told to do something else and in other cases, some architects would rather see their own look in place of the original.

Paul,

Can you build me a cypress bookshelf? Maybe in a Chinese motif  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
IMO there are a relatively few courses that would be candidates for a true restoration - the cream of the crop so do speak. And if the course is relatively well preserved I wouldn't be digging up the original work to reverse the natural evolution of a feature or features...and I've been preaching that for a good while, all the way back to the Merion debacle and the retrofitting of the Cypress Point bunkers. If you must label people I would consider myself a purist, a purist who prefers preservation to evasive restoration.

Of course each case is different; some landmark courses are not well preserved. In that case (assuming you are interested in restoring the golf course) you have to choose between restoring the entire golf course to some point in history or restoring a portion of the course to match the existing evolved state. If the original work exhibits build up and a pleasant evolved look, I'd restore the lost features to match the evolved look.

IMO the golf architects of the golden age were aware their features would evolve over time, just as the architects today understand their features will evolve. They observed how features at the olden links changed throughout their lifetimes.

[Joel_Stewart]

Olympic Club has some of the worst build up I have seen and the architect we hired and superintendent seem to ignore it.  Sadly neither has an answer on how to fix it.  Furthermore, certain greens (#6 and 14) have shrunk with the greens 15-20 feet away from the bunkers.  If the greens are restored, it would open up a number of new pin positions and make the course much more enjoyable.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Olympic Club has some of the worst build up I have seen and the architect we hired and superintendent seem to ignore it.  Sadly neither has an answer on how to fix it.  Furthermore, certain greens (#6 and 14) have shrunk with the greens 15-20 feet away from the bunkers.  If the greens are restored, it would open up a number of new pin positions and make the course much more enjoyable.  

Joel,

Count me as one who really loves the OC's lumped up bunkering and it's almost unique in the present state of its evolution.  

Of course, you're also correct that a restoration of the green sizes out to the end of the original pads would really be spectacular and at least in my mind, make those sand-splashed-up bunkers really shine.

[paul cowley]

...and now it seems we have three consenting Toms, and a most impressive trio of Toms it is!....I am going to continue in a mute mode to avoid the appearance of a pile on.

now shelves....of course Wayne, I would be happy to....would you prefer  classic Ming styling or would you like an Anglo mix a la Chippendale?

....or if you like, I could create one in the A&C vein because, as I'm sure you know, that encompasses just about everything. .
It probably could use some field study though.....

[Scott Witter]

Okay, wait just a minute here Paul..I'm not so sure I want to grouped those guys!

Yes, Tom Mac, the individual merits of each bunker should be assessed but in the context of the entire course I would hope and of course with respect to the proper evaluation/research of restoration/preservation if that is best for the course and the client.  I agree with you to an extent and I have certainly experienced many bunkers that do in fact improve with age, though there are many that would benefit greatly from reconstruction/restoration..., or at minimum a face lift.  Maybe you should tell The Rennaissance Men to stop the bunker work at Holston Hills this spring because they are just fine as is??  I don't think Tom and Bruce would appreciate that approach, however.

Bunkers often evolve for a good reason (maintenance for example)  While this happens all too often, I spent 10 years in greenskeeping, I think this is a lazy excuse and maintenace should care for the bunkers based on their design intent and playability qualities desired.  To say that restoration architects or to pool the architects together in general sounds to me like you don't know very many good architects who care, when in fact all the architects that I have met who do this work and love this work are very careful in their approach and measure three and four times before they dig.  Though I don't think this is your experience either, so I'm  not sure why you would take this position?


Now I do admit, I too have seen some of those so called restoration guys do some odd things, but to group them together as you have I think is to ignore much of the very good work of many and not recognize their contributions.

Wayne, I'm not saying we should always go back to the origins...there needs to be much legwork done first as I stated before and evaluate if this is all even necessary to begin with.   Okay, assume for the moment that the original architect didn't know that sand would build-up (I find that hard to believe actually), do you think they would have wanted the bunker and green to work together in the way they were originally designed...even over time?  Do you think they designed them to flex, to ebb an flow and evolve into something different than what they designed?  Now some of the modern architects who are designing in the sandy areas I think actually do anticipate the bunkers to evolve and I think they took this into consideration, and they would be foolish and naive to think otherwise.

Tom Mac:

I'm trying to understand your position.  Are you simply opposed to restoration for the restoration sake or are you convinced that it can't be done correctly, or that it just isn't right and evolution should rule?  I can agree with you if your position is taken on a case by case basis and evaluated on merits.  I think your best statements are "a purist who prefers preservation to evasive restoration" and "you have to choose between restoring the entire golf course to some point in history or restoring a portion of the course to match the existing evolved state"  I gotta ask you this however, at what point in the evolution process do you say it is time to step back in time and actually restore? Then as you say, how far back in history do you go with the restoration?

[T_MacWood]

Scott
Perhaps I gave the wrong impression, I would not be in favor of a restoration architect judging the individual merits of each bunker. That sounds like a license to redesign to me.

I’m not familiar with the evolution of HH, how have the bunkers at Holston Hills changed over the years?

“Bunkers often evolve for a good reason (maintenance for example)  While this happens all too often, I spent 10 years in greenskeeping, I think this is a lazy excuse and maintenace should care for the bunkers based on their design intent and playability qualities desired.”

You would know better than me, but I would think it would be inevitable that the intricate edges of some Alister MacKenzie, George Thomas and William Bell’s bunkers would soften over time due to maintenance considerations among other reasons. But that is not say their evolved bunkers are not equally striking.

I do not favor digging up the original work (assuming it is relatively well-preserved)…I’d prefer to have a natrually evolved work of MacKenzie, Strong or Thompson than to have that work destroyed and replaced by a modern architect’s interpretation of their work. There is so little of their original work left - if we continue to restore it there will be nothing left.

I am not against restoration, but I am against redesign in the name of restoration – an all too common occurrence. In theory restoration is a wonderful thought, unfortunately it is not always so wonderful in practice, for a number of reasons.

I’m against destroying well-preserved evolved original work. I’m in favor of knocking down trees, re-establishing fairways / lost green space and non evasive bunker work

As far as to what point-in-time to restore (assuming the course has been negatively changed over the years and should be restored) that is judgment call based upon extensive research, and each course has a different story.

[TEPaul]

"....or if you like, I could create one in the A&C vein because, as I'm sure you know, that encompasses just about everything.

Paul:

A pithier and more apropos remark could not be found!  

In an analytic context, and applying the "compare/contrast" analysis that would mean, for starters, just throwing out the "contrast" part altogether and when you get to the "compare" part basically throw that out too and just include everything under the sun. In that way something can become a primary influence on most everything else, and then, in some strange way, we really can arrive at the heretofore unknown or the previously unrecognized "age" of "Arts and Crafts Golf".  

[TEPaul]

"I’m against destroying well-preserved evolved original work. I’m in favor of knocking down trees, re-establishing fairways / lost green space and non evasive bunker work

As far as to what point-in-time to restore (assuming the course has been negatively changed over the years and should be restored) that is judgment call based upon extensive research, and each course has a different story."

Tom MacW and ScottW:

That is all of course true. I think any of us would say the same things and have many times.

However, the implication by some on this website seems to be that those who make those "judgement calls" are not really to be trusted to make the correct decisions.

Tom MacWood has said a number of times that in his opinion only a select group of golf courses should be restored.

Who's to decide that? When he was asked that on here I think he mentioned that there should be a group of experts to decide that. When asked who those experts may be I think he mentioned some such as Geoff Shackelford, Dan Wexler, Brad Klein or maybe himself. Does that sound like a practical idea on which to proceed with a restoration project generally?

I, for one, would have no problem at all if any course brought that group in and asked their opinions or asked for their research. But is it somehow incorrect or dangerous to proceed with a restoration project without them? Of course not, or of course not necessarily.

In successful restoration projects clubs and memberships end up getting what they want and what makes their golf course as enjoyable to them as it can be. There needs to be no greater dictate in golf architecture than that, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of every single one of the great old architects of the "Golden Age". Can you find a single one of them who ever said or who ever suggested otherwise?  

[TEPaul]

Scott and Tom MacW:

In my opinion, the best way to proceed with something like a restoraiton project is to sit down with the club and ask them in a very detailed fashion what they think they'd like to accomplish with it---eg a "restoration". If it appears they don't exactly know, I feel there is a fair sized laundry list of questions they can be asked to help them establish what it may appear they want.

My experience with some clubs that want to do restoration projects is that they want their courses to play relevent to today's game and not the game of the teens or 1920s, they want them to play challenging and exciting (these days that's inevitably the request for firm and faster playing conditions) and they also want the restored features to look as much like they did at that point they pick as they possibly can given various maintenance and some playablity factors.

If someone on here thinks some really great old course's architecture is going to be put back, in every single way, including distance, the way it may've been in the teens or 1920s when it was originally built, they are absolutely dreaming, in my opinion.

Restoration projects are incredibly popular these but to my knowledge there has never been one that in all ways puts a golf course back to exactly what it was in the teens or the 1920s or 1930s---nor is there ever likely to be one that does that.

[wsmorrison]

It wouldn't be a waste of time to write up  or have posted on a website (hint hint) an introductory manual containing questions clubs should ask themselves so a process can be identified and implemented in a way that gives them what they want and balances the architectural evolution (good and bad).  

Some restorations can be presented including master plans for guidance.  The sampling of which should include a broad spectrum; but leave it up to the clubs themselves to educate themselves on the right approach for them after they've hired a consulting architect and not before, which leads to most mistakes.  There should also be a list of resources (not architect contact info--there should be no endorsements of individuals) such as the Hagley, National Archives, USGA, AAFLA, Tufts, Mike Hurdzan, etc.  

I do not advocate working directly with societies for consulting except for research direction.  I recognize the conflicts that might exist and have to be wary of them myself even though there is no Flynn Society as yet.

[Mark_Fine]

I wonder which side of this debate Tom Fazio and Tom Marzolf would be on?  If you just heard the panel discussion down in Atlanta which Marzolf chaired, you would know.  Guess which side Bill Coore would be on?  He was on the panel as well.  Though the topic of restoration of older courses was much broader than just sand splash, Bill Coore at one point said he was 180 degrees in the other direction of Tom's opinion.  That didn't make either of them right or wrong, but it showed how strong (and different) opinions of noted architects can be.  

I tend to try and remember the old saying, if you give someone an inch, they will often take a mile.  If you see a lot of courses that have been sold as "restoration" this saying makes sense.  It is very hard (human nature) not to get creative.  

I'll throw out one question, if the original architect wanted the back left portion of the green hidden, wouldn't he have done that to begin with rather than wait till the sand built up to hide it?  

No right or wrong opinion here, just different ones  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

TE
The panel idea was related to preservation...create a panel to identify historic or landmark designs, not unlike what they do in architecture, which would hopefully bring attention to the original work and help to preserve it.

Your ideas on how a club should proceed sounds more like renovation than restoration.

Wayne
I hope one the first things on your webstie would be that restoration need not be expensive and can be done largely inhouse. That the best restoration is one that includes knocking down intruding trees, expanding fairways and re-establishing lost green surfaces.

Mark
Interesting question...which hole are you speaking of? You don't think Ross, Flynn or whoever knew their bunkers would evolve over time....especially the well placed ones.

[Scott Witter]

Tom Mac:

I suspect I may have given some mixed signals as well, though it wasn't intended, and judging individual merits of a bunker would give way too much license to redesign and as Mark Fine noted "if you give someone an inch, they will often take a mile", but that is why I said the entire course must be evaluated first.

Again, I agree that there are many instances where a MacKenzie, Thomas or any bunker, maybe, could look better over time, but more often than not, my position still aligns with Mark Fine where he states "if the original architect wanted the back left portion of the green hidden, wouldn't he have done that to begin with rather than wait till the sand built up to hide it?"  Now all of this does begin to get into opinions, nothing wrong with that and I would love to know Bill Coore's and Tom Marzolf's positions on this issue, and semantics.  Looking back in reflection, who is to say that the original work was in fact 'perfect' and exactly the way the architect wanted it, for as we know there were many architects who constantly went back and reworked much of their designs, so where does this leave us?

Maybe we should just agree not to call any of this work as "Restoration" for this seems to bring about way too many interpretations and it just feeds the controversy over is it or isn't it??

Tom P. might be totally right though and I mentioned this before.  In the end, it is up to the club, no matter how good of a sales job we might do to guide them in one direction or another, even with the most diligent research and obvious conclusions.  It is their club/course and they have to love it and accept it when they step on the first tee and walk off the eighteenth green each day.  Yes, we can and do have our opinions, but all we can really do is present the information, with due diligence on our part and assist our clients to make good informed decisions.

[Mark_Fine]

TM,
I tend to agree with you, restoration does not need to be expensive and much work can be done in house.  That said, it needs supervision by the architect overseeing the work maybe even more so than a new golf course.  

That example was not for a particular hole.  I'm sure architects realize their designs will evolve.  However, how would Tom Doak or any other architect answer that question for their own golf course?  For me if I wanted it hidden, I'd hide it now.  

My feelings about restoration, renovation, etc are outlined in our book.  Everyone has a different spin on this.  When it comes to restoration, I tend to focus more on restoring "design intent" vs. trying to restore "the design" just as it was.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()