[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Actually, Merion also has this historic designation.  There is a stone with a plaque on the first tee designating it in "The National Registry of Historic Places", or some words to that effect.  

In theory, I like the idea Tom Doak proposes.  In practice, courses and clubs are inevitably going to do what they want, whether it's wise or historically sensitive and accurate or not, and they have that right as the owners.  

Legislating wrong architectural decisions is ultimately not the answer, unfortunately.  A fellow by the name of Pat Seelig proposed something very similar in his 1994 book, "Historic Golf Courses of America", and listed about 35-40 courses he thought worthy of consideration.  Most of the usual suspects are included.  He even had the foreward to the book written by Byron Nelson, with an introduction by Arnold Palmer.  

Not to pick on Merion in any way, but Mr. Seelig makes the case for a "National Register of Historic Golf Courses" beginning as follows;

"The year is 2050.  The members of Merion Golf Club, tired of their quaint but historic course, give into a developers request and sell the famed East Course for $500 million.  The developer plans a series of luxury homesites, including a Bobby Jones Grand Slam next to the brook on the 12th hole, a Lee Trevino Rubber Snake special along the old 1st tee, a Ben Hogan Comeback overlooking the quarry, and 18 David Graham villas on all 18 greens.  Somehow, the developer forgot about Olin Dutra."

"The Merion members plan to use the money to build a new 8,967 yard, par 71 championship course west of the city.  Robert Trent Jones IV has already been called in to propose the layout.  With any luck, the 2060 US Open will be held there - it's first return to Merion since Eldrick "Tiger" Woods won the 2011 US Open on the old course with a record-shattering 263."

"This scenario would make modern-day Merion members nauseated.  Surely their historic East Course could never be sold to some hungry developer.  This may be true in the 1990's, but today's Merion members cannot guarantee the actions of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

"The fact that we don't know for sure establishes the case for the formation of a National Register of Historic Golf Courses.  Golf in the United States has reached a point where many of the game's oldest courses have earned historic status and deserve to be preserved for future generations to admire and enjoy...."

[Mark_Fine]

What's the deal with "vintage" automobilies.  Can't you register for a special license plate when your classic car meets certain criteria?  Maybe something along these lines would creat "perceived" value to older golf courses and inspire them to maintain and manage their special property to certain guidelines.

As Brad Klein said in one of his past posts, restoration is being used as a marketing tool with some of the older courses.  They use this to differentiate themselves.  This could be another way of doing so.  

Hey if it helps maintain and/or restore the integrity of some of our great old courses, I'm all for it.  
Mark

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom Doak

Thanks for your thoughtful post.  Now that I think I understand better what you are getting at, I like it better!  It sounds to me like some sort of "Good Housekeeping" sort of seal, with no explicit or implicit restrictions on the owners to do what they want to do with their course, just a fairly large dose of moral suasion.  I could live with that, as could, I would guess, the members/owners of the clubs we are talking about.  I must say, however, that I don't see this as anything significantly different from today when places like Myopia, NGLA and GCGC are (or would) be under the microscope of places like this site should they decide to do something significant to their courses.

I still wonder, however, at the practicality and even need to "preserve" these courses.  I concede that it would be desirable, if only in the selfish sense of allowing outsiders like ourselves a chance to move back in time, from time to time, much as we are able to do when we play the Musselburgh old links inside the confiens of the racecourse, or hundreds of other courses, on both sides of the pond, with lesser architectural pedigrees that have not changed over the last century because, well just because the owners/members saw and see no need to do so.

It must be hard for the owners of a course like NGLA, whose raison d'etre was to push the envelope in terms of both course construction and course difficulty to find themselves now relegated into a "used to be great" category by those who believe that "resistance to scoring" is a primary criterion for course "greatness."  I suspect that CB himself is probably not too happy in his grave seeing the attention (and higher ratings) that NGLA's neighbor, Shinnecock, is getting vis a vis his baby.  From my little and third-hand knoweldge of his personality, I suspect he might be one of the last people in the world to want his masterpiece to be "preserved" if this was at the expense of its reputation in the golfing world.

Finally, as a highly accomplied practicing architect, what additional value would you get from having Myopia, for example, kept as it is now, vs. being able to see what it is now from photographs and descriptions of talented writers.  Do aspiring aritsts have to visit the Louvre to understand and learn from the qualities of the Mona Lisa, or more properly, what additional vlaue do they get from standing in the queue and then getting a minute of so to view her smile under glass?

Just wondering, really.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Interesting idea but to do something like that to cover the architecture of a golf course something would have to be set up first into some kind of insitutional, legislative and administrative structure along the lines of what now covers "national landmarks" and such. Things like that are generally under a "conservation aegis organization" that administers the "covenant" (agreement) for the government. The "covenant" deals specifically with the restrictions as to what can be done with the designated subject (land or building).

This is how a "conservation easement" on land works and also on historic buildings. For such a designation there are restrictions to what can be done with the land or the building (and also usually a tax deduction--(which most private clubs can't take anyway)).

So something would have to be set up like that to create "National Landmark Golf Courses" and to cover golf architecture strictly the club would probably not be interested (in the restrictions) and the government would probably not be interested in the idea of it either. The government would have to justify that somehow as "for the public good".

Oakmont and Merion are under some kind of "landmark" status but I would gaurantee that designation has nothing to do with the golf architecture or preserving it, at least not the way Tom Doak has in mind!

But it's an interesting idea!

[Tom Doak]

Something like a conservation easement was exactly what I had in mind.  It would be voluntary on the part of the club to accept the designation; but once they had done so, they would have to submit any possible changes to an outside agency (the landmark commission for golf courses) for approval.

I believe a lot of golf courses might be willing to sign up for such a designation, especially if it was prestigious-sounding, and only required the vote of 50% of the membership.  Most members are interested in "preserving the historic character" of their golf courses.  They just don't have a clue how to draw the line, and are easily led astray by the guys who want to move bunkers and build back tees and so forth.

Slag:  I think the preservationists would agree that the 18th fairway at Pebble Beach was worth saving, in your example.

Tim Liddy:  I've been called elitist before, but not a communist.  I thought they were kind of mutually exclusive, but I could be wrong.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tim Liddy, it is not the American way to tell some one what to do with their land.  Have you never been to a planning commision, DEP, soil conservation, zoning or board of supervisor meeting?  If not you must be an elitist.  I have no expertise in what Tom is discussing, but where are the ASGCA on this issue?  Must one architect defend these courses while an organization worries about small matters?

[Paul Daley]

TD:

You beat me to the post. Local pride aside, Royal Melbourne (West) is the obvious Mackenzie course for this designation. Its "international" significance towers above the "national" interests of all but a few courses.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Actually I'm very much in agreement with you. I believe that we need to do something to protect our golf heritage. I am amazed at how baseball is always referred to as our 'national pasttime' when the reality is that more people play golf for more years of their lives than any other sport!

Golf is mocked by those who haven't felt the joy of a leather grip in their hands as the club strikes the golf ball on the sweet spot. They call it an "Old Man's Game" and other supposed putdowns, yet every old man that I knoe who plays golf would rather be buried with his golf clubs than his baseball bat!

In a time when communities are asked to support and build huge and extremely expensive stadiums for a game (baseball &/or football) that provides outrageous salaries for a miniscule number of players and major profits &/or tax breaks for an even more miniscule number of owners, it only is proper that something be done to protect the heritage of the largest participatory game of all.

Where would East Lake be right now if Tom Cousins hadn't decided to make it his cause to save it? Oh yes, & how many in the community will be able to walk those fairways in the next few weeks at the Tour Championship? They will be there by the thousands.

We must protect our heritage.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Phil
What is left of Ross's original design at East Lake? Isn't the course now a Rees Jones design?

Do you think a Landmark architectural orgianzation would have pressed for historical accuracy with the Bethpage restoration - protecting Tillinghast original features?

[Mike_Young]

I think TD has the right idea.  I do not know how to carry it out but it is my belief that it will only come about thru the endorsement of the ruling body just as in anyother sport.
Todays athletes have improved physically over yesterdays and will continue.  Yet Wrigley Field and soldier stadium have remained the same.  Granted there have been agronomic improvements but the charm and patina are still there.
Home runs are longer, field goals are longer, yet the fans still come.  They like the high scoring Spurrier types etc.  
The games have all changed whether it be athlete or equipment but the fields have remained.
The biggest difference I see with golf courses and the other sports fields is the input of the player.  Would the public run to see a Joe Montana Stadium or a Chipper jones Ball field.  Pete Sampras tennis court??  While these guys can play their respective sports what would they know regarding the fields of play?  While there are a few competent professional golfers in the field why do Americans listen to so many of the incompetent when gathering opinions on courses?
Fact is out of the 30 million players in this country most would have more fun with longer equipment and older courses.  The American way took out match play and left us with stroke.  And if match was still the premier game it would not matter as much but that is not the case.  There will one day be a 70 yard field goal.  And golfers will continue to shoot lower numbers no matter what we do so don't fall for the longer , longer longer crap.  They still have to putt. If they get that low change the cup to 3 inches.
Keep pushing for preservation.....

[Tim Liddy]

KM:
Planning commissions protect the common value of all properties.  They are always walking a fine line between the common good (sometimes these are evil communist plots) and individual land rights.  Their attitudes and authority vary greatly across America consistent with their respective areas, east normally much more restrictive than the western states.

I agree that the ASGCA should handle bigger issues and hope to solider that cause within the ASGCA (not in this format).


TD:
I strongly defend the right of citizens to do what ever they want with their property unless they damage the common good of adjacent property owners.  I was just kidding to make a point, but telling people what they can and can not do with their property is elitist (“I know better what to do with your property than you do”) and reminds me of communism (taking away my individual rights). I wonder how a Texas golf course owner would react if you told him not to change his golf course because of historical significance.

[Tim Liddy]

KM:
Planning commissions protect the common value of all properties.  They are always walking a fine line between the common good (sometimes these are evil communist plots) and individual land rights.  Their attitudes and authority vary greatly across America consistent with their respective areas, east normally much more restrictive than the western states.

I agree that the ASGCA should handle bigger issues and hope to solider that cause within the ASGCA (not in this format).


TD:
I strongly defend the right of citizens to do what ever they want with their property unless they damage the common good of adjacent property owners.  I was just kidding to make a point, but telling people what they can and can not do with their property is elitist (“I know better what to do with your property than you do”) and reminds me of communism (taking away my individual rights). I wonder how a Texas golf course owner would react if you told him not to change his golf course because of historical significance.

[RJ_Daley]

TDs ideas to designate a very small number of courses as the best examples of "historic" or "landmark" courses is noble if not idealistic.  I think his thoughts on having design and evolved maintenance practices codified inoder to preserve most faithfully the intent of the architect masters as the criteria which would restrict all but the purest of these clubs would cause that internal competition amongst the greatest clubs to be so designated the best and most pure.  But, I don't know what incentive beyond that club membership ego and pride in the private club setting would cause the 'publicly owned' and 'open to public' privately owned daily fee courses to buy into the competition to be among the purest over the need to produce the number of rounds played to survive economically.  

As TD and others have pointed out, the obvious administrative details of which organization, under what authority, could hope to enforce or even define landscape design change construction or even maintenance practice codes is a subjective process that would never in practicality arrive at such a definable code.

In my mind, the idea for a need to designate "historic landmark courses" seems to stem from the cause of alteration or potential alteration to keep those old venues competitive is due to new technology of ball and club advancements.  None of the candidates one would logically identify as worthy "landmarks" or "historical" clubs would have any need beyond repair of wear and tear or natural weather destruction to alter their course's design/construction if the issue of technology were somehow frozen.  In that, I revert back to the USGA to act to freeze the technology, and take away the prime mover of why historic courses cross the Rubicon of remodelling to LENGTHEN or reset features to accomodate the new LENGTH strategies of high level competition.  With the issue of length curtailed, aesthetics becomes the only real issue of why any club or organization would want to alter a masterpiece.  Then, if a club decides to alter a classic landmark and historic course contrary to the design features that they received the designation for in the first place, it would be truly defiling a masterpiece for no other reason than arrogance.  

Let the USGA have the committee to codify historical and landmark courses criteria, coupled with the authority (that I beleive they already have) to curtail the indidious effects of length due to technology issue.  If a club or course owner then alters a designated masterpiece, remove the status designation of "landmark" or "historic".  In essence, they would have to take down their bronze plaque stating they are a "USGA Historic or Landmark" golf course displayed at the front gate.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

RJ
What has the USGA done to protect and preserve golf architecture over the years? What does the term Open Doctor mean to you?

Phil-the-author
You claim to advocate protecting out golf architectural heritage, what is your take on East Lake and Bethpage's success at protecting Ross and Tillinghast orignal designs?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, to answer your two questions:

A.  Nothing
B.  Bad medicine

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Not having seen East Lake before the restoration I am not in a position to comment on any changes to the historically original design. I can say that the entire community was given a much needed lift by it and not just those who are members of the club.

As for Bethpage Black, as a person who has played it several hundred times since my first in 1969, I am VERY PLEASED with the work that Rees did. I am convinced that he restored the course to where it displayed the characteristics of strategy that Tillinghast was hoping to see.

Take for example, the 12th hole. Before the renovation the championship length was 480 yards, after it was increased bby only 19 yards, an increase of approx. 4%. The challenge of hitting a drive over the cross bunker remained as it always was, daunting for the short hitters & for those who hit it long it became a challenge of accuracy.

The bunkers at the green were put back to there original dimensions in relation to the green with their being moved closer to the putting surface only minimally. The faces of the bunkers were put back to the tillinghast style of swept-up faces. The large sizes of these bunkers remained as they always were, large & yet treacherous. Tillinghast believed in large bunkers with small areas of flat spaces within them. Many of his large bunkers have fingers that cause these small areas even though they take up great amounts of space.

The green was more a result of Craig Currier's care in getting it back to wonderful condition. The shape of the green remained the same with any "alteration" to it the result of mowing pattern rather than design. They (Rees & Craig) went to great lengths to find the exact shapes & sizes of the original greens and to get them back to those conditions.

Finally, the problem with any 'Landmark Committe' is the same with any committee, too many people involved that hold up proper decisions and cause compromises that do only that - compromise rather than help. These are usually populated by people who don't know the intricacies of the originals, just the politics of getting things done or stopped.

I believe we need to find a way to protect without holding back.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Phil
My question was not if you were pleased with Rees's work, but do you think Tillinghst's original vision was protected. I can not agree with you on the greenside bunking exhibiting a Tillinghast quality. They are large and do preserve Tillinghast's original demension, but now they look more like Rees Jones than Tillinghast.



Do you think a landmark organization would have pressed for a more historically accurate restoration? Don't you think it could be argued Bethpage was Tillinghast's finest creation and for that reason a landmark worthy of accurate restoration?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()