[TEPaul]

I can't believe I'm saying this because ranking and rating really isn't my thing--but restorations are of great interest to me--any and all of them.

Restoration and restorative efforts of classic golf courses in America is a relatively recent thing too. But it sure seems to me that the restorative process, really good restorations etc is reaching a critical mass now and is sort of quietly building up steam and rolling across many of America's classic old courses. So many clubs seemed to have rerealized what they have, are finding some old aerials, photographs and documentary material and have hauled it out and are analyzing it and starting to call architects! It's important to call the right ones though!

The architects that do it and do it well also seem to be unbelievably busy now: Gil Hanse, Ron Forse, Brian Silva, Ron Prichard, Bobby Weed, Tom Doak, George Bahto and a number of other good ones.

There's something very satisfying to me to see a guy like Ron Prichard at Aronomink walking around with Donald Ross's plans and drawings constantly in his hand! Brad Klein's book outlines a number of really good Ross restorations that have been done. NGLA, Merion, Yeamans, Fishers, GMGC, LuLu, Huntingdon Valley, Oakmont, Shinnecock, and tons of others are doing it now.

With the design evolution booklet I did on my course I seem to be talking to people doing it too all over the place; Mass, Pa, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, NJ, etc.

A lot of the architects that are doing it tune in to this site too as do a lot of the people at the clubs that are doing it.

There seems to be a lot of available dark brown space on this page to the left there where this site might be able to include a section for a list and analyses of these welcome restorations of classic American courses.

Hopefully those at the clubs that are or were involved might then come on and contribute and others considering this process would come on too for information, collaboration and Q and A.

God help me for proposing rating and ranking, but should Golfclubatlas itself start to get into doing that? If it did it would probably be the only one--it certainly would be the first one to do it!

[Ed_Baker]

O.K. I'll nominate Charles River #1 , kudos to Ron Prichard and certain forward thinking members!

Seriously, not a bad idea, I have gotten a ton of correspondence since The River was added to the course profile section on here with restoration credit to Ron. The importance of a "master plan" by a qualified architect is being recognized as the "standard" instead of "in house" tinkering, particularly as the list of "name" clubs go that route. GCA has certainly helped get the word out.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Alice and Petd Dye go absolutely apoplectic when the "restoration" topic comes up.  Alice says that if you restore these old classic courses to their original condition, you better start playing classic equipment because bunkering and hazards were designed to handle equipment of the time.  Today's improved equipment would make course hazards nothing but window dressing...

[Ed_Baker]

Migel,

Not to contradict the king and queen of modern golf architecture and I'm not being facetious they are, but.... One of the greatest improvements of our restoration was restoring the bunkers to their original depth and footprints. The fairway bunkers in particular are now truly a hazard again, as they were intended. Sure, technology has rendered many of them unlikely recipients of shots from the better players, but they are still frequented plenty by the club player.

As for "window" dressing are greenside bunkers not functional anymore? Todays green speeds make recovery from greenside bunkers a challenge.

I would respectfully disagree with the Dyes. Even kings must be careful when making blanket statements.

[Willie_Dow]

Good subject, Tom:
But we need to break this down into basic criteria.  Some areas can be judged on certain elements of restoration.  Trees, for example.  Some would say those trees were planted by Flynn for a reason, why should they be removed, or trimmed, if some limb set up a particular approach to a hole.  I think of #12 at Gulph Mills for example, and Chuck Yarnell's limb on the right side, which he always hit when he went for the green on that par five.  Should those considerations be involved in restoration work?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

Is Merion's restoration different from the Fazio work done there?  If it is the same thing, do you approve of the work done and consider it to be done to specs or do you more closely share Tommy's opinion?

[GeoffreyC]

Good subject Tom

Rather then ranking restorations, this site could be a repository of information about courses that have undertook restoration work.  Just as Ran and John's course profiles highlight courses that they think have architectural merit, a similar section with relevant information about restored courses could be a valuable resource.  Clubs could use this information to see which other courses by their original architect have had work done, by which present day architect and it could be illustrated with photos.  

A hall of shame might not be a bad idea either  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I support Geoff Childs point of view.  GCA should not get into the rankings business at all.  But, developing a repository of information/profiles of key restorations/redesigns seems like an excellent build on what Ran has done with the course profiles.

By the way, there aren't many places - if any - where one can find course profiles as informative as what Ran has done.  If a restorations/redesign repository can achieve the same standard, it would be fabulous.

[Doug Wright]

One of the very fine restorations already appears in the course profiles: Wilmington (NC) Golf Course, a Ross restoration by Ron Prichard. Based on my tour of that course, I'd certainly concur with Ed Baker and disagree with the Dyes if they said that--many of the restored bunkers at Wilmington are fierce indeed!  

All The Best,

[K.Hegland]

I love the idea of creating a repository information bank for restorations.  There have been tons of good restorations done recently, but also a significant amount of poor restorations.  I think it would be benificial to document both good and bad restorations, could be used as a great tool to educate members/greens commitees to understand the importance of preserving a possible classic course.  I also think it would be best to stay out of a ranking of restorations, nothing good can really come out of said rankings.  I would be a great tool to promote/educate people on the great people that specialize in restorations (ie the people listed by TEPaul).  Another thing to do would be the restorations carried out in house that were successes (ie Crystal Downs, Baltimore CC), some credit to the superintendents that carry out great restorations shouldn't go with out say either.  Yet another branch would be ongoing restorations (ie, Silva and co start at Mountian Lake next Monday!!).  

[Mike_Cirba]

While I really love the idea of listing successful restorations and citing the methodologies involved, I would guess that this site's owner would not want to list "unsuccessful" restorations, simply because the tone of the website is meant to identify and promote the best architecture in the game.

So, if that were to be done, I think it would have to be in something like the discussion group, where individuals could voice their opinions of why something didn't come off as planned.  That way, similar to the way things are on the DG right now on a variety of issues, negative information could be shared but would be wholly dependent on the experience, insight, and reputation of the individual, and not reflective of the viewpoints of the site's administrator, or the website as a whole.

Others would be able to simply weigh the value of that information for themselves, based on the credence they give the respective poster.  

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

No discussion about restorations can be complete without
mentioning Ron Prichard's job at Skokie.  He hit the nail on
the head with this one, and I think it went from a good
golf course to a spectacular one.

[Tom Doak]

Mike V:  Ironic that you said that about Pete and Alice.

Pete was the one who told The Camargo Club that they just ought to put the whole place back the way Seth Raynor built it, and sent me to tell them how.  Pete also had a small hand in telling Shoreacres to do the same.  Those are among the first "restorations" I know of.

Of course, Pete's focus today is on Tour players.  I Cwouldn't advocate restoring a place like Camargo if their goal was to host a U.S. Open.  Fortunately, they have more sense than that.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

TD--

Actually, it was Alice who really went off on the whole restoration craze during a conference call we had with the Dyes and Ron Whitten when we were giving Ron information on the changes planned for The Ocean Course this summer...  But, you're right.  There's a big difference between normal daily play and tour play.  Most player's don't generate 110+mph clubhead speed like tour players to blow past fairway hazards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()