GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

Are we propping them up?

(1/13) > >>

Mark_Fine:

If we could bring them back, would Ross recognize Pinehurst #2 or Seminole?  Would Tillinghast’s jaw drop if he saw Winged Foot West?  Would Wilson and Flynn be amazed at how Merion has evolved?  Would Mackenzie know or believe he is even looking at Augusta National? 


We give a tremendous amount of credit to the Golden Age architects and rightfully so.  However, is it the efforts of others that are propping them up into super stardom among golfers and GCA enthusiasts?  We all know there are a ton of classic golf courses that may have benefited from restoration/renovation work which has helped them keep or improve their rankings.  On the RTJ thread for example, we talked about how many Top 100 courses RTJ currently has and some feel the number impacts their perception of how great he was.  If Gil Hanse goes and restores/renovates Old Warson and helps put it back on some Top 100 list as it once was, does that elevate/prop up RTJ in the minds of more GCA critics, golfers, etc? 


There is an old saying, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit’!  The problem in GCA is that it does seem to matter and maybe we are propping up the dead guys higher than they should be and/or giving them too much credit?  I know Tom Fazio would agree  ;)

Jim Sherma:
Mark - so true. We fetishize the original architects but forget how important the clubs that maintain and curate these courses through the years. Certainly these committee's and decision makers make some choices that they later regret but without the their resources and desires none of these great courses would be so. Many of these ODG courses remain great, or in many cases were re-worked repeatedly into greatness, because they are the pride and joy of wealthy clubs run by powerful people. These clubs have have the desire and resources to have their clubs be thought of as something special. 

Tom_Doak:
There is no question that the name on the course influences its ranking.


Of course, Tom Fazio, Gil Hanse and I benefit from that as much as any old dead guy.  And that's especially true for the courses we restore, which is one reason why your clients with aspirations of rankings sometimes switch out to an architect they perceive can help them get there.


None of the examples in your first paragraph hold much water, though.  All of them would scratch their heads at today's level of maintenance, but the courses you mentioned have not changed that much physically.  MacKenzie wouldn't be too happy that Augusta had changed so much, but he would certainly recognize the place.



The current state of courses like The Valley Club and Shoreacres and Somerset Hills owe very little to me, except that I resisted the temptation others might have had to screw around and "update" them.  What's on the ground today is what MacKenzie and Hunter, and Raynor, and Tillinghast put there.  But their rankings may be slightly higher than some other renovations because people know I spent time there, too, and they believe that I wouldn't have left those courses alone if they weren't really good.


Twenty-five years ago I would have killed for designer-blind rankings; I lost a job to Rees Jones specifically because he had the better-known name.  Unfortunately, it's impossible to get there when golf courses are marketed by the designer's name, and every ranking is accompanied by a list of which designers worked on the most courses.  But if we could get there, you might be surprised at the results:  yes, maybe Langford or Flynn or Mike Young might do better in the polls, but my guess is that Donald Ross would have MORE courses in the top 100 if many panelists didn't have an unofficial glass ceiling for how many courses he should be allowed.

Mark_Fine:
Jim,
Thanks for the comments. Resources definitely play a huge role in the status of golf courses and how they evolve.


Tom,
Those examples I tossed out might not be the best ones though you seemed to agree with me about Augusta, that course has changed dramatically yet Mackenzie/Jones still get most of the credit.  We both know that many of even the best "restored" courses have changed quite a bit from their original days.  Maybe it is just superficial (from advanced maintenance practices) but many have been tweaked/refined/altered to some extent as well under the guise of "restoration" or just from evolution, land development, need for practice facilities,....  Do you for example really think Pinehurst #2 as it is today, is the purest example of Ross's work? I love the golf course but should Ross be the one getting most of the credit?  Again there may be much better examples but you know what I am talking about.  Take Pebble Beach as it is today.  Is that Neville and Grant or ??  I know you tend to give most of the credit to who did the original routing and that is fair but if someone does a poor make-up/wardrode job, one can make even the most beautiful women not so beautiful anymore.  The opposite holds true as well  ;) 

corey miller:



I would be most interested in attempting to surmise how the original architects would feel about the courses that have been restored rather than if they would recognize them.


We can champion all these "restorations" but wouldn't the courses have been designed differently if the architects knew or projected how maintenance practices would change?  Would Tillinghast have built the same course at Bethpage with giant hole corridors if he knew that the fairways would be narrow with penal rough? Is restoration/expansion of greens as important/relevant with narrow fairways and high rough? Perhaps the greens would have been designed differently? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page