This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Are “pure“ restorations dead?All you hear about today are “sympathetic“ restorations and restorations that “take into account the modern game” (whatever that means) and restorations that return a course to its roots but “update” it as well,…. I have always been a believer in trying to restore the original look and feel of an old golf course as well as the original design intent (as best you can where it makes sense based on all your research of the evolution of the design). That seems to be the trend with many others today. No one seems to be doing “pure” restoration, whatever that means.
Mike,Unless you are creating a museum piece, the reason you “restore” a course is because what “was” there is a better design then what “is” there now. Most of us know a good hole from a bad hole and I don’t know about you, but I won’t restore a bad hole just to restore it (at least I won’t recommend doing so). The reason why we do all the investigation and research is to find out how the course evolved and to see if the original design is better then what we have today. Some don’t take the time to do so or just don’t care.
The point of this thread is most all of the restorations I am seeing these days are “sympathetic” but definitely not “pure”. Maybe they are thinking like Flynn and looking at how the golf course is played today to decide how to tweak it to bring back the original intent??