[Tom_Doak]

This entire discussion seems to be a proxy war of using restoring a golf course to restore an aspect of the sport and game.

This is well said.  A lot of the people who are so passionate about renovation are just tired of seeing how much farther young players today can hit the ball.  They want to Do Something without thinking through MCirba's point above, how meaningless fairway bunkers are to these young guys.  A half hour's discussion of that with Brooks Kopeka was all I needed to hear.

Tom,

While I agree in principle, I'm having trouble squaring this up with the near unanimous chorus of PGA Pros and co who abhor center-line bunkers on the courses they play.  Weren't you basically told not to put them in at Memorial Park?

Kalen:


I doubt that Brooks Koepka would complain about a centerline bunker.  But in general, Tour players don't like anything that would prevent them from aiming their stock 32 yards away from the trouble with a driver, and they will complain that it's unfair to make them do that.  But they are usually complaining about longer, modern courses where that bunker is 180-200 yards from the green and it's not an easy out.


Bryson DeChambeau made it clear in all his self-attention last year that he believes his work to get longer should enable him to drive past all of the fairway hazards and that he has earned that right!

[Tom_Doak]

As Kyle points out, the thread has become centered on the question of fairway bunker placement, but the larger issue of whose judgment should be followed covers more aspects of a course: green location, slopes, green contours, fairway width, green side bunkers, angles from the tee, etc. For the category of golden age classics (probably 200 or so US courses), I certainly would strongly presume to trust the judgment of the original architect. Sure, there are fabulous modern architects whose ideas for a particular hole or holes might overcome that presumption, but it should be a compelling case versus even a well thought out viewpoint about modernization.

The educational part of the conversation is that while it's all a matter of opinion and arguments can be made on all sides, generally, it's the most-decorated modern architects who are on the side of NOT changing older courses, and the guys who make a living off renovation work who champion tinkering to keep up with the times.

[Jim_Coleman]

  I withdraw my apology to Tom at the beginning of this thread. This has been a very interesting discussion. Thank you all.

[Mark_Fine]

There would be so much less debate if the game never changed nor did the golf courses it is played on.  If courses were static like a basketball or tennis court and they didn’t shrink or grow or evolve over time by natural and/or man made forces it would be so much easier.  I recall a member coming up to me about a front right green side bunker saying, “The green side of that bunker was always much higher and the green sloped sharply away from it.  Why did you change it?”  When I told him all we did was restore it to what is once was (we removed two and a half feet of sand splash/top dressing till we found the original grades), he shook his head in disbelief and walked away.  Maybe we should have left it as is, but what kind of restoration would that be?  We not only restored many lost hole locations by expanding and returning original contours [/size](on older greens some of those lost near the edges are the best),[/size]  the green complexes are much more integrated with the surrounds and some maintenance costs will be reduced as well.  The high sand faces that evolved resulted in lots of washing and extra work after heavy rains. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

As Kyle points out, the thread has become centered on the question of fairway bunker placement, but the larger issue of whose judgment should be followed covers more aspects of a course: green location, slopes, green contours, fairway width, green side bunkers, angles from the tee, etc. For the category of golden age classics (probably 200 or so US courses), I certainly would strongly presume to trust the judgment of the original architect. Sure, there are fabulous modern architects whose ideas for a particular hole or holes might overcome that presumption, but it should be a compelling case versus even a well thought out viewpoint about modernization.

The educational part of the conversation is that while it's all a matter of opinion and arguments can be made on all sides, generally, it's the most-decorated modern architects who are on the side of NOT changing older courses, and the guys who make a living off renovation work who champion tinkering to keep up with the times.

This.


Part of that may be values (as I’m sure it is with Tom)…. and part of it may be that you don’t need to scrape around for a living renovating courses when you have a bunch of new ones to build….


I luckily share those values. But it also helps that I have another source of income.

[Ira Fishman]

On the optimistic side, of the courses that fall into the golden age classic category (probably closer to 400 than my original guess), it seems as if the very large lion's share that have been worked on in the past 20 years fall closer to the restoration definition than a substantial renovation or new design.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

On the optimistic side, of the courses that fall into the golden age classic category (probably closer to 400 than my original guess), it seems as if the very large lion's share that have been worked on in the past 20 years fall closer to the restoration definition than a substantial renovation or new design.


Ira

Not outside the US, Ira… It has all been renovation in GB&I


Although there are quite a few architects who now seem to realise that invoking the name of the ODG gets them the job easier.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
What we can’t all agree on is what is what 

I can’t think of many if any project I was involved in that didn’t have some of both. 


Is Rolling Geeen a restoration or a renovation or a combination of both?  You know the answer 

It’s returning the course to its height, imo.


I was a new member in the late 90’s when Gil Hanse’s Master Plan came up for a vote to be put in the bylaws. It had no chance to pass of course.


They had some 1926 photos sitting around at the time. I saw them and said “ I want that golf course!!!”.


It had trees only in one section and dramatic large bunkers that seemed to be dripping out into the grass. The simple beauty was like nothing I had ever seen. 
(My golf travels started after this).


I had begun to suggest that the evergreens were ruining the golf. Few listened since I was new.


But for the last 25 years it has been a passion to see the course look like those photos again.


It’s almost complete. If we simply go back to the original bunker scheme I would say that’s it.


Many of the same people have fought this effort every step of the way. I’m confused by that since one could have seen the improvement since the first evergreen was removed.


There are ample things that can be done to address technological change without touching the course in that 1926 photo.


If you can be one of the best examples of Flynn’s work from that era and remain a challenging course I think that is worth the effort.

[Sean_A]

On the optimistic side, of the courses that fall into the golden age classic category (probably closer to 400 than my original guess), it seems as if the very large lion's share that have been worked on in the past 20 years fall closer to the restoration definition than a substantial renovation or new design.


Ira

Not outside the US, Ira… It has all been renovation in GB&I


Although there are quite a few architects who now seem to realise that invoking the name of the ODG gets them the job easier.

I hear very little about GB&I restoration except as a by product of tree removal. Which is why the Addington project is so cool.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean makes a good point about tree removal.  Most people tend to associate restorations with tree removal but there is much more to it then that.  If a bunker is “restored” in place but is now for example much deeper, has sharper banks/faces,… then the original, has it really been restored?  My point is not to argue but to state that we are often bringing back original intent more so then “exact” reproduction because no classic course comes with CAD/detailed after built construction drawings.  We do our best from hand drawings/notes/old photos and aerials and then have to take into account modern grasses, irrigation, drainage, maintenance budgets, playability, safety,………new owners 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


You can always hire Peter Flory to perform his magic.


Ira

[V_Halyard]

Interesting thread. We had the bones of a Ross buried in trees and fungus. We stripped the trees and did an actual restoration of 80% of the course that had the original routing in tact.
We used The Godfather of restoration, Ron Prichard and it turned out fabulously. The new course was well regarded and we went from free initiation and no interest delayed dues in 2011 to a waitlist in 2022, primarily because of the popularity of our primary asset, the Prichard Restored Donald Ross designed golf course.

Two years ago, a storm ripped out at least 3000 trees and entire groves of forest that Ross used to route the course. The land Ross saw and designed a course for no longer exists. The landscape is new.

We are in the process of a full 18 hole renovation as there is nothing to restore. Is it a Ross course? He still has provenance over the routing and greens. Bunkers are still in the character of Ross but are being expanded to match the scale of the now treeless land. This time we have Prichard on site full time with Ron Hart and a crew of 20 repairing a near mortally wounded golf course. The results are promising to be spectacular.

Is it a Ross. Yes but with some original Ross inspired features by Prichard including homage to our original first hole that had two greens.
Is it a Restoration?  Absolutely not. We can no longer claim it as a restoration as much of the land and many of the features are new.  And you can't buy 2000 trees let alone plant them

Do we care? Not a f***ng bit.  it is what we have, and and we are making the best of what originally looked like a disaster.
it's actually much better than we could have ever imagined. Ross would do the same thing.

[Tim Martin]

Interesting thread. We had the bones of a Ross buried in trees and fungus. We stripped the trees and did an actual restoration of 80% of the course that had the original routing in tact.
We used The Godfather of restoration, Ron Prichard and it turned out fabulously. The new course was well regarded and we went from free initiation and no interest delayed dues in 2011 to a waitlist in 2022, primarily because of the popularity of our primary asset, the Prichard Restored Donald Ross designed golf course.


Two years ago, a storm ripped out at least 3000 trees and entire groves of forest that Ross used to route the course. The land Ross saw and designed a course for no longer exists. The landscape is new.


We are in the process of a full 18 hole renovation as there is nothing to restore. Is it a Ross course? He still has provenance over  as the routing and greens. Bunkers are still in the character of Ross but are being expanded to math the scale of the now treeless land. This tie We have Prichard on site full time with Ron Hart and a crew of 20 repair a near mortally wounded golf course. The results are promising to be spectacular.


Is it a Ross. Yes but with some original Ross inspired features by Prichard including an homage to our original first hole that had two greens.
Is it a Restoration?  Absolutely not. We can no longer claim it as a restoration as much of the land and many of the features are new.  And you can't buy 2000 trees let alone plant them


Do we care? Not a f***ng bit.  it is what we have and we are making the best of what originally looked like a disaster.
it's actually much better than we could have ever imagined. Ross would do the same thing.

Vaughn-I can appreciate the steps the club is undertaking to renovate CRCC and hope you guys have a terrific result. That said how do you know that “Ross would do the same thing?”

[V_Halyard]

Interesting thread…

…it is what we have and we are making the best of what originally looked like a disaster.it's actually much better than we could have ever imagined. Ross would do the same thing.

Vaughn-I can appreciate the steps the club is undertaking to renovate CRCC and hope you guys have a terrific result. That said how do you know that “Ross would do the same thing?”

Tim, Valid question. Here are some architecturally reasonable choices. We tell stories for our day job. Let’s play the Hot Tub Time machine “What if” history game.

It’s 2020, 8 years after we commenced our restoration, our land received the equivalent of a clear-cut forest fire. The front nine went from forested, to scalped like Mr. Clean’s head, all in about 45minutes thanks to  90-140mph sustained winds. If the club had called Ross back, which they would have, he would have had no alternative than to invent hazards. He would be renovating his own work.

If it were 1921/22, it would be about 7 years since completion of the 1915 Ross project . The entire landscape would be new, so Ross either builds new features, or walks away from the new construction. During that period, Langford and Moreau delivered the spectacular features at Wakonda (Siri spells it Wakanda, that irony amuses me) Those features have since been neutered but are hopefully making a comeback. Solo Langford had also been to Ellis Park in Cedar Rapids (Features NLE) and had done work atop Ross at Skokie.

CRCC members would have reminded Ross of this so I pose that Ross doesn’t walk away. By that time, say it’s 8 years after the initial build, (like our restoration). Hatch is now involved in Ross construction and Ross/Hatch get busy at the now more regionally notable Cedar Rapids course.

They rally to keep the cash from pilferage by a surging L&M. (Dan Moore, jump in here) Ross would have sent Hatch or McGovern. Ross didn’t have the team in place the first time in 1914/1915. This time in about 1922, like today, there are gangs of golf architects roving the land      
CRCC calls Ross in Pinehurst, and Ross  plus Hatch or McGovern hit the rails to keep the now powerful Ross GCA brand out front at a regionally prominent club with their name on it.

Either way, we would have a more dynamic 1920’s Ross, a more mechanically dramatic Langford and Moreau, or possibly even a Maxwell who might have come across state from working at Veenker. It’s fair to say we don’t know what Ross would have done but it could be reasonably assumed somebody would have done something dramatic. We’re sticking with the Ross story and approach. It’s “Iowa Nice” and the club would have stuck with the guy that got them there back then, Ross. We’re rolling with the same approach with Prichard to channel Ross/McGovern/Hatch circa 1920’s.

We did much of our work with Prichard in house the first time. The then President and I were asked to resign from the board by some members mad we were cutting trees. We didn’t resign.

Flash to today, because of the gca, we are at full membership with a wait list. We have the enthusiastic trust and support of the members and board based on the previous performance of the architect, Prichard, and the team led by our then super, now our GM, Feller.

We are gca seasoned, and battle hardened. I am pleased to help lead a golf course planning committee, specifically tasked with oversight of the course and architecture. We don’t touch outings, stags, member guests, nor handicap cheats. Just the gca. That’s how we’re rolling. We’re defining the future and this is our definition. Renovate or die.

We haven’t shared much but we are head down at full speed, in full reno, almost done with the back 9. Prichard is living across the street and has a golf cart. We’re moving to the front this week and may finish before winter. When we catch our breath and have all the sod and sand in place, we’ll share more.

[Tim Martin]

Interesting thread…

…it is what we have and we are making the best of what originally looked like a disaster.it's actually much better than we could have ever imagined. Ross would do the same thing.

Vaughn-I can appreciate the steps the club is undertaking to renovate CRCC and hope you guys have a terrific result. That said how do you know that “Ross would do the same thing?”

Tim, Valid question. Here are some architecturally reasonable choices. We tell stories for our day job. Let’s play the Hot Tub Time machine “What if” history game.

It’s 2020, 8 years after we commenced our restoration, our land received the equivalent of a clear-cut forest fire. The front nine went from forested, to scalped like Mr. Clean’s head, all in about 45minutes thanks to  90-140mph sustained winds. If the club had called Ross back, which they would have, he would have had no alternative than to invent hazards. He would be renovating his own work.

If it were 1922, it would be about 7 years since completion of the 1915 Ross project . The entire landscape would be new, so Ross either builds new features, or walks away from the new construction. During that period, Langford was headed to Wakonda (Siri spells it Wakanda, that irony amuses me)

Langford had also been to Ellis Park in Cedar Rapids (Features NLE) and had done work atop Ross at Skokie. The club will have reminded him of this and Ross doesn’t walk away. By that time, say it’s 8 years after the initial build, (like our restoration). Hatch is now involved in Ross construction and Ross/Hatch get busy at the now more regionally notable Cedar Rapids course.

They rally to keep the cash from pilferage by a surging L&M. (Dan Moore, jump in here) He would have sent Hatch or McGovern. Ross didn’t have the team in place the first time in 1914/1915. This time in about 1922, like today, there are gangs of golf architects roving the land      
CRCC calls Ross in Pinehurst, and Ross  plus Hatch or McGovern hit the rails to keep the now powerful Ross GCA brand out front at a regionally prominent club with their name on it.

Either way, we would have a more dynamic 1920’s Ross, a more mechanically dramatic Langford and Moreau, or possibly even a Maxwell who might have come across state from working at Veenker. It’s fair to say we don’t know what Ross would have done but it could be reasonably assumed somebody would have done something dramatic. We’re sticking with the Ross story and approach. It’s “Iowa Nice” and the club would have stuck with the guy that got them there back then, Ross. We’re rolling with the same approach with Prichard to channel Ross/McGovern/Hatch circa 1920’s.

We did much of our work with Prichard in house the first time. The then President and I were asked to resign from the board by some members mad we were cutting trees. We didn’t resign.

Flash to today, because of the gca, we are at full membership with a wait list. We have the enthusiastic trust and support of the members and board based on the previous performance of the architect, Prichard, and the team led by our then super, now our GM, Feller.

We are gca seasoned, and battle hardened. I am pleased to help lead a golf course planning committee, specifically tasked with oversight of the course and architecture. We don’t touch outings, stags, member guests, nor handicap cheats. Just the gca. That’s how we’re rolling. We’re defining the future and this is our definition. Renovate or die.

We haven’t shared much but we are head down at full speed, in full reno, almost done with the back 9. Prichard is living across the street and has a golf cart. We’re moving to the front this week and may finish before winter. When we catch our breath and have all the sod and sand in place, we’ll share more.

Vaughn-Thank you for the well reasoned and thoughtful reply. Again best of luck moving forward.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()