The "Process"

[TEPaul]

By this I mean the mechanisms both procedural and personal that sometimes generate but particularly move a thing like a golf course Master Plan or restoration plan through a club's membership to approval and implimentation.

Master Plans, particularly on the older courses are a popular and coming thing these days, and generally they tend to be both restorative and preservationist for the future. They're probably basically a cyclical result and reaction to decades of piece-meal mess making to any course's architecture from revolving committees who never previously thought of continuity in an architectural or maintenance vein (because they basically never before worked within the two-sided context of a course Master Plan).

I love the details of golf course architecture, particularly classic course architecture and I've learned a lot from a lot of sources but my club's restoration project (Master Plan) with Gil Hanse has taught me a ton about the other side of the coin from the actual architectural side---that side of the coin where you need to persuade, convince and sell your membership on the things you believe are restorative and can preserve the best architectural framework and maintenance practices that best highlight all your course can be. The actual architectural plan is one thing but how you present and sell it is the "Process".

The primary reason I'm posting this thread today is I keep seeing these threads and posts on here---particularly from the active mind of my counter-part Pat Mucci---basically trying to lay blame and find fault with someone--generally club members or whole memberships for what's happened to various courses in the past.

So, my message here with this "Process" thread is to advise all out there interested in course restoration and preservation----don't bother to try to find fault and lay blame on someone or anyone even if it's obvious they deserve it. The reason I'm saying that is in almost all cases it doesn't work--it's not positive and it ultimately hinders those very things you're trying to accomplish.

We had a very good architectural Master Plan that it took a committee with the constant inclusion of Gil Hanse about two years to prepare to present to our membership but when we finally got into that distinct part I call the "Process"----presenting it to the membership for approval, we really blew it at first. Luckily, we learned our lesson early, stopped and reevaluated our "Process", the second time around it worked because we essentially removed as much adverserialness from the "Process" as humanly possible. It worked great, they approved, the restoration is basically done, it's a good enough one, and the membership appears to basically love it!

I'd like to add some of the lessons I learned and some of the little tricks that work on later posts but basically the over-riding thing here is even if you don't respect the opinions, often oddball ones, of members, for Christ's sake act like you do or basically you're never going anywhere with them. If you're not going to ultimately accept their opinion (which of course 99% of the time you're not and can't) there's a great response I can almost guarantee works almost everytime!

Probably the most central trick I learned (and was told early on by a few architect friends but apparently didn't pay attention to enough) is whenever you're talking to a golfer about architectural and maintenance matters try your damnedest to see the issue through the eyes of his or her  games, not your own! If you get good at that you won't believe the immediate positive results you can get (you cannot believe how generally suspicious higher handicappers are of the architectural opinions of better players and probably for good reasons!). Ironically, a golfer who could be about as good at this as anyone I've ever seen is Nick Faldo!!

The other thing I learned is just how completely common-sensical restoration architecture is--basically focusing on the design intent both architecturally and maintenance-wise of a golf course. It has a unique way of working for everyone if done correctly and that's the avenue you need to come to both know and know how to sell to ALL LEVELS of players! Frankly this part is pretty stunning and ultimately says so much about architecture, particularly good golf architecture! And when you learn how to explain this well to all levels you'll not believe how quickly they pick up on it----obviously, again because it can be so logical and common-sensical!

And last but certainly not least, again, respect them all or act like you do. Laying blame, finding fault, is negative, it's couterproductive with others and also to yourself and the very thing you're trying to accomplish---making the "Process" work to get them to accept a good restoration and preservation Master Plan and it's implimentation!

I think I've done a thread like this before but it's time to do it again with all these fault-finding threads around recently!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

TE,
Boy have we been down this path before, and I like to think, almost demand it that people see it my way and no other.

One of the best way to institute "the process" I have always told you is by torture, but first you have to have the power to torture and to do that requires muscle and addresses of other fellow committee members who don't want to toe the line.

Sure, you'll sometimes meet objections, but they usually get the idea real quick that when it comes to following a master plan that there can be only one visionary, and thats you (or whomever else wants to be the dictator of the club) and that its your vision that must be followed, and never questioned. Otherwise, it can get really painful for the fellow member, even if he might be a family member that didn't follow protocol that was set down by YOU and YOU only.

I have found in these situations that your golf course superintendents (who does understand his place in your regime, yet is a sound council) building has the sufficent "tools" to help convince the parties that might not agree with your basic premise or modus operandi that its YOUR decision and YOUR decision only. There are also things such as lye and even a back hoe to help in this cause of burying these problems that come up from time to time, plus they help the golf course to look greener.

All and all, the people of the club will come to respect you, as well as stay out of your way, knowing that there is only one authority--one "chief" and they will love you for it.

This is "The Process."

[Gene Greco]

Tom:

    Thanks for your insight.

Over the course of this next year we will be presenting these same ideas of preservation and restoration to our membership.

We hope to end this cycle of the "decades long piece-meal mess making" done to our Raynor design with a Master Plan of our own.

The head of the architecture committee and myself are the only accomplished players at the club , (much like Faldo himself ), but we've always made an effort to see the architecture from the less skilled players point of view.

We will take heed from your other experiences when proceeding with our "Process."

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The problem with your intitial post on the process is that you introduce us to it, MID STREAM, after the club's already retained your architect, Gil Hanse.

Take us back to the begining, the very genesis of the process, then bring us forward.

I think that you're going to find that each club's path is different, in the genesis, evolution and ultimate conclusion of the process.

[ChasLawler]

I think Mr. Mucci has a point there. I would think that the most important aspect of any master plan or renovation would be retaining the right architect or consultant - someone who does not have an agenda of his own.

[A_Clay_Man]

Sounds like getting to "the process" is the crux. Hopefully,with open discourse, this is not too difficult. But, it does sound like egos and politics, stifle the open discourse.

A doctorate in political science might help? Do we any of those?

[corey miller]

Tom

I also am interested like Pat in the process from the beginning.  Obviously, somebody made an enlightened choice in getting Gil involved.  Other clubs start the process under the assumption that all the restoration/renovation guys are equal.

[Peter_Collins]

I have been through only one restoration so this is strictly FWIW.  The "process" undertaken at my club was to to establish a few core goals for the project: 1) restore to original design taking into consideration the following; a) improve drainage; b) improve playability of course for aging membership while retaining difficulty for younger players;  c) improve sight lines, e.g. make all bunkers visible from lie; and d) eliminate double hazards which had developed primarily from tree overgrowth or intermittent ad hoc design changes.  
In addition we focused on hiring the right people to lead the project.  We hired an established architect (GCA member) who helped us establish the above core goals and remained commited to our goals throughout the project.  We then hired a reputable golf course construction company in our region.

Rather than allow the membership to micromanage the renovation, a strong club president and a dedicated greens committee and  knowledge super and pro made key decisions.  The club pro and super updated the membership on a regular basis (by email in between monthly club newsletters) about the progress of the project, the changes being made, and in some cases rational for the changes.  In addition they took the time to address specific membership concerns in a professional manner.

We are about 10 months out from completion of the project.  The project was an overwhelming success from several standpoints.  One, the project accomplished all the core goals (with minor tweaking on drainage); two, I have not heard one significant complaint from my follow members about the course.  Even the members most strongly opposed the the renovation sing the project's success.  Many members my age (mid 30s) were concerned that making the course more playable for the aging membership would make the course "too easy."  This has not been the case at all, by repositioning and reshaping fairway bunkers and reshaping the fairways to place "trouble" at proper distances for todays equipment the course has retained its challenging nature for better players.  

This "process" may not work at clubs with truly masterpiece courses, but it sure worked great at my club.

[corey miller]

Thanks Peter.  What happens when you have an uneducated membership and the "core goals for the project" are faulty?  

For example:"improve sightlines". Seems like this can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Collins,

Thanks,

But again, you bring us into the "process" when the club had already reached the stage where they established "goals"

Take us back to the very begining.

Who established these goals ?
How were they determined to be the ones doing the establishing ?
How did this group get formed ?
What was the genesis of the project ?

I'm also curious about the goal to make the golf course more playable for older members.  Surely your club has had older members since its inception, why the sudden need to focus on that issue as a goal ?  Does your course have many forced carries or an abundance of water hazards ?

Thanks

[Peter_Collins]

Good point.  Improve sight lines at our course meant primarily two things.  The course was about 50 years old and was overgrown with trees, thus tree management with emphasis on sight line and flight line was a key objective.  Second, over the years  ill advised bunkers had been added on an ad hoc basis, many of which could not be seen when you stood over ball. Thus, almost all of these bunkers were removed eliminating the blind hazards.

Telling Mr. and Mrs. Grumpymuffin you are going to cut down a bunch of trees will get you no where in a hurry.  Telling them you are going to improve sight lines to make the course more fun will at least confuse them long enough to get the project started.  After that, they're off to Palm Springs for the winter and by the time they return the project is 90% complete.  

As for the uninformed members I can tell you there were a lot of meetings between a disbelieving member and the club president or club pro.  You just have to get them to hang in long enough to see the finished project. At our club once the sand was in the bunkers and sod was laid the course looked so good and there was so much buzz about the project it wasn't a problem.  

[TEPaul]

Pat, Cabell, Corey et al:

No problem---I'd be glad to explain what, how and why my club got into the mindset of restoration/Master Plan. I recognize that all clubs are different in their motivations and intentions but my club, although perhaps not the most representative in the world, is a good enough place to start and probably a good enough example for most other clubs. But note, I'm talking about a mindset (amongst only some initially) to create a master plan with the intention of restoration of our old Ross (1916) course and not some mindset to redesign it.

Corey remarked in a post above;

"Other clubs start the process under the assumption that all the restoration/renovation guys are equal."

Corey:

In my opinion, having just been through this and having a good deal of connection with other clubs and other master plans and restoration efforts this is just incredibly important. It's no secret at all that so many golf clubs and even very good ones and ones that appear extremely well prepared make this mistake. Restoration and restoration architecture, I believe, takes a certain knack and mindset amongst even very good architects and not all architects look at it the same way--sometimes not even close---and so many clubs just don't understand that. The way to overcome that is just so damn easy though!

[JohnV]

Tom, this is a really good topic.  Perhaps you could expand on it and make it an "In My Opinion" piece so that it doesn't have to be reposted on a regular basis.

[Peter_Collins]

How the project got started?  Its so bizarre you are not going to believe it.

The club is about 100 years old and this is our third location.  The current course was built in the late 40's.  We are located in a region which traditionally has wet springs, hot humid windy summers and cold dry winters. (Sounds like heaven?) Turf grass was always a problem, the fairways were a fine blade fescue overseeded with rye.  We were spending a fortune on chemicals and water.  In addition a new TF "monument to one mans succes club" had openned across town which had zoysia fairways.  In addition we had major drainage issues.

The powers that be decided we need to go zoysia so we started on a projected to replace the zoysia fairways one or two at time.  The first summer we closed down one hole around August 1 and it remained closed until spring.  The zoysia came in great and people were excited about the project.

 Over the winter we involved an architect who came to course and it was during this period of time that the core goals were established.  There was no vote of the membership, hell I'm not sure the core goals are written on anything but a napkin from the men's grill.  The goals were decided on by the architect, the super, the pro, and club president.  

The second summer, on July 5,  we closed down two holes, one and eighteen  to the sounds of knashing and teeth and howls of anguish.    As these two holes started taking shape the club pro, his assitants, and members of the green committee started giving tours of the two holes explaining (selling) the "core goals" without calling them core goals.  In the meantime someone found the original plans for the course.   Everyone was excited the original William Diddle plans were found, although, most people probably never stopped to think why they were excited.


As we played a sixteen hole course for the rest of the summer and fall, most the members started asking "what the hell are we doing?  Why not close the course down for year, complete the project and be done with it."   The "do it in a year" movement gained momentum and a "survey" was sent to members.  A formal vote was never taken, formal plans were never shown to members.  One day a sign was posted saying  holes were going to be closed sequentially until all 18 were closed about three months into the project.  The rest is explained in my previous post.

Would I suggest other clubs do it the same way?  No, but I think there are some valuable lessons to be learned.  Build momentum for the project around a couple of ideas that are easy for even the most uneducated members to understand. For us, the initial momentum for the project was built around improving turf grass conditions and improving drainage.  Going to zoysia fairways was going to save us substantially on chemicals and water so we used that to our advantage.  The hardest sells were the old guys, thus, improving playability for them was key to building momentum among that group.
 
There are not a lot of forced carries at our course.   But, because of improvements in equipment many of the design elements incorporated in the 1940's design to make the course challenging for the better players were in fact penalizing the older players while the younger  players were flying right past them. Thus, the locations of bunker were adjusted to serve the original purpose.   Typically this meant moving fairway bunkers down the fairway between 15-20 yards.  In some circumstances the shape of the bunkers were adjusted for the same purpose.  

Finally, restoring the course to as close to its original design as possible given the other competing interests was the final piece of the puzzle so to speak.  There was a strong sentiment among the better players that the course should retain its traditional nature.   There are plenty of modern courses in town, we wanted our club to be the "classic" course in town.  Thus, finding the original plans and stating that returning the course to its original design (with a nod to the realities of modern equipment) as an objective of the project was key to winning the support of a key group of members.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Perhaps you're right--I should consider doing an "In My Opinion" piece on this. If I did that, though, I'd only do it as an account of exactly how it all happened from start to finish at my own golf club, again, recognizing that my club may not be that representative of all. However, I do so strongly believe in one thing and that's COLLABORATION (with other golf clubs)!!!

Any club interested in doing anything in this vein should as their VERY FIRST STEP make the effort to get out there and see what others have done before them and who did things for them. This is the absolute best way to avoid incorrect ASSUMPTIONS GOING IN (always a potentially dangerous first misstep, in my opinion) and also to avoid the plethora of little mistakes along the way.

For some odd reason, most all clubs going into these projects sort of assume they're the first ones to do it and they sort of go into it in a bit of a vacuum. This is just not necessary and good collaboration can put them on the road to success right out of the box, in my opinion!

[frank_D]

.....basically the over-riding thing here is even if you don't respect the opinions, often oddball ones, of members, for Christ's sake act like you do or basically you're never going anywhere with them......the other thing I learned is just how completely common-sensical restoration architecture is--basically focusing on the design intent both architecturally and maintenance-wise of a golf course.

brother TEPaul

maybe your only focus is on private club golf courses and in that case my further comments are irrelevant

but for the "problem-child" course typically available to the public with a limited "restoration and or maintenance" budget and possibly facing demolition - my group's idea was so odd-ball we had and continue to have difficulty getting someone on your side of the fence to go along with our plan

however it was logical to the group which was providing the funding, myself among them, however again it wasn't so common sensical as "restoration" when we re-defined the definition of a golf course - from eighteen holes down to twelve

we found certain courses which lent themselves topographically to have six holes eliminated from the layout

the land became available to be sold - some were corner lots to be developed commercially and some were intersperced into residential communities which previously existed

ALL would be a compromise to save the course from total re-development to save a golf course from disappering altoghter

if the above view seems mad - well i am going to see how mr huizinga fares at the golf course previously know as Golf Club of Plantation - which i am using as my lab to further develop the research required