[Pat_Mucci]

Architecturally ?

After reading the post about Oakmont and hearing about the intended changes at Baltusrol I began to wonder if memberships and/or the power bases of those golf courses and their peers think differently from the memberships and/or power bases of golf courses that don't have their architectural pedigree ?

Or, do they all think the same when given the opportunity.

Or, does the thought process begin at those "special" clubs and trickle down to the others.

In a recent conversation with the Major Domo at a well regarded golf course we discussed lengthening the golf course to meet the high tech advances at the expense of the sportiness of the golf course.

We agreed that the most important factor was that the golf course remain fun, yet challenging to the membership, and that too much emphasis was being placed on the challenge rather then the fun.

Why don't more clubs feel this way ?

[peter_p]

That was John Low's #1 rule. "A golf course should provide entertainment for the high and medium handicapper while at the same time present a searching and difficult test for ther accomplished golfer."
When you compete for the almighty dollar, sometimes your core values are misplaced.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

I don't know the answers to your questions. I can tell you that memberships in the NE seem to be decades ahead of memberships down this way in thinking about gca.

As much head-butting as you guys must do from time to time, let me assure you that it is worse in the SE. Even at historic courses where people should know better, the RTJ monster course/US Open set up is still viewed as the ideal.

Trying to crack through the "resistance to scoring is the hallmark of great design" thing is very, very difficult.

Bob    

[Mike_Cirba]

Apparently Oakmont didn't play challengingly enough in the recent US Amateur?  

You know, it's a funny thing this kowtowing to the USGA.  

If Merion had the available real estate (frankly, I'm surprised they haven't made large offers of cash to buy out several adjacent homes yet), does anyone here doubt that the course would presently be stretched to 7700 yards, all for the purpose of getting selected for another US Open?

Baltusrol is still riding that train, as is Riviera.  The USGA holds out the carrot to these clubs saying in effect, if you make this change, or meet this challenge, maybe we'll select you.  Egos within each club then persist on and make the next round of changes, all in the name of modernizing the challenge and the original course design suffers.

Then you have opportunists like Tom Fazio who has little or no respect for his predecessors, or "will of the membership" lackeys like Rees Jones who just isn't very talented playing on the club's ego gratification for their own ends.


It's a shame.  

[rgkeller]

Many courses deserve better members.

Most courses deserve better Boards.

[BCrosby]

rg -

Bingo.

It may also be a case of mis-matched skill sets. Boards do a pretty go job of overseeing the hamburger stand at the pool. It's a little business operation and that's something most people understand.

Overseeing a historic golf course requires a whole different set of skills. It's a rare Board that has even a single member who can ask the right questions.

Bob

[JESII]

Pat

When you ask about retaining the "sportiness" of golf courses, don't you think that the most egregious offense in opposition to high tech advances is the flattening of greens.

When a club lengthens a hole, I generally see the championship tees lengthened with little change to any other sets. I don't think this directly effects the 'sportiness' of a hole because it's hard to argue that the majority of players using those championship tees actually do hit the ball further and therefore the added length might simply renew the enjoyment factor. I understand your intention here re: fun vs. challenge, but there is always the option to move forward one set of tees if a shorter course equals more fun.

[Pat_Mucci]

JES II,

Yes, I'd agree with you on the elimination of contours, and I'd agree that I don't take offense to the theory of elasticity when it comes to lengthening as long as the short holes aren't compromised vis a vis a wholesale, "scorecard" lengthening program.

RGKeller,

I'd agree, but I see the trend going the other way.
How do you reverse it ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Most of the golf world has lost its mind when it comes to technology and course modifications.

People seem to think that making the playing field ever larger - that is longer - is the "natural" thing to do......no matter how much money is spent (wasted).

Oakmont was fine before those mountains were built. They just needed a way to create "championship" conditions.

There was and is no better way than to give the players persimmon and balata.

[Ed_Baker]

Pat,

From my limited personal experience with clubs that have a bonafide architectural pedigree I would say that they actually do think differently, at least with the ones I am familiar with.

 The commonality that I have found is that they know what they have and they understand the reasons that they still have it. I'm not saying that all the members are happy with the methodology all the time, but they just never seem to cross that line where the golf course is imperiled because they disagree with a particular power base, the greater good seems to prevail. I think the major domo conversation in your preface illustrated the mind set.

I know of a few that actually have added some length but the original golf course is still there to play everyday, in other words the length was added at the tee where it could be added without impacting other holes, the old back tee would now be the middle tee. Sure, some of these look like bad editions to a nice house but it didn't ruin what was already there.

Some are struggling a little with the paddle tennis,workout gym, spa stuff too, but the golf course still comes first,foremost and always, so yes, IMHO they do think differently.

[Mark_Fine]

I can tell you about one club steeped in golf history who are making the right choices when it comes to their golf course.  This club had every chance to go out and remodel their famous design and stretch it to a ridiculous length hoping to attract a fourth U.S. Open (and with their influencial membership they would probably get it).  They courted a lot of big names, brought them in, and were told how to redesign their layout.  Instead they made a courageous decision to stand by their historic 1920’s design and pursue the path of restoration with the aim of bringing back some of the lost strategy and many of the outstanding features of the original design.  

They are in a position to make a great statement to many other clubs around the country that it is ok to cherish your past and still have an outstanding golf course that your membership and future memberships can enjoy for many years to come.  And who knows, if the ball is ever rolled back, well you never know.  

[Mark_F]

Mike, Pat,

At those courses like Oakmont and Merion that have hosted many US Opens, Amateurs and other important events already, why do they care if they get another US Open or not?  

Surely the prestige is already there, especially as those two have already hosted some memorable championships won by great players?  That's not to preclude further wonderful moments, of course, but it's doubtful Merion could better Hogan, Trevino vs Nicklaus and Graham's final round, is it?

Is it just about money?  Surely the expense of altering courses won't match any tournament fees, not to mention the inconvenience to members?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Ferguson,

Each generation of membership wants to have their day in the sun.

I'll elaborate later.

[Mike_Cirba]

I can tell you about one club steeped in golf history who are making the right choices when it comes to their golf course.  This club had every chance to go out and remodel their famous design and stretch it to a ridiculous length hoping to attract a fourth U.S. Open (and with their influencial membership they would probably get it).  They courted a lot of big names, brought them in, and were told how to redesign their layout.  Instead they made a courageous decision to stand by their historic 1920’s design and pursue the path of restoration with the aim of bringing back some of the lost strategy and many of the outstanding features of the original design.  

They are in a position to make a great statement to many other clubs around the country that it is ok to cherish your past and still have an outstanding golf course that your membership and future memberships can enjoy for many years to come.  And who knows, if the ball is ever rolled back, well you never know.  

Mark,

At that elevation, wouldn't Cherry Hills need to expand to over 8,000 yards to effectively keep up with the USGA's arms race?

Bravo to them...if only some Pennsylvania courses had as much foresight to say enough's enuff.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
8200 yards was the number they were looking at and more property was to be secured along with many other "changes".
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,
8200 yards was the number they were looking at and more property was to be secured along with many other "changes".
Mark

Mark,

Then Double Bravo to them for resisting that crap!

I can see Moraghan Rees Fazio coming in now..."Er...emm...I'm thinking of creating an island tee out on the lake extending it to a 565 yard par four closer with a 340 yard carry to umm...terra firma.  On the first, we can build a new tee on the clubhouse roof and sell skyboxes at 10K apiece so that lucky fans can get to watch today's players drive to the same green as Arnie's final round charge, only with a better view".

Perhaps if the USGA is left with a choice of Torrey Pines, Valhalla, and Trump National for their "Majors", they will do something about the freaking equipment.  

   

[Mike Hendren]

Mark Ferguson,

Each generation of membership wants to have their day in the sun.

I'll elaborate later.

Bingo.  Authorship is more highly coveted than stewardship.

Mike

[Mark_Fine]

Mike Cirba,
Actually, Tim has been extremely supportive.  He was helpful on our end from day one.  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,
Actually, Tim has been extremely supportive.  He was helpful on our end from day one.  
Mark

Mark,

That's good to know.  In the future, I'll try not to cast such a wide net in my search for USGA villains.  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The media has had an incredible influence on memberships perception of what a golf course should play and look.  How often do we hear about the Augusta effect with trees.  The golf magazines are filled with pictures or Fazio, Jones,ect. highly artificial but aesthetically pleasing photos.  The contigent that further ruined Rancho Santa Fe is very proud of being able to achieve "beautiful resort bunkers"  One member convinced this contigent that a pair of Augusta 12th bridges would make the 13th the best hole in San Diego--the perception is that the bridges draw attention to the hole and that people will remember the bridges and then remember the hole.  On the same note, this contigent got a new clubhhouse plan approved for $7.5 million knowing that it would be closer to 12.  I think this is a common problem throughout the golf community.  If the media focused attention on the architectural merits of courses and quality of play, then golf courses will eventually fall in line.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RMD,

That's too bad.

I always liked the simplistic nature of the golf course and the occassional equestrian.

I think you're correct in that individuals who have no vision often have too much influence.

But, members aren't sheep, led blindly by a misquided shepherd .....

If they agree with and fund these projects, they do so, of their own volition.

Hence, I suspect that it's systemic .......
perceived by the majority, who don't know better,
outvoting those that do.

And, this is why you need knowledgeable, benovolent dictators

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()