Ross Restoration Guidelines by The Ross Society...

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Wrongo dongo.

With all due respect, Ron Whitten has forgotten more about golf architecture, and the history of golf architecture, than you will ever know.

Obviously internal politics are important (the restoration guidelines address this), if you can't get the membership to act, all the research in the world won't magically restore the course.

But I would think the first step would be, before you sell anyone, to determine if the course is worth restoring (not evey old course is worth restoring, not every Ross course is worth restoring). In making that determination...thorough research and expert opinions might be helpful.  

Once it has been determined, I'd turn everything over to you, where hopefully you can ramrod it through with your delicate ways.  

[Mike_Young]

 Pat and Tom,
You guys bring up a lot of good points and I sincerely think you would work well together.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Wrongo dongo.

With all due respect, Ron Whitten has forgotten more about golf architecture, and the history of golf architecture, than you will ever know.

# 1  I doubt that.
#2   How can you defend his analysis of Jasna Polana ?
#3   How can it be compared to Winged Foot ?
# 4  Have you ever played WFW and Jasna Polana[/color]

Obviously internal politics are important (the restoration guidelines address this), if you can't get the membership to act, all the research in the world won't magically restore the course.

Tom, how do you think a restoration project comes into being ?[/color]

But I would think the first step would be, before you sell anyone, to determine if the course is worth restoring (not evey old course is worth restoring, not every Ross course is worth restoring). In making that determination...thorough research and expert opinions might be helpful.  
And who will make that determination ?[/color]

Once it has been determined, I'd turn everything over to you, where hopefully you can ramrod it through with your delicate ways.  

Every club is different, in some cases it's a matter of educating the membership, in other cases it's the political cajoling of the membership, and in other cases it's forcefully ramroding it through the membership.  In some cases it's a combination of all three.  It's the WIT theory.

Would you prefer that a worthy project fail, or that it be successful vis a vis ramroding through the membership ?
[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

I love Pat but I'd also say that everyone on this site should bow down at least once and say "Thank YOU" to Ron Whitten for bringing focus away from the usual suspects to the playing fields of the game...to "The Golf Course".  

The work that he and Mr. Cornish did to try to compile this stuff into an understandable whole was daunting and amazingly successful, if we take this forum as Exhibit A for what it produced...a plethora of others interested in researching and understanding every nook, cranny, burn, and bunker in this crazy game!

So, thank you Ron Whitten.  You certainly got me into this whole thing feet first!

But...on the other hand...comparison of Jasna Polana with Winged Foot is like comparing "Dumb and Dumber" with "Schindler's List".  

[James Bennett]

I have taken a copy of the Ross restoration Guidelines, and will try to implement some of them on what is obviously a non-Ross course down under.  A great list to check through, but I'm sure our Committee will use judgement on each respective point whether to implement it or not.

At times, the discussion on the web-site reminds me of the two questions the restaurant waiter would ask at the end of a night.  To most tables, he would ask "Was everything OK?"  For some tables, he would ask "Was anything OK?"  I suspect we have all spent time on each of these two tables.

[Mike_Young]

James,
Why would you take those guidelines and try to implement them? What is the motive for publishing such?
As individuals they may be good guys....Brad is a Ross authority that I use if I have questions....some others (not all)have aquired a false sense of authority by associating with the DRS and using that well with the unknowing....
However, the DRS started as a group to stop a certain architect from working on Ross courses....they will say they have changed and they do have individuals with good intentions of change but then they publish something like this guideline.....I really think that did it but not many architects are saying.....
How long would it take a group like the AMA to slam a group of patients that came up with guide lines for heart surgery....
As individuals they say they do not reccommend architects.....
That is pure BS......I can say most architects would not reccommend them.....when you have a section telling clubs how to choose an architect....you are reccommending....and as individuals they reccommend "off the record".....they push architects that listen to them....
Their sole purpose is to push their "opinion" on clubs.  But I think most clubs that fall for it are unknowing.....it is rare that some of the major venues listen to them and when they don't they slam them as destructive..example..EastLake...And the other thing...opinions are worth what you pay for them....so use those guidelines carefully
And in closing...most of these guys are good guys...they just enjoy being in the group and all it requires is $100.

[Dunlop_White]

James Bennett,

Many clubs have already found that the HTML format of this outline is difficult to read and print. The PDF format of the Restoration Guidelines, located on the Donald Ross Society website, reads and prints much better. I hope this helps. The link is below.

http://www.donaldrosssociety.org/MEMBERS/RestorationGuideline.htm

[Chris_Clouser]

I was looking at this and thinking a couple of things.  

Why is Brad Klein's biography on Ross included but the other one that was written previously is not?  Also, and I love the book, so this is in no way a negative comment, just an inquiring one.  Why would someone want to use the Klein biography of Ross as a resource?  I might have to re-read the book, but is there anything in there that is specific about a particular course or is it the section about Restoring Ross that would be most helpful?  Maybe I just answered my question.  I feel you could get a solid feeling for the Ross philosophy, but if you are restoring a course you want as many specifics as possible about your particular situation, not generalities.

Also, I noticed that the Fay book is listed.  I have the book and have enjoyed reading it, but to be honest unless you are one of the 18 or so courses in the book (which focuses on individual holes at certain courses) then why would that book be of interest to you?  For example, would anyone at Broadmoor in Indianapolis get anything out of that book if there was a restoration to take place at that club?  

I'm sure this isn't the intent or purpose of this list, but to someone who looks quickly at this list and sees who prepares it, not knowing any differently, they might think that this was a tool used to promote the personal interests of those within the DRS.  I just see it as a tool that people can use to make the process more successful because I've met Brad and talked several times with Dunlop.  I haven't had to pleasure to talk with Michael ever, but I'm sure his motives are as good in nature.  I just think that the feelings that Mike Young is expressing would on the face of the issue be valid concerns to someone on the outside of this issue.

[TEPaul]

These guidelines look good to me. Actually, the guidelines in many, many ways look almost like a review of the way we went about researching our course's architectural evolution, how we went about hiring an architect and creating a Master Plan and getting into a restoration of our Ross course. In my opinion, no club can do too much research as to how the course once was and how it's changed over time.

The key element in these Ross Society Guidelines, in my opinion, is the point about building or rekindling a club's pride in their original architect, in this case Donald Ross. When a club manages to do that good things start to flow. If a club is not able to do that with its membership, in my opinion, doing something like a restoration basically doesn't have a chance in hell of happening.

I've seen this rekindling of pride in the original architect and his course work amongst a membership wonderfully well in restoration projects on Ross courses, Flynn, Macd/Raynor, Mackenzie/Maxwell, Findlay, Park etc courses.

In my opinion, rekindling pride in the original architect and his course is the first step and the key to all that can benefically follow. Without it, good restoration projects basically won't and can't happen. Somebody has to get this pride going in any club and generally it's first accomplished with historical research material, particular photos and occassionally interesting text and historical facts.

Anyone may be able to spark and generate that kind of rekindled pride within a membership whether its someone in the club, an architect or even some independent person like a Klein, Bahto, Shackelford etc. A great example of that someone would be a Linc Roden/Jim Sullivan of HVGC or a Steve Sayers of LuLu.

But that's the necessary first step and without it there never will be a proper restoration second, third of fourth step.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
You guys are missing the point.  It is not about how good the guideline looks.  It is the fact that they are there.  The DRS has no business advising clubs.  They would be an asset if they were an archives and research center only.  When they enter other areas they will have issues.
Donald Ross was a prolific architect with 400 courses thus he fit the bill for a "society".  It is ridiculous to think he had 400 great golf courses.  He had 350 average courses where he had no idea what was being done differently from his drawings.  
It is admirable to study DR.  No problem.  
My problem is PERCEPTION....Unknowing committees and clubs consider DRS an authority and they are not.  Little things such as guidelines allow the creeping toward authority to continue.  My goal is to stop it.
Mike  

[TEPaul]

"They would be an asset if they were an archives and research center only."

MikeY:

I agree---I could definitely see that. But look at that post of mine above. I think the absolute first step in a restoration project is for someone to first rekindle club and membership pride in their original architect and their golf course. It doesn't matter to me, and I don't see why it matters to a club or anyone else who does that whether it's some club member, the Donald Ross Society, the Flynn Society, Travis, Mackenzie, Park, Findlay, Dick Wilson, RTJ, Rees, Fazio or Mike Young Society or some architect who is brought in or Shackelford, Klein, Bahto or Whitten.

I just think someone has to do that first to accomplish a good restoration. I don't agree with this notion of Tom MacWood's either that some courses aren't even worthy of a restoration. Tom Doak has said the same thing now and then. Who are they really to tell some club their course is not worthy of a restoration because it's not very good in the first place? If a club thinks their course is good and it could be even better with a good restoration what the hell is wrong with that?

Particularly if one of these so-called "experts" like Tom MacWood keeps telling us he is has never even been to the particular course?! How would he know much of anything about whether it was no good and not worthy of a restoration? Because he couldn't find out anything about it in old magazines and newspapers from some of his favorite old writers? Because he didn't like the look of it on some 6,000 ft aerial, even if he'd never been there?

Some of the things said on here sound OK on a post or two  but in reality they get semi-absurd.

I think even a Tom MacWood could help rekindle pride and interest within a club with some of the research material he comes up with now and then but in my opinion, he's pretty much have to pass the info he came up with on to someone who could interest the membership in it. I doubt he could possibly do that on his own---he doesn't even seem to see the purpose of a membership---certainly not their opinions.

But to me rekindling pride in the course and its architect is the first step---without that nothing can happen. Or let's just say if it can I've sure never seen it happen that way.

If you don't like the DRS and you know other architects who don't for whatever reasons, MikeY, say so and try to get them to say why too. Nobody is going to die on here over honest opinions no matter what the hell they may be.

[Mike_Young]

"They would be an asset if they were an archives and research center only."

MikeY:

I think the absolute first step in a restoration project is for someone to first rekindle club and membership pride in their original architect and their golf course.
 I don't agree with this notion of Tom MacWood's either that some courses aren't even worthy of a restoration. Tom Doak has said the same thing now and then. Who are they really to tell some club their course is not worthy of a restoration because it's not very good in the first place? If a club thinks their course is good and it could be even better with a good restoration what the hell is wrong with that?

If you don't like the DRS and you know other architects who don't for whatever reasons, MikeY, say so and try to get them to say why too. Nobody is going to die on here over honest opinions no matter what the hell they may be.

OK TE,

I agree with Tom Doak and Tom Macwood regarding some courses being "not worthy" of restoration.  Without sounding harsh but being truthful...does cosmetic surgery on the face help a lady if her butt is a size 20??? I guess that is subjective also.  Some old stuff was just bad.  Restoring it would be just hype and a sales job.   Face it...restoration is the fad of the day...
You mention that a club needs to have pride in their original architect...I say most could care less...people play courses not architects....they want good greens...a shirt with a cool logo....and the coolness of stating to guest , business associate or friend that their course was designed by "dead guy"  But actually they would have disliked it if they had had to play it as it was.  Heritage is gone from most clubs and has been replaced by cigars.  If one of these guys at one of these clubs can pay $100 , show his bagtag and tell his buddies he is a member of the DRS...now that is something.....because most club memebrs have no idea that all it took was $100.

I never said I did not like the DRS.  I am saying I disagree with their motives.  They have no business reccommending anything to clubs because clubs have no idea that DRS is not an authority.  I respect and like many of the individuals within.  If some of these people are experts they should promote themselves as such and I think many architects would consult with them.  If any of them wish to tell me that they do what they do for the good of the DRS or golf... I say BS.  For EX:  Dunlop seems to have his stuff together when it comes to trees and he has spent as much time as anyone I know researching the subject.  He should be charging clubs, not giving it away.  I am sure DRS will say , "clubs are always asking us for advise" well just quit giving it...
I can name many examples where they have hurt architects solely out of not knowing but I cannot name one instance where they have helped an architect.  Now think, most of their DRS hype goes to guys that have not done many 18 hole projects.  (I don't think you can find where I have made negative comments on another architect's work on this site or anywhere.  I don't intend to start here. ) But most , and there are exceptions, enter the business wanting to do their own work.  So it stands to reason that the most experience comes from guys that have been designing 18 hole projects in their own name.  But these architects don't pursue the DRS.  For EX:  Would the DRS have reccommended John Fought before Pine Needles?  No....(I forgot, they don't reccommend)  but he did an exceptional job.  They are not qualified to reccommend.  I saw another instance a few weeks ago where they did not reccommed but one of the more visible members was asked to give a club a few names.  There were not 3 18 hole courses designed between them.  TE it is not my place to speak for other architects but I do know there are many who also disagree with the DRS.  If some guys wish to have a DR fan club that is great...leave it at that and if there are qualified consultants that wish to be members, that is fine.  If they wish to compile and archive that is even better but if they wish to go past that point I think they will have issues with many in the business whether they state it or not.
I hope I have answered your points.
Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Do you really think that every one of the dead architects' work ought to be restored to the way it was, and that no living architect could ever improve any of them?  And do you really think that no golf course by any of those architects has evolved into something better over time?

If not, then why would it be incorrect for me (or your foil Tom MacWood) to state that some golf courses are not worth restoring?

I think I'm entitled to say that, especially since I've got a few well respected restoration projects under my belt.  

Now, I do think that it's important for ANY consulting architect to take the first step of looking back at the original design and seeing if there are features which have been lost which he thinks ought to be restored ... you'd have to be stupid not to respect a great architect's work enough to at least look at what he had in mind.  But to say that it should always be restored ... silly.  

What was Flynn's worst course?  (Everyone has one.)  Why would you restore it that way, if you could fix some of its problems now?

I believe that the top 1% or 5% or 10% of any architect's work should be jealously preserved to the extent possible.  These Societies would be of great service if they would help identify which courses those would be, and the reasons why they are the most important.

I don't entirely agree with Mike Young's point, either.  It's possible to be a highly competent architect and not get a lot of new work.  (I was in that position myself ten years ago.)  I would worry a bit whether an architect who never got to do any new work would be able to keep his ego out of the restoration process ... but then again, some of the busiest architects seem to make the worst consultants, because they think they know much better than the original architects did.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:

Do you really think that every one of the dead architects' work ought to be restored to the way it was, and that no living architect could ever improve any of them?  And do you really think that no golf course by any of those architects has evolved into something better over time?
If not, then why would it be incorrect for me (or your foil Tom MacWood) to state that some golf courses are not worth restoring?
I think I'm entitled to say that, especially since I've got a few well respected restoration projects under my belt.  
Now, I do think that it's important for ANY consulting architect to take the first step of looking back at the original design and seeing if there are features which have been lost which he thinks ought to be restored ... you'd have to be stupid not to respect a great architect's work enough to at least look at what he had in mind.  But to say that it should always be restored ... silly."

TomD:

No, I do not think every dead architect’s work ought to be restored to the way it was and that’s not what I said anyway. And yes I do think living architects can and have improved many of them. I do think that some golf courses have evolved into something better over time, including my own Ross course with Perry Maxwell in the 1930s. I also think that Gil Hanse improved a few original Ross holes on my course in the last 2-3 years by including or moving a particular bunker here and there.

What I believe in is golf courses and golf holes passing what can be referred to as “the test of time”. If those courses and holes are popular and respected by a membership my issue is why does someone else who frankly doesn’t really know the golf course and in some cases has never even seen it think they have some right to tell a membership what is right or wrong to do with their golf course?

Have I ever seen or heard of a pretty poor golf course that’s actually been restored to the way it once was? Not really. Have you? Have you ever actually gone to some golf course and told them you don’t think the course was good enough in the first place to be restored if they asked you to help them do it? Perhaps you have.

And yes I think you certainly have earned the right to offer an opinion on whether or not something should be done on an old golf course. I feel the same about Gil, Prichard, Forse and some others I’ve seen. I certainly cannot say the same thing about Tom MacWood though, and that’s the issue I’m speaking of on this thread. It bothers me and obviously some others too that he thinks anyone should listen to what he has to say about the restoration of Aronimink when he’s never even been there. What is he doing here but looking at a 6,000ft aerial and declaring the course is “remarkable’ because for some reason he likes 200 bunkers instead of Ross’s app 95?  

If and when he has a few well-respected restoration projects under his belt then maybe my opinion would change on that but not at this point. He of course can say anything he wants to say about any golf course but I would certainly hope that no one takes his opinion as an “expert” one.

You mentioned the term “well respected”. To me that’s synonymous with a hole, course, a restoration project passing the all-important “test of time”. If a project such as Aronimink’s appears to have done that I question Tom MacWood’s opinion that the club and Prichard has made a mistake and that something different should have been done. He’s never even been there, so what does he think gives him the right or the respect to declare that Prichard made a mistake? Not a damn thing that I can think of.    

[J_McKenzie]

Tom P,

As a reply to your post #35, I am aware of a club that contacted DRS about a possible renovation and a member of DRS showed up with an architect in tow.  The DRS member and the architect then toured the course with a board member to discuss the renovation.  This particular board member assumed that DRS was an authority and was immediately taken by the architect that was brought in.

This is a case of DRS stepping over the line.  Maybe DRS is not recommending architects, per se, but bringing them to meetings is certainly misleading.

I am in no way knocking the architect because I am aware  that he has done some notable work and as competitive as the business is, you have to take advantage of getting your foot in the door.

John

[Patrick_Mucci]

J McKenzie,

Is it possible that the individual from the DRS overstepped his bounds ?

I don't know the specifics, but, it's hard to imagine that the DRS endorsed this particular architect as THE architect to do the work at your club.

Is it also possible that when the club contacted the DRS they asked if any architect could be made available ?

I'd be curious to learn more about the circumstances leading to the visit.   Can you share the name of the golf course with us ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I agree that some more facts need to be presented before concluding that there was a real breach of propriety.  At this point it seems that a toe was over the line.  Maybe it was both feet but the benefit of doubt should be in force...for the moment.

The Flynn Society (well, if there ever is one) would be on guard to stay completely neutral in such matters and act as a research source and disseminator of information.  Even the perception of endorsing an architect or construction crew is a slippery slope to avoid.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,
As a reply to your post #35, I am aware of a club that contacted DRS about a possible renovation and a member of DRS showed up with an architect in tow."

J;

The DRS did that?? Well, I'll be go to Hell---how remarkably unclever of them!! At least the DRS could've stashed that architect in the mens room of some seedy bar around the corner and that DRS guy could've invited the club's brass down to the bar for a bathtub full of drinks and hustled them into the toilet stall next to the one that architect was hiding in and they could've at least traded greetings and info underneath the toilet stall walls. Basically, I'm totally shocked by the brazenness of a DRSer actually towing an architect right into a golf club. I sure hope they learned their lesson.

If a club called you and asked you to recommend an architect for their restoration what would you say?

I'd say all this DRS stuff and the fall-out from it on here is freaking me out. Maybe 20 clubs have called me over the years to ask if I'd recommend an architect. I can't possibly say at this point what I told them (it's too dangerous in this atmosphere) cuz I want no part of this dog-fight anymore. I ain't taking no more sides on the architect end of things ever again. If some club calls me for an architect recommendation in the future, I'm telling them;

"You guys want my recommendation?  OK, here it is plain and simple. You guys pay me $137.95 which is some pretty serious whiskey money and I'll do you a full-blown 110 page design evolution report, a comprehenive master plan for the next 137 years and a restoration that's guaranteed to blow the soxes off 92% of your membership. And if that doesn't happen and you aren't satisfied for whatever reason, I'll refund you $37.50 of my commission and we'll all part with no hard feelings.

[TEPaul]

J:

On second thought, I feel that it may be OK if a DRS guy towed an architect into a club during a DRS meeting with the club. But I think the DRS guy should at least show some style if he did something like that.

I'd recommend that he tow the architect into the club in one of those little red wagons us kids used to have in the early 1950s.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
I know the club the club John is talking .  Yes, Pat bounds were overstepped.  But The DRS cannot control its members and that is the problem.  I can't really blame the architect at that point.  He probably had no idea.  But I can say that once that architect knew he was at another architect's home club he should tread lightly until he finds out what is going on.  I just recently had it happen where a DRS reccomendation showed up.  and I would have had no problem with the "restoration specialist" if once he knew there was an architect at the club he found out what was going on before trying to do work there.  
TE, if you think this stuff freaks you out, try trying to make a living in this business where some fan club is running loose. You may laugh regarding you making a reccommendation.  I think it is fine for you to reccommend but not if you have the disguise of a fan club behind you.  We got guys running loose at our club listening to ideas that have no idea what is going on and never will....
  And, ah...does you red wagon have the little wooden sides on it?

[James Bennett]

Dunlop White

thanks for the printing advice.  I had found that selecting all of the text from GCA.com and dumping it into Word was spot on.  A first-class print-job, for once.


Mike Young

My comments supporting the guidelines are for use as a check-list by someone who is nearly through a Master Plan process.  We have undertaken most of the points listed, but I have not previously seen such a list.

As regards to the merits of the Donald Ross Society or otherwise, I have two positions.  The first position was expressed by Sgt Schultze in Hogan's Heroes, ie "I know nothing, nu.u.u.thinnkk".  The second is best described as 'Switzerland' - I'm not taking part in this discussion!

My reason for commenting favourably on the guidelines has been well put by Tom Paul's comments ie 'the guidelines in many, many ways look almost like a review of the way we went about researching our course's architectural evolution, how we went about hiring an architect and creating a Master Plan and getting into a restoration of our Ross course. In my opinion, no club can do too much research as to how the course once was and how it's changed over time'.

At my club, our Master Plan doesn't profess to be a restoration - it isn't.  The course wasn't quite built to plan, the back nine was significantly changed 15 years ago and the parcel of land placed some significant challenges on the original architect (Vern Morcom) 45 years ago.  Some of those challenges have been relieved since that time.  However, with the help of our current golf course architect (whose selection was part happenstance, part review as per point 3 of the Guidelines), we have undertaken a lot of point 1 (archival/history), some of point 2 (membership support), implemented some of part 4 (long term plan) and part 5 (maintenance) with many actions considered for the next 10 years.

The benefits I have found from the guidelines is it puts together my club's experiences over the last couple of years, identifies some areas we could do more work on (member support) and gives us confidence that we are addressing the width of areas necessary.  

One of the great things we have experienced thorugh our Master Plan work (through the encouragement of the golf course architect) is club history.  I have been a member of our club for 35 of our 45 years.  Recently, I have seen course plans, drawings and photo's that people haven't seen during my membership.  It is difficult to get some members to embrace history (they can generally recall how the course is today, and whether it is in better or worse condition than last week, or perhaps 10 years ago).  Many have joined in the last 5 years, and cannot be reasonably expected to have the same passion for history, especially if the history is hidden.

Would/should a Committee/Board take advice on their most valued asset from someone they hardly know - I doubt it, but I'm sure some do.  As I said, we stumbled across a possible  architect through happenstance, but undertook diligent research before engaging him (including reviews of his work for courses with the same original architect).

[Mike_Young]

James,
1382 views at this time and only 45 responses...most by a couple of us.  Funny how this site views some things as sacred.
Glad things worked for your club....

[TEPaul]

"TE, if you think this stuff freaks you out, try trying to make a living in this business where some fan club is running loose. You may laugh regarding you making a reccommendation.  I think it is fine for you to reccommend but not if you have the disguise of a fan club behind you.  We got guys running loose at our club listening to ideas that have no idea what is going on and never will....
  And, ah...does you red wagon have the little wooden sides on it?"

MikeY:

It doesn't really freak me out but as you said, I'm not in the business either. If I was maybe I would freak out. I'm just trying to add some humor in a tough situation but I'll stop that and get serious.

This obviously is a tough situation and Athens may be a good example. I did just happen to communicate with some in the DRS yesterday and they certainly seem to be trying to work out how they deal with the subject of "an architect" in their Guidelines. Dunlop sure was reasonable on the phone. He just wants to have something that can do right by clubs looking to do good Ross restorations. A lot of the value of the Guidelines have to do with how a club works the process through its membership which is wonderful advice. Our architect (Gil Hanse) wanted to stay away from that part of our project unless we asked him to get involved and that worked out beaurifully all the way through.

But as I said when we talked the other day, this is a competitive business in architecture but at the same time clubs can use help in restoration projects in many ways. A lot of that help can come from other clubs who've been through the whole thing. While ultimately this is about golf architecture that sure isn't all its about along the way. Research, the membership process etc are areas an organization like the DRS can surely help clubs.

Getting into recommending particular architects may not be a good thing at all as this whole flap shows, but come on, if you were just a member of Athens and not an architect and you were interested in seeing a good restoration on your course what would you do?

You'd probably do what I did or what my club did---we looked around at some courses that had done Ross restorations before us. We talked to some of them, looked at some of them, we saw what we liked and didn't like and hired an architect we figured did this kind of thing well from the examples we saw out there that had gone before us that he'd done. What's wrong with a club doing that? That's the way to go, in my opinion. We didn't use the DRS but it's interesting that the way we went about it on our own is almost exactly the same as the DRS Guidelines on here. It was completely coincidental but that's what happened.

I definitely want to see this situation worked out with the DRS and the architects although I have no idea how it will play out. Dunlop sure wants it to though.

I used to sell real estate---farms and such---and I always felt real bad for buyers as they stood there watching real estate brokers and real estate agencies arguing and bickering with each other over the sale. I don't want to see that kind of thing happen here. I hope it doesn't. That all this came up on here I hope will be a good thing to work this stuff out somehow.

BTW---did you say a little red wagon with wooden sides? How cool would that be----a little red WOODY wagon in fact. Very Beach Boyish!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I believe that the concept is a valid one, I think it's the execution or application of the concept that troubles you.

Many's the slip twixt the cup and the lip.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
I have made it a point not to mention a specific club on here.  
I have spoken to Dunlop.  DRS would be a great archives.  Thats it.
Pat,
We agree.
Mike