Professional golf to ruin another classic gem

[Jason Blasberg]

Does the same contempt for professional tour event golf at classics courses equally apply to USGA events, including most of them which are amateur events?  

Did the USGA butcher Winged Foot with the work that was done there for the recent mens am.?

Was the work done at the Black Course worse for the course, given the state it was in pre Open Dr.?

I don't think things are so black and white re this issue.  For instance, the changes that I've seen at Prairie Dunes work well with the course (and it's been C&C doing the changes) and the Women's US Open appeared to me to be a shot in the arm for the club as a whole.  Likewise, I think many more will be singing PD's praises after the Senior US Open.  

And I'm not talking about set-up, since both the R&A and USGA seem to get it wrong every so many years.  I think a club must be vigilent in protecting it's course when working with these organizations and sometimes, certainly in the case of the Black Course, a classic gem can be awakened through professional golf.  (My only beef with the Black is that they've keep the fairways cut at US Open lines since 2002 which is a major detraction, but again, that is set up which is temporal.)

(As an aside, I know most will say ANGC has been damaged, and that may be, I know very little about ANGC.)

Can't it sometimes be good for a classic gem to host a major championship, and, in turn, can't it be could for appreciation of classic GCA principles, generally?  

To probe deeper, does it matter if the event hosted is an amateur event say like a Walker Cup (ala Chicago Golf Club) as opposed to a professional event say like the US Open (ala Shinnecock).  Are less changes made because of the amateur professional distinction, and, if so, is that simply a function of economics or is it a function of skill and perceived relative vulnerability to scoring?  

 

[Craig Sweet]

Why is there so much reluctance to have a professional organization that acts as a
"watch dog" to organize opposition to inapropriate changes to "classic" courses?

We seem to have no problems with organizing to protect historic buildings from the wreaking ball and silly architectural "add ons"...

Are you guys to afraid to tell the membership of another club that you diagree with their changes and you will fight those changes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why is there so much reluctance to have a professional organization that acts as a
"watch dog" to organize opposition to inapropriate changes to "classic" courses?

We seem to have no problems with organizing to protect historic buildings from the wreaking ball and silly architectural "add ons"...

Are you guys to afraid to tell the membership of another club that you diagree with their changes and you will fight those changes?

Because you have NO legal standing.

[A.G._Crockett]

I've read this with interest, though I have never seen the course and don't expect to have that chance unless it is on TV for a tournament.

My question, though, is this:  How can "professional golf" be blamed for this or any other change to a golf course?  It isn't done at gunpoint, is it?  If the membership/owner of a course desires to hold a pro tournament for exposure or money or both, and the professional organization insists they make changes to the course to do so, how is that the fault of the tour in question?  This is America, where we make those decisions freely and willingly, and clearly "no!" could be the answer given.  

It would be comparable to me being angry at a prospective employer for offering me more money to change jobs, and then not liking the new job as much as the old, low-paying one that I loved.

I could've said no...

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick,

So if I want to had a widows perch to my classic Frank Lloyd Wright home, the historic preservationist have no legal standing to stop me?

Hmmm....and if the Indians ever have the land that Shinnicock is built on returned to them and they decide to turn it into condo's, we have no legal standing to stop them?

Seems to me, BOTH would be worth the effort.

[Craig Disher]

...and what a bad birth in light of the fact that we still had the original Tilly plans/routing.

Were AWT's plans for an additional 18 at BCC?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So if I want to had a widows perch to my classic Frank Lloyd Wright home, the historic preservationist have no legal standing to stop me?

That's correct.[/color]

Hmmm....and if the Indians ever have the land that Shinnicock is built on returned to them and they decide to turn it into condo's, we have no legal standing to stop them?


That's correct.[/color]

Seems to me, BOTH would be worth the effort.


It depends upon whether or not you want to engage in futile efforts.[/color]

[Jason Blasberg]

Craig:

Personally, any form of private property preservation borders on an unconstitutional taking in my view.  

If I own parcel A in fee simple, it's my right to do with it as I please so long as I remain within zoning parameters.  Now when my property is re-zoned "Historical" and I acquired it before that, my ability to alienate my property has been severally limited and I should be compensated for it.  

Any land use cousel out there?  Are fee owners compensated for a "Historical" designation?  

Craig, it's difficult enough to balance priciniples of equity in housing, do you really think they can be properly addressed for course ownership rights?  Keep in mind you are not dealing with one owner your dealing with 200 plus in most instances.  

Also, Craig, please articulate your justification for infringing upon a club's property rights to do what they wish with there property?  

At the end of the day, the clubs that get it right GCA wise will benefit from the merit of their decisions and those that get it wrong will suffer, and that, as I see it, is the way it should be.  

To impose a "historical" desgination upon a golf course and then restrict a club's ability to modify it's property is unconstitutional, a far bigger problem than losing the severity of some of Herbert Strong's greens in Roslyn, NY!!    

[Jason Blasberg]

Craig:

If you don't accept my property rights approach then I'll put it to you this way:

1) Do you believe that GCA is a form of art?

if you answer yes to 1), then I must ask you a second question:

2) How can you justify legislating taste?  After all, in matters of art, there will always be differences of opinion so how can a "review board" for Seth Raynor courses (for example) ever be sure that they are correct in the views they seek to impose upon land that is not theirs (assuming they are granted these protection powers I assume you endorse)?  Now I'm not talking about a clown's mouth and ferris wheel on the first hole of the Creek, I'm asking, for instance, assuming the Creek wanted to install an alternate first tee  box, much further east from the current one (assume with me that there is ample club property there), creating a significant dog leg to number one, a relatively straight hole.  Who's view of this proposed change should prevail?  Is it bad because it's very different from the original hole and therefore wrong and impermissible per se?  What if it could actually make the hole better?  Can't different sometimes be better, even for classic courses?

I hope, by now, and after my second cup of coffee, you see my point . . .        

[Craig Sweet]

jason,

All I know is when someone wants to tear down or alter a building on the historic register, or a building with historic values, there are often protests and efforts to stop the changes.

All I know is if I owned the Mona Lisa and I decided I wanted to paint a mustache on her, there would be serious protests, if not legal actions.

All I know is, many classic courses have historic value equal to any building on the historic register, or the Mona Lisa, and they should not be altered.  

[Craig Sweet]

Jason,

Seth Raynor knows what he intended.

What would happen if I sampled a large portion of a Led Zepplin album and wanted to modify it?  

Could Jimmy Page sue me? Does he not have "rights" regading his music/art?

What standing does Seth Raynor have even if he is no longer around to speak for his art/design?

[david h. carroll]

Craig Disher--I and others here have seen the sketch for the AWT West Course at Five Farms..there'sa lways been debate as to the reasons the club ultimatley didn't retain him to do the other 18

Jerry K--the 18th will be played as the 16th for this tourney and 1 and 2 will be played as the finishers

[Jason Blasberg]

Craig:

Please focus on my analysis, and you're own, a bit more.  

The fundemental principle at work here is ownership rights.  What do they mean, what do they afford the owner, what do they mean to other "interested" parties.  

If it is your position that classic clubs could be designated "historical" and their ability to alienate or change their property impaired, assuming you had constitutional ground to stand on which I believe revolves around a public interest argument, you've at a minimum got to compensate the clubs for this loss of rights.  

Now, when you consider the market value of 200 acres on Long Island, I doubt anyone out there will be funding such endeavors.  

Understand, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a great loss to the GCA world if a classic gem was significantly changed, or, worse yet sold to a developer, it would be a gentlemen's catastrophie.  It would also, however, be within the club's property rights (this of course assumes a successful zoning change from recreational to residential).

I think the argument gets tougher for your position when you are "protesting" alteration vs. wholesale alienation.  

BTW, I won't accept the "all I know" argument because what's good for Sallie is not always good for Sue!!  

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason,

Seth Raynor knows what he intended.

What would happen if I sampled a large portion of a Led Zepplin album and wanted to modify it?  

Could Jimmy Page sue me? Does he not have "rights" regading his music/art?

What standing does Seth Raynor have even if he is no longer around to speak for his art/design?

Craig:

1) You're not Seth Raynor and last I checked he's left the building!

2) If you owned the copyright to the Zepplin tune you were altering, or if you owned a license to create a derivative work from that song, you're alteration would be perfectly within your intellectual property rights, even if you butchered the song.

3) Jimmy Page could sue you and would win if you didn't have one of the rights articulated in 2, above (or some other form of permission).  BTW, in 100 years I'm sure Stairway to Heaven will be in the public domain so you'll be able to sample away.  Interestingly, the owner of the copyright to "Happy Birthday" supposedly never enforced the rights.

4) None, the owner of the property at issue has all the rights.  

   

[Craig Sweet]

Jason,

I will attempt to answer you here...without the benefit of MY morning coffee...

"Also, Craig, please articulate your justification for infringing upon a club's property rights to do what they wish with there property? "

I am not a lawyer, so maybe my sense of entitlement is warpped, but can one really say they "own" a Raynor anymore than you can say you "own" a Picasso or the Mona Lisa?  Do I have the "right" to draw squiggly lines all over my Picasso?

Lastly, I believe there are "things" owned by individuals and members, that have historic value to a much larger community. I feel the "keepers" of these historic "things"..a golf course in this case, recognizing the value of what they own, have a certain responsibility to be good stewards of what they posess.


"To impose a "historical" desgination upon a golf course and then restrict a club's ability to modify it's property is unconstitutional, a far bigger problem than losing the severity of some of Herbert Strong's greens in Roslyn, NY!! "

If I'm not mistaken, a "historical" designation involves the voluntery participation of the property owner???  In theory there are benefits for the owner(s) and the community.

I would bet there are private clubs in America that have voluntarily had their club house placed on the National Register. Why not the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Copyrights enjoy legal protection.

[Craig Sweet]

Jason,

If I owned the Mona Lisa would there be a huge public out cry if I went to the press and stated my intention to draw a mustache on her?

Would considerable public pressure be put upon me to do her no harm?

Regardless of whether the public could stop me, I believe it would be so unpopular and the out cry so intense, that I might think twice about what I wanted to do.

Everyday, on this board someone will post about yet another classic course being modified well beyond what the original designer intended. And we all say, what a bummer, or launch into another attack on "technology" or the PGA Tour or the USGA...etc. But that is the extent of our "public out cry".

At the same time we applaud restoration work that brings these classic course back to the intent of their original designer.

My original purpose in posting was to question why these HISTORIC and CLASSIC designs are not being better taken care of. This group...GCA...would seem to be the logical advocates for preserving classic golf course design.  

I am curious as to why this isn't the case?

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason,

I will attempt to answer you here...without the benefit of MY morning coffee...

"Also, Craig, please articulate your justification for infringing upon a club's property rights to do what they wish with there property? "

I am not a lawyer, so maybe my sense of entitlement is warpped, but can one really say they "own" a Raynor anymore than you can say you "own" a Picasso or the Mona Lisa?  Do I have the "right" to draw squiggly lines all over my Picasso?

Lastly, I believe there are "things" owned by individuals and members, that have historic value to a much larger community. I feel the "keepers" of these historic "things"..a golf course in this case, recognizing the value of what they own, have a certain responsibility to be good stewards of what they posess.


"To impose a "historical" desgination upon a golf course and then restrict a club's ability to modify it's property is unconstitutional, a far bigger problem than losing the severity of some of Herbert Strong's greens in Roslyn, NY!! "

If I'm not mistaken, a "historical" designation involves the voluntery participation of the property owner???  In theory there are benefits for the owner(s) and the community.

I would bet there are private clubs in America that have voluntarily had their club house placed on the National Register. Why not the golf course?

I am a lawyer which likely just means I have MORE to say, it doesn't mean what I say is correct.  

However, an IP attorney's input here would be helpful re: the Mona Lisa, but I believe that the Mona Lisa owner can either do with it as they please, or, if they are restricted, they know that when they purchase it and so the restriction is all ready built into it's market value and hence it's purchase price.  

You are correct that items of historical value have significance and should be protected, however, the balance that has to be struck is between that interest and the owners property rights, and, IMO, it all comes down to the issue of notice.  If I acquire a "historical" home, I'm on notice of that when I purchase it, and, as stated above, the restricted rights I acquire should have impacted the purchase price so I arguably paid less for the home with the designation.  

It's an entirely different thing, however, to make an involuntary designation without a corresponding change in ownership or just compensation for the restriction of property.  If a club wants to, for instance, sell it's development rights to the town, county or land trust, and pass the benefit of the cash to it's members and future members in exchange for the right to change the zoning of the property that's legal, and equitable IMO.  

Also, I see no property right issue if a club voluntarily designated it's course "historical" but I do see a bees nest of practical problems that would, IMO, greatly out weight the benefits.  

[Craig Sweet]

Jason,

What sort of bee's nest of practical problems do you see in a historical designation for a golf course?

I doubt there's any criteria established for such a designation, but I'm sure members of GCA could draft such criteria.

[Jason Blasberg]

My original purpose in posting was to question why these HISTORIC and CLASSIC designs are not being better taken care of. This group...GCA...would seem to be the logical advocates for preserving classic golf course design.  

I am curious as to why this isn't the case?

Craig:

Legally, it's about Public Interest and Notice.  And, it's also about the economic market place.  

I can't say the severity of Herbert Strongs greens at Engineers affects the Public Interest in the same way that the Mona Lisa does (and I'm not entirely sure the owner of the Mona Lisa can't deface her).  

In the case of the Mona Lisa, assume the owner could deface her, the market value would drastically decrease if the Mona Lisa was defaced so in a way the Mona Lisa is economically protected without the need for any external regulation.  

The difference between the Mona Lisa and classic GCA is that a significant enough market appreciation for classic GCA does not exist, thus, courses are altered because the market place does not punish the alteration enough to prevent it.  Gosh, I sound like Richard Posner's pupil (perish the thought of the day that I become a Law as Economics advocate).  

Irrespective of whether the owner of the Mona Lisa can paint on a mustache, I think the issue of GCA is better left to the free market.  Let the clubs do what they think is best and let the club market sort it out.  If you really want to change the GCA world voice your opinion without challenging a club's property rights and I think you'll find you're better heard.  

[Craig Sweet]

Jason,

With all due respect, I did not raise the issue of "property rights" in this thread.

My original post:

"This is just a thought, but why isn't there a "fund" or organization, similer to what we have with preserving building architecture, to assist historic courses that might be getting "long in the tooth" and need some upgrading?

Their role might include being a resource for historic information and to promote activism (?)....rally the troops so to speak when something truely ugly is about to happen.

Personally I see two things here...saving historic golf courses from terrible and often misguided physical changes and the desire to preserve green space..."


"Property rights" was interjected by someone else.  

I will assume that the various GCA groupies are advocates for preserving the designs of their favorites?  Do they ever get "involved" with what a club might want to do?  Is their a single source that acts as an advocate for classic course design?  Is there a single resourse a membership can turn to when contemplating change?  Is their a source of funds or a mechinism in place to assist a not so well of membership that might want to restore a historic course?

I am just asking some questions here to better understand where we are as advocates for classic courses.

[Phil_the_Author]

Craig asked, "Were AWT's plans for an additional 18 at BCC?"

When Tilly was hired to design Five Farms, his contract called for him to create 2 courses. After touring the property he had laid out in his mind how the two courses should run. He presented plans & began work, but as it progressed, he came up against a serious problem. He would write...

“After being informed that the development of the golf course has been retarded by the requests of the tennis players of the Club, who desired enough ground for forty courts, I find myself at a stand-still in preparing detailed plans and models…
      “I cannot conceive of the necessity for the unusual number of courts which the tennis player’s desire, but this is a matter entirely for your club to determine for itself. Obviously it is a question as to whether the Five Farms tract is to be developed to the requirements of the gold courses or tennis play and naturally I have assumed that the requirements of gold were paramount, although I did provide for the seeming demands of tennis.
      “If the area requested by the Tennis Committee is taken from the gold course it will be absolutely impossible to plan two courses each of eighteen holes, starting and ending at a reasonable distance from the club house and each with two swings of nine holes from nearby points. That is not debatable…
      “My reputation as a golf architect is at stake on the excellence of the courses which I am planning for you and I not only consider the holes which I have planned an exceedingly fine collection when developed, but those which may be numbered among the best to be found anywhere in the country. This is not conjecture but my candid opinion…
      “Certainly the elimination from the courses of the area desired by the tennis players would detract so seriously from the value of both courses as to render any development of exceeding mediocrity…
      “I am prepared to continue my work as soon as your Committee advise me to do so…”
 
Who could refuse Tilly when he spoke with such fiery retoric? Tennis players, that's who. After several meetings, the club's board gave in to the Tennis players demands for the amount and location of land for the courts, Tilly would also capitulate and write,

“I appreciate that there are certain questions which have been in the minds of some of your members after the planning of the first eighteen holes. You must appreciate that my plans were considerably hampered by the action of your Tennis
Committee in selecting some of the most desirable land we had; and although the area which has been taken for the tennis courts is considerable, I am very confident that I can fit in the second eighteen holes for the golf course in a manner which will be entirely satisfactory…
      “If you analyze the plans closely, you will see that the various holes have been laid out in such a manner as to eliminate entirely the climbing of hills, an evil which has existed on your present course [at Roland Park] and one which I have been instructed to avoid.”
      “I am obviously very much pleased with the work which has been done, and having before me your report of the resolutions passed by the Board of Governors, I am prepared to plan the second eighteen holes within the next week…”

The second course would never be built.

[George Pazin]

I gotta hand it to you, Craig, you might be the only person out there who prefers to involve a government bureaucracy to simply having a sport tweak its equipment rules a bit.

I had previously wondered if anyone thought the Congressional hearings on steroids were anything more than grandstanding, but I guess you've answered that question.

-----

To anyone who can help me out:

Forgive my ignorance, but is BCC the same course as Five Farms? I had thought they were two distinct courses.

They played a lot of up tees the last time the seniors played the Pittsburgh Senior Classic at Sewickley Heights a few years ago. Gotta wonder why they bother stretching the course if they're not going to play it all.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason, you asked, "Did the USGA butcher Winged Foot with the work that was done there for the recent mens am.?"

It is very easy to blame (and I'm not saying that you have) an organization such as the USGA for changes to even the greatest of courses when an event such as an Amateur or Open is held. At times though it is the membership itself that does this, and WF is a good example.

The par-5 12th hole has now been lengthened once with the addition of a new tee. It can be stretched out to over 630 yards. This was done by the membership and required purchase of a bit of property to accomodate the tee. The USGA had not made this recommendation nor were they involved in the decision.

Will this turn out to be a good decision? Only when the Open is played can that be stated. Does this extra lengthening fit in with how Tilly designed the hole to be played? NO, it goes completely AGAINST it.

The hole was designed as a 487 yard par-5 that could be reached in 2. Tilly wanted to see the heroic play here. In the 1929 playoff between Jones & Espinoza, they both went for it in two.

At 557 yards, the length it played for the PGA in the 90's, both Tiger Woods & Davis Love III went for it in two on Sunday. Both missed just right of the greenside bunker. Both got down in 4 more shots for bogeys. Risk/Reward at its best, now taken away by adding yardage.

It will most assuredly play as a three-shotter during the Open, what a shame.

[Craig Sweet]

George, I NEVER said any thing about involving a "government bureacracy" in the affairs of a private golf club

What I did do is question why there are NO advocates for classic golf courses? Everyone seems content to blame technology and the PGA Tour for "ruining" classic courses, when it is the membership that ruins the course.

If you feel its important to preserve the orginal design and intent of our golden age architects, what are you doing about it? Advocating for a roll back in the golf ball?

Please!  

I'm reminded of a scene in Manhatten (woody allen 1976??) some socialites are at a black tie fund raiser and they are chatting....one guy says, " I hear some Nazi's are marching next week"...and another says "did you see that devestatingly funny satire about Nazi's in the New Yorker this week?"....to which Woody says " Satire? Satire is one thing, but when it comes to Nazi's I think the only thing that works is baseball bats"....