[Ian Andrew]

Lou,

You did your own lumping.  

Your right I did, my reference to "they're not all bad" was probably way too light and gave the illusion that I meant all. But look at Jeff’s post and tell me things haven’t changed over time. You can’t tell me there no issues with raters and behavior.

I would be the last to suggest that a rater or a group of them design and build a course.  Come to think of it, as long as my money is not involved, it may be an interesting thing to see.  BTW, I no more underestimate professionals in any field than I do raters.  Over time, however, I have found that some are much better than others.

Your own word Lou…One of the things I learned is that many seem to have little regard about the others' contribution.  The pro blames the customer for impossibly high expectations and demands, and the supt. for inadequate conditions and setup.  The supt. blames the architect for all the maintenance nightmares he forced upon him, bemoans the owner for meager budgets and pay, and hates the pro for forcing an earlier and longer list of course prep demands each day.  The architect blames all of the stakeholders for all sorts of reasons why their design did not achieve its intended potential.  From each's individual perspective, no one else knows anything.

That doesn’t show much respect for any of us….or am I missing something here.

BTW3, I never argued that raters have a monopoly on knowledge of gca.  I will, however, suggest that neither do golf course architects.

Never made that claim. One of my favourites sources of inspiration has never designed a course. There is plenty of knowledge on this site too and most have other occupations than golf.

Can you consider the possibility that having seen certain things that worked well at a variety of places, that a rater or a well-traveled gca enthusiast might be able to make valuable suggestions?

Of course, they can be the most helpful people in a committee, but this was about a couple of guys who began with the premise that they know everything. None of us do, but when they context it with “I’m a rater and I’ve see enough course to know this is what I should do,” what do you expect an architect to think. “Boy he must be smart he’s seen 100 courses.” I don’t know about others but didn’t get my knowledge from playing 100 courses.

 Or is that guy just totally blind and oblivious?

They wants the course to reflect their personal vision completely without compromise, and they aren’t interested in anyone else’s input on the committee either. Would you want to work with someone like that in any business? Do you think that attitude works in a committee?

[Jason Blasberg]

Ian:

What's worse:  1) a gca'er turned greenschairperson; 2) a rater turned greenschairperson; 3) an archie turned greenschairman; 4) a gca'er-rater turned greenschairperson; or 5) a rater-archie turned greenschairperson?

I think you're throwing a lot of thoughtful and passionate club members under the bus with this thread.  If someone is a rater, gca'er or archie or all three should be irrelevant, shouldn't it?  

I think, all things being equal, a greenschairman that's at least one of these three things would be better suited for the position than someone who's not.

Jason

[Ian Andrew]

Jason,

 I think you're throwing a lot of thoughtful and passionate club members under the bus with this thread.

Am I?

Let’s make sure you understand what I was getting at in the first place. I had the experience where a guy said “I’m a rater and I’ve seen enough courses to know this is what we should do.” He wasn’t prepared to listen to me or anyone else at the table. That was my issue.

I brought up the fact that I think the behavior of raters had deteriorated. I brought up the fact that I thought this was a factor in his behavior (and it wasn't only to me).

I didn’t ever say that a rater shouldn’t serve as a greens committee member.

If someone is a rater, gca'er or archie or all three should be irrelevant, shouldn't it?  

Yes.

I think, all things being equal, a greens chairman that's at least one of these three things would be better suited for the position than someone who's not.

Completely disagree, the most important skill is the ability to listen, use logic and “have the club’s best interest first.” Knowledge of architecture can be very helpful or just as dangerous depending on the situation.

[Jason Blasberg]

Let’s make sure you understand what I was getting at in the first place. I had the experience where a guy said “I’m a rater and I’ve seen enough courses to know this is what we should do.” He wasn’t prepared to listen to me or anyone else at the table. That was my issue.

Forget the rater business, which is irrelevant, the guy say's he knew what should be done, so did he?  

This is not directed at you personally in anyway, but archies are often the worst of the worst as far as screwing up a course.  I just hope you're not holding archies up on a pedestle and downplaying the importance of passionate and gca knowledgable members.  There are some members at some clubs that know far more about golf course architecture than most archies and while they may know nothing about construction, their ideas and input are invaluable.

The thing that worries me most are not greenschairman turned archies but archies who come in and try to be greenschairman, telling clubs what's best for them, etc.

For instance, an archie who shall remain nameless (and has ZERO courses profiled on this site) sometime in the 80s once recommended to Engineers that they cut out all the ridges and eliminate the blind shots on the golf course, in favor of funneling through ridges instead up up and over them.  Needless to say this archie was not retained but if he had it would have made Rulewich's Yale look like a masterpiece.  

To date, that is the most disturbing gca related thing I think I've heard and it came from an archie who today has a National portfolio of designs.  

Ian, MY point is that you're making broad generalizations by poopooing an outspoken and opinionated greenschairman while, at the same time, making broad assumptions about the viability of a consulting archie's suggestions.  

Jason

[Jim Franklin]

The ability to listen is certainly the most important part of being on a greens committee. You need to have an open mind.

As for the deteriorating manners of raters, please, by all means, let the folks at Golf Digest or Golfweek know who is doing something offensive. As a GD panelist, I hate getting lumped together with some of the inconsiderate panelists out there. I try to read about architecture, have an open mind, learn more, and do my evaluations with dignity and passion and it sickens me with the constant rater bashing. If someone is an a**, turn them in and get them off the panel.

[George Pazin]

What's worse:  1) a gca'er turned greenschairperson; 2) a rater turned greenschairperson; 3) an archie turned greenschairman; 4) a gca'er-rater turned greenschairperson; or 5) a rater-archie turned greenschairperson?

I'll take a stab at this one!

From worst to best:

2 (worst)
4
1
5
3 (best)

How'd I do?

 

I wouldn't want a green chairperson to be a rater, in a perfect world. Too much secondhand thinking for my tastes. But that's just my opinion.

And there is a rather large jump from "Ian, these are my thoughts, what do you think" to "I'm a rater, this is what we need to do".

Everyone hates being second guessed by a non-professional, but it seems to me that golf course architects face it far more than just about anyone else - except for maybe professional sports coaches!

[Ian Andrew]

Jason,

MY point is that you're making broad generalizations by poopooing an outspoken and opinionated greenschairman while, at the same time, making broad assumptions about the viability of a consulting archie's suggestions.

I don't honestly know how to reply to what you said.

[Jason Blasberg]

Everyone hates being second guessed by a non-professional, but it seems to me that golf course architects face it far more than just about anyone else - except for maybe professional sports coaches!

Especially in NYC, even I knew you've got to take the 3 pts in a tie game.  J-E-T-S Jets! Jets! Jets!  Yet another text book example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Lou_Duran]

Ian,

I would like to have been in the meeting that set you off.  Personally, I've attended meetings with all levels of people and I can't think of a single time where it was stated that it is this way or the highway (unless the meeting is to convey an already made decision, policy, or procedure).

I personally like and respect numerous golf pros, superintendents, architects, raters, journalists, etc.  But because some are pretty head strong and complain in private about the shortcomings of other functional professionals and I bring it up, it doesn't mean I disrespect them.  I am just pointing out that it is human nature to think that we know more than others, and to discredit those whose opinions are different than ours.

Having been around a few raters and architects, I find much more respect given by the former to the latter than the other way around.  I can see that how it might be infuriating to have some people considered to be inferiors judging one's work.  I believe that it was Nicklaus who had some choice comments about raters and comp golf and meals.  Lump the much maligned green committee (for "disfiguring" the classics), authority, and the alleged leaching nature of raters and we have a real bogey man to beat up on.

Ian, can't we all just learn to get along?  If your client wants something done a certain way even after you've advised against it, aren't you still left with the option of doing the work you are being paid for or decline the commission (if you believe it will denigrate your reputation)?  I guess it would be nice to have a patron who gives you both, a blank slate and check.  If life was only that simple.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

As a long time Green Committee member/chair/rater I must take umbrage with some of the comments made here.  

While change will inevitabley take place on the golf course, many suggestions of club members should simply be ignored.  After budgeting, that is probably the most important goal of the committee.  To lead the club away from making ill advised adjustments or change to the course.  

I am, however, human. It is in my nature to speculate about change.  And added tee box here and one there or a rebuilt bunker or two is simply part of being a golfer.  My club is considering a new plan to guide the future of the golf course, one of the attributes we would be looking for in an architect is the ability to work as a team to make the best possible use of the opportunity of a new plan.  

While my association with a rating panel is an indication of my interest in Golf Architecture, it certainly does not preclude me from working with another individual to lead positive change.  The process involves not only the skilled work of the architect but, politics, budgeting, marketing and an understanding of a club's culture which are all areas in which the committee chair can provide insight.

Would such an arrangement create difficulties for the architects out there?

If the arrogant type you highlight in the post really wants the input he can hire a draftsman.  It would certainly be less expensive.

[Brad Klein]

I know of one "nationally ranked" veteran architect who's standard final answer to input from concerned members is "how many golf courses have you designed?" (to which the obvious answer should be: "none as bad as you have").

Ian, I think that in course renovation, the design stuff is pretty easy, the politics comprises about 85% of the work. I can understand why technical professionals, by nature engineering-types, hate listening to amateurs. But that's the way design has evolved. Not that everything said in meetings deserves equal treatment.

My experience is that clubs, committees and managers spend 90% of their time and energy responding to recurring complains and suggestions from 5% of the membership. The Boards and the architects tend to get defensive, back on their heals and unproductive. A system needs to be worked out for that, but it cannot be led by someone who is a bully or a bullhead or a know-it-all. I have seen some of the best restoration jobs run by committee members who knew nothing about golf but knew a lot about how to read a contract, bid sheets, budgets, etc. In other words, they knew how to manage a process, how to listen to people, and how to hire people who knew thier stuff. There is absolutely no correlation between golf skill, architectiure enthusiasm, and knowing how to manage a process of design renovation. They are completely different skill sets, and when one claims to have one and therefore claims to be qualified to run the other, watch out.

[Tommy Williamsen]

percentage-wise there are just as many jerks who are not raters as there are raters.  I generally rate a course alone or with my wife who can tell me about playability off the women's tees.   I tell them to put me off when I will not impact the membership. I write a letter of thanks and usually buy something in the pro-shop.  I never ask them questions "why didn't" but comment of what I thought were the strengths of the layout.  
Nevertheless, many of us raters have seen many many courses and have spoken with pros, supers, and club managers.  We have learned something.  Like other well travelled players we do have something to offer.  

[Mike_Young]

I do think all parties have something to offer when it comes to a golf course run by committee where you have people that have seen this course everyday for years vs. an archie that has just seen it a couple of times.  BUT...some one has to be the facilitator of all these people that have something to offer and it probably should be the archie.  
You know they say " IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING" when it comes to committees.
From the comments I have seen on this thread it seems to me IMHO that many do feel they know more about architecture whethe rit be from rating/ supt./golf professional/green comm...or whatever..and theymay but I have found that golf architecture is a lot like an iceburg.....most of the types I just mentioned know what they like and have an idea of why something is the way it is but in many cases there is  much hidden in why an architect makes a decision and most never know that side of the architecture.....they just see the finiished surface.....for example I once had a rater tell me I needed a bunker in a position that happened to be solid rock with an 18inch cap layer on it and the drain would need to be dug at least 8 feet deep and run 200 feet.  The rater was correct as to aesthetics and strategy BUT$$$$$ nope.

[Robert Thompson]

Since I know a little of the situation Ian faced let me add some detail without pushing this too far. The club in question is very historic, but not overly long. It is a very good, but not great, course. It never was great.
It has no range, and has struggled for membership until recent changes (including taking fairways to bent grass) added to the membership. Ian has spent many years attempting to restore the course and keep its original character -- that's typically his mandate. Ian is foremost a restoration architect with a specialty in the style of course in question.
In the midst of a bunker restoration, Ian felt the course should aim for something mirroring the original style. He wanted noses in the bunkers and some movement in the lines. He wanted the bunkers to look like they initially did, to the best estimate.
Instead he ran into the previously mentioned raters. These guys, who refused to see any of Ian's well received work at famed courses like Toronto's St. George's, said bunkers should not be a penalty. If you hit in them, you should be able to easily get out of them and reach the green if they are fairway hazards. Ian said that was not the intent of the course design and the bunkers being requested would be neither be aesthetically pleasing nor at all similar to the initial design. The raters said they didn't care -- bunkers should always allow players to easily escape.
That put everything at loggerheads -- and eventually the club went out and found an architect who was willing to ignore history and photos (the architect in question has a history of doing so...).
In the end it is a philosophical difference. Ian believes in historical restoration where possible, and the raters in question believe in modernization.
So as some of you run off at the mouth, perhaps you should take a look at Ian's writing, blog and website and find out what he's about first. What he is saying is that raters have, in some instances, become self-described experts. However, often times these experts are only interested in their own games and how the course changes might impact their handicaps.
When it comes down to it -- isn't that bad for golf and golf courses? Isn't that why restoration is so in vogue these days -- because courses were fundamentally altered when they should not have been?
I think you'd find Mr. Andrew very receptive to informed opinion. But I think, as he has shown, he's not particularly keen on those who "know" what to do, when they are neither prepared to do the research nor see other similar work.
In the case of the course we are discussing, this will result in a step backward. Wouldn't surprise me if in five years they turn to Ian and ask him to fix the course again....

[Robert Thompson]

percentage-wise there are just as many jerks who are not raters as there are raters.  I generally rate a course alone or with my wife who can tell me about playability off the women's tees.   I tell them to put me off when I will not impact the membership. I write a letter of thanks and usually buy something in the pro-shop.  I never ask them questions "why didn't" but comment of what I thought were the strengths of the layout.  
Nevertheless, many of us raters have seen many many courses and have spoken with pros, supers, and club managers.  We have learned something.  Like other well travelled players we do have something to offer.  

While I somewhat agree, Tommy, I wonder what you do for a living. By what you are saying, if I know even a little about it, my opinion should be respected. Which, of course, is nonsense....

[John_Conley]

As a long time Green Committee member/chair/rater I must take umbrage with some of the comments made here.  

Cos, the other night it was late and I entered one of the above posts mentioning that a lot of guys from the Golfweek panel would be great for Ian to work with if possible.  I omitted your name, but that's merely because I couldn't pull it out and didn't feel like digging for it.  You'd be ideal for the post, I think.

[John_Conley]

1- That put everything at loggerheads -- and eventually the club went out and found an architect who was willing to ignore history and photos (the architect in question has a history of doing so...).
2- In the end it is a philosophical difference. Ian believes in historical restoration where possible, and the raters in question believe in modernization.
3- So as some of you run off at the mouth,
4- perhaps you should take a look at Ian's writing, blog and website and find out what he's about first.
5- What he is saying is that raters have, in some instances, become self-described experts.
6- However, often times these experts are only interested in their own games and how the course changes might impact their handicaps.
7- When it comes down to it -- isn't that bad for golf and golf courses?
8- Isn't that why restoration is so in vogue these days -- because courses were fundamentally altered when they should not have been?
9- I think you'd find Mr. Andrew very receptive to informed opinion.
10- But I think, as he has shown, he's not particularly keen on those who "know" what to do, when they are neither prepared to do the research nor see other similar work.

1- So it was him venting or whining after losing a job?
2- Which mirrors the taste of the consensus public.
3- In response to Ian, who was running off at his.
4- Why?  The source isn't relevant to understand the context of his comments.
5- I read what he is saying.  No need for you to tell me your interpretation.
6- That's kind of the way it is at private clubs.  I could share tons of stories illustrating this from where I worked.
7- Yes.
8- Yes.  Probably altered by guys not on magazine panels as much of this was before their existence.
9- No, actually the contrary if this thread is representative.  Brad sent him the handbook and it wasn't like he proclaimed, "Yes!  This is how it should be!"  He presumed all anyone needed is a low handicap and a pulse when the critera for each panel are actually quite varied.  
10- Funny you should say that.  A now-famous architect told me he loved the Golfweek panel because it was comprised of a bunch of guys that would fly across the country to see his courses.  "Nobody from Golf Magazine would do it," he said.  Partly right, as Matt Lauer and Bryant Gumbel are pretty busy and many others are champion golfers in their own right - but you know Ran probably does and there may be more like him.  Ian made no distinction between the different methods employed by each publication.  I'm guessing these guys didn't want to go see his work because they'd already found him unwilling to compromise, which gets in the way of their agenda.  Hey, I'm not saying I condone the behavior.

Robert, Ian led with a post implying that this is common when it may be just one person that caused his problem.  If I had a bad experience with a girl from New Jersey one time it would be wrong for me to broad-brush the entire species.  There's nothing I see here where the movement led by the significant golf magazines had anything to do with it.  In fact, the results of recent rankings seems to run counter to his theory that they stand for undoing the work of Stanley Thompson and Seth Raynor.

If this person were a different sort - say the father of a PGA Tour player or maybe a television golf commentator - the result could be the same.  Ian's problem was that the membership valued his opinion, perhaps because he's a panelist, and that the person felt compelled to pull rank.

It has got to be very hard to make a living as a golf architect.  I feel for Ian, I really do.  However, when someone goes into a profession that is highly competitive I'm not shocked when they tell me it is highly competitive.  Schoolteaching doesn't pay well.  Schoolteachers complaining that it doesn't pay well?  Duh, you knew that when you started.  

I hope Ian doesn't run into someone like this again.  More importantly, I hope Ian is better prepared to handle it when he does because I'm sure he will.

On the other side of this is someone probably saying, "can you believe how rigid that guy is... WE'RE the customer!"

[Robert Thompson]

John,

Clearly, you, as a well known golf architect, have never experienced the situation Ian describes. And since you, once more as a seasoned golf industry professional, have never had the problem, then it must not exist.

Ian used one example that I know of but said there have been others.

Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying the matter.

[Tom Huckaby]

Man I leave for a few days and people are planning my execution... Tommy - let me remind you - who last Friday was predicting a collapse, and who told whom to have faith.  It was rather nice seeing OUR Dodgers celebrate on SF turf, no?

Now re this topic... shivas is right.  And little Michael Jackson once sang, more or less:  one bad asshole don't spoil the whole bunch, girl.

 

[Jerry Kluger]

It seems that none of you have considered what the membership at these clubs want and that is not necessarily even close to what a rater or a GCAer would want.  I recently played in a member-guest at a club where Arthur Hills had redone the bunkering and they were preparing to have him redo the greens.  I sat next to a member of the greens committee at dinner and asked if they had considered any other architects to redo the greens.  He told me that they liked what he had done with the bunkers and wanted him to do the greens.  These people are not into golf course architecture and they have their families and businesses to tend to and are not interested in broadening their horizons.  So if a person believes that they have some worthwhile input very often the committee simply does not have the time or interest to have them get involved.

[John_Conley]

John,

Clearly, you, as a well known golf architect, have never experienced the situation Ian describes. And since you, once more as a seasoned golf industry professional, have never had the problem, then it must not exist.

Ian used one example that I know of but said there have been others.

Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying the matter.

It is sad to me when someone doesn't even know what the problem was yet they were affected adversely.  You are wrong to think this is confined to the golf course design industry.  It has happened to me and others on this board more times than you could count.  How many examples do you want?  I could bore you for days.

That you could have read the thread and come to the conclusion that I think it didn't happen is amazing.  Is it prevalent, like Ian began?  I'll let you be the judge.

If someone needing help in this area only asked golf architects for advice they'd be missing many people that can help solve the matter.  The problem is more one of negotiating, working with committees, and difference resolution than anything to do with grass and sand.

Artists starve for a reason, and it isn't that the world is out to get them.

Just the panelists for golf magazines.

[George Pazin]

From the comments I have seen on this thread it seems to me IMHO that many do feel they know more about architecture whethe rit be from rating/ supt./golf professional/green comm...or whatever..and theymay but I have found that golf architecture is a lot like an iceburg.....most of the types I just mentioned know what they like and have an idea of why something is the way it is but in many cases there is  much hidden in why an architect makes a decision and most never know that side of the architecture.....they just see the finiished surface.....for example I once had a rater tell me I needed a bunker in a position that happened to be solid rock with an 18inch cap layer on it and the drain would need to be dug at least 8 feet deep and run 200 feet.  The rater was correct as to aesthetics and strategy BUT$$$$$ nope.

This is a phenomenal post and should be read, re-read, digested, reflected upon, and then referrred to repeatedly by everyone on here (but especially the raters! ).

[George Pazin]

I've watched this potential train-wreck of a thread go on for days.  I have to commend you guys for not turning this into toooo ridiculous of a conversation.  All things considered, this one could have turned stupid.  It hasn't, entirely (at least not until this post is finished, anyway).

A simple thought:

1.  Joe is green.  Joe is a frog.  Joe is slimy. Therefore, all green slimy things are frogs.  

2.  Joe is a rater.  Joe is a greens chair.  Joe is an asshole know-it-all.  Therefore all rater greenschairs are asshole know-it-alls.  

Sorry, Ian, it doesn't fly.



   

1. Ian related one incident.

2. He also said it's not the first time.

3. The many raters/posters on this board have thus inferred that he thinks all raters are bad.

THAT doesn't fly.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Young,

And that it is precisely why it is wise to hire an architect with a good technical/engineering background- to bring what is physically and reasonably possible to what may be desirable.  If the location of the bunker made sense from strategic and playability standpoints, did you offer any other solutions?  In today's environment, I know few golf enthusiasts who have the necessities to design and build their own course.  I do know several who could provide an experienced architect valuable assistance.

Shivas,

Thanks for settling the issue before the thread went off the deep end.

While your friend SL stated that I know nothing of the committee process (or something to that effect), has anyone considered that the golf membership may have actually been behind the green committee's chair regarding the bunkering work he desired?

Do members and owners not have a right to make changes to their courses without their motivations cast in a purely negative light?  How would any us like to have our home declared historically significant by a small group of architecturally sensitive types and not allowed to change a commode without first obtaining an expensive permit or perhaps not be allowed at all?  Do we really wish to legislate taste?  If so, whose would that be?

Sometimes it just seems that we have a tendency as professionals to automatically think our own ideas must prevail or the world is just wrong.  Unfortunately, nearly all of us work for somebody, ultimately that pesky, fickled consumer, and things don't always go our way.  As John Conley noted, for the most part, we choose our lot in life and nobody is forcing us to endure it in the presence of so many short-sighted, arrogant types.  

BTW, I personally like larger, shallower bunkers on long shots to the green.  For most of us, that is at least a half-stroke penalty.  In the example given, I wonder if the tee has been moved back beyond the relative gains in distance due to equipment, maintenance, swing mechanics, etc.  In other words, was it the original design intent to penalize the club golfer by one stroke or more with the depth and configuration of the bunker?  Was the fairway real wide at the founding and perhaps trees and rough allowed to make it more narrow?

In restorations, other than figuring out to what era you are restoring the course to, if design intent is paramount, isn't it also necessary to adjust length and width of the hole?  Would Ross or Thompson have us regularly hitting a 3 iron from a 5' deep bunker with a nose or a high lip but a few feet in front of us?  Maybe so if there are a few give-away holes on the course.

[SL_Solow]

Gee Lou, I haven't posted on this thread.  I guess your reference to my purported comment must relate to another discussion. It must have stung a little.   But as long as I am here, I'll contribute my two cents worth.

Caveats;  I am not a rater.  I have been a green chairman for more than 10 years and a club president for 2 years during which we did an extensive "sympathetic renovation" to our previously altered Colt and Allison course.  I,like most of us who post here, have definite preferences in course design.  I do not hold myself out as an expert on architecture but I know a little bit about managing a green committee and country club politics.

I view the green chairman in question's use of his rater's status as an attempt to give himself more credence in the eyes of his fellow members so that he can argue with the architect on a more even footing.  It is an attempt to create expertise where it likely does not exist.  However, before we condemn the chairman, we must recognize the validity of one of Lou's central premises;  the course belongs to the membership and in the end they have the right to alter it in any way they please even if most or even all of us would disagree with the changes.  I think members should be reminded that they are only caretakers of a course who took it over from the prior generation and will pass it down to the next.  This should temper their desire to make wholesale changes but it may not impact the type of individual described by Ian.   So in the face of a domineering chairman holding what the architect perceives to be "bad" ideas, what can the architect do?

First, when the architect is hired, there should be a clear written understanding of the scope of the project and its objectives.  Then, if a new chair with different ideas takes over in midstream, the architect can appeal to the club, via other committee members, the board, the past chair etc. to uphold the original design intent (how do you like that Lou, Shivas, I am espousing original intent doctrine).  I note that midstream changes in design philosophy are often very costly which should help in making your argument.

Second, identify which proposed changes are matters of "taste" and which go to fundamentals.  The easy example is Mike Young's bedrock problem.  If there are fundamental engineering issues being ignored the chairman will look very foolish.

Third, the Socratic method is always useful.  Explore the basis for the chairman's beliefs.  Find out if he has read anything by the original architect.  See if he has seen any of his other work.  Offer to show the committee that work.  Unless the club doesn't want restoration, establishing your superior expertise will help discredit the chairman.

Finally, if none othis works, take Pat's advice and run like heck.  If the work turns out wrong, your name will be on it and nobody will listen when you blame the membership.

In my experience, after interviewing and selecting an architect, we discussed the general philosophy and then were presented with plans.  Since it was our club, the committee asked questions but we had established ground rules that the architect would be the final arbiter.  We could reject all or part of the plan but no member would dictate the design of anything.  Thereafter we sought and received membership approval.  Our role was to manage the process once we had agreed on a plan.

Finally, the main role of the committee should have little to do with architecture.  The committee should hire the greenkeeper, establish performance goals which are realistic, work on budgets and keep the membership away from the greenkeeper and his crew so that they can do their jobs.  If Ian thinks he has trouble with chairman who think they know more about his job than he does, he should talk to some greenkeepers.  Those guys have it much worse than he does.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()