[Adam Clayman]

How often have we known committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes and mouths wide open in astonishment? It is always difficult to persuade them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure.  ALISTER MACKENZIE

Classic truism?

I certainly have no experience with club politics, but from reading some wheat from the years of chaff, makes me suspect so.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sounds like nothing more than an excuse to fill in bunkers as your membership gets older.  Greatest pleasure to the greatest number..humbug.

[Adam Clayman]

Thats odd John. I read it to mean you don;t design for less than 5% of membership or the gofing poplous at large.

Why so cranky?

[RJ_Daley]

I believe we can read further into that, if one reads AMs writing more fully; that making it fun is not necessarily making it easy.  

I think that confronted with the need to alter a course, AM encountered many committeemen that began the process from the wrong perspective to begin with.  He was probably frustrated that a bunch of stoggy old men rose to committee status at their club who were calvinistic and stern and as technology and such may have suggested lengthening and resetting hazards, that they began with the notion that it must also be altered to play stern and unforgiving, with little option but to play one way precisely.  I think AM was trying to tell them that the stern one way - the hard way was a boor, and that one can make it fun through diversity of design options and creativity.  

Quirky and unfair holes, or too short and booring ones need alterations.  AM just was telling them to not go for the narrow stern test, but include pleasure that comes from challenge with creativity as well as pleasing compostition of design.  More people can appreciate that.  It isn't that they must all have an easy par or bogey.  It is that they should feel enthusiastic to play with interest and creativity, not fear that one misstep is a disaster and only the best can ever matchup with the design of the hole.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thats odd John. I read it to mean you don;t design for less than 5% of membership or the gofing poplous at large.

Why so cranky?

I don't think Mackenzie was capable of seeing or understanding the modern golf committee or golfer.  People no longer earn pleasure they either buy it or fake it.  Once you try to please the largest number instead of the best informed you end up with not much more than youtube drama.

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ - good post.

John - good bit of sociology there. The trouble with youtube (or reality television) drama is that there's no catharsis. It is drama only in that it strings together a series of events to form a narrative, but that narrative is not being written with the intention of providing a resolution greater and more meaningful than the sum of its parts.  Maybe there's some parallel here to bad vs good gca.

Peter

[David Druzisky]

 As a GCA I find the word "fun" often a great word to use with committee folks.  It is a good cross over word that diverse players with diverse agendas can feel confortable with when used as one of the basis points.  I rarely get conflict when I use it if I am able to describe what fun translates to at the various levels.  It can mean more challenge for the better players while it can be more visual intrest to the casual players.

Looking at the AM quote isolated like that I wonder how much golfers impressions of the game has changed if he seemed to catch a lot of flack when using fun as a basis for change vs now.  I do not seem to catch too many odd looks like he suggests he did.  There is no doubt the committees at that time consisted primarily of the better players that probably liked to put themselves on a bit of a higher stool than others so having a challenging course was there way of staying out ahead. ?  Only the worthy!  With the exception of a select number of courses, If you run around today and make courses simply more challenging you are not going to be running around very long.

[Garland Bayley]

Sounds like nothing more than an excuse to fill in bunkers as your membership gets older.  Greatest pleasure to the greatest number..humbug.

John,

I you knew anything about AM you would realize that he constantly fought against the highly skilled players such as yourself ruining a golf course by removing the hazards that ruined their scores. Hardly a case of filling "in bunkers as the membership gets older".

I don't think Mackenzie was capable of seeing or understanding the modern golf committee or golfer.  People no longer earn pleasure they either buy it or fake it.  Once you try to please the largest number instead of the best informed you end up with not much more than youtube drama.

Are you putting yourself among the "best informed"? Did you get that way by buying it or faking it? Or, are you one of the few who don't "buy it or fake it"?

If AM was not capable of understanding the modern golf committee or golfer, then why are places like Pasa, CPC, Valley Club, and Crystal Downs so well preserved and relevant today?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()