Who does the most damage to architecture..Supers, Architects, Members or Owners.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Jim - the pros are in a position to educate"-Cabell Ackerly

Yeah, like my good friend who almost lost his position because a board member felt he was sticking his nose where it didn't belong when it came to the architecture. Of course, he was asked to stick his nose in by the golf committee but that didn't seem to matter.

He almost had to 'educate' himself on how to get by with just an unemployment check.

[mikes1160]

Supers, or perhaps most accurately, the staff and the super.

Mowing patterns get changed inch by inch daily, maintenance becomes varied, bunkers become varied in depth, level of sand and over all shape and maintenance.

 
This quote should be posted over at Turfnet to give all the supts over there a good laugh......

Why? I've seen it happen in practice...

Pop quiz Kyle: do you want the same mowing pattern, day in, day out?

[Kyle Harris]

I meant:

Fairway edges, widths and angles.

Green sizes and shapes.

Primary cut length and depth.

The sand depth in the bunkers and their edging.

Things that tend to EVOLVE season by season and snow cover by snow cover.

[Craig Sweet]

Kyle...it's only grass...15 to 20 minutes with a mower, a few days of growing, and everything is better...no BIG DEAL.

The other points that have been raised...top dressing accumulation, tee box use,bunker sand leaving the bunkers and building up require more time to repair and are far moredamaging to architectural intent than mowing...

At private clubs the final say is always with the members....they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle...it's only grass...15 to 20 minutes with a mower, a few days of growing, and everything is better...no BIG DEAL.

The other points that have been raised...top dressing accumulation, tee box use,bunker sand leaving the bunkers and building up require more time to repair and are far moredamaging to architectural intent than mowing...

At private clubs the final say is always with the members....they have no one to blame but themselves.

Craig,

Naturally you're right. But how much can be lost if nobody is paying attention? Furthermore, how much does that basic neglect lead to the supposed need for a larger restoration project?

How many classic tracks (the 95% NOT in the Top 100 of any of the lists) are/have been neglected because nobody pays attention to such things like those little details.

It's one thing to be a superintendent at a golf course that KNOWS what it has in terms of architectural significance like a Merion or Pine Valley, but for the rest... it can be difficult to put such factors above other maintenance considerations, especially with a super not sensitive to architecture.

[Jimbo]

Whoever pays the bills is at fault.

[Mike_Young]

I think the answer is PEOPLE..sometimes it is the supt..sometimes the architect, or owner, or club it varies.....
I honestly don't think most architecture critics would play the courses they admire so much today if the conditions were as they were 2 years after that particular course opened....therefore I credit supts and their industry with aiding architecture the most.....
I think I would credit club committees /members with hurting it the most....because they never have the time or desire to give the proper attention or time to architectural changes over the years.  Most americanmembers are so brand aware in every aspect of their life that they allow someone else to think for them and this goes for golf also...

[Kyle Harris]

It's amazing how much negative stigma comes out of such a question as this. Golf courses are living and breathing entities and are subject to change by circumstances beyond any control. However, diligence and documentation should be had, if the club desires to maintain the golf course to the same architectural standard.

Damage is inevitable. It's only bad if it is allowed to get out of hand and become irrevocable.

[Craig Sweet]

Kyle,yes it is a living, breathing entity and thus subject to all kinds of change....the question is, how much do you interfer with the change that occurs and struggle to maintain a living and breathing entity as the architect left it the day he walked away?  On that day it was a snapshot of an idea put to paper...but a golf course is not necessarily like a building that can literally be frozen in time through dilligence...why not allow it to evolve?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,yes it is a living, breathing entity and thus subject to all kinds of change....the question is, how much do you interfer with the change that occurs and struggle to maintain a living and breathing entity as the architect left it the day he walked away?  On that day it was a snapshot of an idea put to paper...but a golf course is not necessarily like a building that can literally be frozen in time through dilligence...why not allow it to evolve?

Craig,

That's actually why I worded my last post as I did. If the changes are documented, then the membership would be more able to determine the "ideal" architectural state of the golf course.

I imagine it could be argued that an architect should design some flexibility into the golf course... therefore, some of the damage may be done before first balls are in the air on the course.

[Craig Sweet]

Is there ever an "ideal" architectural state to a piece of land? Is the ideal architectural state the "state" in which you find it on any given day?  

[Kyle Harris]

Ideal meaning the period in time that whichever body that has power over the golf course deems the course to be at its best. The "restoration" point. This can be the as built, or some arbitrary point later.

[Bradley Anderson]

Historically mowers have had a signifiacant effect of altering design, but not necessarily owing to operator error, or malfeasance on the part of superintendent or committee oversight.

When large tractor drawn mowers became available to mow fairways, for instance, the machinery simply could not navigate an open ground game style approach to the green, unless you were willing to have a tractor drive across your green! As the tractor approached the green it began a gradual radius turn, and this is how we arrived at the hourglass shaped approach - it was a function of the limits of the evolution of the machinery that maintained golf courses. When those approaches were first designed back in the day, they were mowed by single or three gang horse drawn mowers, and even they could get on top of the green, but they could provide a much more open and close mown approach for the bump and run option.

I would wager that the disappearance of the close cut mounds on holes like 12 at Garden City, was simply related to the fact that manufacturers quite making the kind of lightweight sidewheel driven push mower that was required to maintain those slopes - when the newer heavier motorized mowers came along, those slopes could not handle the wear and tear, and so they had to be taken out. Just a theory.

Yes Kyle is on to something here, maintenance equipment has historicaly effected design, but not necessarily because of human error .

[Ray Richard]

I have seen some bad in-house modifications on some private courses that were pushed by a dominant green committee chairman who wanted to "make his mark". On one course they constructed a new tee on a par 3 that was 90 degrees from the original tee, which still looks out of place on this great old layout.

  I saw a green committee chairman authorize the planting of large pine trees on the edge of a few tee boxes. The agronomic impact on the tees were immediate, and the trees were removed.

  In the late 1980's I played George Wright Golf Course in Boston, Ma. Owned by the city of Boston, this Ross designed masterpiece had suffered from a lack of maintenance and management since the 1950's. After a 5 year shut down, the course was opened and leased to a management company in the mid 1980's. It was amazing to see unadulturated Ross features, with great bunker contours and green shapes, and large tee boxes. No architect, superintendent or owner had modified  the course and it was remarkable.

 On the issue of green contours, I have seen some architects include the installation of a low voltage wire 12" under the designed green perimeter. To check the mowing pattern, you attach a wire tracker to the wire, paint the limits and than adjust your mowing accordingly.

 I think most superintendents want to maintain the course and leave the architectural adjustments to others. They don't want to suggest and construct something that is not loved by all the membership.  Most superintendents understand the importance of choosing the right people and the right mowing equipment to maintain important golf features such as bunkers and mounding. In the past they might have just mowed over everything with a reel mower, but now they use forced air rotary mowers and hand work on these features. One superintendent I know has a dedicated "bunker crew" of 4 people who spend 25 hours a week doing a bunker by bunker maintenance operation. He had the foresight to tell his club that if they undertook a massive bunker restoration, he would need additional resources to maintain the new features.

[Steve Burrows]

I think it is interesting how few people have mentioned that it might well be the designers themselves who are doing the damage.  Perhaps it's the built-in defense mechanism of those who participate in this forum, but isn't is possible that a handful, if not more, of the designers who practice today (or, for that matter, in the past) are simply not wildly talented at their profession?

In virtually all other professions, whether in business, law, the arts, etc., there are some who are good at what they do, and others who are serviceable and have found a way to make a living.  Surely for every Hemingway and Monet, there are 50-100 hacks out there who just like to write or paint and have found a way to get paid for it.  And why wouldn't this be the case with golf course design?  

Isn't it possible that few, if any, designers actually know what it takes to design and build a golf course that will serve the needs of today and/or future generations?  So, maybe we are left with 1 course out 10 that actually benefits the game (as abstract and ill-defined as that concept is), but then the superintendent, or the owner, or the members are blamed for problems that could have been prevented by simply never having built a given golf course in the first place.

[Kyle Harris]

Bradley,

Thanks for the support. I don't necessarily mean to imply human error either, just, as you said, a natural part of maintaining a golf course. Where human error does enter into the picture is in the lack of documentation of these changes for a time when maintenance in accordance with design can occur.

How many greens shrank due to the use of the triplex mower, for example?

Subsequently, how many new irrigation lines and heads have necessitated the destruction of old green contour?

[Mike_Young]

I think it is interesting how few people have mentioned that it might well be the designers themselves who are doing the damage.  Perhaps it's the built-in defense mechanism of those who participate in this forum, but isn't is possible that a handful, if not more, of the designers who practice today (or, for that matter, in the past) are simply not wildly talented at their profession?

In virtually all other professions, whether in business, law, the arts, etc., there are some who are good at what they do, and others who are serviceable and have found a way to make a living.  Surely for every Hemingway and Monet, there are 50-100 hacks out there who just like to write or paint and have found a way to get paid for it.  And why wouldn't this be the case with golf course design?  

Isn't it possible that few, if any, designers actually know what it takes to design and build a golf course that will serve the needs of today and/or future generations?  So, maybe we are left with 1 course out 10 that actually benefits the game (as abstract and ill-defined as that concept is), but then the superintendent, or the owner, or the members are blamed for problems that could have been prevented by simply never having built a given golf course in the first place.

Steve,
I think you are correct for the most part BUT overall the architecture today is more technically sound than 75 years ago.....
Problem is that many do know what will serve the needs of today and the future but not many want to hear it.....ALSO....GOLF ARCHITECTURE  HAS BECOME SO EASY THAT most can get into the business by just posting on webstes or joining a ODG for a couple of years......  

[Cabell Ackerly]

"Jim - the pros are in a position to educate"-Cabell Ackerly

Yeah, like my good friend who almost lost his position because a board member felt he was sticking his nose where it didn't belong when it came to the architecture. Of course, he was asked to stick his nose in by the golf committee but that didn't seem to matter.

He almost had to 'educate' himself on how to get by with just an unemployment check.

OK....then that must be how it works everywhere?

Communications skills and knowing when to pick your battles can go a long way.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Cabell,
Didn't say that, but, singling out pros and placing blame on them is ridiculous and shows your lack of knowledge, or respect, for the profession

[Cabell Ackerly]

Jim,
The blame goes all around. Of course it's not any one single group's fault, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that most pros (not all) aren't helping the average golfer's mindset regarding architecture....and I can't think of anyone who is in a better position to educate.