[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan brings up a good point in making a comparison, not between the architecture of two courses, but between the relative merits of the respective renovations.

Which brings up the evaluation of a restoration in the context of the golf course's potential versus that achieved by the membership.

I've seen a number of very good restorations that for some reason or other, didn't achieve their maximum potential.

Is this a question of walking before you run, a half loaf being better than none, or getting your feet wet before plunging in ?

Before answering, consider all of the courses that achieved, say, 75 % of their restoration potential, and never made another effort to finish the job.

Is it a question of the memberships toleration, in time and pocketbook.

What restorations have been the most comprehensive, the most extensive, that achieved close to the maximum potential ?

And, what courses fell far short of their potential ?

[Joel_Stewart]

Pat, very interesting question.  Success will be measured different by many, such as the rankings.

NGLA as an example was 80% successful?  I would like your thoughts on this course.

Seminole maybe 50%, although it was hailed as a success.  The greens and bunkers are not remotely Ross.

SFGC:  90% rebuilding the three lost holes yet it has been met with some bad feelings by the membership.

Cypress Point:  50%.  Many lost bunkers are still lost and have not been restored.   The bunkers are the cleanest bunkers in the US except for maybe ANGC and the entire course is way over manicured.

Obviously I'm pulling these numbers from thin air just for discussion.

[corey miller]

I am a believer that small details matter and these details can easily get lost at the end of a project.  The membership deems them "minor" yet they are just the sort of things that memberships are generally incapable of recognizing and getting correct.

Mowing patterns, small trees, bushes, etc etc.

[Mike_Young]

"Is this a question of walking before you run, a half loaf being better than none, or getting your feet wet before plunging in ?"

Pat,
I say 99% of the time it is a case of a Bozo member in charge.....
I could care less unless it was my own club.....the current cottage industry of restoration is an extremely overpriced joke ladled on unknowing committees by knowing contractors.  Whe a club thinks they have to use a particular contractor and can't use another look out...shooting fish in a barrel....don't want to get started....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I often forget about the realities of  committee and Board life at Country Clubs and I also tend to forget about the abundance of myopic vision.

Corey Miller,

Attention to detail is frequently overlooked.
That's why the project should be a labor of love for those involved.

Joel Stewart,

I think NGLA is in the midst of its restoration and improvement.

Over the years many features have been rediscovered and recaptured.

The internal tree clearing has had a dramatic impact on the golf course.

Adding length to tees continues to offset the hi-tech advances by restoring shots/shot values.

The changes to the golf course haven't been perfect, but, I think, on balance, the golf course has been improved, and that says alot when you consider the starting point.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

pat, I never played Aronimink before they did all the restoration. I played it on Wed.   Looking at the original Ross drawings and notes they did a pretty good job.  Of course they did not cut down all the trees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Aronomink presents a unique situation since the golf course seems to have been restored to the field drawings and not to the "as built"

In terms of the "mission statement" I'd say that Aronomink did an outstanding job to date, but, that, as you and others say, more trees should be removed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()