LRP- most clubs don't get it

[Mike_Young]

Several of us at my home club have tried to explain to the board the importance of a LRP but there is such a concern for aggravating the membership that they will not follow thru and cannot see the importance.  We have just spent 2 years improving different aspects of a 58000 sq, ft clubhouse, new pro shop, grill etc but they cannot comprehend what is happening to their most important asset, the course.  Below is a quote of how it was phrased:
"  The board and greens comm. will spend the next twelve months developing a comprehensive maintenance plan.  At the same time, an updated capital schedule for equipment, lakes, and drainage issues will be finalized.  The LRP concept is being tabled because even the talk of the slightest change coming on the heels of 23 months of construction, renovation, and assessment is not in the memberships best interest."
This is an intact Ross course and I have offered to do it for no charge.  I write this in order to show you guys how the majority of club members at many clubs see the original architecture of these courses.  We are covered by trees, drainage issues etc yet a new grill can be seen as more important because we happen to have an excellent supt. who keeps the conditions superb.  And what do you do when a comm cannot see that a comprhensive maintenance plan, drainage are not major parts of a long range plan.  And the Memorial tree plantings will continue and there will be no cutting of 50 year old 150 markers that block fairway bunker shots into greens.
For every club that is mentioned on here as doing it correctly there are 100 that  don't get it and will not.
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

It's always difficult for a club to embark upon any program that may be perceived as costing money on the heels of a recently completed, expensive project/s that may or may not have been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the membership.

One would need to know more about the green committee, board and membership in order to assist you in your efforts to get an LRP initiated, as well as the present condition of the golf course in comparison to the original condition of the golf course.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I agree with your response.  I have seen the same problem many times before when presenting a plan before a green comm. yet I could never respond until it was my club.  
The way I see it is that it all comes down to "Heritage".

We have a 1925 Ross course that has been untouched.  Some know it is a Ross course most don't even know who Ross was.  Great pool, tennis and clubhouse.  Excellent maintenance conditions.  Great employees.  The board and comm's in general could not tell you where or what a club such as NGLA was.  They go on a trip, play a TPC course and come back ranting.

"heritage"  It makes you realize important it is that we pass down what really makes these clubs.  Many of the new golfers or should I say people that play golf see it more as the clubhouse facility than the course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The thinking of many of the people on this site, who love and promote classic and strategic architecture is unfortunately in the minority amongst many club's members.

And, it is getting more difficult to guard the course, preventing the newest fads from being forced upon it.

Education and exposure to sites such as this can have a positive impact.

Keep up the good work.

[Dave_Miller]

Mike:

Has there been many changes over the years to this course?

The reforestation of many Donald Ross courses can be a real concern.  I was one who for a long time was opposed to removing trees for any reason.  Yet after studying Donald Ross for some time, and finally having some inkling of what he was trying to accomplish, trees should not be an issue.  Yet they are at many clubs.  If the Trees impede the shot then they should probably be dealt with.

However, if there have been no changes to the greens and also the basic layout, you may be in luck.  

It's probably true that there may have been bunkers moved, taken out, added, fiddled with, etc., but if the integrity of the course as designed has not been changed then you can probably convince the members that what you want to do is going to make the course more enjoyable for all and in the spirit of the guy who designed it-- Donald Ross.

As a member of two (Donald Ross) clubs who have gone through the restoration process it was very different at each.  One had really minimal changes over the years, the other many changes.  

Eventually wisdom prevailed and today both are symbols of the original design.

You can get it done and it doen't have to necessarily break the bank to do it.

Best of luck with this process. Let us know if we can help at all.

Cheers,

Dave

[A_Clay_Man]

It is sickening listening to people who have either been cued by those that want to continue making mistakes and/or are just plain sheep.

I see it as hopefully,an end to a trend, and any club that is now catching up, oh boy, lookout! i.e. The CC here wants to move two of thier best holes, to make room for homesites. The obvious solution is to re-think where the homesite should be, but the comm. is pretty set.

Why is it that they can't see or don't know?
Aren't the majority of these renovation projects flawed conceptually? or, more probably, mis-managed and invariably end up as drains on the club's resources


  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Young:

Sad to say but I agree with Pat. Too many clubs have members who care more about the linen and utensils than they do about the pedigree of the course. When you see the frowns because capital plans take serious $$ and follow-up but you don't see any frowns when it comes time for another wing to the clubhouse or how much to spend on "entertainment" then you know what the priorities are.

Also, many club presidents are more interested in "harmony" than in taking a well known designed club and making sure it continues as one with a necessary and timely LRP. They are not leaders but compromisers.

For most people the "golf" is just part of the total experience. For people on GCA -- THE GOLF is the driving and main focus.

Mike -- the following phrase applies to these people -- they play golf -- they are not golfers. Best of luck.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

A club's perception of the quality of its own golf course is a strange and mysterious thing.  

I know your course well. The members there think it is a wonderful course, an A or A-. You and I know that it is maybe a B-... on a good day. With remarkably little work it could be restored to an A. But that is not how the members see it. They see it as an A course today. So why mess with it?

They, quite literally, don't see the cart paths in the fairways (on some holes pretty darn close to the centerline), they don't see the overhanging trees. They certainly don't see the 50 or so Ross bunkers that have been removed over the years. They don't understand how the green complexes have been dumbed-down into mediocrity.

What they do see is a course they've known and loved for years and they like it just fine. As far as they are concerned, it is perfect just as it is.

You would hope that there would be insightful members who see through this. Who would stand up and say, "Wait a minute, this smugness, this self satisfaction about our course is false. It's not that good a course. It could be so much better so easily."

Those members have not stood up. I have doubts that any will anytime soon. (Boy, it would be great if I'm wrong about that.)

So it seems to me that you have two choices.  

The first is to fight prevaling opinions. Tell them the truth about the course. Tell people it is an average track. Tell people that they have egregiously screwed up cart paths and bunker shaping. Tell them that trees are choking off various playing strategies.  That removing some trees would make the course more challenging for the better player and yet more fun for the weaker player.  Let 'em have it. Both guns blazing.

You'll get nowhere.  Or worse.

The other choice is to stay patient. Sooner or later (maybe much later) they'll get it. Do what you can to make sure the interim maintenance fixes don't foreclose restoration options later. No doublt you will see how these drainage/agronomy issues might interfere with a restoration down the road and others won't understand what the hell you are worried about.  (The silver lining here is that the super will understand and may be on your side.) But hang in there. In as low key a way as you can.

I don't know that you have much choice.

Bob

 

    

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

You may have to be "arrogant" about it.  Say, "I'm a golf course architect and I know more than you, and I know what's best for this course.  This course is a Dawg (sorry, couldn't resist) in it's current state, compared to what it could be."

[john bernhardt]

Mike your problem is felt by almost all of us who are members of clubs. Sadly the best and brightest are no more likely to become the club President than to become your local state senator. It seems to be the nature of things for the majority of members like the population on a different level to be more concerned with the aormentioned food and chairs like the populationed desired to be comunicated with in 30 second soundbite that either make them feel all is ok or not. It is rare for the deeper and more solid view of issues to filter up to the majority of members of the public.

[Lou Duran]

I am glad that we're beginning to recognize that GCArs are a very tiny percentage of the golf population.  When we go on a tirade about Fazio or Jones, we need to remember that they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do- please their client (s).  I believe that most of us trying to make a living strive to do the same thing.  Perhaps it is time for those of us who care about architecture, maintenance meld, variety, quirk, traditional values and courtesies, etc. to consider putting our money where our mouth is and make a dream project such as Dick Daley's, Brad Miller's, Ran Morrissett's, or Gib Papazian's into a reality.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Lou
I wouldn't characterize fair criticism as a tirade, nor would I call attempts to seperate mediocre from good from great design in that way either. Giving the client what he wants is a common trait found among all levels of talent and should not be used as an excuse for less than stimulating work. McDonalds gives millions what they want every day -- does that mean I should recommend it to a friend or go out of my way to a have a meal there?

Do you think Bernard Darwin and Herbert Warren Winds analysis are less thought provoking because they did not "put their money where there mouth is"? And isn't paying a green fee or traveling long distances involve our money?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

Your suggestion doesn't address the problem of preventing the disfiguration of a classic design or the failure to cure past disfigurations through restoration.

While some on the site have taken that big step to create their representations of classic design, the number of clubs falling into the categories mentioned in the above paragraph far outnumber those efforts.

The more practical approach is to continue to attempt to educate and influence club members in a positive manner.
It is a difficult undertaking, which can cause acrimony, and the loss of friends and acquaintances.

We, on this site, share a common interest, our love of golf course architecture.  I'm don't think that is the common thread running through the membership's at most clubs.

Though I do think the medium of the internet, and this site, are having an impact at the club level.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Mike_Young]

Guys,
The Board of Gov. and Comm at this club are made up of intelligent people.  My posting was not meant as a way of attacking them or their thoughts.
Our club is probably the only intact Ross course left in GA.  It has hosted the 1970 USGA Jr. and many State events.  Most know it is a Ross course and speak of it in that manner but they have no idea what involvement Ross actually had with the course.  The Ross strategies were followed for the most part but we have lost much of it due to encroachment.  

Now knowing that knowledge is power we could assume that a little power is a dangerous thing.  It has been my experience that most committees change each year and no one is around long enough to know what is going on but in that year they caught a few phrases regarding maintenance design or what ever and they carry them with them.  There are no checks and balances in place for Supts and Green Comm because most Green comm don't know if they are being told right from wrong. ( In our case we have an excellent supt.)  For instance our golf comm decides to improve the course by narrowing the fairways and growing the rough.  All bhecause other people in the golf industry told them this is the way to do it.  Most don't even have an idea of what a golf architect does.  We have made some major mistakes to our place over the years and yet we have been lucky because most are repairable.
AGAIN, MOST CLUBS DON'T GET IT....AND THEY WILL NOT LISTEN ... look at my initial post.  How can someone think they can do a maintenance plan, lake and drainage study and not call that part of a long range plan.  That is a major part of any course.  
All you can do is try.  If they don't want it and don't care you must forget it or it will poison your enjoyment of a club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think you've touched on a major part of the problem,
lack of continuity and stability.

Constantly rotating committee and board members can be a double edged sword.  It can prevent a bad idea from taking hold, gaining support, and being implemented.  On the other hand, it can be responsible for a never ending string of bad ideas relating to the golf course.  

I've always supported a six (6) year term for a green committee chairman, with one or two caveats.

I also favor long standing green committees of people who:

1.  Share a love of the entity
2.  Will commit their time
3.  Love the game of golf
4.  Understand and appreciate architecture.

Each club has its own dynamic and political climate and those that fit the above four categories have to navigate those waters if they are to have a positive influence on the golf course.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
Your above post makes much sense.  I wish more clubs would implement.
Mike

[Lou Duran]

Tom,

My comments were not intended to offend anyone here on this site, though, as I've expressed before, I believe that there is a tendency here to glorify the old and demean the new.  Fazio and Jones are two guys who get personally whacked, often for reasons which I don't understand.  I've played some extremely mediocre Ross and Tillinghast, as I have Fazio and Jones.  We are all free to criticize, something about the first amendment.   But I think that when the critique goes beyond the work and is incessant, it becomes a tirade.  I just think that it is important to recognize that our tastes and preferences are not widely shared, and perhaps we need to think of ways that we can change that.

In terms of putting our money where our mouth is, I am thinking in terms that since we have strong opinions on what constitutes good architecture, desirable maintenance, and ongoing operation of a course, we ought to look into ways of bringing it into fruition.  It is my understanding that Mr. Jones was unhappy with the country club scene in Columbus so he founded The Golf Club.  It is probably unrealistic, but could a group of 300+ similarly oriented individuals from all over the world put a golf project together incorporating many of the principles we hold dear?  
    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou,

Interesting question.

Do you think there would be diverse or unanimous opinions amongst this group of 300 + GCA'ers ?

[Lou Duran]

Tom,

My comments were not intended to offend anyone here on this site, though, as I've expressed before, I believe that there is a tendency here to glorify the old and demean the new.  Fazio and Jones are two guys who get personally whacked, often for reasons which I don't understand.  I've played some extremely mediocre Ross and Tillinghast, as I have Fazio and Jones.  We are all free to criticize, something about the first amendment.   But I think that when the critique goes beyond the work and is incessant, it becomes a tirade.  I just think that it is important to recognize that our tastes and preferences are not widely shared, and perhaps we need to think of ways that we can change that.

In terms of putting our money where our mouth is, I am thinking in terms that since we have strong opinions on what constitutes good architecture, desirable maintenance, and ongoing operation of a course, we ought to look into ways of bringing it into fruition.  It is my understanding that Mr. Jones was unhappy with the country club scene in Columbus so he founded The Golf Club.  It is probably unrealistic, but could a group of 300+ similarly oriented individuals from all over the world put a golf project together incorporating many of the principles we hold dear?  
    

[Lou Duran]

Pat Mucci:

I suspect that this site is providing some food for thought at member-owned clubs considering alterations to their courses.  Those individual members who care strongly about classical design have a very important role to play in leading their clubs toward doing the right things.  Club politics, specially in the northeast, are well beyond my understanding, but if a majority wishes to Fazio or Jones their "outdated" MacKenzie or Ross, is it not perfectly within its rights?  We can only hope that the members at those classical courses appreciate as well as understand what they have, and become good stewarts.  This site serves as a good source of information and encouragement.  The network of people here is extremely impressive.

Concerning the unanimity of opinions on this site, I harbor no such illusions.  But, I do believe that there are several important design,  maintenance, and operational principles that probably have very wide support.  Obviously, the development of something so complicated as a golf course cannot be accomplished through a democratic process.   A general would be needed to spearhead the project.  Can it be done with this diverse crowd?  Probably not, but more for financial reasons than design differences.      

[Paul Richards]

I just played a classical golf course (not Ross) that has a LRP
and has implemented much of it (new tees, some green work, and new bunkering).  This course is of historical note as it has
hosted a PGA and a US Am.  However, the implementation of the LRP seems to have stalled as far as tree removal.  There hasn't been a tree chopped down, it looks like, in 75 years!

I told my host if a restoration-specialist came in and removed as few as 150 trees, this could be a spectacular course (again!).  I haven't seen the plan, but I suspect that it calls for removal of more than that.  However, there are so many trees out there that 300-400 wouldn't even be noticed!

As it is, it's a great course now, but the trees just overwhelm you.  

So even when a course does HAVE a LRP, as long as tree-huggers are in charge, it may NEVER get fully implemented.

[Ed_Baker]

Several people on this site have already made a difference at their clubs with personal involvement in the restoration process. In my case, it was damn near a full time job for 3 years.

More frustrating than anything is to continue the culture AFTER the major construction elements are completed. Most members view the restoration as the bunker and tee work, once complete, the restoration is over in their eyes.

Greens expansions, restoring fairway width, ongoing tree programs, maintainence meld (firm and fast),less is more course presentation are really more important to playability and where the most benefit of the process lies.

I am amazed at some of the comments like, "Gee, that's a funny pin," the fact is that the pin posistion didn't exist for decades until the restoration process recreated it. The turf on the greens is better than ever because of the cummulative effect of tree removal (air circulation and sunlight) and much less wear due to much more pinnable area. Duh!

So I would agree with Mike Young, even AFTER voting for a "restoration" and funding it, most members still don't "get it.
Sadly, the normal rotation of Boards and committee members exacerbates the problematic cultural dynamics.

A successful restoration is really a never ending "work in progress", and requires constant diligence and "drum beating"to remind the incumbent power group why restortion was neccesary to begin with.

Pat Mucci's suggestion of 6 year terms for Green committees and chairman is the best I have heard to deal with the problem. At least that way new committee members could be educated over several seasons so that the philosophical continuity would have a better chance of being perpetuated.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

Just keep in mind that giving people a fixed "term" is not always a panacea. Fixed terms can be fixed problems. The problem with any committee is that by its very creation you will have to "compromise." Some people do that very well in group dynamics and with others it's a mess becuase you have to apply limited resources ($$ / time) to key issues.

There needs to be someone who is the 'POINT PERSON.'

I'll never forget what Ernie Ransome once said to me during an interview I had with him several years ago. I asked Ernie what happens when members make it a point to talk with the superintendent at PV about various issues relating to turf / grounds, etc. Ernie said it simply that the superintendent was instructed to direct that person / member to him SPECIFICALLY! That lone step cuts out all the BS many people raise since what they say to the superintendent is not necessarily the same thing they will say to the head honcho. And it preserves the sanity of good employees.

A club must have a major domo who is the point person. The key is getting someone with the wisdowm of Job and not someone who lets power go to their head and becomes a dictator completely removed from reality. Once you start complicating matters with committees, bylaws and all the other jibberish the result will be less of a concern for the golf course and more of an agenda geared towards self aggrandizement.

There must be a "first among equals" that steers the golf course in the proper direction. Otherwise, you get various people schooled in committee politics that must leave their "mark" on the course.