[Patrick_Mucci]

I've noticed more than an number of alterations, some subtle, that have altered the intended play of a good number of golf holes.

One that seems to be prevalent is where a stream/water parallels a fairway.

In many cases, the closer the golfer comes to the stream/water the more he's rewarded with a more favorable angle of attack.  Perhaps that's risk/reward at it's best.

Yet, in many cases, what once was fairway close to the stream/water is now rough.  And, on the opposite side, the rough has been mowed to fairway.

Now, the old optimal DZ is not the ideal spot to hit the drive.

Once this has been done, the approach from the softened side remains more challenging, and in many cases, causes the club to make adjustments at the green end, since the hole has been declared to difficult, or unfair from the amended area.

Why don't clubs recognize the architect's original strategic intent ?

Why don't clubs recognize the damage they're doing by altering strategic holes ?

And, why do they compound their original error by further altering the hole thereby continuing to thwart the architect's intent ? 

Has good architecture become difficult for the modern golfer to detect ?

If you say "NO", then how do you explain situations like the above ?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Why don't clubs recognize the architect's original strategic intent ?

Why don't clubs recognize the damage they're doing by altering strategic holes ?

And, why do they compound their original error by further altering the hole thereby continuing to thwart the architect's intent ? 

Mr. Mucci,

With all the experience you have in private clubs I can't imagine why you're asking these questions.   

A few weeks ago I met a new neighbor, a Scottish executive who recently transferred from Edinburgh to the Chicago suburbs.  In the first ten minutes of our opening conversation, he told me he prefers the American version of golf to the Scottish. I asked him where he had played.  As a well-connected guy, he had played this summer at Medinah and Shoreacres.  I said, "you're spoiled.  But what did you like so much about those in comparison to your club in Scotland?"  He said they were much better "manicured,"  the service was better, and his host at Shoreacres had told him that there are really only 100 members who regularly play the course.  Those were the highlights--for a Scot--of American golf--at least the Chicago version.

Much more than those who care about golf course architecture, aren't these the type of club members who determine the course of change at most clubs--i.e., those who place greater value on club characteristics that have nothing to to with the strategic intent of the course architect?  "Why?"  Because the values you think are vital they are willing to change on a whim--these architectural values are simply not important to those members, and--isn't this your observation--these clubs lack a "dictator" to tell the ill-intentioned members ever so nicely that they're woefully misguided...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric,

The reality is:  Once a club adopts/evolves into democratic rule, the position of "Dictator" will never be filled.

What many fail to understand is that changes like this sometimes occur without anyone's knowledge.

[RJ_Daley]

What many fail to understand is that changes like this sometimes occur without anyone's knowledge.

I was thinking more like; "without knowledge of anyone".  How many of those core member regulars as Eric describes, begin with any knowledge of golf architecture and more specifically, their courses architect's intent, to begin with?  Maybe some of those regulars don't even know who the archie was.  Or in a case like Medinah, they don't know the list of archies that had a whack, and what they were intending to accomplish, and what was replaced. 

[Adam Clayman]

SO, the answer is a lack of knowledge.

Having met Fred Mueller(sp?) recently, I was immediately impressed with his knowledge expressed through his opinions. I don't know any other head professional who had the understanding he seemed to have as it regards to GCA and the maintenance meld required for quality golf.

So much of this sport has turned into bullshiting. Those individuals who are deathly afraid someone will find out they don't know what they are doing. It mirrors other sectors of society. IMO, Golf doesn't fit neatly into any model. Just when you think you have it figured out, something counter-intuitive will show you you know nothing.

Even here in Ran's folly the trend has changed from those who came here anxious to learn from those willing to share. To those who know little but think they know it all.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

R.J.,

I was refering to the crew member who drives the mower that cuts the rough.

You can understand how the rough/fairway can migrate when he doesn't want to drive too close to the creek that parallels the hole.

Just as frequently, trees that were planted parallel to the fairway years ago have matured and grown, with drip lines that are invasive to the playing corridors.  Again, the crew member driving the mower doesn't want to drive into the trees, so he moves further away from them, and that's how roughs and fairways migrate AWAY from a feature that the architect meant the golfer to interact with.

I have no idea what Adam Clayman is talking about, do you ?

[Kyle Harris]

Adam is saying that most people don't realize it's a problem, aren't willing to understand that it is a problem when the problem is pointed out, and believe that because they like the problem and claim to know golf, it must not be a problem.

It's the same attitude that gets people to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal for the sake of leaving it lying around without really reading it.

Golf Maintenance and Architecture is not viewed as a craft, sadly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()