[Patrick_Mucci]

have maintained their greatness over the years, and preserved their architectural integrity, if anyone and everyone who applied for membership was admitted, or, is there something to be said for elitist stewardship ?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

It doesn't take elites to know a good thing when they've got it.

Those clubs could have had a membership full of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers, as long as there were rules in place to make it difficult to change the golf courses, or as long as the power structure was such that the average member couldn't make a change (Pine Valley and Seminole being the two more autocratic courses of the four).

Do you favor elitism as a form of government in general?  Which is better, a democracy that keeps insisting on making things easier for themselves without paying for them, or the U.S. Senate in its current formation?

[ChipOat]

First, continuity (however it's maintained) is rarely a bad thing for a great golf course.  Not always the only good thing, but never a bad thing.  Say what you want about membership criteria (and many will) but, if the club can bring it off, that usually nurtures continuity and a respect for the past.  Occasionally, it also breeds an infatuation with the past but, you can't have everything.

Second, reputation and perception often become reality (not just in business).

Example: as a golf course, Pasatiempo may be the equal of at least one of the above - especially now.  However, I'll bet only real GCA junkies might believe that.  For a long time, Pasatiempo needed an active membership wherever they could find it.

[Shane Wright]

Patrick -

Although I haven't played any of the 4 courses, I don't believe they could have maintained the level they are at today without having a membership that fully appreciated the history and architectural integrity.  There are plenty of powerful, influential, and wealthy people that could have probably come in and ruined part of this simply by putting their interests first instead of the interests and integrity of the history and founders/architects of these respective clubs.  

I'm sure there are some members now and in the past that didn't have this full appreciation, but I believe the majority has ruled.  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Rich elites have made more stupid, ill-advised changes to golf courses over the years than I can count.  

Some of the best preserved courses from antiquity, and ironically, some of the best-preserved work of classic architects have been at lowly municipal courses where no one ever had enough money to completely screw things up!  

[Chuck Brown]

The memberships needed only to be "elite" (self-confident?!?) enough to be able to say to the USGA and the PGA Tour, and most of all themselves; "We don't need to host a major championship to validate our course."


(The interesting thing, thereafter, is what do we say about the Open rota: Muirfield, TOC, Carnoustie, Troon, Turnberry, Lytham, Sandwich, Hoylake, etc.?)  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Before you get into the green type answering my questions about ideal forms of government, let me agree with Mike Cirba.

Of all the old courses I've seen, one of the best-preserved was Crystal Downs.  This is because it's a summer club, and none of the members were interested in wasting their summer vacation making changes to the course and disupting their play, not in spending money that didn't need to get spent.

Indeed, a lot of the best-preserved courses are at old-money blueblood clubs which just didn't want to spend $$ to make changes.  Unfortunately, some of these let themselves go though lack of maintenance attention, but that's nothing a quick restoration couldn't fix.

[C. Squier]

I think Chuck nailed it.....none of those listed seem to have any desire for the world's best to play in competition at their club. 

[Chuck Brown]

I think Chuck nailed it.....none of those listed seem to have any desire for the world's best to play in competition at their club. 

Clint, I am at least mindful that privately, Pine Valley and Seminole host some elite competitions (Crump, Coleman).  But they don't have the Tour or the USGA Competitions staff to deal with.

[Cliff Hamm]

How many clubs turn down significant numbers of folks who have the prerequisite funds?  For the vast majority of clubs is it not money and 'status' that defines elitism?  What makes one think that being wealthy/having status  makes one a better judge of golf architecture?  How many clubs when deciding on a prospective member make sure he knows the difference between a redan and an eden? Take a look at the plethora of 'nouveau riche' clubs charging well into triple figures for initiation fees...these are certainly 'elitist'.  Do these members of a great understanding of golf architecture or are many more interested in the quality of the dining experience and other fluff? 

It is an absurd argument that being elitism leads to a better understanding of golf architecture.  How many members of those clubs have enough interest in golf architecture to post here?  The reverse, how many posters would be accepted by these clubs?  How many courses in Great Britain have been preserved without elitist attitudes?

[C. Squier]

I think Chuck nailed it.....none of those listed seem to have any desire for the world's best to play in competition at their club. 

Clint, I am at least mindful that privately, Pine Valley and Seminole host some elite competitions (Crump, Coleman).  But they don't have the Tour or the USGA Competitions staff to deal with.

Of course, but I doubt many (if any) of those competitors are even somewhat vocal about what they would change at those locations. 

[Tom_Doak]

Oh, and about the premise of this thread -- National was just an overgrown mess the first time I saw it [in 1980], and Seminole was apparently such a mess after WW II that, according to Pete Dye, much of it had to be rebuilt.

[Mike Cirba]

Clifford Roberts was probably the most elitist man in golf history in the United States.

I'm not sure his record speaks very well to any omnipotent, intelligent preservation of Mackenzie's golf course architecture.

[C. Squier]

Oh, and about the premise of this thread -- National was just an overgrown mess the first time I saw it [in 1980], and Seminole was apparently such a mess after WW II that, according to Pete Dye, much of it had to be rebuilt.

Wasn't it fairly easy to join Shinnecock in the 70's?  If so, the riff raff have managed to do ok 

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

The four names mentioned are golf clubs. A goodly number of some very interesting and exciting courses are country clubs and with the ebb and flow of rotating Boards and Presidents, some with absolutely no knowledge of golf, its history or architectural merit come up with some very weird ideas about their governance .

When you start running six or seven dining areas, one can tell that golf is not their main raison d'etre.


Bob

[JC Jones]

Wasn't it fairly easy to join Shinnecock in the 70's?  If so, the riff raff have managed to do ok 

Likewise regarding Crystal Downs.  One member I spoke to said the place was barely alive in the late-70s, around the time the current Head Pro arrived.

Even ten years later they let some wet behind the ears 27 year old GCA join

Of course now that every publication under the sun is ranking golf courses, the course is getting the credit it is due and the demand for membership, I'm sure, has changed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It doesn't take elites to know a good thing when they've got it.

Those clubs could have had a membership full of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers, as long as there were rules in place to make it difficult to change the golf courses, or as long as the power structure was such that the average member couldn't make a change (Pine Valley and Seminole being the two more autocratic courses of the four).

But, the average member can make changes if he rallies enough fellow members to his cause, or, if he ascends to a position of power.
Just look at all the disfigurations that were forced upon golf courses by green chairman, green committees, Boards and Presidents, or their wives.

Do you favor elitism as a form of government in general?  Which is better, a democracy that keeps insisting on making things easier for themselves without paying for them, or the U.S. Senate in its current formation?

Tom,

The difference in our government and golf clubs is that our government has a binding document that to a large degree dictates governance and decisions.

As you know, from your extensive experience, clubs can make changes, almost at will, depending upon who's in power or popular.

I favor dictators who select and groom the next dictator.
It seems to have worked out fairly well so far

[Tom_Doak]

I favor dictators who select and groom the next dictator.
It seems to have worked out fairly well so far

Pat:

Sounds like the future of golf in China is in excellent hands!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Oh, and about the premise of this thread -- National was just an overgrown mess the first time I saw it [in 1980], and Seminole was apparently such a mess after WW II that, according to Pete Dye, much of it had to be rebuilt.

Tom, I broke out the blue ink just for you.

Vegetative overgrowth doesn't equate to architectural changes.

Pete Dye was 19 years old when WW II ended.
And, what Pete evidently DIDN'T tell you was that Seminole was CLOSED for three years during WW II
It's common knowledge that many courses had difficulty during WW II.  Tournaments were suspended, members were in service, gasoline and other items were rationed, and many clubs, including Seminole, were shuttered and closed, so I wouldn't cite the ramifications of WW II as indicative of a lack of stewardship

From looking at old aerials, it doesn't appear that much has changed at Seminole over the years.

Don't confuse a failure to eradicate vegetative growth with substantive architectural changes.

Seminole's primary change was on # 18, where the change appears to have been for the better.[/b][/size]

[Jud_T]

Dictatorship at golf courses has it's plusses and minuses.  Yes, if you happen to have a dictator who's priority is golfers and the golf course then you can avoid random committees messing about.  If however, as at my former club, you have an owner who's priority was never cutting down a tree and providing overwatered, overmanicured conditions and excessive dining and clubhouse facilities for his family and friends then you have a different set of problems...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I favor dictators who select and groom the next dictator.
It seems to have worked out fairly well so far

Pat:

Sounds like the future of golf in China is in excellent hands!

Tom, I'd settle for JUST golf, but, I fear that America is on the decline and China on the ascent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Clifford Roberts was probably the most elitist man in golf history in the United States.

I'm not sure his record speaks very well to any omnipotent, intelligent preservation of Mackenzie's golf course architecture.

Mike,

If it wasn't for Cliff Roberts, you never would have heard of Augusta.

Many of his changes were for the better.

As to Augusta being MacKenzie's golf course, how many times did he visit, and how long did he stay.

# 10, # 16 and other holes are improved versus their original iteration.

ANGC would not have remained relevant in American golf and tournament golf without some of those changes over the years

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dictatorship at golf courses has it's plusses and minuses.  Yes, if you happen to have a dictator who's priority is golfers and the golf course then you can avoid random committees messing about.  If however, as at my former club, you have an owner who's priority was never cutting down a tree and providing overwatered, overmanicured conditions and excessive dining and clubhouse facilities for his family and friends then you have a different set of problems...

There's a substantive difference between an OWNER and a DICTATOR.

With a dictator, palace revolts can be successful in bringing about a changing of the guard, not so with an owner

[Chuck Brown]

"...Pine Valley and Seminole host some elite competitions (Crump, Coleman).  But they don't have the Tour or the USGA Competitions staff to deal with."

Of course, but I doubt many (if any) of those competitors are even somewhat vocal about what they would change at those locations.  

Exactly.  It isn't even so much a problem of the kind of distances that technology-equipped elite-level players can produced.  It is the fact that ruling bodies want to do things to courses to control scoring.  Would we actually be farther ahead in the technology debate, if the Masters Committee had done nothing to ANGC, and if a few odd 59's had been scored by guys who hit 9 iron into 15 for eagle, and who never had to hit more than a 7-iron into any green?

[Jerry Kluger]

There are improvements that can be made and there are changes that can be made - but change for the sake of change is not worthwhile - at least not with respect to GCA.  A member owned club with 300 members can have 300 opinions and someone has to be in charge otherwise there is chaos.  I have members tell me how to make the course more beautiful and I tell them - who cares.  I want improvements that make the course play better not look better - sometimes you can have both but you have to have your priorities right. BTW: I am only a member of the green committee and by no means do I have authority to make changes.

Should clubs be selective with who is to become a member - yes, if it is for a sound reason.  I know they are clubs and they have the right to select who shall be members but the selection should be based upon who the person is from a proper perspective.  For example, Donald Trump could certainly join whatever club he wants to from a financial point of view and I wouldn't challenge his character as I really don't know the man, but I would suggest that he brings a great deal of baggage and I don't know that every club would want his personality in the club nor all of the publicity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()