Why do you think that clubs

[Patrick_Mucci]

alter their golf courses ?

Specifically, certain holes.

What causes them to be satisfied with a course for 10, 20, 40 or 60 years and suddenly want to alter features and/or holes ?

Are they architecturally motivated ?

Or, politically motivated ?

Tom Doak's appointment at RM got me thinking.

Did RM give him a "mission statement" or is his consultancy of a more benign, non-agenda driven nature ?

When you look at courses like Oak Hill, designed by a prominent architect, what about the architecture caused the club to pursue change ?  What caused them to alter a well regarded golf course to that extent ?

Oak Hill wasn't a "fine tuning" it was a rather major alteration involving several holes.

For purposes of this thread, please, let's leave ANGC out of the discussion.

Thanks

[JNC Lyon]

Pat,

I think these alterations usually have more political motivation than architectural motivation.

Oak Hill is an example that is very close to me, and it is one that I have never quite understood fully.  One of the reasons Oak Hill made some changes was that holes 5, 6, 15, and 18 all seemed too congested during tournaments.  The old 15th green was bordered immediately by out of bounds, and the 18th green was thought to be too close to the clubhouse.  So, the club brought in the Fazios to make these holes easier for the crowds.

That was the standard explanation.  However, the Oak Hill members' issues with the course seemed to go beyond "congestion."  There seems to have been an issue with the outcome of the 1968 US Open.  Lee Trevino won the Open as a Mexican-American who became the first player to break 70 in all four rounds of a US Open.  These two facts seemed to irk the members, and they wanted to make the course tougher to prevent such an outcome in the future.  While there were some structural issues with the course's ability to handle major championships, politics played a major part in the changes.  As a result, the Fazios came in and desecrated some of the best holes on the course.

Interestingly, the course was easier in 1980.  Jack Nicklaus (one of two players to break par in 1968) finished one better than Trevino did in 1968 and five better than his own score in 1968.  He won by seven shots.

Of course, Oak Hill had been changed well before the Fazios entered the picture.  Robert Trent Jones completely altered the course prior to the 1956 US Open.  I'm not sure of the full extent of his work, but he rebunkered every fairway and green and changed several green complexes.  In the case of both the Fazio and Trent Jones renovations, the work was intended to make a seemingly insufficient course tough enough for championship play.  In reality, the work was done at Oak Hill to pad the egos of the members in charge.

[Brad Klein]

Pat,

Oak Hill is an example of those changes happening far more than after 30-40-50 years. They had RTJ there before the 1956 Open, then a golf pro took out par-3 on the front nine, then the Fazios in 1979, then Craig Schreiner to rectify that, then more work later on by yet another designer. It's far more of an ongoing process than the "all of a sudden" event that your post suggests.

[JNC Lyon]

Pat,

Oak Hill is an example of those changes happening far more than after 30-40-50 years. They had RTJ there before the 1956 Open, then a golf pro took out par-3 on the front nine, then the Fazios in 1979, then Craig Schreiner to rectify that, then more work later on by yet another designer. It's far more of an ongoing process than the "all of a sudden" event that your post suggests.

Brad,

The Fazio group has done more work recently as well.

While the work there was done over a long period of time, each renovation was separate and had a specific purpose for the members.

[Mike_Young]

Most all of such changes go back to egos and these egos not knowing what they don't know....

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I haven't been given a mission statement by Royal Melbourne, yet at least.  I think I have been appointed as a sounding board for whatever problems they feel they have, and a resource in case design or construction problems come up in the future.  But, I'll find out when I get back down there.

At some clubs, we have asked specifically for a mission statement up front, because I want to be sure that I am on the same wavelength they are before I agree to take the job.  As you know, there are often many different factions within a club, and there is no point in doing anything if the members disagree and the next board is just going to undo everything the last board did.  If the club's membership is smart enough, they will understand this, and in some cases we've actually inspired them to sit down together and decide what their priorities ought to be.  Is it history?  Or member play?  Or championship play?  Or something else?

I'm sure that even Royal Melbourne has to wrestle with that question, and it will probably be at the forefront of any discussions we have.  But I have such a profound interest in those two courses that I was happy to become involved right away, and to help them figure things out to the extent they need it.

My understanding of the big changes at Oak Hill in the late 1970's was that they were a reaction not only to the low scoring at the previous U.S. Open, but to a visit by the USGA vice president who told them that he couldn't see them hosting another championship there, since there were no holes on the course which posed a double-bogey threat to great players.  Of course, that was a blow to the club's ego, so they used the installation of a sewer line across the course as a catalyst to propose changes to the course as long as it would have to undergo construction anyway.

[Bart Bradley]

Pat:

I think that many times clubs choose to do work on their course, because over time, the course has changed from maintenance practices, erosion, etc....Without doing anything specific, the course does not stay the same over the years and eventually that leads to playability and agronomic issues (such as loss of green size, shallowing of bunkers, tree growth, and the like).  I believe that many times these are the changes that inspire the membership to act.   The difficulties that sometimes occur with restorations arise not from the choice to act, but from the decisions that are made about what to do.

Bart

[Michael Moore]

"If everything in the universe were sensible, nothing would happen. There would be no events without you, and there must be events." 

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

You got some good answers, esp to the specifics of two clubs you asked about.  Once again, the question is framed with some of the top 200 courses in the world, where money may or may not be an object.

I believe most renovations at "real" golf courses (or typical) result from maintenance problems that must be corrected or improve, or financial conditions, or both.  If Tiddly Links CC doesn't have a full membership list and other clubs do, it is usually a sign that something different must be done for survival or prosperity. 

There is a reason Tide markets itself as "new and improved" and it applies to golf courses as well.

[John Blain]

The real story involving Oak Hill is that in 1974 the club was looking to host another major and get back in the rotation since the last major at the club was the 1968 U.S. Open. Harry Easterly, Jr. of the USGA flew in and played the east course with some members. Apparently he shot 74 which was likely the round of his life and declared the course "too easy for a US Open". He basically told the powers to be at the club that unless you make the course "tougher" you will never get another major, at least not a U.S. Open. So the club went out and hired George and Tom Fazio with the "mission statement" to make the course tougher.I don't care what you do just make the damn place harder than it is! Actually, while you are at it make it a lot harder!!

Missiion Accomplished! The club soon landed the 1980 PGA, 1989 U.S. Open and many other notable events including the 1995 Ryder Cup. Some members would argue that the changes to the course saved the club and they may have a point. It's just a shame what they did to the golf course. I believe Inverness Club in Toledo was a simlilar situation.

[JNC Lyon]

John,

There was definitely some restraint involved by the club towards the Fazios.  Craig Harmon has shown me George Fazio's notes from he walked around Oak Hill prior to the renovation.  Basically, he would have moved every green up next to the water on the creek holes, and he would have added hundreds of trees to tighten up the course.

Do you think the course was actually made harder by the 1970s changes?  I definitely don't think so.

[George Pazin]

Most all of such changes go back to egos and these egos not knowing what they don't know....

What he said.

It's one of the sad realities that people who are smart/successful in one area tend to think they know everything. Only the most successful/intelligent understand their limitations.

[Rick Shefchik]

I believe that courses that will never host a major tournament, or rarely an important statewide event, are still subject to the "it's too easy" criticism. Let a few college kids come out and shoot 65 or 66 and you'll find members -- perhaps even the pro -- talking about how they don't want to see their course embarrassed.

I don't see what's embarrassing about a low score made by a strong young player in his prime.

[Jeff Shelman]

I think there are too many people at too many clubs (often times the pro) that believe that hard equals good.

Sometimes that is true. But most of the time that isn't true.

[George Pazin]

I think there are too many people at too many clubs (often times the pro) that believe that hard equals good.

Sometimes that is true. But most of the time that isn't true.

What's especially frustrating is that these people don't seem to want many types of hard, just the type that they happen to do well.

[Jason Topp]

Boredom.

I actually think that might be the biggest cause.

I do think it helps a club attract members if it has good players from that club.  Generally, you need to have sufficient length to attract them.  The game is a lot less fun if one is laying up off the tee most of the round.

[Mark Saltzman]

If you play the same course dozens and perhaps hundreds of times per year, it's awefully easy to be talked into any sort of change, i.e., change for the sake of change (literally).

Shivas,

I don't agree.  You're probably right in that many changes end up being made because a club's board is bored.  That being said, at my home course I have pretty firm beliefs about what should and shouldn't be changed.  When you know a club well, I think it is difficult to be talked into something that you don't believe in.  I seriously doubt someone will point out something they don't like in a hole on my home course and it will change my opinion.

Mark

[Carl Rogers]

ok I will step in it ...

JN and Muirfield Village and all the re-work  ... is it all ego and too much $$$?  Is the course any better for it?

Congressional ... in 97 the Els win, what was the problem with the 18th as a par 3?  and looking over the pond to the peninsula 17th green?