The NGLA thread/s got me thinking about changes to golf courses, and in particular, on the Eastern End of Long Island.
In recent years about seven new courses have been built;
Easthampton
The Bridge
Atlantic
Sebonack
Friars Head
Laurel Links
Long Island National
Two of them, Atlantic and Sebonack have memorialized their creation vis a vis, "The Miracle on Breeze Hill" and "Building Sebonack"
Brad Klein was instrumental in structuring and producing both books.
Both books give fairly detailed accounts as to the genesis, creation, construction and completion of both courses.
But, like any account, they don't tell the entire story. But, for purposes of this thread, let's assume that they do.
A number of talented architects worked on these courses.
But, the day after they opened, those architects went on to other pursuits, other projects.
While I'm sure they retained an interest, even a consulting interest, almost immediately after the courses opened, change was in the air.
Examples might be the addition of a back tee on # 11 at Friars Head, changes in the routing and/or features at Atlantic or changes to the 16th hole at Sebonack.
One of the questions is:
How valid are architectural changes based on play/experience ?
And, would you define these types of change as fine tuning, rather than corrective ?
How many of the changes are instigated by:
1 The owner
2 The members
3 The Pro
4 The Superintendent
5 The original architect
6 A combination of the above.
When the quest for change is inititated by all but # 5, How resistant to change are the original architects ?
In the ultimate, what drives the change on a relatively new course.
Understanding that the seven courses listed have different forms of governance, is there a central theme that drives change ?