Should Golf Courses be listed?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Adrian’s posts, including his previous posts suggesting Prestwick should be pulled out of the 19th century, are the biggest argument to listing selected golf courses and giving them “protection orders” to preserve them from unsympathetic golf course architects.

In September I visited Machrie on Islay, which has one blind hole after the other, but has hardly changed since Willie Campbell laid it out nearly a century and a quarter ago, (except for Donald Steele’s mundane substitute for 3 lost holes).

Machrie has recently been bought by a new owner.

One of the first questions I asked of the manager Ian was
“I hope they are not intending changing anything.”
 His answer,
“The course will remain as it is, however a new hotel complex is in planning”
In fact everyone I spoke to would consider it a travesty if any of the quirk was removed and sanitized to “improve” it.

Now if  Donald Trump had taken over, who knows what would have happened.
For one thing - I know for certain he would have done it Sinatra's way.
All the more reason that certain courses should have protection orders put on them.

The R&A should take the classic courses seriously and at the very least advise the owners of their legacy.
The R&A should provide incentives to maintain the course in the manner it was intended
The R&A are in the best position to classify a list of the “protection order” courses which the local councils could enforce..

Generally quality courses worth protecting (not the mundane ones) attract a good turn over, the problem is when they have too much money the want to spend it, and if the new owner, or captain, or manager, or head greenkeeper or underworked golf course architect, think they should relocate bunkers and greens, remove blind humps and plant trees, in disrespect of the history of the course, then at present there is practically nothing in the law to stop them.
 

[Lou_Duran]

I had missed the earlier thread (and the best reply to this one- see below).  Thanks TMac.

From Mike Vegis-

The idea of forming a commission reminded me of this joke:

Indian Wisdom vs HorseSense
 
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse,the best strategy is to dismount."
 
However, in government, education, and in corporate America,more advanced strategies are often employed in such situations, such as:
 
1. Buying a stronger whip.
 
2. Changing riders.
 
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
 
4. Visiting other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
 
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
 
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
 
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
 
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
 
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's  performance.
 
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve  the dead horse's performance.
 
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
 
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

and, finally,
 
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position

I was going to re-post TommyN's highly popular words of wisdom (something to the effect of banning Rees Jones, Fazio, and his lead designer) as well, but it would just be more in the line of beating a dead horse (pun intended).

Mark Pearce,

Fear not.  We are trying as hard and fast as we can over here to be "European" before all the money runs out.  Who needs individual property rights in times of such dire societal needs.  No doubt that there are any number of civic-minded lawyers, golf course architects, and historians who would gladly substitute their scholarship and sophistication for the vulgar tastes and preferences of the unwashed golfing masses.  I guess that the whole dynamic of the struggle between the 99% and the 1% changes depending on which side one finds himself in.  Me, I'll take my chances with individuals making decisions, including whether to do something or nothing with what they own.  I guess that I betray my European roots.  Whoops!   
 

[Mark Chaplin]

Melvyn when should the game have been slowed down to "protect it"?

Sports like tennis, squash, badminton, cycling, skiing, climbing, etc thrive on the advances in the players personal equipment. Would the game have actually shrunk without the advances in technology allowing Ping, Calloway to pump millions into the game and create excitement amongst younger participants? Pro shops would be a thing of the past without new and better equipment. TV would demand the game being sexed up to keep viewing figures.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

Sod the TV and others, it’s the game that counts, it’s now just a bloody joke full of cheats cheating themselves and governed by a totally useless bunch of prats.

The development in the 19th Century was to give the game a consistency it never had with the wooden or Featherie balls. Clubs came on to match the performance of the balls, but once we had a good reliable ball the game settled and started to be regarded as stable in that clubs formed for the enjoyment of the game and competitions between players. Problem was that The R&A never called Time Out on the development allowing a total free for all right through to allowing carts instead of walking yet worst still NO WALKING COURSES.

Hell, Mark that's a short history of the game from something of interest to now a free for all, any format acceptable. It’s costing more, its making money for some, costing golfers a lot and all for what, watching our great courses being destroyed because no one is willing to call TIME OUT and just look at what has been done to the game all for the sake of MONEY.

But then it depends how you feel about the game, if just a player, then who gives a F#@k, but as a GOLFER I bloody do.

Sorry if that sounds like a rant, it’s not it’s just the facts as I see it, problem being all those who want to be golfers are the actual losers, now many of the clubs are suffering, yet we still strive to develop the technology and glory in the constant longer aerial game. Does no one else actually care about the real game of Golf?

Melvyn

 

[Mark Chaplin]

The question is valid as growth of the game was the way to protect courses from being swallowed up by housing estates and concrete and keeping people interested in playing. Had there been no growth in the last 30 years there would be hundreds of NLEs and tiny memberships full of the rich.

As for no walking courses how many of them are there in the UK, 1 or 2? That's 1 or 2 too many but hardly a problem.

[David_Tepper]

"there are approx. 500 great courses in Scotland" 

Could this be the most ridiculous statement made on this website this year?

Webster's Dictionary defines "great" in a number of ways, including "much beyond the average or ordinary," "eminent, distinguished," "excellent, fine."

Does anyone, aside from our dear Mr. Spode (he of the "impeccable golfing pedigree"), believe there are even 50, let alone 500, golf courses in Scotland that can be called great, according to the accepted definition of the word?       

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

You do not agree, big deal, but clearly you have no passion for the game, just being a player.

Great, who defines great. What is actually great about a course, ultimately for me it is the enjoyment level made up by the challenge presented by the course and its environment. That can vary from day to day, just look at the leadership boards on many of the Majors, see how player perform on a daily basis, some start well and fall away others a just constant then improve, it is the unknown human factor covering mind body and that outside element. the weather.

Stop sitting on your make believe throne up in the Gods making judgments on the opinions of others. Its so easy to criticise, yet difficult to participate in a constructive debate.

You need to watch this clip as its seem you are trying to be represented by the tallest among the three guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E5vYNzrds&feature=related

Melvyn

[Niall C]

What right should someone have to tell another he cant change his golf course. Absolutely NO OWNER would agree to trashing a million or two overnight to LIST his golf course against change.

This is the most bizzare thread I have ever seen on here that some of you think this is actually a good idea.

If you have been involved in the planning process and ridiculous tripey red tape that exists today you would understand how thses things pickle business's and allow ponces to charge me a £5000 fee for officially telling me I have a bald head!

Adrian,

I do see your point as no one likes being told what to do, but there are buildings all over the country where the owner can't do exactly what they want, so I dont think its a massive leap to thinking it could work with golf courses?

Cheers,

James

James

The system doesn't always work all that well with buildings. You undoubtedly have more experience than me on that but I've seen buildings go to ruin because the local authority or Hysterical Scotland won't compromise and therefore no one does anything with the building.

Niall

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Spode -

I thought the primary purpose of this website was to discuss golf courses in terms of their design and architecture.  If you are not willing to acknowledge that a sizable number golf courses (yes, even many of those in Scotland) are designed in a poor, average or mediocre fashion, what critical thinking can you offer us?

DT     

[Niall C]

John C-S

Machrie is a good case in point. I wasn't aware of Donald Steel's recent 3 new holes but I was aware of John McAndrews 6 new holes in the 1920's and from what I recall of the basic plan of the original routing that I've seen there are a lot more changes to Machrie than the popular romantic view of it being unchanged since Willie Campbell etc.

Indeed if it really was unchanged I suspect there's a good chance all the holes would be between 200 and 300 yard long and played to square greens.

When it comes down to it I'm totally with Adrian on this. Even good/great architecture can fail over time due ongoing technology. Lets acknowledge that and deal with it. Let clubs do what they want but at the same time encourage them to get proper advice.

Niall 

[Jud_T]

David,

For reference, Golfweek has 4 courses in Scotland rated 8 or higher.  I think you'd have a hard time coming up with a baker's dozen that should be listed.  So we're talking about something on the order of 1-2% of all courses.  Not enough to get anyone's panties in a bunch over, except here of course...

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

You are only good at reducing a debate to name calling, you have no style, and clearly you understand very little regards Scottish golf.  Apparently you see not beauty where beauty lies, you feel no compassion, you sir have not learnt a bloody thing about the game.

You are the poorer for it and your contributions show clearly your contempt for GCA , but if that was down to plain honest ignorance we might find a way forward for you but as its based upon bile there is no purpose in continuing this conversation.

Melvyn  

PS Golfweek - what do they actually know apart from selling their mag, remembering these listings are calculated on the basis of the lowest common denominator proving the list meaningless.

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Spode -

You are right. If you refuse to acknowledge the basic definitions of the English language (or answer simple questions that are asked of you), there is really no point in attempting to engage in a productive "discussion." It is clear you prefer to lecture and hector us from your ivory tower rather than provide any critical thinking or thoughts of substance.

DT  

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

"It is clear you prefer to lecture and hector us from your ivory tower rather than provide any critical thinking or thoughts of substance"

Always on the attack, thats what wrong with people like you. You can't take it if people decide that you are not worth the effort, you resort to name calling, clever, no, just showing pure ignorance, you sorry little man.

Melvyn

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Niall, thanks for that piece of history.

It’s a good point you make that some of the older courses would never have been worthy of consideration before major improvements.
However that wouldn’t necessarily change the modum operandi of a Protection Order.

A course would only be subject to a “Protection Order” once it had achieved the status of “Listed” as defined by a body such as the R&A.

Although you maybe not be a friend of Historic Scotland, thanks to this and other similar organizations, great architecture can be preserved but does not discount improvement.

At St.Andrews, when I passed by at the Dunhill Cup, the red sandstone façade of Hamilton Hall was propped up and extensive renovation was going on behind.
Now this is a listed building and thank goodness the external visuals will remain the same and still capture the history of the St.Andrews.



A „Protection Order“ doesn’t necessarily mean improvements are not possible. It does mean that an application for changes would have to be made, and after considered opinion by the authorities, in this case it could be the R&A, meaningful improvements could be carried out.

[Mark Pearce]

Always on the attack, thats what wrong with people like you. You can't take it if people decide that you are not worth the effort, you resort to name calling, clever, no, just showing pure ignorance, you sorry little man.

Oh, for a ha'porth of self awareness.......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

With all the past advice you have freely given, I am sorry to see that you could not add to the debate.

Melvyn

[Mark Pearce]

Melvyn,

You don't debate.  You harangue.  Sad, really, because you actually have a lot to offer.

Mark

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

I am sorry that you feel that I submit my opinions with a bias to anger. This is far from my intention. But I am now tired with the name calling and insults. Thanks to John, David, yourself and a few others I have decided to call time on my participation on GCA.com

I was going to go after I completed by Feature Interview for Ran, but now see it is a totally pointless exercise, so I will be contacting Ran advising him of my intention to resign immediately and regret that I will not be completing the interview.

I have come to understand a great deal from many of the Members from this site, one lesson is very clear to either insult, or attack a fellow member is far more important that the subject matter. That in real terms GCA.com is not really interested in GCA, it’s just an excuse to rate courses, yet to what purpose I have never understood as one man’s meat is another’s….. 

As for GCA, this site strives to move forward, but on the subject of design it still does not understand the original concept of GCA developed from the mid 1800’s onwards. History is not understood so how can GCA move forward except on unsecure foundations. The learning curve has been forgotten, modern players now believe golf is a riding game where it’s OK to use aids of all sorts, going against the very heart and spirit of the true game. I thought that many on this site were like minded in our interest in the real game, alas that seems not to be the case.

My contributions to GCA.com is now ended. It’s pointless trying to continue. I suppose I should thank you and others for saving me much time on the pointless exercise of completing the Feature Interview.

Melvyn 

[Niall C]

John,

I think I'm with you in principle but can't see how its going to work satisfactorily in practice. Firstly there is the expense of managing the system. Secondly, who has the expertise to process and manage it and lastly who's going to promote this as an idea that should be adopted. I can't see the clubs being for it, I doubt the EIGCA would be for it and there are no votes to be won by the politicians in agreeing to it.

Niall