[Ben Sims]

This is an 18-lesson series designed to promote discussion amongst golf architecture fans.  The use of Gen (ret.) Colin Powell's Leadership Primer is used only for this discussion and not profit or personal gain.

I said something to some friends last week that really irked a few of them.  I said that one of the problems that golf has had in the last couple of decades is laziness.  I didn't say it to be negative, I said it to be constructive.  A mentality of "that's good enough" is not good enough in business and it's not good enough for golf courses.  Attention to detail is important in the extreme.  Willingness to examine what is effective (not the same as what is popular you free market fans) and ask hard question about your product and methods is what is needed.  When I go to a golf course and see a poorly kept golf course that features GPS on their carts and a pro wearing all the latest fashions, I wonder where the priorities are in the game as a whole.  I hope fiscal realities are forcing a new age where golf is forced to ask the hard questions and challenge industry norms.  Our golf courses will only be better for it.

LESSON SEVEN

]"Keep looking below surface appearances. Don't shrink from doing so (just) because you might not like what you find."

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. It's an excuse for inaction, a call to non-arms. It's a mindset that assumes (or hopes) that today's realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you won't find people who proactively take steps to solve problems as they emerge. Here's a little tip: Don't invest in these companies.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared.

I must totally contest that statement as it should be put in to context before defining it as any sort of slogan.

But taken it as intended (I presume) his lesson fails, no falls to pieces when you relate that comment to TOC or any course that has stood the test of time.   

His comment may well relate to modern courses as I presume it may relate to the question of land select in todays or let’s say the last 30-40 tears.

I do agree with Colin if he is indeed referring to many of these latter day wonders that are in existence purely because the original client had deep pockets in both build and maintenance departments.

So Colin may I suggest that you review your Lesson SEVEN because TOC, Leven, Crail Balcomie, Dornoch, Old Moray, Bridge of Allan, Warkworth, etc, etc, etc, etc, ain't broke, and do not IMHO need fix it.

Ben, commitment to the game has and will continue to be undermined if players do not have to push themselves. Laziness is certainly one of the culprits, but more so the whole physic of the club generates, which conveys the message that is picked up by the visiting players. The rot starts from the top i.e. the club and its ruling Committee.

Just hope that Colin directs is comments to the appropriate parties and does not leave it wide open to encompass all and sundry as I believe TOC ain’t broke and certainly does not need fixing.

Sorry to interject upon your thread but I feel Colin is wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I have never used the exact phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I will admit that I have often thought it in regard to consulting work.  So many clubs rotate green chairmen in too frequently, and every one of them comes in with the thought that's he ought to "do something" to improve the course.  So, he goes and tries to solve problems that aren't there.

The construction of older courses is intricate, and very difficult to replicate with modern equipment, especially if you bring in a construction crew that's used to building modern features.  The analogy I will suggest is a bit of a reach, but would you want your pilots [or your commander] tinkering with the electronics on your jet?

I agree with you completely that modern architects are all lazy, and tend to fall back on the same concepts over and over, without even playing their own courses enough to decide if those concepts are working as intended.  And no architect should be afraid to make a change when he believes one is warranted.  But I think many architects should be a little more circumspect about making changes to older courses.

[Ben Sims]

Tom and Melvyn,

I must admit that when I read lesson 7 and tried to think of it in terms of golf courses/architecture, I didn't really think about restoration or renovation work.  That both of you went in that direction is proof of how we all write to our own experience rather than do the heavy lifting of thinking in a less familiar context.  I'm a bit embarassed that I wasn't deep enough to think of great old courses that really don't need improvement from an architecture standpoint.  Maintenance and new construction were the things that came to mind for this lesson. 

As you've come to find out, Gen. Powell doesn't mince words in his primer and neither was it intended to apply to golf courses.  From the outside looking in, being proactive about the future of golf design has been the hallmark of the minimalist movement, as oxymoronic as that sounds.  And in my opinion, the minimalist movement has proven that the term "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" used as a negative is shortsighted and too polarizing.  There are indeed many great concepts in golf architecture that do stand up to scrutiny over time.  So in this way, maybe Gen. Powell's lesson 7 doesn't mesh so well with golf architecture.

Where it does mesh well is in the uniquely human trait to shun evolution.  I think the natural evolution of golf is to become leaner, with more lay-of-the-land golf courses, and less rigid maintenance principles guiding our greens staffs.  I see it all the time in my turf classes.  Instructors opine on the discussion board about cost reduction, then take points off my papers when I suggest not using the book answers to age old maintenance issues.  Other than a handful of architects, courses are as complex and overblown as ever.  Hard questions about the future of course design and maintenance expectations need answering.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
My old coach always said, "never ignore in victory what you wouldn't in defeat" .
It's easy to find fault when you lose, or celebrate when you win, but true measurement is examining the game without concern for victory or defeat. IMO, that’s what's needed if you truly want to be a winner over the long haul. One of the best games I ever coached or played in was an overtime loss in a championship game. It was as close to playing a perfect game as any I had been a part of, the other team was just better in the end.

For me, Powell's 7th lesson is more about personal evaluation as opposed to... I need to run out and rebuild my bunkers. More like, am I doing all I can to be great at what I want to be great at? Being pro active about what you need to improve on is not a call to hyper activity, it’s a call to honest evaluation, then action.

In architecture terms, its like measuring a course on a great sandy site vs one on a flat clay site. The sandy coure may be deemed better, but that doesn’t always mean the architect did a better job.

My old coach’s other favorite saying was “don’t let success breed failure” . Complacency is the enemy, and I think when you use the word laziness, what your really experiencing is complacency.

And to use one more old quote from a much more famous coach, it was coach Wooden who said, “don’t confuse activity with achievement”.  I like that better then “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

[Tom_Doak]

My old coach’s other favorite saying was “don’t let success breed failure” . Complacency is the enemy, and I think when you use the word laziness, what your really experiencing is complacency.

And to use one more old quote from a much more famous coach, it was coach Wooden who said, “don’t confuse activity with achievement”.  I like that better then “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

We should be using John Wooden's book for this discussion, instead of this Powell guy.  How many championships did he ever win?   

[jeffwarne]

My old coach’s other favorite saying was “don’t let success breed failure” . Complacency is the enemy, and I think when you use the word laziness, what your really experiencing is complacency.

And to use one more old quote from a much more famous coach, it was coach Wooden who said, “don’t confuse activity with achievement”.  I like that better then “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

We should be using John Wooden's book for this discussion, instead of this Powell guy.  How many championships did he ever win?   

No disrespect to General Powell, but I believe Wooden's opponents were certainly better funded

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ben

Interested view point and not to be dismissed out of hand.

From my view point, I feel the GCA has gone off at a tangent half a century, ago generating speed as it went. Until we have nearly had a train crash in the current numbers playing golf. This last 50 years has seen courses being designed and constructed because of money, for money yet IMHO the quality and reason why many play golf being lost in the fog of time and money. The building of courses where and may still be built this way, not for golf but the need of the developer, putting the actual game into last place. I am not saying they are bad or poor courses but they do not represent golf in its true light, so how can players on these courses understand the game let alone the spirit of the game. They are what they are cold manmade heartless courses that people play upon. They have nothing of the surroundings or environment to anchor them to the land or the golfer.

If we want golf and courses to succeed we need to put back some passion into the game and our new courses, that for me comes from approaching the game, course and land with a big pinch of sustainability. It’s the same way I view technology, by its self its destructive and unfriendly to the day to day player, but controlled it can offer sustainability and consistency which I feel is far more important for the survival of golf and local courses.

A little bit of discipline never hurts, and that is what golf has needed for the best part of the last century. We have to redress this tangent and get back to more common sense basics if we want golf to flourish, because in all its current forms it is not – well that my opinion.

[RJ_Daley]

Ben, there are many 'gurus' of quality and leadership, or productivity process.  Of course General Powell is among the most successful and respected leaders for a reason.  He has a sort of framework, and in his case 18 bullet points of basic philosophy on leadership that works very well in the context of his military-industrial life's experience.  As it seems here, context is everything.  Golf course design, or maintenance has its own unique and proven traditional processes, that seem more proven and time tested, and adherence to those traditional principles doesn't exactly mark complacency, IMHO.

Deming's 14 principles also have 'some' relationship to the process of producing a great golf course, maintaining one, and applicability to the management of said design, construction or maintenance process.  Yet, some of them just aren't in context to our subject matter either. 

The important point, I think, is we seek to apply what is applicable to constantly improve, and not fear those who try and experiment with new innovation, with a sober evaluation of if we are experiencing progress or just change for change's sake. 

In the more philosophical sense, even Bertrand Russell separated the idea of progress from mere change.  I think he said, change is the product of application of technology and seeking something different to alter the status quo, but progress requires the additional application of ethics.  Is it sometimes not ethical to alter something that is not broken and functions to everyone's satisfaction? 

[Don_Mahaffey]

My old coach’s other favorite saying was “don’t let success breed failure” . Complacency is the enemy, and I think when you use the word laziness, what your really experiencing is complacency.

And to use one more old quote from a much more famous coach, it was coach Wooden who said, “don’t confuse activity with achievement”.  I like that better then “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

We should be using John Wooden's book for this discussion, instead of this Powell guy.  How many championships did he ever win?   

Put Wooden's pyramid of success and Powell's 18 lessons together and a person would have all the life direction they ever needed, of course following it all is another story.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I actually have a personalized copy of Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success hanging within arm's reach, courtesy of another participant here at GCA. 

[Michael Essig]

Don:

I actually have a personalized copy of Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success hanging within arm's reach, courtesy of another participant here at GCA. 

Coming from a family of Bruins, and weened on Bruin basketball in the Wooden years, all I can say is "nice." 

In addition to Mr. Powell's and Mr. Wooden's rules, when it comes to architecture and more importantly renovation, I would remind all of the Japanese word "kaizen."  Roughly translated, it means taking small steps.  Trying to do too much at one time can lead to big disasters.

[Ben Sims]

Alright alright.  Due to wide popularity, I will begin a series of threads based on John Wooden's Pyramid of Success.  Just as soon as I finish with General (not "Mr" by the way) Powell's primer.  At this rate, look for it in the the fall...of 2013.  

RJ,

Applicability is an interesting argument.  I wouldn't agree that Gen. Powell's primer doesn't apply to golf courses.  In fact, I'd argue that the 18 points of his primer are a great no-nonsense foundation on multiple levels.  Not just the obvious ones.  Complacency is a stain on progress in many fields.  And in my opinion, especially golf.  You are entirely correct that change doesn't equal progress and I think that's the whole crux of my argument.  The changes made to golf maintenance and architecture post WWII weren't progress in regards to design and playability.  Progress would be to admit that fact and strive for a more realistic and fun view of golf.  Maybe that's what minimalism was 20 years ago in its infancy.  The progress in the present (not change) would be to admit sustainability problems and strive for a more efficient future for maintenance and design.  

[Tom_Doak]

Alright alright.  Due to wide popularity, I will begin a series of threads based on John Wooden's Pyramid of Success.  Just as soon as I finish with General (not "Mr" by the way) Powell's primer.  At this rate, look for it in the the fall...of 2013.  

RJ,

Applicability is an interesting argument.  I wouldn't agree that Gen. Powell's primer doesn't apply to golf courses.  In fact, I'd argue that the 18 points of his primer are a great no-nonsense foundation on multiple levels.  Not just the obvious ones.  Complacency is a stain on progress in many fields.  And in my opinion, especially golf.  You are entirely correct that change doesn't equal progress and I think that's the whole crux of my argument.  The changes made to golf maintenance and architecture post WWII weren't progress in regards to design and playability.  Progress would be to admit that fact and strive for a more realistic and fun view of golf.  Maybe that's what minimalism was 20 years ago in its infancy.  The progress in the present (not change) would be to admit sustainability problems and strive for a more efficient future for maintenance and design.  

Minimalism was in its infancy 23 years ago and that's EXACTLY what it was about ... a belief that the changes over the previous 20 years did NOT constitute "progress" at all.

[Kyle Harris]

Vigilance and awareness of problems is much different than identifying problems that aren't there. Isn't General Powell stating that a lack of problems is not a reason to not look for them? Just because something isn't broke now doesn't mean it will remain as such.

Melvyn: How soon until the 11th at TOC is in its namesake estuary?

[Sean_A]

When it comes to directives like this I immediately think of the cost benefit.  How much extra will it cost for the fine detail work and how much will it improve the product?  I guess this is what I mean when I say "a course is plenty good enough for me even of it isn't great" or "I am not sure courses need to be any better than this" (when referring to a very good course, but well short of great.  Its one thing when there is a great piece of property or a big budget to work with and quite another when these things aren't present.  The decision-making becomes more about the trade offs.  Given these realities, I reckon"if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a pretty good motto to live by - of course deciding what is broke is the hard part.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Good question although not certain of your comment re namesake?? As the two Holes that share the Green are 7th & 11th The High Holes



There was a massive battle to save them in the mid through to the late 1800’s and the fight was won when the Eden relented and started to retreat. There is a great watercolour of the water lapping the edge of the Green dating back to that time.

I had believe the problem was resolved are you saying the Eden is on the assent again? Can I blame the R&A for that or should I put that down to Nature

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()