[Patrick_Mucci]

about the top courses list were the following

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

I was surprised by how many clubs had mulitple architects revising the course within a relatively short time of a prior revision.
In a great many cases, the prior architect was still alive and active, yet, the club chose another architect.
Why do you supposed that those clubs chose another architect ?
Does it indicate disatisfaction with the prior work, which the club approved before the project began or a shift in power where the new group wanted "their" guy to leave his fingerprints on the golf course ?

It would appear that the 100 greatest golf courses list transitioned from the 100  hardest golf courses list.

It seems as if many courses made an initial splash, then faded into obscurity.
Did the name of the architect have had something to do with that process.

REGIONALISM, seems to have driven early lists and probably influences current lists.

Does hosting a US Open almost automatically grant a ranking that tends to be permanent ?

[Tim Leahy]

Looking over the list the courses that caught my eye were The Alotian and Canyata. I have never heard of either and they are in the top 40. Granted I don't pay alot of attention to top 100 lists but shouldn't a course ranked that high have some notoriety? Do they play regional qualifiers on these courses or is it just word of mouth that makes them "great"?

[J_ Crisham]

Tim, Very few play Canyata- it is in rural South Eastern Ill. Is it great ? The owner thinks so, but like Rich Harvest the mystique of a club that has a sole owner which has very limited access accounts for some bonus points IMO. The architecture is certainly not on the level of a Shoreacres or Chicago Golf Club. They may be difficult tests but that is a different issue entirely.

[Mark Pritchett]

about the top courses list were the following

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

I was surprised by how many clubs had mulitple architects revising the course within a relatively short time of a prior revision.
In a great many cases, the prior architect was still alive and active, yet, the club chose another architect.
Why do you supposed that those clubs chose another architect ?
Does it indicate disatisfaction with the prior work, which the club approved before the project began or a shift in power where the new group wanted "their" guy to leave his fingerprints on the golf course ?

I played a former Top 100 a few years ago that had recently completed some major architectural changes and my host mentioned how previous architectural work done just a decade before was not well received by the members.  My host said in all fairness though the architect did exactly what we told him to do.  However, I am guessing some of the members probably view the the first architect in a less than positive light (speculating here).

[Patrick_Mucci]

about the top courses list were the following

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

I was surprised by how many clubs had mulitple architects revising the course within a relatively short time of a prior revision.
In a great many cases, the prior architect was still alive and active, yet, the club chose another architect.
Why do you supposed that those clubs chose another architect ?
Does it indicate disatisfaction with the prior work, which the club approved before the project began or a shift in power where the new group wanted "their" guy to leave his fingerprints on the golf course ?[

I played a former Top 100 a few years ago that had recently completed some major architectural changes and my host mentioned how previous architectural work done just a decade before was not well received by the members.  My host said in all fairness though the architect did exactly what we told him to do.  However, I am guessing some of the members probably view the the first architect in a less than positive light (speculating here).

Mark,

Once the "membership" told the architect what they wanted, the die was cast.
And, the "membership" was probably the leaders in charge at the time.
That's a situation that keeps repeating itself.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark,

Once the "membership" told the architect what they wanted, the die was cast.
And, the "membership" was probably the leaders in charge at the time.
That's a situation that keeps repeating itself.

Patrick:

That happens a lot of the time because many architects are looking for cues as to what the leaders want, so they can agree with them and sew up the job.

When I was interviewed at Garden City, the green chairman Tom Poole told me that the previous interviewee for the job -- not well known then, but a fairly prominent restorer of golf courses today -- had asked him quietly what the club wanted to do.  He mis-read the situation completely; Mr. Poole was still bothered by it several days later, the idea that the architect would ASK THE MEMBERS what to do instead of TELLING THE MEMBERS what ought to be done.

That's why I never listen to members tell me what to do there!     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I guess, in a global or macro sense, you need some direction as to the scope of the project/s, the budget, etc., etc.,

The dilemma probably would seem to lie more with the micro management or directives.

If a club knows what they want to do, I think that's a different type of project than asking someone to come in to evaluate a course or a number of holes and then give a recommendation.

I saw Tom last week, his collar was still up.
I like Tom, he's a nice fellow.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

I guess, in a global or macro sense, you need some direction as to the scope of the project/s, the budget, etc., etc.,

The dilemma probably would seem to lie more with the micro management or directives.

If a club knows what they want to do, I think that's a different type of project than asking someone to come in to evaluate a course or a number of holes and then give a recommendation.

I saw Tom last week, his collar was still up.
I like Tom, he's a nice fellow.

Please pass on my regards to Tom Poole any and every time you see him.

As for master planning, I've seen some strange processes over the years.  There were one or two [former] clients who had me write up all of my recommendations, but then the committee wanted to pick and choose, and insisted that I edit my recommendations based on their idea of the politics [and their ideas about the design]. 

At another club, the previous consultant had written up a 180-page master plan, and the club's committee wrote a 50-page rebuttal in return, saying what they would and wouldn't pursue!  That's probably why they looked for a new consultant after a handful of years; it would have been cheaper for them to ask for 3-5 pages first, and then decide they disagreed too much, don't you think?  Still, at least they allowed all sides to go on record as to their real feelings, instead of hiding their cards and being political about it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That's why I think dictatorships at clubs work best, you only have to deal with one person, not the ever changing whims of different factions within the membership.

I don't envy your task.

It goes back to my statement that I've never seen a statue, in a park or anywhere else, commemorating a committee.
It's always some guy on a horse leading the charge.

The funny thing about those two incidents is that you couldn't make them up.
They're so beyond reason that it's hard to imagine a club that's so misguided, yet, I know that it happens far too often.

I would think that creating a course from scratch has to be far more rewarding because you tend to be immune from those kinds of distractions.

I think the other aspect that has to be difficult to deal with is when a club doesn't really know what they want.
Then, anything you propose will probably be objected to by certain factions.

I would think that stable power bases where continuity and the club's culture are pretty well established would be the easiest to work with, but, I'm sure that there are exceptions to the rule.

[Alex Lagowitz]

Who does Colonial CC list on their scorecard.  Lots of "remodels"...

John Bredemus & Perry Maxwell, 1936.
Three holes added by Perry Maxwell, 1940.
Remodeled by Dick Wilson, 1956.
Remodeled by Robert Trent Jones, 1960.
Remodeled by Ben Hogan, 1962.
Remodeled by Press Maxwell, 1968.
Remodeled by Jay Morrish & Bob Cupp, 1982.
Remodeled by Keith Foster, 1999.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the other aspect that has to be difficult to deal with is when a club doesn't really know what they want.
Then, anything you propose will probably be objected to by certain factions.

Some architects like those situations -- if the club also has an open checkbook.

I think it's fine if a club doesn't know what they want, specifically, as long as they know what their goal is, generally.  But if they can't agree on the mission statement, it's very difficult to help, because the next faction in power probably won't agree with what the last guys did, whether the work was good, bad or indifferent.

One disturbing trend in the last ten years has been for clubs to feel that they have to be doing something, because their neighbors are.  There are very few good clubs in the big cities who haven't hired a consulting architect, even at places where nobody really wants (or needs) to do anything.  I guess that would be fine if clubs treated architects like their G.P. physician, but there are also too many physicians who feel the need to write prescriptions for someone who really just needs to take better care of themselves.

[Alex Lagowitz]

about the top courses list were the following

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

I was surprised by how many clubs had mulitple architects revising the course within a relatively short time of a prior revision.
In a great many cases, the prior architect was still alive and active, yet, the club chose another architect.
Why do you supposed that those clubs chose another architect ?
Does it indicate disatisfaction with the prior work, which the club approved before the project began or a shift in power where the new group wanted "their" guy to leave his fingerprints on the golf course ?

It would appear that the 100 greatest golf courses list transitioned from the 100  hardest golf courses list.

It seems as if many courses made an initial splash, then faded into obscurity.
Did the name of the architect have had something to do with that process.

REGIONALISM, seems to have driven early lists and probably influences current lists.

Does hosting a US Open almost automatically grant a ranking that tends to be permanent ?

Torrey Pines hosted US Open in 2008, but has been off the rankings since 1975.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()