[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

We all have an interest (passion, enthusiasm, obsession, etc.) in golf architecture, but how successful are we at preserving the architectural integrity of our home courses? Several members of GCA.com serve on Greens Committees and the like. Have you managed, through persuasion (or full scale protest  ) to prevent your committee from adding a feature, that you considered inappropriate, unnecessary, against the original architect's intentions, or just shockingly awful?

[jeffwarne]

great courses often evolve over time....

[Patrick_Mucci]

great courses often evolve over time....

Jeff,

The problem with your statement is that it's indiscriminate in nature.

"Evolve" ?     For the better or worse ?

And, who decides on the evolutionary path ?

My perspective on the decisions made by committee and board members, when it comes to architectural features, is that most view them solely in the context of their game, and not from the perspective of the broad spectrum of golfers who play the course.

Thus, features get added, deleted or altered based upon the views of those currently in power, unless a disinterested professional architect is involved.

Now I don't mean to convey infallibility on architects, but they usually serve as an intelligent balance and counter argument for the more radical proposals which emanate from within the membership.

One of the problems with clubs is when they retain an architect for a previously determined project, thus failing to inject objectivity into the architectural wisdom of the project.

Donal,

To answer your question, I'd like to think that I prevented clubs from disfiguring their course and that I've encouraged restoration work that made sense.

You win some and you lose some, but you've got to fight to protect the course as best you can.

[Tommy Williamsen]

One of my clubs here in DC has evolved for the better over the years.  1000 trees were felled then years ago.  It made circulation better around tees and greens.  Some trees that overhung still remain but we have grown to love them for the challenge they present.  We regressed the fairways which made the course hold up better in the summer and did some very seriously deep tine aeration for many years to allow for better and healthier turf.  A couple of the holes were tweaked.  The most significant change occurred on 18.  It was always a pretty good cape par five with the possibility of hitting the green in two.  But the green was significantly higher than the fairway.  The green was lowered and pushed further into the lake.  It is a much better hole.
It has been fun watching the course get better and better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One of my clubs here in DC has evolved for the better over the years.  1000 trees were felled then years ago.  It made circulation better around tees and greens.  Some trees that overhung still remain but we have grown to love them for the challenge they present.  We regressed the fairways which made the course hold up better in the summer and did some very seriously deep tine aeration for many years to allow for better and healthier turf.  A couple of the holes were tweaked.  The most significant change occurred on 18.  It was always a pretty good cape par five with the possibility of hitting the green in two.  But the green was significantly higher than the fairway.  The green was lowered and pushed further into the lake.  It is a much better hole.
It has been fun watching the course get better and better.


Tommy,

Did the course get better or was it merely reclaimed ?

Were those 1,000 trees there on opening day ?

[Mike McGuire]

We all have an interest (passion, enthusiasm, obsession, etc.) in golf architecture, but how successful are we at preserving the architectural integrity of our home courses? Several members of GCA.com serve on Greens Committees and the like. Have you managed, through persuasion (or full scale protest  ) to prevent your committee from adding a feature, that you considered inappropriate, unnecessary, against the original architect's intentions, or just shockingly awful?

Yes - I learned about the architecture of William Langford mostly from this site and managed to become green chairman due to that knowledge. While progress is slow we managed to turn the ship around and continue to restore the course with additional work to be done this fall at West Bend CC.

[Jason Topp]

I have fought the good fight for five years.  My view is that we have a terrific golf course and my role is to prevent dumb changes and to advocate for needed tree removal.  Generally, the effort has been successful, but there are a couple of warts from the process that cause some irritation every time I see them. 

The toughest part by far is trying to deal with the committee process.  Herding cats comes to mind even with everyone acting with the best of intentions. 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Jeff,

Yes, great courses evolve, but not always iinto something better. I guess most (certainly not all) of us can live with a tee moved back a few yards, or a bunker moved to a more strategic position, but there are many examples of classic courses having being changed beyond belief, and advances in technology are not always the reasons. Paul Turner recently showed how a H.S. Colt course has been vandalised by the introduction of a pond. Sean highlighted another course where a pond was inserted short of a green, for reasons only known to the committee.

You're now familiar with the par three 2nd hole at Gweedore. When I was just a 9-10 year old, someone (I know his name) came up with the bright idea of building a 2 foot high sod wall at the entrace of the green, so that players could not putt from off the green. I was too young at the time to do anything, but thankfully sanity prevailed and the sod bank was removed shortly afterwards. I know at the time, that many people objected, including my father, but it was futile arguing with people that didn't have any idea what they were doing.

Patrick,

I gather you are a pretty good golfer; did that help your credibility when you were persuading members of a committee that such and such a change was not in the best interests of the course? Did it help to give refer to the principles of architecture, or did they just look at you as if you had three heads?

We have many knowledgable people on this DG, but every now and a gain we see a topic with the title "My greens committee is ruining my course". I guess it will continue, but it appears there are signs for optimism.

[Craig Disher]

Short answer - no. I've commented on this before so I'll be brief. My ex-home course - a 1920s classic that had suffered decades of neglect - was replaced by a modern design that except for the routing has almost no connection to the original. I was a member of the greens committee and led a large minority that argued for a restoration - at least in principle - of the original design. We had historic photographs and drawings that would have given guidance. Ultimately we were viewed as not understanding the imperatives of modern golf design and how they were essential to attracting new members.

[Sean_A]

Donal

I left a perfectly serviceable course/club because I hated what they were doing to the course.  It was a typical mindset of tying to increase length rather than trying to increase variety and challenge to par/ss - just not able to think outside the modern box.  Plus, they planted shrubs, trees and layed down artificial turf on paths etc.  In a nutshell, no proper long term plan - so I left and essentially became a nomadic golfer.  Bottom line - I failed.  

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

One of my clubs here in DC has evolved for the better over the years.  1000 trees were felled then years ago.  It made circulation better around tees and greens.  Some trees that overhung still remain but we have grown to love them for the challenge they present.  We regressed the fairways which made the course hold up better in the summer and did some very seriously deep tine aeration for many years to allow for better and healthier turf.  A couple of the holes were tweaked.  The most significant change occurred on 18.  It was always a pretty good cape par five with the possibility of hitting the green in two.  But the green was significantly higher than the fairway.  The green was lowered and pushed further into the lake.  It is a much better hole.
It has been fun watching the course get better and better.


Tommy,

Did the course get better or was it merely reclaimed ?

Were those 1,000 trees there on opening day ?

Patrick,
Your assumptions are that every course was great the day it opened.
What if a course isn't designed as well as it could've been the day it opened?

The sadness occurs when a good/great design, particularly of a classic vintage is altered by ignorant committee members for suspect reasons.
The opportunity occurs when a mediocre design/routing can be improved to achieve greatness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your assumptions are that every course was great the day it opened.

Not true.

My assumption is that every course is intact on opening day.

What if a course isn't designed as well as it could've been the day it opened?

Who makes that determination?

And, why would that first become apparent on opening day ?
Someone had to approve the pre-construction plans.
What changed between approval and opening day ?

The sadness occurs when a good/great design, particularly of a classic vintage is altered by ignorant committee members for suspect reasons.

Agreed

The opportunity occurs when a mediocre design/routing can be improved to achieve greatness.

Would you cite five examples where that has occurred ?

The problem I'm having is understanding what happened between the time the plans were submitted and approved and the construction of the course according to the plans.

Did the committee or owners tastes or understanding of golf course architecture change ?  ?  ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()