For those who wonder where this thread is going, I was asked if I might consider standing for election to the Green Committee at one of the clubs at which I am a member. I turned it down because I don't know enough. I have my own views and they are critical of certain features, but it was immediately obvious that I didn't have answers to many of the negative responses I would have received to my few radical suggestions.
Those who wondered where the thread concerning the influence of supers was going will now see where I am going. Equally a thread on how wide fairways should be - or not.
This particular club is successful even in this economic climate - why should we change that? Its archaic formality suits me. But why should we take out trees? I'm sure it would change the strategy of the course. But would it? It's an ecological success in an area of otherwise negative agriculture. Why take the trees out that were planted post war? I would like to remove one or two specific trees because I'm a short-hitting left-handed slicer, but the more I think about it, I can't see why the golf would be better if you were able to slice willy-nilly onto an adjacent fairway. That just encourages wild golf. Even if you took the trees out you've still got rough, badger setts, clumps of blackberries etc. Have you gained any width?
I'm trying to pick your brains - not to stand for minor office, but, rather, to justify why I did not put myself forward.