[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting discussion.  Of course, Pat's answers read as if 'everyone" agrees that he knows what is best for a golf course.  He presumes he would be the one pre-educating the greens committee members.

More to the point is his questioning of the "diveristy" issue, seemingly wanting to leave women off, mostly to preserve the old qualities of the architecture, rather than make it softer to accomodate the new female members.

Pat, times do change, do they not?  I would suggest that at all but the most historic/exclusive clubs, the architecture of the golf course should very much exist solely to meet the new members needs.  I can sure understand a debate about preserving the character that attracted members in the first place to the greatest possible degree.

If there is no debate on a committee, it might be less messy, but it certainly could be said it is not as effective.

And, do we not have many examples of a one man show "ruining" golf courses as much as committees?

By definition, is nearly any decision made regarding changing a golf course one that is open to controversy?

It is an interesting food for thought.  In the end, there is no doubt that the effectiveness of the committee depends solely on the people on it and how they mesh.  In some sense, I agree with Pat that you know a good committee member when you see one.  In the ideal world, you wouldn't have to write a manual for how to be one.......

However, your post

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting discussion.  Of course, Pat's answers read as if 'everyone" agrees that he knows what is best for a golf course.  He presumes he would be the one pre-educating the greens committee members.

More to the point is his questioning of the "diveristy" issue, seemingly wanting to leave women off, mostly to preserve the old qualities of the architecture, rather than make it softer to accomodate the new female members.

Pat, times do change, do they not?  I would suggest that at all but the most historic/exclusive clubs, the architecture of the golf course should very much exist solely to meet the new members needs.  I can sure understand a debate about preserving the character that attracted members in the first place to the greatest possible degree.

If there is no debate on a committee, it might be less messy, but it certainly could be said it is not as effective.

And, do we not have many examples of a one man show "ruining" golf courses as much as committees?

By definition, is nearly any decision made regarding changing a golf course one that is open to controversy?

It is an interesting food for thought.  In the end, there is no doubt that the effectiveness of the committee depends solely on the people on it and how they mesh.  In some sense, I agree with Pat that you know a good committee member when you see one.  In the ideal world, you wouldn't have to write a manual for how to be one.......

However, your post

Jeff,

My answer "read" that way to you because that's what you wanted to read, because you have an agenda.

But to correct your erroneous "read", I have no interest in pre-educating Green Committee members.
Unlike you, I would expect, and have as a minimum standard, certain levels of familiarity.

With 50 years of serving on various green committees at a number of clubs, and being a Green Chairman and a Project/Restoration I'm more than qualified to assess what makes a good committee member.

And, women have been playing those courses since 1927, so I don't understand what needs today's women have that weren't needed by women 10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 85 years ago ?

As to "times changing", If you've read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare you'd know that human nature hasn't changed much in a thousand or more years.

Your statement, that "the architecture of the golf course should exist SOLELY to meet the new member needs"  is probably responsible for more disfigurations than any other reason.   It borders on architectural heresy, signaling that the course is now "open season" for any fad or member whim.  Unless of course, you want your course to emulate what the committee members see on TV every week.

As to your misguided claim that there's no debate on the committee, even with the most astute members, well, that's just a lack of experience on your part.   But, ask yourself, "what are the new critical issues that need to be debated "?
What issues haven't been debated a hundred times before ?

What is it that's so critical today, in these "changing times", that needs to be re-thought, versus 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago ?

You want to see alterations because it generates business for you, hence your motives and your agenda differ from mine, and I understand that, especially in the context of "the architecture of the golf course should SOLELY be for the needs of the new members"

My motives are to protect the golf course from the fads and trends of the new members.

Years ago a friend of mine joined Seminole.
His first week as a member, an old time member approached him and said words to the effect that, "
You joined the club because you liked it just the way it is, so don't make any suggestions to change it"

Today, a member who joins a club, who never played or belonged to another club before, wants to change everything.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()