Is it the golfer and his inherent penchant to have the game, the course, favor

[Patrick_Mucci]

his personal game, that's the biggest threat to preserving the architectural integrity of the golf course ?


I've noticed that features that seem to come into conflict with a golfer's game, are targeted by that golfer for alteration or removal.


Are golfers the biggest threat to preserving the architect's work ?


If not, how do you account for the alteration and disfiguration of so many golf courses ?

[John Kavanaugh]

50% of alterations are made to make the superintendent's life easier, 25% made to make an opponent's life miserable and the remaining 25% to make the idea guy's life easier. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,


I don't know about the percentages you cited, but I agree with the motivational forces.

[Tom_Doak]

50% of alterations are made to make the superintendent's life easier, 25% made to make an opponent's life miserable and the remaining 25% to make the idea guy's life easier.

I might steal this quote from you for future interactions with club committees.  I think the percentages might vary by club, but your basic idea is golden.  Much better than the "drainage, drainage, and drainage" mantra.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I think you're right, but (if I may be so bold):

I believe there is only one type of golfer who has both an inherent penchant to have golf courses favour his own game and the ambition/clout to have a great classic course renovated to serve this selfishly personal end:

A low handicap committee member.

In other words, a golfer just like you!

 

Now, don't get me wrong: I don't mean specifically you; I mean the Pat-Mucci-type, without of course the charm and architectural savvy.

You have to get on this, and quickly Pat. There is no one on this board better positioned to address this issue than you.

(One piece of unsolicited advice: don't quote Jaka B. It won't sound good coming out of your mouth. Personally I don't know how Tom D will get away with it either, but I know that if I tell him not to he'll be more determined than ever to do just that!)

Hoping you read this in the spirit it was intended
Peter


 

[JMEvensky]

I believe there is only one type of golfer who has both an inherent penchant to have golf courses favour his own game and the ambition/clout to have a great classic course renovated to serve this selfishly personal end:

A low handicap committee member.

 

Respectfully,and forcefully, disagree. There are plenty of hacks who can only see a golf course through the prism of their own game.And not every club's Green Chair is the best player nor a dictator--many Boards exercise a lot of oversight.


In my experience,just as many golf courses have been dumbed down or had features altered to appease bad golfers. The number of clubs whose golf course is solely overseen by a Green Chair is probably smaller than you think--and much smaller than one would gather from reading GCA posts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I think you're right, but (if I may be so bold):

I believe there is only one type of golfer who has both an inherent penchant to have golf courses favour his own game and the ambition/clout to have a great classic course renovated to serve this selfishly personal end:

A low handicap committee member.
 
Peter,
 
While I'd agree that low handicap golfers tend to have myopic vision, seeing only how the course impacts their game, that limitation on vision isn't confined to low handicap golfers.
 
A low handicap golfer was once a high and mid-handicap golfer, hence I believe they may have broader field of vision than you credit them with.
 
What I tend to see is low handicap golfers wanting to make the course harder, while higher handicaps tend to want to make the course easier.
 
In both cases, alterations are part of their vision.

In other words, a golfer just like you!

 

Now, don't get me wrong: I don't mean specifically you; I mean the Pat-Mucci-type, without of course the charm and architectural savvy.

You have to get on this, and quickly Pat. There is no one on this board better positioned to address this issue than you.

(One piece of unsolicited advice: don't quote Jaka B. It won't sound good coming out of your mouth. Personally I don't know how Tom D will get away with it either, but I know that if I tell him not to he'll be more determined than ever to do just that!)

Hoping you read this in the spirit it was intended
 
Absolutely.
 
I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think the sphere of "alterers" extends far beyond the single digit handicap golfer.

Peter


 

[John Kavanaugh]

History has shown that when spending someone else's money an individual is more likely to punish others than help themselves. All the power with none of the guilt.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, Jeff - a genuine question, not a rhetorical one:
In your experience, has a mid to high handicapper ever been in a position to ask for and push through: more trees; thicker and wider rough and/or the narrowing of fairways; new back/longer tees; the repositioning of bunkers; or the flattening and quickening of greens?
If not, I'd suggest that perhaps it isn't the hack who threatens the architectural integrity of classic old courses, since it is changes like those above (requested/made most often by the better player, who wants to 'toughen' the course) that are precisely those that impact/alter such classics most.
Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

History has shown that when spending someone else's money an individual is more likely to punish others than help themselves.
 
I don't agree.
Those making the decision have to pay the same amount of money as the other members.
 
It's not a money issue
 
All the power with none of the guilt.

There's no guilt.
Those responsible for the alterations are convinced that they're improving the course.

[JMEvensky]

Peter,there are many ways to disfigure a classic course other than those you cite.


But I am aware of a local Donald Ross course now claustrophobic with trees and punishing rough--all because the members think it makes their course harder,which means better. I don't know who planted the trees 70 years ago nor at who's direction the rough was grown. However,a huge majority of the current membership is opposed to changing anything--and most of the club's good/better players are in the minority. At least in this club's case,it's the good players who are virtuous.


Only one of the architects is able to answer your question anything but anecdotally. However,I'd submit the itch to tailor a golf course to fit the games of those in power is just as common with bad players as good players.And I think just as many clubs' decision makers are bad players.


The all powerful +4 Green Chair is almost as rare as a unicorn.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
I have heard lore that MacDonald wanted Chicago routed so that his slice did not go out of bounds. If true, your premise has gone on for a long time, and golf has survived.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Jeff - a genuine question, not a rhetorical one:

In your experience, has a mid to high handicapper ever been in a position to ask for and push through: more trees; thicker and wider rough and/or the narrowing of fairways; new back/longer tees; the repositioning of bunkers; or the flattening and quickening of greens?
 
Absolutely.
 
More often than you think, a mid to high handicapper is the Green Chair or President.
 
If not, I'd suggest that perhaps it isn't the hack who threatens the architectural integrity of classic old courses, since it is changes like those above (requested/made most often by the better player, who wants to 'toughen' the course) that are precisely those that impact/alter such classics most.
 
Not so.
The mid to high handicapper often wants to make the course easier, as do many women golfers.
 
Those alterations often impact/alter classics as much, if not more than those who want to make the course more difficult.
 
Remember, eliminating existing features is harder to remedy than those who grow the rough, narrow the fairways and plant trees.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I have heard lore that MacDonald wanted Chicago routed so that his slice did not go out of bounds. If true, your premise has gone on for a long time, and golf has survived.
 
Then he failed miserably at NGLA, where slices can go out of bounds or in hazards on most of the holes.
 
I suspect what you heard is a myth.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,
 
Agree.
 
Low handicaps are in the great minority as green chairs and Presidents and Board Members.
 
I think Peter is suffering from "handicap envy"

Peter,there are many ways to disfigure a classic course other than those you cite.


But I am aware of a local Donald Ross course now claustrophobic with trees and punishing rough--all because the members think it makes their course harder,which means better. I don't know who planted the trees 70 years ago nor at who's direction the rough was grown. However,a huge majority of the current membership is opposed to changing anything--and most of the club's good/better players are in the minority. At least in this club's case,it's the good players who are virtuous.


Only one of the architects is able to answer your question anything but anecdotally. However,I'd submit the itch to tailor a golf course to fit the games of those in power is just as common with bad players as good players.And I think just as many clubs' decision makers are bad players.


The all powerful +4 Green Chair is almost as rare as a unicorn.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, Jeff - thanks. I stand corrected, and I have learned something. Also, I have realized that I would be terrible as a private club member; the debates (especially if I was on the losing end) would give me ulcers.
Peter
ps  Pat, I would indeed have such envy, save for the fact that I found something in the dirt the other day that makes me certain I will be joining the low handicap ranks very soon!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


The answer is always in the dirt, unless it's in your head.


P.S.  I'm starting to hit my irons in the center of the club face, now I just have to start hitting them with a high draw.

[Paul Gray]

......However, I'd submit the itch to tailor a golf course to fit the games of those in power is just as common with bad players as good players. And I think just as many clubs' decision makers are bad players.

This pretty much covers it, in my experience.


The itch to explain away a high handicap due to an apparently tough course is just as strong as the itch to explain how good you are by playing off 4 at x,y,z club. Besides, in the eyes of the vast majority of vanity seekers, hard and good are interchangable terms. Handicap has nothing to do with it.

[Thomas Dai]

I was once told that occasionally an architect may have it written into their contract that changes to a certain course cannot be made for 'x' years after it's opened or that any change has to be made by them or at least with their agreement.


Correct, aspiration or merely myth?


Atb

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
I agree that  is probably a myth, but it is telling that people feel the courses were manipulated to suit a game even back then.

As a side note, I recently interviewed an older member of my club who caddied at NGLA when he was a kid (he is now 93). His first round was for "The Bull" as they called CB MacDonald. He recalls times were MacDonald would instruct the grounds crew on how to manipulate the course over night. Extra water in the DZ on 1 etc. depending on how Mac wanted the course to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thomas,

I've seen Boards adopt resolutions where no changes can be made without consulting with and getting the approval of the architect.

I my experience, if the architect doesn't remain in close contact with the club, those resolutions last for about ten years.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
At the risk of offending the supts who actually do care about the architecture of their courses, I would say the biggest threat to preserving the architectural integrity of the golf course is the golf course supt who doesn't play golf or understand architecture.  Committees usually consist of guys who become experts in less than a year time and while they may spout their new found knowledge of where to plant trees and place bunkers, it will be the supt who actually manipulates the chair and the president and gets what he wants in the end.  I realize this site is geared toward about 500 courses at the most but for the rest of the courses in the USA an uniformed supt can change a course quickly and it happens often.  He is often convinced and convinces a board that he knows what is needed and where to place new tees or remove existing tees, where to widen fairways or plant more trees to increase difficulty or where to eliminate a false front etc.  Many of us see it everyday on projects we have done over the years.   While many of the higher budget clubs will budget for architectural visits and actually respect an architects opinion or value, there are many more lower budget facilities where the supt is offended by the opinions of the architect and how his thought could be viewed by his board etc.  Sorry to be the cynic here but it's real....