What does this Board think.....?

[Bernie Bell]

What conduct?  The only conduct Steve attributes to the architect is that he did good work!  I doubt the architect has any control or even input into what the club says on its website or membership materials.

[Laz Versalles]

My question is what most of you think about the club that pursues a strategy of fabricating a club history and relationship with a well-admired deceased architect, uses another similarly-positioned person to try to validate this effort and then goes out and markets the course as a restoration/renovation attributable to the famous architect??

My mind goes back to what Jim Wagner said on the No Laying Up podcast in regards to renovation/restoration: "It's all bullshit."


And, frankly, I wish you would have named the course. If facts are facts then they are facts.

[corey miller]

Is that Frank Lloyd Wright signature designed house worth any more in the resale market?  A piece of art?


I agree with Mike C, if there was no perceived economic benefit for the deception it would not be taking place.


This area is very competitive for private clubs and I am convinced half won't survive the next twenty years and regardless of how we think people should think when choosing a club, on the margin, a pedigree does matter.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

" ...uses another similarly-positioned person to try to validate this effort ..."

Without seeing the club's website or other promotional material, I assumed that this person was the new architect. What statements were made to validate the club's history would be a good thing to know.

Perhaps we need an opinion from Jeff Brauer, former President of the ASGCA.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why not handle it like a man and go privately to influential members of the club and ask about their intentions? This thread is a disgusting display of cowardice.

[Steve Lapper]

Why not handle it like a man and go privately to influential members of the club and ask about their intentions? This thread is a disgusting display of cowardice.

John,


  As most who know me will attest, I'm no coward. I simply wanted to hear the DB's opinion over this practice. It was finished about a year ago and I've never wanted to have any outside influence whatsoever over what happens with this club.


  What disturbs me the most wasn't the fellow who did the work (as I explicitly said in an earlier post). He wasn't out to deliberately mislead or misrepresent. He's done little or no promotion of this work and I don't blame him one bit for taking the job and doing the best he could.


 My true concern was the purported validation the club's ownership claims they received from a most beloved former member of this community who I know, for a fact, debunked any chance of attribution to the original architect claimed.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

@ Steve


This reminds me of North Shore and Philmont North . Both clubs had no proof of their original architects until this forum educated them. The members of Philmont took their time to affirm Park, Jr. over Flynn while North Shore's new owner gladly accepted MacRaynorBanks over Tillinghast.

[John Kavanaugh]

CG7? I can only pray. His club just went through a renovation. See the problem with rumor and innuendo?

[Peter Pallotta]

This is certainly getting out of hand, and I’m as guilty (on here, but hopefully only on here) as anyone:
Did Jim W actually say that renovations/restorations are all b.s.?
Did a club just completely fabricate its architectural pedigree?
Has over-heated rhetoric and disingenuous word-play (and cutting sarcasm and constant put-downs) really become the standard of the day, so much so that we can only nod knowingly and offer a tepid tsk tsk?
It does feel like it’s all gotten seriously out of hand — even in regard to golf course architecture!
P

[Tim Martin]

I would be willing to bet than now roughly twelve hours after the original post that someone at said club knows about this thread.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have a feeling that this is quite common.  There are plenty of RTJ courses that were completely designed by other architects.  And for years Palos Verdes was called a George Thomas classic, but is a Billy Bell, Sr.  And North Shore CC on Long Island used to list Tilly as the architect on their scorecards.  And Bloomfield Hills listed Ross as the architect until a few years ago.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm with John K here.


The parallels to the political world are impossible to ignore.  One side blatantly lies; the other side doubles down on credentialism and protecting the world from phonies.


And neither side is willing to let judgment rest on the results they have produced for their constituents (as opposed to their donors).


Neighbor clubs should fall back on the quality of their courses.  And if the Liars Club has actually produced a better course by their convoluted process, well boo hoo, it's a better course.  Although they might have some trouble living down that new nickname I just gave them 😉


I hate credentialism, real or fake, and people who focus on their brand.  It burns me to know that where we went to school is at least a small part of what separates me and Gil Hanse from the other guys our age.  I want to get jobs because I'm building better courses than the other guys, and if I'm not, then boo hoo for me.

[Adam Clayman]

Confirming that the loss of principles, is one of the only constants.


Sad indeed.

[Kyle Harris]

Some interesting comments from some on here, considering.

Donald Ross may be the most victimized architect in this regard, especially here in Central Florida.

[Jim Nugent]

How is this any different than, say, Trump inventing some bullshit story about a Civil War battle taking place on his course in Virginia?

Or if we want to go political, how is it different from Obama promising that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?

One reason GCA works so well is that Ran insists we steer clear of politics -- and we mostly do so.  Here's hoping we continue to respect that rule. 

[BHoover]

How is this any different than, say, Trump inventing some bullshit story about a Civil War battle taking place on his course in Virginia?

Or if we want to go political, how is it different from Obama promising that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?

One reason GCA works so well is that Ran insists we steer clear of politics -- and we mostly do so.  Here's hoping we continue to respect that rule.

I kept my post focused on a golf course. Thanks.

[B.Ross]

if we are trying to guess the course, knowing the general region where the OP resides:


1. essex fells, which claims ties to raynor on its website now.


2. watchung valley - total rebrand a few years back and wonderful course restoration, but was the prior course under its previous name truly a raynor?


certainly ruling out paramount fka dellwood, given OP's involvement there.

[archie_struthers]

 


It's reprehensible and not necessarily the right strategy. To echo Sully's sentiments the architect might be important to some but in the end the product and culture a club is the selling strategy.

[Mark_Fine]

While not quite as many these days, I still get around to play and study a lot of different courses (maybe now only 30-40 different ones a year), but I would argue that very few golfers know who designed the courses they are playing.  If I had to guess, I would say less than 2%.  I am working on two municipal courses right now for example, and I have not come across more than one or two golfers who know who designed the golf courses (the one is a Gordon).  Even at my home club, Lehigh CC, until recently, only a handful knew or even cared it was a classic William Flynn design.  We had a Master Plan done years ago by a noted architect who completed the plan without knowing that Flynn designed the golf course    


We have debated on this site many times who should get credit for the design?  Is it the architect who did the routing, the one who designed the greensites, the one who did the latest bunkers, …???  When does someone get any kind of credit?  If Jack Nicklaus comes in and adds a few new tees, tweaks a few bunkers and changes the grassing lines, should he (or his associates who likely did the work) get credit?  Can/should the course promote that Jack Nicklaus came in and updated their golf course? 


I see a lot of courses promote their “Fazio” designed golf course because a fair number of golfers know that name.  The problem is that many don’t know the difference between a George Fazio or a Jim Fazio or a Tom Fazio design.  Many clubs don’t distinguish which Fazio for obvious reasons. 


I once played a very high end Tom Fazio design (a high-end residential course) and met with the owner/developer.  He told me he was very good friends with Bill and Ben but just couldn’t pull the trigger with them to design the golf course because he needed to sell the home sites and he could do that far better with a Fazio golf course.  This goes to Mike’s point that promoting certain architects has merit.  I still argue that very few golfers know who designed the course they are playing.  I would be willing the bet that even amongst all the golf architect experts we have on this site, only a handful could name the architects for most of the courses within 25 miles of where they live.  They sure wouldn’t know the architectural evolution of those courses because it takes a heck of a lot of work/research to find that kind of thing out with any degree of accuracy. 


The bottom-line, however, is that making stuff up and/or fabricating false information about a course's evolution is just plain wrong. 


Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

That last bit is how I see this issue too.  Its one thing to have conflicting or missing background information, like a Merion.  Its something entirely else to knowingly mislead/manipulate by propagating utter bullshit...

[Jeff Schley]

The bottom-line, however, is that making stuff up and/or fabricating false information about a course's evolution is just plain wrong. 


Mark

This we can all agree on.  I would hope there is a professional body like the ASGCA which publishes guidelines for design credit.  Not work credit, but actual design credit.  Then have a panel who decides.  It would take a while to establish present courses and keep a database of who ASGCA attributes certain courses to which designer.  Big task in the beginning and in the end very few people probably care except us.   

[Tim Martin]

The bottom-line, however, is that making stuff up and/or fabricating false information about a course's evolution is just plain wrong. 


Mark

This we can all agree on.  I would hope there is a professional body like the ASGCA which publishes guidelines for design credit.  Not work credit, but actual design credit.  Then have a panel who decides.  It would take a while to establish present courses and keep a database of who ASGCA attributes certain courses to which designer.  Big task in the beginning and in the end very few people probably care except us.   

Jeff-I think you are mistaken to think that club owners, greens committees, club boards and the like would be bound by something the ASGCA puts out. I don’t see where assigning design credit has ever been or will be part of their mission statement nor do I think it should be. It’s an organization set up to promote its members.