The genesis for this thread is based on the comments from Mike Young on Bogey's thread on the "gilded age" of golf architecture. I think Mike Y. makes some great points. His point that too many US clubs have Green Chairmen who are not well informed (often followed by another less informed Green Chair) is well taken. His point about listening to the architect and learning from them versus wanting the architect to listen to them is also a great point.
So...how have the clubs who have enjoyed successful renovation projects (Oakmont, Maidstone, Shoreacres etc) built the necessary consensus within the club to "listen" to the architect hired to help them? In my eyes, every golf club has people who know a good bit about golf, and people who think they do. Often times, the people who think they know (and sadly don't know what they don't know) are very influential at their clubs. How have the Oakmonts of the world overcome them? What guidance would this panel offer a club considering (and in need of) a thoughtful restoration to properly "lead" their clubs, build consensus for what needs to be accomplished, and overcome the vocal but uninformed portions of the membership. In other words, how do you convince the majority of your club's members to "listen" to the expert architect who has been retained?
TS