[Ian Mackenzie]

My general question to you is: How important is it to have a direct branding relationship between your course and club and the architect who designed (or is widely credited to) your course?


Meaning: If your course has been originally (or, at least redone in the 1920's era) done by a "top" GCA, and is being renovated today, would you want the course to maintain, create and/or emphasize a strong brand tie with this architect? (Assume it's a marquee name.)


Or, would you rather the modern architect who oversees the redo today to just "make the best possible course for the membership" (even if you have the original drawings and schematics) in favor of just "overall improvements".


Can a top tier club really be considered having a top tier course if the branding of their original esteemed architect is decoupled from their heritage going forward?


Does the architecture, regardless of origin, stand on its own merits or does architect brand name association have a deeper meaning or impact to a club's legacy?

[Matt Schoolfield]

How important is it to have a direct branding relationship between your course and club and the architect who designed (or is widely credited to) your course?


Meaning: If your course has been originally (or, at least redone in the 1920's era) done by a "top" GCA, and is being renovated today, would you want the course to maintain, create and/or emphasize a strong brand tie with this architect? (Assume it's a marquee name.)

I mean, I think if we're honest with ourselves, it's already a lot more branding than we're willing to admit. We're not playing anything close to the same game that they played. The drives are going 50-100 yards longer, and the tees have been adjusted, the irons are getting 2x-3x higher and spinning faster, and the greens are running 2x-3x faster.

We are living in a world where the clubs maintain their marquee name, while also making more than "overall improvements." I mean how much MacKenzie and Jones remains at Augusta? It's certainly not their course.

[Richard Fisher]

Many thanks Ian.
My hunch - and this may be a UK perspective - is that it doesn't matter much at all to 95% of members and 99% of visitors. Thinking about my own clubs, there are exceptions - Huntercombe and Willie Park - but I am willing to bet that 80% of the members at Harlech have no real idea who laid out their course (unless they have read my book about same[size=78%])[/size] and ditto at Porthcawl.

I have never ever seen a UK scorecard on the US model with 'Flynn 1929' or whatever as its defining signature.

[Jim_Coleman]

   It comes down to whether you perceive your asset to be a piece of art or a place to play golf. I wouldn’t want Picasso to touch up the Mona Lisa. But I’d be happy to let Elon Musk modernize my Model T if that’s what I’m driving these days.

[Thomas Dai]

Not necessarily unusual ….
“Tom Morris? Wasn’t he the bloke who did the funny voices on Animal Magic?”
“Ali MacKenzie? Wasn't he the Scottish Manager at the 1978 World Cup?”
and the more obvious “Harry Colt? Was he the guy who invented the 45?”
There are likely more.

Atb

[Tom_Doak]

   It comes down to whether you perceive your asset to be a piece of art or a place to play golf. I wouldn’t want Picasso to touch up the Mona Lisa. But I’d be happy to let Elon Musk modernize my Model T if that’s what I’m driving these days.

If you bought a Model T hopefully you’d want to preserve it, or sell it to someone who does and you can buy a Tesla to replace it.

[Carl Johnson]

Not an architect here.  My sense is that original architect name association for marketing purposes is far more important than maintaining the course according to said architect's original intent.  Today's golfers are going to want the course they want to play regardless of heritage issues.  Certainly there will be exceptions, but very few players are knowledgeable about architectural history and legacies.  It's just not important to them.

[Jim_Coleman]

Not an architect here.  My sense is that original architect name association for marketing purposes is far more important than maintaining the course according to said architect's original intent.  Today's golfers are going to want the course they want to play regardless of heritage issues.  Certainly there will be exceptions, but very few players are knowledgeable about architectural history and legacies.  It's just not important to them.
 
   Agree. Merion has always been a Wilson; Pinehurst a Ross; Bel Air a Thomas. Each has been “improved”- more than once - by a different, highly regarded architect. Each architect had a different vision and attempted to present a better course. Nothing wrong with any of that. Which is the better version will always be a matter of opinion, but clubs inevitably prefer the latest one if for no other reason than to justify the money they chose to spend.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()