[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
     I assume agreement has already been reached on the plan. I think if you can't do the work well enough to please the membership, then you shouldn't do the restoration anyway. It's like "a picture is worth a thousand words". Let them "see" the benefits.

If agreement has been reached on the plan, then there's no need to do one hole as an experiment.

What's the purpose of doing and displaying one hole if the project has been approved ?

And, after you've done that one hole, typically in the off season, who's going to see it, snowmen ?

If the project has been approved, you try to complete it as rapidly and efficiently as possible, and doing one hole, for display and evaluation, isn't the way to go.[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I didn't say anything about an "experiment". You read things into what people say that enable you to disagree.

    The need for restoration usually comes because the entire hole has been abused. Trees take away lines of play, bunkers have changed, fairway width has been lost,greens often have shrunk, rough buffers have emerged around bunkers, etc.

I do believe that one way to prioritize a restoration--the title of the thread--- is to show what it will look like when complete.

 I think the original posting spoke to a limited budget, so I believe showing what the end result can be may lead to more money being allocated. If you do it in bits and pieces it may take years before people see the benefits and get onboard.

  The risk associated with badly executed work exists from the alternative route of doing   all the bunkers first, as an example.

    In the instance of a big budget I would agree that going like Sherman through Atlanta is okay (no offense intended to our Southern friends).

[Patrick_Mucci]

I didn't say anything about an "experiment". You read things into what people say that enable you to disagree.
You didn't have to "say" anything, it's implicit in your posts.[/color]

The need for restoration usually comes because the entire hole has been abused. Trees take away lines of play, bunkers have changed, fairway width has been lost,greens often have shrunk, rough buffers have emerged around bunkers, etc.
I'd disagree.
Sometimes the need for restoration comes from neglect, benign or intentional, ill advised fads, and misguided leadership.[/color]

I do believe that one way to prioritize a restoration--the title of the thread--- is to show what it will look like when complete.

Then, you're missing the point.

If the project has been approved, as suggested in your post, there's no need to showcase one hole, to just to let the members see it.  Nothing good happens when you do that.
Once the project's been approved, you proceed with it as expeditiously as possible, without putting on dog and pony shows as you go along.

How many restoration projects that reached fruition and their goals have you been involved with ?[/color]

I think the original posting spoke to a limited budget, so I believe showing what the end result can be may lead to more money being allocated. If you do it in bits and pieces it may take years before people see the benefits and get onboard.
You concept remains a poor one.  The voice of inexperience.
Can you cite five golf courses that proceeded as you indicate ?

The theme to this thread, Prioritizing Restorations, had to do with the component pieces of a restoration and a limited budget.  Tom Doak and I suggested moving fairway lines which is almost a no-cost item, and removing trees, as the first order of business.  More is accomplished by doing so, than reworking one hole.  

What happens if your "experimental" hole is done, and the rest of the project is put on hold, or, factions within the membership don't like it, which is almost inevitable ?

Conversely, if the fairway lines are moved and trees removed, the entire golf experience and playability are enhanced.

You can stubbornly cling to your idea, but, it remains ill advised.[/color]

The risk associated with badly executed work exists from the alternative route of doing   all the bunkers first, as an example.

Neither Tom Doak or myself ever recommended doing bunkers first.  

Are you reading things into what people say to enable you to disagree with them, as you accused me of doing in your first paragraph ?
 
If you reread my suggestion, it was fairway lines and tree removal, not bunkers, that we prioritized.[/color]

In the instance of a big budget I would agree that going like Sherman through Atlanta is okay (no offense intended to our Southern friends).

The size of the budget is less important than the ongoing "will of the membership", that's the critical factor when it comes to restorations.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()