Playing Sleepy Hollow and watching the work in progress as well as observing completed work and being informed on the work to be done was enlightening in several ways..
First, I was struck by the following.
How did a golf course with such a regal pedigree, architecturally and historically, allow the golf course to be disfigured ?
Isn't that THE critical question ?
While TEPaul is of the school of not pointing fingers, if no one is held accountable how can you prevent the future disfiguration of golf courses ?
One of the first things I noticed as I played the first hole was that a berm, which ran most of the length of the hole, along the right side, adjacent to the 18th hole, had been planted with trees.
Years ago an architect told me that trees should NEVER be planted on a berm or mound, for a variety of reasons, most of which escape me at the moment.
I suspect that some Green Chairman, committee or President decided that seperating the holes was desirable for aesthetic or safety reasons, and not for functional reasons.
The second thing I noticed was mounding near the green.
Many of the mounds had bunkers cut into them.
The putting surface was marvelous, and totally out of context with the mounds.
How could the members take a CBM and AWT golf course and eradicate their work ? What would drive them to dismiss two architectural geniuses in favor of the fad of the decade ?
As I played the golf course I could see invasive trees, ornamental trees, stupid trees, backround trees, colorful trees, etc, etc.. All planted in the last 50 or so years, some quite recently.
It was only in the late 60's and early 70's that tree planting took off. In the Metro NY area, "landscape architecture" landed on golf courses with a vengeance. And once one club found out that another had planted all of these trees .......
Monkey see, monkey do.
But, here was a club with many holes cut through the woods.
A club with a beautiful balance of open and enclosed holes.
Why the need to enclose everything ?
On some holes I observed paved cart paths immediately adjacent to greens or areas of play.
In some areas fairways had been shifted, greens allowed to shrink, effectively moving them, bunkers lost, etc., etc..
So, how did all of these things happen ?
How did one mistake beget others ?
How did good golf holes begin their downward spiral into mediocrity ?
Club politics certainly play a huge hand and exert undue influence. All too often, unqualified and/or uneducated individuals are granted "Green Chairmanship". That may be the one fatal mistake common to most clubs.
I think one of the areas where holes devolve substantially is the method by which the flow of cart traffic is determined.
All too often, cart paths have been introduced on a hole by hole, location by location, RANDOM basis.
On early golf courses, carts were never a design consideration. Thus, with their introduction and popularity, clubs were left to deal with the flow on their own, and usually on a random, as the need arose, basis, without any master plan or deep thought. And, unfortunately, most used the shortest distance between point A and point B as THE route of convenience.
So, a cart path is created near an area of play, let's use a fairway on a par 5 as an example. After a year or two, the members complain that drives are hitting the cart path and careening into another fairway. The clubs solution:
1 Move the fairway away from the cart path
2 Plant trees to prevent balls from hitting the path and going
into the adjacent fairway.
But, this creates an awkward angle of attack on the second shot. So, bunkers are shifted, fairways moved and an S shaped par 5 begins to devolve. Next a cart path is placed close to the green. More complaints, so the green is allowed to shrink to get it away from the cart path.
Next, those in love with the beautification of the golf course decide that "color" should be added. So, dogwoods and azaleas are planted directly behind the green. The green sits elevated at the rear above the surrounding terrain, presenting a dicey approach, one meant for only the brave of heart, so the area behind the green, once meant to penalize the unsuspecting, bold or errant is now a flower, shrub and tree bed. Over time, due to the problems with balls hit into that area, the green is "pulled back" from its orignal position and extended more in the front, thus altering the putting surface and strategic intent on the hole.
What was once a good hole has become a quilt like hole, absent continuity in design and mediocre at best.
Those changes have set a precedent.
They've signaled that the golf course is fair game to alterations, irrespective of their merit or origin.
Suceeding Green Chairman and committees now have carte blanche when it comes to the golf course, so member complaints become forced onto the golf course, but, with the altering of one problem, another arises, and so, that must be fixed, but, that causes yet another problem which must be fixed, and so, the downward spiral continues.
WHY ?
Primarily because each Chairman has viewed every perceived problem brought to his attention, solely in a micro context, rarely, examining the perceived problem in a macro context.
In many cases, the Chairman didn't have the ability to examine the problem in a macro context, and, rather than consult with an architect, since the problem seemed rather insignificant, action was taken, action that would lead to a domino like effect on the golf course, resulting in the eventual disfiguration of feature after feature, hole after hole, until the entire golf course was a shadow of its former self and void of the original flavor, the design intent and integrity.
What can be done to prevent this all too familiar process ?
I think Tom MacWood had the right idea.
A club should thoroughly research its architectural history before making any changes. Once a change is made, it's difficult to reverse, irrespective of how bad the change is.
In terms of a time frame to correct the error, a decade or two or more isn't out of the ordinary.
A club should interview a number of architects and PAY for their Master Plans. This may be expensive, but, in the long run, it's the path of the lowest cost.
The club should then hire A consulting architect and a Master Plan should be established.
While there's no guarantee that future changes will be beneficial, the process is far superior to the random, whimsical methodology that's been employed in the past, a methodology that in most cases resulted in the disfiguration of the golf course.
Have you observed changes that have had a negative impact on the architecture and play of the golf course ?
If so, how did those changes get implemented ?
What was their genesis ?