What clubs DON'T value their pedigree ?

[John Moore II]

On this question though, if the club was designed in 1900 with the intent of hitting driver-4iron to a specific par 4, and now that has become driver-GW, is it really going away from the pedigree/tradition to make that hole longer to make the shots the same? In many ways, I think that doing something like that is actually respecting the traditions/pedigree of the club.

[David Stamm]

On this question though, if the club was designed in 1900 with the intent of hitting driver-4iron to a specific par 4, and now that has become driver-GW, is it really going away from the pedigree/tradition to make that hole longer to make the shots the same? In many ways, I think that doing something like that is actually respecting the traditions/pedigree of the club.

Lengthening  a course because of today's technology is one thing, and I don't have a problem with that per se, it's when clubs lengthen the course and at the same time start making other changes to the same hole and therefore compromise the original design intent.

[CHrisB]

Mark Pearce,
Judging from the responses it is apparent that I misunderstood the original question posed in this thread. Took it too literally, it appears (see Bob Crosby's reply).

(BTW I did not say the HCEG doesn't value their pedigree today, only that if Pat's question is taken literally, then they didn't back in the 20's when the OTM course was replaced, even if the "new" one is world-class.)

[Kalen Braley]

I hate to insert the same old "what does the word mean" argument... but in the case of this thread I think it is really needed because the comments all over the map.

Pedigree:

1. an ancestral line; line of descent; lineage; ancestry.  
2. a genealogical table, chart, list, or record, esp. of a purebred animal.  
3. distinguished, excellent, or pure ancestry.  

To me that means everything about the people and nothing about the course.  But before you get all excited, I think this could be modified to "course history and the preservation thereof" or something of that ilk to get to what I think Patricks intent for this thread is.

[John Moore II]

I think that no matter what the changes are, the key is keeping in the same spirit of what the club was originally. If the club was meant to be a championship club, like Oakmont, then changes are necessary. If the club was meant to be social, I can think of no examples I feel sure enough to give, then changes to the course itself are not needed, its not the primary focus of the club.

[Joel_Stewart]

Pedigree:

1. an ancestral line; line of descent; lineage; ancestry.  
2. a genealogical table, chart, list, or record, esp. of a purebred animal.  
3. distinguished, excellent, or pure ancestry.  

To me that means everything about the people and nothing about the course.  But before you get all excited, I think this could be modified to "course history and the preservation thereof" or something of that ilk to get to what I think Patricks intent for this thread is.

You're correct, pedigree is not the correct word but you get the point,

Synonyms:   ancestor, antecedent, antecessor, blood, breed, breeding, derivation, descent, extraction, forebear, forefather, foregoer, forerunner, genealogy, heritage, house, kindred, line, lineage, origin, parentage, pedigree, precursor, primogenitor, progenitor, race, source, stock

It comes down to what clubs repect their history and architects and are willing to preserve their work.  What might be more interesting is how do they do it, as members die and committees change, what makes it work at Chicago Golf and San Francisco GC that makes them not change?

One time I played SFGC and a member was telling me a story about another member who wanted to change the bathrooms and showers at SFGC and make them more modern.   He was very persistant and finally one day a prominent member (maybe the President) told him that should he bring it up again he would be expelled from the club.

I will add that St. Andrews Golf Club in New York, one of the 5 original USGA clubs didn't value their history.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would you say that Garden City has not valued their pedigree by not restoring the 12th hole?

NO, I wouldn't characterize it in those terms, but I do think there's an under appreciation for the former 12th hole.

And, like the tip of the iceberg, there's a lot about # 12 that doesn't reveal itself.

But, Ran knows.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think that's an interesting and novel perspective, one that bears more looking into.

There may be a direct corelation between preservation of the clubhouse and preservation of the golf course.

If so, that corelation would seem to be cultural rather than architectural.

I'd like to pursue your theory.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I hate to insert the same old "what does the word mean" argument... but in the case of this thread I think it is really needed because the comments all over the map.

Pedigree:

1. an ancestral line; line of descent; lineage; ancestry.  
2. a genealogical table, chart, list, or record, esp. of a purebred animal.  
3. distinguished, excellent, or pure ancestry.  

To me that means everything about the people and nothing about the course.  But before you get all excited, I think this could be modified to "course history and the preservation thereof" or something of that ilk to get to what I think Patricks intent for this thread is.

Kalen,

Since this website is ........."GCA.com",
I thought it unnecessary to explain to participants and lurkers alike, that the topic was in the context of GCA (Golf Course Architecture)

[Patrick_Mucci]

IMHO, the question should be what club's DO value their pedigree

Perhaps you missed the sister thread about what clubs value their pedigree[/color]

since I believe it would be much easier to identify those. Until recently, with the beginnings of a restoration period we're seeing, it would seem alot of clubs couldn't care less about their pedigree.

That's why I started TWO (2) threads on the subject[/color]

[John Moore II]

But how would we define maintaining the clubhouse? To me, its nearly the same as 'maintaining' the course, in some respects. The original clubhouse and lodge at Pine Needles was far more elegant and beautiful than the current one, but does switching them mean the club has lost touch of its past? Would it mean that Oakmont or Winged Foot had lost touch with its past if the members were to decide (I strongly feel they won't) to build a new clubhouse in order to keep the clubhouse in touch with the current stature of the club? This is all just speculation of course, but if a club wants to be viewed as elite and exceptional, and part of the club is lacking, i.e. the course itself, the clubhouse, should the club not renovate or rebuild to keep itself at that level?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Johnny M,

If a club wants to be "viewed as elite or exceptional", changing the decor won't be the defining act, and neither will adding a 45" HD TV.

If a club/course is elite or exceptional, maintaining the status quo will probably insure retention of that stature.

[John Moore II]

Pat--what I am trying to say is that sometimes you can change something that can get a club recognized and draw in members. Things like a new clubhouse, a renovation of the course. I am not so much taking about a club like Oakmont, but a club that may have fallen off the elite golf radar for one reason or another. They may want to restore themselves to greatness, and changing certain things may be the only way to do that. If a return to greatness is the reason for changes, or to become a better club overall, does this really represent a club not valueing its pedigree/history?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--what I am trying to say is that sometimes you can change something that can get a club recognized and draw in members. Things like a new clubhouse, a renovation of the course.

Two clubs that I'm familiar with have recently made that pitch to their members.  They then spent a good deal of money on their respective projects.

To date, there's been NO new member influx.

Making changes, even perceived improvements, remains betting on the come, a risky undertaking.

Instead, perhaps intro and retrospection would provide better insight as to why the club has fallen from whatever perch they thought they sat on.[/color]

I am not so much taking about a club like Oakmont, but a club that may have fallen off the elite golf radar for one reason or another.

Rather than throw money at the problem, and not necessarily at the solution, don't you think the club should analyze WHY they may have fallen off the radar ?

You just can't allude to, "one reason or the other".

If the golf course hasn't changed, why would the club, once elite, fall ?

Why then make the assumption and determination that the golf course needs to be altered ?

Clubs rarely lose their lofty position because their golf course, which essentially remained static, fell victim to changing tastes amongst the golf elite.[/color]

They may want to restore themselves to greatness, and changing certain things may be the only way to do that.


How do you know that making the change will produce the desired results ?   You don't.  It's nothing but a gamble where the architecture will be forever lost.

That's a horrible gamble, and, you're not going to make that bet with my money.

If the golf course was great, why does it need to be changed ?  

Have architectural and golfing tastes changed that much over the last 50 years ?[/color]

If a return to greatness is the reason for changes, or to become a better club overall, does this really represent a club not valueing its pedigree/history?

Yes, because the conclusion is not a certainty, it's a major gamble, one that forever destroys what was perceived, by your own words, as a great golf course.

Just because the ruling Junta states that spending loads of money altering the clubhouse and/or golf course will produce more members and fiscal prosperity, doesn't make it so.

It remains a gamble, and it's a gamble based on current tastes and fads.

Great golf course architecture has enduring values.

Those values don't need to be disposed of with every succeeding generation.

Sometimes great golf courses and great clubhouses fall victims to forces beyond their control and NO amount of money, no modernizing and no changes are going to change that.

Sometimes a club's location conspires to bring about a reduction in popularity.  The club doesn't lose its intrinsic greatness, it's clubhouse and golf course remain brilliant, architecturally, but, if the neighborhood tanks, changing the club's component pieces ain't gonna help.

Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness, not a new clubhouse and/or golf course at the cost of millions.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--Lets just stick to the other thread, rather than say the same things twice...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Johnny M,

Is that your way of avoiding answering the questions I posed in this thread ?

[John Moore II]

Pat-No, its my way of saying that I have answered all these questions all ready, if not specifically, than generally on one of these two threads, and prefer to not write the same things over and over again.

[Bob_Huntley]

"Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT."

I thought CPC lost the ATT because of its all white membership? (I know it wasn't a policy, just how it happened to come out and all, but it had nothing to do with its pedigree, no?)

Cypress Point did not lose the A.t.&T. at all, it gave it up.

The Club did not charge for the use of the course and received a nominal sum for repair to its premises after the tournament ended.

The membership decided that it was for the membership of the club to decide on its policies and future, not the PGA.

On the subject of race, how many of the staff at PGA HQ are minorities?

Bob