Master Plans

[Jason Topp]

Is it a good idea for a club to have a master plan for its course even if few changes seem to be needed to the current course?

Our course has a master plan that is approximately ten years old.  The plan has largely been implemented and I think the plan has served our club well by providing a strong guidepost for individual issues that arise on a yearly basis.  Work continues on tree management but the other changes in the master plan have either been implemented or rejected as ill advised for a variety of legitimate reasons.

In the last couple of years the original master plan has no longer played a significant role in green committee decisions.  In my view, our club has made a couple of tweaks to the course for the purpose of adding length and to "punish" wayward shots that have eliminated interesting options that previously existed.  I want to prevent further changes of this nature and see a new master plan as a potential tool to use to prevent them or at least force the club to consider them in light of an overall philosophy of what our course should be.

Does anyone have experience with master plans that do not propose significant changes to the course?  Does the process of creating a master plan in such a situation invite more tweaking so that the process winds up hurting rather than helping maintain the intergrity of a course?  Should I pursue this issue hard or fight out proposed changes on a change by change basis?

Any advice or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

[Bill_McBride]

Jason, is the original master plan still relevant?

[Ian Andrew]

Bring in the original architect to meet with the "new" committee and update it.

This should be fairly inexpensive and much appreciated by your architect. 10 years is enough for new people and new ideas to have taken hold. It's a healthy step for a club that has begun to tweak without the architect's input.

If the plan is good, it won't change much, but the new committee may understand it better.

[Jason Topp]

Jason, is the original master plan still relevant?

It needs to be updated.  Some of the suggestions have not worked in practical application.  In particular the women rejected many of the forward tees suggested in the plan and so we did not build them all.  We also did not expand a couple of ponds that the original plan suggested which would have provided very difficult carriers for high handicap players.  There are a couple of tweaks in the plan I would still like to see done but I am more concerned about preventing ad hoc alterations.

[Bill_McBride]

"I am more concerned about preventing ad hoc alterations."

An updated master plan surely would seem the best approach.  Is the original architect of the master plan still around?

[Jason Topp]

"I am more concerned about preventing ad hoc alterations."

An updated master plan surely would seem the best approach.  Is the original architect of the master plan still around?

Yes he is.  Thanks for the advice Bill and Ian.

[Bill_McBride]

Next question:  can you get he club to agree to an unexpected expense?  Not easy these days, but seems like money well spent.

[Jason Topp]

Next question:  can you get he club to agree to an unexpected expense?  Not easy these days, but seems like money well spent.

That will be the trick.  Of course the same argument can be used to prevent any further changes that cost money as well.   

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
How many successful businesses are run with out well thought out business plans?  A good master plan for a golf course is not really any different.  It is essentially an asset management plan and I've found few clubs around the country where their most important asset is not their golf course.  A master plan that does not look at a golf course in this light is an incomplete plan (at least in my opinion).  Very few assets appreciate without good planning!  

Good luck!
Mark

[Garland Bayley]

Jason, is the original master plan still relevant?

It needs to be updated.  Some of the suggestions have not worked in practical application.  In particular the women rejected many of the forward tees suggested in the plan and so we did not build them all.  We also did not expand a couple of ponds that the original plan suggested which would have provided very difficult carriers for high handicap players.  There are a couple of tweaks in the plan I would still like to see done but I am more concerned about preventing ad hoc alterations.

He's expanding ponds! Hire a new architect right away, and read my tagline.

[Lyne Morrison]

Jason - as an aside could you expand on the objections the women had with regards the forward tees?

Thanks, Lyne

[Jason Topp]

Jason - as an aside could you expand on the objections the women had with regards the forward tees?

Thanks, Lyne

Lyne

Two issues:

1.  The course has two holes that play as par 5's for women and par fours for men with the tees close together.  The women prefer to keep that arrangement rather than playing forward tees.  We now use the forward tees as senior tees and the women play from their previous position.

2.  On two holes the new forward tees require longer hitting women to hit less than driver off the tee or cut the corner of the dogleg.  The opposition to these new tees was very vocal.  We built them but the tee markers are never placed there.  The only use they get (that I am aware of) is from my kids.  I have them play from those tees.

I think the ideas behind the tees were good.  They were similar to Alice Dye's thoughts regarding forward tee placement.  Nonetheless, there is no reason to force the issue if the members do not want to use them.

[Lyne Morrison]

Jason - thanks for the feedback.

I am curious to learn what triggers lead women to object to proposed tee placements - with the aim of working with them more successfully in this regard.

I have come across both of the points you mention above and agree most will favour the scoring potential of a par 5 over a par 4.

Best of luck with the revised masterplan.

Cheers - Lyne