[Mark_Rowlinson]

....in the constitution of clubs to prevent an ambitious chairman of the green (call him what you will), with enough money in the coffers, to mess up a well-designed course by mucking about with the architecture?

I can think of many courses in England, which haven't necessarily been ruined, but when you enquire why that bunker is placed there, why that clump of trees, or in Southfield's apparent case why that silly pond: old Bill Thistlethwaite put it in when he was chairman of the green to thwart Archie Huckbald who always drove on that line rather than taking the designated route. 

[Niall C]

Mark

Unfortunately I think you have to be prepared to fight your corner each and every time some stupid idea gets floated. It would help if any significant work had to be voted through by the membership but then you would have to define significant.

Niall

[JMEvensky]

The strongest safeguard is a Master Plan,drawn by a consulting architect,made part of a club's by-laws.

Allowing the full membership to get involved in anything less than a huge project is asking for trouble,IMO.

Absent something written,we're all at whim of some shmuck trying to impress his friends--usually to the detriment of the club and course.

[Tom ORourke]

We have a solid greens committee with enough integrity to stick to the master plan, even though the president wanted to leave in a huge tree that was dead in the line of play but was 100 years old. He also wanted to keep a bunch of scrub pines that did nothing but eat golf balls. The big old oak was a nice tree but we had a redesign and the architect was placing the green based on if the tree was kept. Point A if the tree was staying, point B is it was going to be cut down. The greens committee voted for B, with the cut down, and the prez spent the next 6 months trying to rally his buddies to keep it. The members voted to take it down. He still wanted it in and tried to marshall support to keep it in. Finally the greens committee just told the crew to take it out and ended that discussion. I know it was a very pretty tree, but it is not a dictatorship and he was wrong. In a great moment, about 2 months later one of our other large trees just split and fell apart. We pointed out to him that now they were coming down on their own so obviously even nature wanted to thin things out. He was not amused. We already had a tee put into a hole that required a slice, not a fade, off the tee in order not to go out of bounds. That was put in years ago by a former prez who was around a 26 handicap and was, yep, you guessed it, a slicer of epic proportions. He thought it made the hole better. The greens committee needs the power to say yes or no.

[Adrian_Stiff]

None. Each club should do whatever it wants with its course and abide by its own governance.

The things that get done will be good to some opinion and bad to others.

[Scott Stearns]

Retain an architect and create a master plan-best way.

[Bill Brightly]

Board by-laws require that any changes to the tees, greens, fairways, rough lines and/or hazards require an architect's master plan and must pass by a 2/3 majority vote of the full membership. If the changes really are worthwhile, make the committee prove its case.

This makes it clear to any Greens Chair and/or Greens Committee that changes to the course are NOT part of their duties.

(Trees can fend for themselves )

[RDecker]

A voted on, accepted Masterplan is a great option but realistically club by-laws are the surest guard against a "rogue" element hi-jacking
the club.

[Tom_Doak]

I've consulted at several clubs that had a Master Plan as part of the bylaws, which included some recommendations that were just awful.  Eventually, we got them to let us change things ... I don't know if they actually amended the by-laws or not.

The only way you can really safeguard a course is not to appoint the wrong person as green chairman.  Seriously.  Anything else can and will be overwritten in time, and sometimes for good reason.  No master plan can really anticipate the future.

[BCrosby]

....in the constitution of clubs to prevent an ambitious chairman of the green (call him what you will), with enough money in the coffers, to mess up a well-designed course by mucking about with the architecture?

I can think of many courses in England, which haven't necessarily been ruined, but when you enquire why that bunker is placed there, why that clump of trees, or in Southfield's apparent case why that silly pond: old Bill Thistlethwaite put it in when he was chairman of the green to thwart Archie Huckbald who always drove on that line rather than taking the designated route. 

The same things have happened to any number of US courses. From among the best courses (think Cliff Roberts' version of the 8th green at ANGC that was in existence for about 20 years) to any number of not so good courses. That sort of thing seemed to be at its worst in the 50's and 60's.

My sense is that it is much more rare today. Largely, I think, because there is a wider appreciation of golf architecture as an area of expertise. Very few people today think that they can 'improve' a golf course without professional assistance at some level.


Bob 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Keep the dues low enough to just cover bare bones operations and a small capitol fund. If you start to gather too much money, throw a party.

[Chris Johnston]

Keep the dues low enough to just cover bare bones operations and a small capitol fund. If you start to gather too much money, throw a party.

Don

I love you, man!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mark, I do not think you can dumb proof a club?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mark, I really can't speak to the bylaws at Four Streams, but I do know that Steve Smyers returns every year and no changes are made without his consultation. 

On the other hand Woodmore had a board gone wild.  We have a $6,500,000 debt.  Needless to say Woodmore is in financial trouble.  Two assessments and a 20% dues increase have not helped.

[Bill_McBride]

....in the constitution of clubs to prevent an ambitious chairman of the green (call him what you will), with enough money in the coffers, to mess up a well-designed course by mucking about with the architecture?

I can think of many courses in England, which haven't necessarily been ruined, but when you enquire why that bunker is placed there, why that clump of trees, or in Southfield's apparent case why that silly pond: old Bill Thistlethwaite put it in when he was chairman of the green to thwart Archie Huckbald who always drove on that line rather than taking the designated route. 

The same things have happened to any number of US courses. From among the best courses (think Cliff Roberts' version of the 8th green at ANGC that was in existence for about 20 years) to any number of not so good courses. That sort of thing seemed to be at its worst in the 50's and 60's.

My sense is that it is much more rare today. Largely, I think, because there is a wider appreciation of golf architecture as an area of expertise. Very few people today think that they can 'improve' a golf course without professional assistance at some level.


Bob 

So Bob, how do you explain Augusta's 7th hole? 

Perhaps this is the exception.........

[BCrosby]

"So Bob, how do you explain Augusta's 7th hole?"

I can't. Mistakes were made. Though I note that the changes to the 7th were not done by a Green Chair (Mark's worry) but rather under the close supervision of highly trained, highly regarded, highly professional, highly compensated golf course architects all of whom were in good standing with the ASGCA.

Bob

[Adrian_Stiff]

"So Bob, how do you explain Augusta's 7th hole?"

I can't. Mistakes were made. Though I note that the changes to the 7th were not done by a Green Chair (Mark's worry) but rather under the close supervision of highly trained, highly regarded, highly professional, highly compensated golf course architects all of whom were in good standing with the ASGCA.

Bob

This too me highlights the point that theres nothing really you can do because as time passes and things change, opinions are collated that some love and some will hate. Original preservation of a golf course is very difficult when your fighting the new technology and sometimes shaggy bunkers will be fashionable and at some stage it wont be, the same as wild countoured greens are a big turn on for some but some dont like it either, just let the clubs do what they want and live and die on their sword, the pond in front of the 18th at Oxford may well please the majority.

[Steve Strasheim]

Require any "Greens Chariman" to read and pledge allegiance to The Spirit of St Andrews prior to taking office.

[RDecker]

Here is a true story:  I had a Greens chairman for the first 6 years at my club who actually sold Toro equipment.  He would bring me demos to
try when they weren't needed right away, helped me diagnose and fix equipment problems and backed my requests for expenditures with a sound fiscal outlook.  He also was a 3 handicap that made me look good at a couple of superintendent tournaments.  Alas he got sick of the club politics and wanted to just be a golfer so he stepped down.  Now I have a greens chair who's sole mission is to keep shrinking my budget without sacrificing quality and see if we can just get "one more year out of the 12 year old mower".  Moral of the story is never take a good board member for granted and always try to have at least one person on the greens committee that has no agenda about their game and how the course should be set up and maintained pertaining to their skill level.

[JMEvensky]

Here is a true story:  I had a Greens chairman for the first 6 years at my club who actually sold Toro equipment.  He would bring me demos to
try when they weren't needed right away, helped me diagnose and fix equipment problems and backed my requests for expenditures with a sound fiscal outlook.  He also was a 3 handicap that made me look good at a couple of superintendent tournaments.  Alas he got sick of the club politics and wanted to just be a golfer so he stepped down.  Now I have a greens chair who's sole mission is to keep shrinking my budget without sacrificing quality and see if we can just get "one more year out of the 12 year old mower".  Moral of the story is never take a good board member for granted and always try to have at least one person on the greens committee that has no agenda about their game and how the course should be set up and maintained pertaining to their skill level.

We also had a Toro rep as a member of the club,but he had no interest in serving on the Green Committee.But,like your guy,he was always willing to bring demos or anything else he thought was needed--and never once tried to push for a sale.

Every club should be lucky enough to have a member like that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()