You can't stop change, can you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have to give Ran credit for this thread as the subject came up in a recent discussion we had.

Can you stop change on a golf course ?

Can you stop nature's changes ?

Can you stop man's  changes.

What course, or courses reflect decades of existance with
NO changes.
 

[Rich_Goodale]

No, no, no, none.

Next question.

[TEPaul]

It's impossible not to at least have evolutionary change--ie change created by golfers hitting shots out of bunkers and such.

But I will tell you one course you can check back with in a couple of decades that may not even have that kind of  change--that would be Atlantic City.

I swear if Hilton doesn't put more golfers on that golf course nothing will change at all. I spent about four hours walking around that golf course with Kye Goalby one beautiful July afternoon and we didn't see a single person playing the golf course--not a single one! At that rate they must do about five hundred rounds a year!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Rich,

Why do clubs feel compelled to make changes to good courses ?

[jglenn]

To try to add to Rich's answer:

Even if you could, why would you ever want to?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Because most of the changes made by memberships have had a disastrous impact on the architecture and playability of the golf course

[jglenn]

Patrick,

As I read your question, I was pretty sure you were talking about a more "evolutionary" change, both natural and man-made.   That's why, in parallel with Rich, I answered in the negative, wondering why one would wish to try to stop this evolution.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a very specific type of change, the kind that memberships do to their golf course, then that's a horse of a different colour.

In that case, I believe you can slow down the pace of those "interventions", and I can certainly see why one would want these to be well planned and under control.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Rich_Goodale]

Pat

I don't think any membership ever consciously tries to negatively affect the architecture or playability of their golf course(s).   Rather, I would suspect that every change that you or I could think of was done with the most noble of motives in the minds of the memberships/committees and/or Captains/Presidents who initiated them.  However, as we both know, in many, perhaps even most, cases no change is really needed--particularly for great courses without "championship" ambitions.

This is not to say, however, that no course cannot be "improved."  I have never played a course that I didn't think could be made "better" by some tweaking or another, and as you know I have played a goodly portion of the courses that most participants on this site consider to be "great."  That, however, does not mean that such changes MUST be made, or even should be made.  Imperfections are a part of life, and in many ways one of the charms of interesting things, including golf courses.

However, humans are humans, and my experience with golf (and other) managements and committees tells me that the instinct for people who are given postions of power is to "mark" their territory, just like wild animals.  In corporations, this marking often involves reogranization for its own sake, rather than for any particular need.  In golf clubs, it usually involves some sort of capital project.  If you are lucky, your President will be into clubhouse reconstruction.  If not, he will be an amateur architect--even to the extent of possibly lurking here on GCA!

That being said, a lot of changes that are made are made for the better.  TPC Sawgrass is a lot better today than it was in the early 80'.  My understanding is that the new 5th at Pebbble Beach is a positive change.  The 6 new holes at Dornoch built in 1946 are a vast improvement on the holes they replaced.  Virtually all the great British and Irish links courses were changed dramatically (and probably for the better) in the first 2 decades of the last century.  Continuously moving the tees back at places like TOC, Augusta, Troon and Merion to accommodate the pros is probably a good idea, and in any case not deleterious to our ability to enjoy those courses.

Life goes on, o-bla-di, o-bla-da.......

[Craig_Rokke]

As far as good courses being changed...... I'd agree w/ Rich  that some decision-makers in clubs want to leave "their mark"
and create their legacy. Perhaps others want to inject some
excitement into their course by adding something new to the 18 holes they've played over, and over, and over.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

While leaving one's mark may be the result of the change,
don't you find most changes done by those in power are to adjust the course in the name of fairness, to better suit the particular game and needs of those in power ?

[Mark_Fine]

There is an old saying that I'm sure will stir some debate - If it's not broke, you didn't look hard enough.  Fix it anyway!  That is obviously a moto for continuous improvement!  The problem is we all define "improvement" differently.  Ask a panel of experts how to improve a golf course and they will all give you different answers.  

Furthermore, some will argue the game itself is evolving, the players are evolving; so why shouldn't the golf course evolve as well?  Personally, I hate to see the "classic" courses "updated" and/or changed.  But I can empathize with owners/members who want them changed.  

An finally, not all golf courses are worth "preserving".  But who is to say which ones to touch and which ones to keep hands off?  I'm sure someone will scream at me for this, but even Pine Valley has changed/evolved.  Yes they are slowly bringing back more of the sand, uncovering bunkers lost in the overgrowth and removing trees but why did such a treasure get that way in the first place?  It sure doesn't look like it once did and probably never will.  

Mark

[Rich_Goodale]

Patrick

I do not have enough specific info in my brain to generalize.  I will pass on what I do know about the one club on whose committee I sat for a few years.  It was/is a lovely but short course (5500 yards/par 67).  While I was there they:

1.  Took out some neat "top-shot" bunkers that served to foil the effectiveness of the skulled drive so beloved by 24 handicappers.
2.  Forced the maintenance staff to mow a patch 40-80 yards on a steep hillside in front of one of the tees becase "some of the older ladies can't make the carry"
3.  Cut back the rough on a few 325-350 yards holes because it was "too hard to hit out of."

This course created some of the best golfers in Fife 20 years ago when it was even shorter (5000 yards, par 63).  Now, it's a duffer's dream.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick

If you can't stop change, then what's the purpose of your proposed mission statement for Garden City Golf Club?  

In the case of classic courses, I prefer the term "preservation".  It is a term that recognizes the dyamics of a living, breathing site, but also sets a mandate that those natural and man-made changes will be managed and controlled.

[Chris Kane]

When the membership watches television and see something they like, they seem to think that those features can be transported into the environment of their home course.  More often than not it doesn't work.

For example, most clubs I know of are lengthening their courses in order to "cater for technology", but a by-product of these alterations are a change in the architectural merit of each hole.  If you add 50 yards to a hole, the strategies and methods of playing the hole have to change.  

While people have this obsession with keeping scores at the same level, having perfect conditioning and seeing their course match up with the course on the television, then change is inevitable.  Often these people are well meaning, but they end up causing more problems than they've "fixed".

What seems stupid to me is that for many clubs, their courses have stood the test of time - for over a century in some cases - but that just isn't good enough for them.  In the search for noteriety they ruin what they had.  The course ends up worse for the changes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I don't know that GCGC has a formal mission statement.

I did write a letter to the Green Chairman, Board and President this year recommending that the course be preserved as it existed in 1936, with the possible exception of lengthening some tees.

It remains to be seen if the club will adopt that philosophy.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In your opinion has anything been done to GCGC since 1936 that's worth preserving?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Other than lengthening some tees, I'd have to say no.

Obviously, the 12th hole sticks out like a sore thumb.
As does the shifting of the 7th fairway.
I think moving the 5th green was okay, but I'm not sold on the resultant product.
The same could be said for # 14.
I would like to see the 10th tee shifted slightly toward the 9th tee, bringing the fairway bunkers more into play..
I'd like to see # 11 lengthened a little, as the cross bunkers aren't the challenge they used to be.
And, I'd like to see the water removed from the left of # 16.
Lastly, I'd realign some tees.

But, if you asked me, on a take all basis, to take the course today or 1936, I'd opt for 1936.....then I'd lengthen a few tees

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Your letter is exactly what I was referring to as a "proposed mission statement".

As to my point, it seems you are seeking "preservation", which I certainly applaud, but how would you compare and contrast that goal against your contention that "change is inevitable" in this thread.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It's simple, it's a constant fight with certain factions of the membership.

There has to be a gyroscopic influence to hold the course, to preserve the architectural values of the golf course, and you have to hope that any change made is minimal and retains the architectual integrity of the design.

Natures changes usually occur more slowly, unless hurricanes, and ice storms make their mark.  In which case there has to be that same gyroscopic effort to retain the architectual values.

Natures changes are politically easier to recapture than man made changes.

[A_Clay_Man]

I met the super today while Sheryl, Shamus(our cat) and I were practice putting in the sub 32 windchill. He was as nice as could be and even passed the Shamus nose-kissy test. I asked about the changes to thier signature hole and he painfully related the story of the morning aftter a hellashish storm he arrived to work to find the wash and almost all the sand was gone and had come to rest somewhere near 30th street some 2 miles away. He was convinced that one of the new buildings of the college across the street had more than likely changed the natural flow of the water and now he had a signiture hole without it's most daunting and natural feature. The agony on his face spoke volumes and to this day they are still trucking in sand with no end in sight.
So, heres an example of some irony, on one hand you have an institution of higher learning which expands and that construction effects others and it ends up changing nature.
Or at least the nature of the signature par 3 sixth at Pinion Hills.
Isn't that why we leave the course in better condition then we find it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aclayman,

I don't know what the laws are in Califronia, but most towns don't permit a property owner to adversely affect or adversely redirect the natural and previous flow of water, causing damage to adjacent or downstream property.

The club should look into this, and possibly seek intervention, or as a last resort, legal action.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat - I am no longer in California. Ive moved to New Mexico. I can tell you that the city owned course is probably not going to sue the college which is a dominant force in this tiny metropolis.