Why should you try to return your course to what it was in 1920 or 1950?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

For those who wonder where this thread is going, I was asked if I might consider standing for election to the Green Committee at one of the clubs at which I am a member. I turned it down because I don't know enough. I have my own views and they are critical of certain features, but it was immediately obvious that I didn't have answers to many of the negative responses I would have received to my few radical suggestions.

Those who wondered where the thread concerning the influence of supers was going will now see where I am going. Equally a thread on how wide fairways should be - or not.

This particular club is successful even in this economic climate - why should we change that? Its archaic formality suits me. But why should we take out trees? I'm sure it would change the strategy of the course. But would it? It's an ecological success in an area of otherwise negative agriculture. Why take the trees out that were planted post war? I would like to remove one or two specific trees because I'm a short-hitting left-handed slicer, but the more I think about it, I can't see why the golf would be better if you were able to slice willy-nilly onto an adjacent fairway. That just encourages wild golf. Even if you took the trees out you've still got rough, badger setts, clumps of blackberries etc. Have you gained any width?

I'm trying to pick your brains - not to stand for minor office, but, rather, to justify why I did not put myself forward.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - it's a good question, especially when framed as you have. It makes me wonder: how would someone elected to the Green Commitee in 2012 differ from the fellow who held that seat in 1952? Presumably they'd share a love of the game, an appreciation for their course, a spirit of service, and a desire to leave the course in better shape than before. The only difference is that the fellow in 1952 thought that planting trees would make for a better game. 

Peter

[JESII]

Mark,

If I were you, I'd fear the guy that's less prudent gets the post.

Forget Hope and Change, sounds like you can run on maintainng the status quo...much more affordable.

[JMEvensky]

 I turned it down because I don't know enough.
 

Just from having read a lot of your posts on this website,I call bullshit on that particular sentence.

I think you should take the position.Your ideas may only be radical because no other members have your historical frame of reference.Why not try to teach them how/why you came to your radical conclusions?Of course,most will probably dismiss your opinions out of hand--but some others might surprise you.

You might find out that some members are willing to listen and learn.Not all opinions are equal.

[Sean_A]

Mark

Like JM hints, I too think you would be a very good Green Committee member, but I can fully understand wanting to keep your head below the parapet.  If you are speaking of the course I think you are, I would agree, trees aren't really an issue.  Of course there are some here and there which could come out to showcase fine specimens, but I think the bigger issue is widening the fairways so balls can reach tree lines.  Even that isn't a huge deal.  The course is well presented so there really isn't much need to chase improvements.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

As a newbie here that thinks he knows a little bit but nowhere near as much as the average member on GCA, I'm keen to be educated.....

I can think of a number of good heathland courses which, overtime, have matured into tree lined affairs. Whilst I'm not in favour of narrow lines of an excessively penal nature, some of the courses I can think of are seemingly excellent as they currently stand. Is it just me or if the current trend for the removal of trees in danger of become a bit too generalised? Returning to the general principles that made a course good originally is to be applauded but I worry slightly that we could throw away some pleasing aspects of maturity if we're not careful.

And, Mark, for what my ill educated thoughts are worth, based solely on the little I've read from you on this site, you're the man for that committee. The fact that you can recognise where your knowledge is perhaps lacking is surely an indication that you understand better than most the intricacies of the subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

One of the answers I might offer is because 1920 and 1950 predate the attempts to dumb down the architecture in the name of fairness.

[Bill Brightly]

For those who wonder where this thread is going, I was asked if I might consider standing for election to the Green Committee at one of the clubs at which I am a member. I turned it down because I don't know enough. I have my own views and they are critical of certain features, but it was immediately obvious that I didn't have answers to many of the negative responses I would have received to my few radical suggestions.


I'm trying to pick your brains - not to stand for minor office, but, rather, to justify why I did not put myself forward.

The fact that you made this post tells me that you have doubts about your decision... I would ask these questions:

Do you love your course and truly care about the club?
Do you have the ability to ask questions of the superintendent, listen, and learn?
Can you work well on a committee?

If you answered yes to all three, I suggest that you made the wrong decision. And judging from your posts on GCA, I have little doubt that you would have served your club well. They were not asking you to stand for election in order to remove selected trees. Rather, someone thought that you might make a positive contribution to the club. If the trees that you want to remove REALLY should be removed, you would have to prove your case to the super, the committee, and then perhaps to the board. If you could do that, the trees would come down. If not, the trees would stay, but at least your club would have gone through a healthy process.

[Ivan Morris]

Go for it, Mark. Stand up and be a man. Call it as you see it and harrumph the begrudgers! At least you seem to put some thought and research into your ideas before you express them. That has to be good as long as you do not expect perfection.