It is rare to see a course get better over time so somebody must be mucking it up.  Who and how?

Supers, or perhaps most accurately, the staff and the super.

Mowing patterns get changed inch by inch daily, maintenance becomes varied, bunkers become varied in depth, level of sand and over all shape and maintenance.

Read Brad Klein's article in the June 2nd issue of Golfweek titled, "Unreasonable Voices" for the answer to your question.  Maybe someone here can post it.  

Brad has an bias against members and for supers.  I have not seen the article but could easily conclude his conclusions before hand.

 The main problem with members is that they are faddish.

The main problem with members is that they are faddish.

True, but so are the superintendents who want to keep up with the trends around the country.  The rush for "new bent grass" for greens is the poster child for this phenomenon.

They all have a strong effect on the outcome of changes, for better or for worse.  There are examples of each for every category you list and each can follow fads.  Who does the most damage?  Who knows?  A more interesting consideration is on a case by case basis rather than looking for simplifications.

Supers, or perhaps most accurately, the staff and the super.

Mowing patterns get changed inch by inch daily, maintenance becomes varied, bunkers become varied in depth, level of sand and over all shape and maintenance.

This quote should be posted over at Turfnet to give all the supts over there a good laugh......

Who does the most damage to architecture..Supers, Architects, Members or Owners.

I think it is one group that doesn't understand the other group's needs or goals.  All groups can be substituted or matched for ignorance of another's issues.  

Owners that don't understand GCA and design, and ask the archie for unrealistic or un-maintainable features based on fads or marketing, without fully understanding long term effects.  Or owners-committees that do the same, asking for things that are detrimental to the design intentions.  Archies that don't understand the characteristics of things like species or cultivars of turf they spec.  Supers, that don't understand the archie's intention and won't advocate for maintenance practices that are a meld with design.  

I'd point least to the supers.  They are the ones that are most mis-understood.  They do the work everyday.  Yes, they can start taking short cuts, or get enamored with new toys and trinkets from turf industry sales and start down a road of nicking the design features little by little.  But, on balance, they will or can deliver the proper maintenance meld IF THEY ARE GIVEN THE $ $UPPORT TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN VISION, and have the guidance or authority from owners/committees to deliver the goods.

I think that every course of significant design quality should have a commentary by the archie to describe the intentions or long range vision of what the hole should be like in maintenance and projected future evolutionary projections.  i.e., each hole should be described for what it should play like, how it should be maintained to achieve the maintenance meld with the design, and WHAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE in the future, such as not allow rough withing X feet of putting surface, or FW bunker should not be mowed outside of FW rough lines, or trees should not be placed to impare or restrict a certain corridor, etc.

That way, owners, committeemen, supers can't say they don't have direction or don't realize the effects of future alterations because they are not known as to what the design intent was in the first place.  

Mother nature has the greatest effect on the course, over time.  Then there is that old devil, gravity, and his minions, erosion and deposition.  There is also that dang carbon cycle, building thatch. What are you gonna do?  Sometimes these elements, along with supers, archies, members and players react badly, and sometimes they find that a happy suprise makes a feature better!  The one thing you can generally count on is that everyone will seldom agree on whether a change is an improvement or a mistake, but the changes will (and IMO should) happen.  It gives us all something to talk about and keeps us engaged.

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on July 11, 2007, 10:23:53 AM

 A more interesting consideration is on a case by case basis rather than looking for simplifications.

It is case by case.  Examples are:


Riveria:  The owner.  Nuff said.

Please explain this to me.  How much of your distaste is founded in racism?  If Clint Eastwood had bought Riviera and made the same changes, many of which are very good, would you and others be so trite with your opinions.

I dont think you can pin point blame on one specific person here.  I think anyone who has a say in what happens to the golf course is at fault.  I can see the point about the Superintendent.  However, saying that if you have a weak Superintendent that can fall prey to a board is kind of a bad comment.  I think there are "strong" Superintendents that can fall prey also.  I just strongly believe anyone who has a say can change things.  But who is to say the arch. did it right the first time he designed it.  There are alot ofthings that need to be changed in my business because they are just not maintainable.  But you can not just point a finger at one person and say "it was him!"

I think time is the formal cause of deterioration of great golf courses.

The first place where time comes to bare on golf design is the bunkers. Silt contaminates the sand from interior washouts and from migration into the bunker from the exterior. If the superintendent does not have to tools and the budget to remove the sand every 10 years or so and to also stripe the sod away to peel back the sand that has been thrown up on the banks, the bunkers will change their shape, and loose their drainage and playing qualities.

After this happens what generally follows is the members get fed up with poor bunker conditions 20 years or so later, and the club has to remodel. Now unless the original architect is still living, a new architect will provide a remodel after his own franchise style of design. What else is to be expected?

Tees do not last forever either. They become mounded in the middle from divots and divot dressings. Tees also need to be rebuilt periodically to stay level and properly aligned to the hole.

In my opinion, the key to preserving a great golf course is to have the tools and the staff in house to renovate the tees and bunkers on one to three holes every fall, restoring them to their original design. But this has not been normative in golf course maintenance because everyone seems to think that the features on a golf course last for perpetuity.

I think television is the worst culprit.