[TEPaul]

.....should attempt to send any message on golf course architecture, its past, present and future?

Do you think that's even a part of their responsibility?

If so, do you think they should attempt to send a message on the preservation of golf course architecture?

If you think the USGA should do that, why do you think so and how do you think they should attempt to do that?

[Bill_McBride]

Oh I don't know, maybe roll back the B&I and protect the classic gems from oblivion?  

[Mike McGuire]

From  USGA.org

"The United States Golf Association (USGA) has served as the national governing body of golf for the U.S., its territories and Mexico since its formation in 1894. It's a non-profit organization run by golfers for the benefit of golfers. The Association sponsors a variety of programs that benefit everyone who plays the game, from conducting 13 national championships each year, to writing and interpreting the Rules of Golf, to funding turf grass and course maintenance practices, to supporting grassroots programs through its “For the Good of the Game” initiative.

If you consider turfgrass and maintenance a part of golf course architecture the USGA should and does send a message. They have commented on  tree management and environmental concerns among other things.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Don't you think one of the biggest messages they send about architecture is their set up of our great old courses for U.S. Open events    That event dramatically overshadows anything else they do (exposure-wise) during the year.

Just my opinion,
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'd love to see them encourage preservation, but you can't do that on one hand and then encourage significant changes (green leveling, new bunkers, narrower fairways, etc.) on classic courses hosting their championships.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I do not think that is part of their duty.  They are more like an auto union and IMHO they need the clubs much more than the clubs need them.

[Bill Gayne]

I think it would be within the role of the USGA to recognize historically significant architecture. For instance if the USGA wanted to award a course or hole a designation of being historically significant. I think the message about preservation come in the standards to be recognized.

Designation or recognition should come at the request of the governing bodies of the clubs or courses. I don't think the USGA should try to  impose preservation on organizations outside their own.

[Bill Brightly]

Tom,

Great question! I dont think they should send a message on architetcture, at least not a DIRECT message.

However, I think they can play a HUGE role in documenting the architectural history of each course. They could be THE main resource for students of af architecture, for members looking to research their course's history, for modern architect's hired to restore a course, etc.

They could be the central clearing point for all aerial photographs. (THE first and only place for Anthony Pioppi to go.)

They could be a central collection point for all photographs of golf courses, including a chronological dating of photographs submitted for USGA safekeeping.

I think the onus for collecting this info should be on each course, but the USGA coud be the collection point.

The USGA could hire trained curators, and perform this task MUCH more efficiciently that the sum of each club's inefficient and amateur efforts (if any efforts are made at all.)

The service should be included in each club's dues, whether they take advantage of it or not.

So, indirectly, the USGA would be sending a message: architectual lineage and history is important. Heed it before you attempt to make changes to your course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you asked:

.....should [the USGA] attempt to send any message on golf course architecture, its past, present and future?

Absolutely yes! Golf is a game as much of history as present and future for players of every level. Unlike any other sport or athletic endeavor, it's history is as dependent upon the playing fields where it is made as the player making it, and in many cases more so. For example, how many playing Winged Foot West for the first time is encouraged by their host to attempt the nearly impossible putt that Bobby Jones made on 18 in the 4th round to make the playoff? How many have dropped a ball by the Nicklaus plaque on 18 at Baltusrol to see if they can knock it on the green? We are fascinated in this game by the idea of trying to reproduce the great shots of the great players because we can actually attempt it on the very same place that it was accomplished. Has anyone here tried to imitate Roger Maris 61st homer at Yankee Stadium?

They need to preserve the history of greatness and encourage others to create more examples of it.


Do you think that's even a part of their responsibility?

Absolutely yes! The USGA is mandated to do so by the very purpose it was originally organized and through it's taking upon itself the job of being the organization that stands as the means of protecting the "good of the game."


If so, do you think they should attempt to send a message on the preservation of golf course architecture?

Absolutely yes! This does not mean that they should take the stand that every original blade of grass be preserved exactly as originally installed; rather they need to encourage green committee's, golf professionals, course superintendent's & individual player's to understand the history of the designs of the courses where they play. To appreciate the challenges, the risks, rewards, fun and demands that the architect built into them BEFORE they even begin to consider "improving the course."


If you think the USGA should do that, why do you think so and how do you think they should attempt to do that?

The USGA never asked anyone if they should be the keepers of the game; they took this mantle upon themselves. If I make everyone get in my car it is inherent upon me to drive it responsibly. It is the same for the USGA. For better or worse they are in the driver's seat.

I stated above, and do so again, that the USGA needs to recognize that they must begin educating all about the history and scale of the game and where it is played. This is more than just stats on who won what Open and Amateur. So many play courses designed by Emmet and Van Kleek (just two names that have been recently mentioned in threads) and these courses and their architects are worthy of the same respect and study as have been given to all of the Old Dead Guys and so many of the modern living ones as well.

In order to do this universal access to much (not all) of the collection of historical documents, writings, photographs and records that have been entrusted to them MUST be made TRULY AVAILABLE.

How can a historian researching the work of an architect or player do so if he or she can not even make a copy of documents? This greatly limits them. Why shouldn't the members of a green committee researching the history of how their course physically evolved over the years have access to the photographs of their own course that are available to the media?

I would love to see the USGA put together series of maintenance seminars for course superintendents designed around the designing architect rather than something in general for a region. For example, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a several day seminar where every aspect of Flynn's design philosophy and how he put it into practice and invite the supers from every Flynn course? How beneficial to preserving his work would that be.

The USGA needs outside-the-box thinking and to put some of it into practice...

That's my short answer!  

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom
I think Bill Brightly's post was spot on, and describes well what the USGA museum/archive could and should be, and do.

On the broader advocacy question, it's up to the USGA to decide what it wants to advocate FOR, but I will say this:

I'm surprised that in this communications age the USGA communicates so poorly, not only by my standards but by their own, at least historically speaking.

Just today I read a well-reasoned and persuasive article on "the ideal golf course" written in 1926 by then-Chair of the USGA Green Committee, C.V. Piper.  It appeared in one of the two mainstream golf publications of the day. I think some of Mr. Piper's predecessors used the same vehicle, as did senior USGA officials who came after him.

We have mainstream golf publications today; the USGA still has (at least the equivalent of) a Chair of the Green Committee. They also have President Driver, who strikes me as a media savvy fellow; he could probably engineer for himself a regular column in Golf Digest or Golf Magazine. It would be an appropriate platform, I think; but for it to be an effective one, he'd have to have something to SAY, and be prepared to say it.  

In short, OF COURSE the USGA should advocate on behalf of the good of the game. I'd appreciate it much more if their views on the good of the game coincided with mine; but even if they didn't, I'd still argue that the USGA has been shirking its responsibility by not communicating regularly with the largest number of golfers possible.  

Peter
Phil Young - just read your excellent post.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom,

I'd love to see them encourage preservation, but you can't do that on one hand and then encourage significant changes (green leveling, new bunkers, narrower fairways, etc.) on classic courses hosting their championships.

As he often does, I think Mike nailed the issue here for the USGA. While the comparison with tennis is often confusing, I do reference this era of tennis:

"1978 - Spearheaded by United States Tennis Association President W.E. "Slew" Hester, the US Open moves to the hard courts of the USTA National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, N.Y. Pam Shriver, 16 and armed with a 110-square-inch oversized racquet, reaches the women's singles final, where she falls to Evert. Playing in his fifth straight US Open final, Connors dispatches Borg in straight sets for his third US Open title. The victory on the DecoTurf II hard courts gives Connors the distinction of being the only player to ever win the US Open on three different surfaces (grass in 1974, clay in 1976 and hard in 1978 and later 1982-83). Total attendance at the 1978 US Open exceeds 275,000, setting a new tournament record. Total tournament prize money exceeds $500,000."

I don't think Connors gets enough credit for winning 3 Opens on 3 surfaces. Now with the move to Flushing the US Open tennis has become a 1 dimesional power game on "hard courts." Tennis has settled in with the 4 Majors on 4 different surfaces.

Now if you look at the US Open, it is morphing into a balance of classic vs modern style golf with Bethpage (modern due to a monster renovation and continuous tweaking) vs Shinnecock being a fairly similar course to the one that Ray Floyd won on.

Now The Open moves to:

Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course)  
San Diego, Calif. June 9 - 15, 2008  
     
Bethpage State Park (Black Course)  
Farmingdale, N.Y. June 15 - 21, 2009
     
Pebble Beach Golf Links  
Pebble Beach, Calif. June 14 - 20, 2010
     
Congressional (Md.) Country Club (Blue Course)  
Bethesda, Md. June 13 - 19, 2011
     
The Olympic Club  
San Francisco, Calif. June 11 - 16, 2012
     
Merion Golf Club  
Ardmore, Pa. June 10 - 16, 2013

I would argue that Merion, Olympic and Pebble be set up with a "classic era" setup where the US Open is focused more on shots into around and on the greens. The USGA SHOULD EMBRACE the green speeds on Merion 5 and 12, and not touch those greens. The course is defended at the green and in the case of Pebble and Olympic to a lesser extent by wind. Irons and ball placement off the tee would be a part of the equations in these US open years.

I would personally classify Torrey, Bethpage and Congressional as modern courses from the classic era. This would allow modern courses from the modern era such as Erin Hills to now be put into the mix. Here driving and length would be a key ingredient in winning the US Open.

Back to Mike's point, the USGA is mainly about running tournaments with the US Open being the Mother Ship. If architectual preservation is not embraced at the presentation and setup of the US Open, any attempt will end up being a exhibit at Far Hills that 97% of the golfers will never see.

[TEPaul]

Mike McGuire said:

"If you consider turfgrass and maintenance a part of golf course architecture the USGA should and does send a message. They have commented on  tree management and environmental concerns among other things."

Mike:

AHA! BINGO!

Do you consider the USGA Green Section to be an entity that sends a message that it takes responsibility for golf architecture or does it just want to send a message that it deals with and takes responsibility only with golf course agronomy?

If it's the latter where does one draw the line?

For example, when a course rebuilds greens using USGA green construction specs should that be considered the USGA being in golf architecture or just golf course agronomy?

If one looks back in the old USGA Green Section bulletins you see some a number of articles about golf course architecture. Many of those articles were written by professional golf architects such as William Flynn but not all of them. Even the chairman of the USGA's green section, C.V. Piper wrote some arcticles about golf course architecture.

Who was Piper trying to educate? I'd say presumably anyone and everyone.

Is there some kind of dividing line within the USGA Green Section that separates what's agronomy and what's architecture? Should there be a dividing line or should there be a greater nexus?

[TEPaul]

BillB:

I just read your post. Thanks for that. I guess in the back of my mind that's where I was hoping some responses would go.

The USGA is now getting on board with a architectural archive. Obvioiusly the gist of it and the meat of it will be historical architecture in America, and I think they will be an important clearing house of architectural information.

But when clubs get into using that information on their courses what should the USGA's position be then?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said:

"Tom,
I'd love to see them encourage preservation, but you can't do that on one hand and then encourage significant changes (green leveling, new bunkers, narrower fairways, etc.) on classic courses hosting their championships."

MikeC:

Yes, actually the USGA can do that and not necessarlly send the message that that is what other clubs and courses that DO NOT host things like US Opens should do.

Some of us were talking about that very thing last night.

I'm sure you or anyone can imagine the various ways they could go about sending THAT message;

First, they could say very very clearly and publicly:

"Do what we say and not what we do in US Opens which is to not do what we do on US Open sites".

And secondly, seeing as US Opens are massive budget and revenue events the USGA AND the US Open clubs could agree that when the US Open was over the course would be put back architecturally to the way it was before the US Open.

This could include things like widening fairways back to original design and such.

If the USGA and the clubs really WANTED to send THAT message are you telling me there's no way they could do it, MikeC?

[Willie_Dow]

Tom:  Are we trying to "pass the buck" here, for our own mistakes ?

[TEPaul]

Phil Young:

Thanks for that post, and it's certainly passionate.

I suppose the inevitable question on this over-all subject will be----where would the professional golf course architects stand on all this?

In other words, if the USGA takes a far greater stance on even attempting to preserve golf course architecture would professional architects look at that message and that effort as a resource or as competition?

[TEPaul]

"Tom:  Are we trying to "pass the buck" here, for our own mistakes ?"

Willie:

What do you mean by that? What are some examples of us trying to pass the buck?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba said:

"Tom,
I'd love to see them encourage preservation, but you can't do that on one hand and then encourage significant changes (green leveling, new bunkers, narrower fairways, etc.) on classic courses hosting their championships."

MikeC:

Yes, actually the USGA can do that and not necessarlly send the message that that is what other clubs and courses that DO NOT host things like US Opens should do.

Some of us were talking about that very thing last night.

I'm sure you or anyone can imagine the various ways they could go about sending THAT message;

First, they could say very very clearly and publicly:

"Do what we say and not what we do in US Opens which is to not do what we do on US Open sites".

And secondly, seeing as US Opens are massive budget and revenue events the USGA AND the US Open clubs could agree that when the US Open was over the course would be put back architecturally to the way it was before the US Open.

This could include things like widening fairways back to original design and such.

If the USGA and the clubs really WANTED to send THAT message are you telling me there's no way they could do it, MikeC?

Tom,

It would be a little bit like the parent who warns their children against the evils of drugs and alcohol while quaffing a six-pack and 20 mg of valium each evening.

I don't think they can simultaneously say, this is what a course must look and play like to challenge top modern players, while essentially telling the rest that they should feel left behind challenge-wise by technology.

I think that would be a very tough sell in practice, Tom, as much as I know we'd hope for both dichotomous ideas to coexist peacefully.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Frankly, I disagree with you. Perhaps it might be something of a tough sell but well presented I think it might be an effective sell. In a sense the matter is just in the message.

I think it would be a most effective message if the USGA and US Open clubs agreed and arranged to return some of the architecture of a US Open site to the way it was previous to the Open---that is if a club wanted to do that.

Within that last remark just may be what Willie Dow was getting at when he asked "Are we trying to pass the buck here?"  

On the other hand, Mike, I think you can pretty well imagine what a thread like this one will eventually end up concentrating on.

[Willie_Dow]

MikeC & Tom:  You got it, guys!

Old timers never die!

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Shouldn't the concept of leaving the architecture alone for US Opens and other tournaments remain on the table?  Sure, the rough should be grown and fairways could be pinched a little bit, but on some courses angles are important and width required because they were designed in.  There are varying degrees to which angles are important depending upon the architect and the topography used and the hazards and other features created.  Ideally (we might as well think this way) the USGA should let the scores be what they are without so much intervention and manipulation.  

If this ideal cannot be attained, then let them make changes to the golf course and make funds available to PUT IT BACK for the members.  Otherwise, the USGA is perceived as an uncaring interim user of a golf course that leaves in its wake something different for the members to fix or adapt to with games that are incapable of doing so.  This generates ill will whether consciously or subconsciously.      

I really think the business driver has to be on a two way street.  Yes, the USGA by all means should use their resources and ability to record, store and disseminate the history of the sport's playing fields; not only US but assisting other associations to do so world wide with the clubs themselves responsible for gathering and supplying the bulk of the information.  But the membership (clubs and individuals) should tell the governing body how they want to be governed.  If not, the disconnect between the USGA and the membership will widen.  They do so much GOOD for the game yet many, especially on here, forget all that and concentrate on the negatives and without offering any solutions.

Now is the perfect time and here is the perfect place to move the momentum gained by the golf architecture archive and research center in the right direction.  You can sit on the sidelines (in California or wherever) and throw darts and complain or you can channel the energy into doing some good.  Some of us here on the site and many at the USGA have really put some effort into moving to conserve the record of the playing fields.  It needs to be translated into practical terms and preserve the fields themselves.  It takes some change and some effort.  What are we willing to do?

[Willie_Dow]

Thanks, Wayne, for the input "make funds available to PUT IT BACK for the members."

[TEPaul]

Wayno:

One of the best and certainly one of the most fundamentally important posts ever put up on this website.

You've still got it in you, you old goose!

[JMorgan]

Tom,

I think as others have noted above, the USGA does send a message--in its actions re: Open set-ups.   Obviously, the executives at the USGA feel it is already part of their responsibility.  

What is the quality or make-up of the message that they are sending?  I think Wayne answered that one pretty well.  

As the governing body of golf in this part of the world, the USGA recognizes the connection between architecture and the game when they tinker with the courses on the Open rota.  The architecture is most certainly the lead arbiter of the game.   Otherwise, why would they bother?  So they must have some notions about architecture.  

Perhaps the better question is, Do their actions allow them to AVOID saying what is otherwise very apparent?

Why do they need an "Open Doctor" in the first place?

Eliminating the Open Doctor aspect, what are the options available to the USGA?  

Opens restricted to "TOCs"-- Open Clubs?  That is, build courses designed for US Opens like the TPCs and leave existing clubs alone?  

But is this why the USGA was founded in the first place?  No.  

Put restrictions on pro equipment and let them play from the championship tees an existing club, as is?

We've been down that road before.  It's not as if this is a new issue.   Golden Age archies left breathing room in their courses for equipment changes or made modifications after the Haskell ball, etc.

But have we reached a point where the equipment just simply cannot/should not change any longer?  

IMO it is in the best interest of the USGA and R&A to decide once and for all.  

If so--if the limit has been reached--then making a statement regarding the significance of golf architecture past/present/future is not a mixed message.  

But as I said above, actions speak louder than words.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on Today at 08:38:11am
I'm not saying most architects are, "inherent and natural born meddlers unto architecture boiling down to automatic redesigning and such."  But some are.  I do think some make work that isn't necessary and of course some make work that is necessary but don't always do a good job of it.  Some architects don't see the point in preserving courses and feel they can improve upon what is there.  In some cases they are right, in others they are wrong.
 
 

Case in point...

How could someone look at the 4th hole at Bethpage Black and say to themselves, "yes...what this hole needs is a bunker up the left side?"

Tom Paul,

I still don't see how it can work both ways, unfortunately.

I completely understand the goals of the architectural archives, etc., and fully support that.

However, as long as the USGA hand-picks "Open Doctors", whether they are Rees Jones or Tom Fazio, to go in and make changes to classic courses to suit their whimsy of the daysy, then those ACTIONS, and those results are going to speak much more loudly to MILLIONS of viewers worldwide than any reactive message apologetically whispered to clubs after the fact essentially saying, "we really didn't mean it...we just had to protect par".

Even if a course is put back for the members, the image of what a "Championship" challenging course looks like and plays like for top players is already forever imprinted into the collective public consciousness.

Would that public even know if the new bunker on 4 at Bethpage was removed afterwards?  I think they might feel that they were being patronized, frankly.

It's even worse when you start talking about green(s) changes.  How exactly do you "put back" levelling changes to greens?  Who would do that work and how would they ensure that they got it right?  Also, that often also would affect greenside bunkering, and built up lips....would they be levelled as well, and then built back up after?

I can't see it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()