So Bandon Dunes changes one hole and they're giving in to dumbed down architecture? That's quite a stretch, don't you think?

They also changed the first at Bandon Dunes because of wayward tee shots.  I don't think either change would happen at a private course.

John,

Bandon Dunes #1 was changed back to the original.

Based on what I hear, Keiser is doing his best to leave the place alone and let the architects' original work remain intact.  He did try to tinker with the first at Bandon Dunes and is doing something at the 14th at the Trails, but I hardly think that qualifies as dumbing anything down.  If anything it shows a combination of restraint and the ability to admit when something isn't working.  I surely haven't heard many people defend the playability of the 14th at Trails.  Probably the best people to talk about the way the holes play are the caddies and I'm betting you'd get a 90% approval rate for the work on 14.

Interesting topic, John.

In general, I'd say that public courses HAVE survived because traditionally they knew/understood the golfing public, or at least THEIR SEGMENT of that golfing public.

The trouble may be that, now, the golfing public -- like the public at large -- has become much more fickle and, as green fees go up, more demanding (and so green fees go up even further etc etc). And their demands are based on notions of quality and a quality experience that may have less to do with the golf course itself than ever before.

I think your desire is play less well-know modern courses so as to add your comments/recommendations to the vast sea of public opinion is a good thing in that regard

Peter

I think if you asked the  caddies they would have everyone play the very up tees and pick up every putt within 6 feet.

The problem with a hole like the 14th is that the cry babies whine louder than the lovers of penal architecture and great shotmaking.  This is a theme common in today's society.

It is a common theme, but in this milieu, I think it's more correct to state that "quirk" that results in "penal" architecture is much more tolerable in golf courses that are 100 years old when the architects had less institutional knowledge and virtually no mechanical ability to drastically improve upon natural conditions.

I forgot about the 16th at Bandon Dunes.  Is there a single feature or hole that has met the ire of the critics that has not been changed or tinkered with at any of the three courses.

People around here bitch a lot about Pacific Dunes #16, but that hasn't been changed.  I understand the criticism of PD 16 even less than that of BT 14.  How can people complain about the difficulty of their 2nd shot when they tried a hero shot off the tee and it didn't quite come off?  

Is there something wrong with tinkering?

Was Donald Ross misguided in tinkering with Pinehurst #2?

How about Pete Dye at Crooked Stick?

Is Pebble Beach a worse course for the new 5th hole?

None of the above are examples of changes being made because of user complaints.  I don't think Pete Dye or Donald Ross shifted though suggestion boxes in making any of their changes.  If you are going to give tinkering a pass, why limit it to the original architect?  I say tinker away architects...just don't do it because some critic got his feelings hurt.

Thank God the stewards of The Old Course didn't make changes the first time Jones through a hissey fit...It sickens me that Keiser is enabling the cry babies with these changes.  The flood gates are now WFO.

Can private courses survive their members?

I am comfortable in saying that most of the poor changes to private clubs come from pressure by non-member groups...The public so to say.

Michael,

Bandon #1 was changed back because of public outcry.  Or should I say the outcry of critics.

Quote from: David_Tepper on November 19, 2007, 02:32:47 PM

Can private courses survive their members?

This is the question of all questions.  MacKenzie raised it 80 or so years ago and nothing has changed for the better.

When was the last time that ANGC was changed for the members?  

Barney;  Augusta wasn't changed due to public or even critical outcry; the public never plays it.  While they watch, it was the membership or their leadership who were concerned that they might be embarassed by low scores and instituted changes to toughen the course.  Only a larger scale example of the typical case where a membership wants changes to make their club a "championship" test.

You say that the leadership was concerned they would be embarassed by low scores.  Who by or with?  I'm saying that if everyclub was only played or seen by its members very few would ever be changed.  It is the public or outsiders that influence such things as championships and embarrassment.

I don't know why I am not embarrassed alone in the shower but am humilated when naked in public.  I think embarrassment always has to involve another party.