Why is there so much reluctance to have a professional organization that acts as a
"watch dog" to organize opposition to inapropriate changes to "classic" courses?

We seem to have no problems with organizing to protect historic buildings from the wreaking ball and silly architectural "add ons"...

Are you guys to afraid to tell the membership of another club that you diagree with their changes and you will fight those changes?

I've read this with interest, though I have never seen the course and don't expect to have that chance unless it is on TV for a tournament.

My question, though, is this:  How can "professional golf" be blamed for this or any other change to a golf course?  It isn't done at gunpoint, is it?  If the membership/owner of a course desires to hold a pro tournament for exposure or money or both, and the professional organization insists they make changes to the course to do so, how is that the fault of the tour in question?  This is America, where we make those decisions freely and willingly, and clearly "no!" could be the answer given.  

It would be comparable to me being angry at a prospective employer for offering me more money to change jobs, and then not liking the new job as much as the old, low-paying one that I loved.

I could've said no...

...and what a bad birth in light of the fact that we still had the original Tilly plans/routing.

Were AWT's plans for an additional 18 at BCC?

Craig:

Personally, any form of private property preservation borders on an unconstitutional taking in my view.  

If I own parcel A in fee simple, it's my right to do with it as I please so long as I remain within zoning parameters.  Now when my property is re-zoned "Historical" and I acquired it before that, my ability to alienate my property has been severally limited and I should be compensated for it.  

Any land use cousel out there?  Are fee owners compensated for a "Historical" designation?  

Craig, it's difficult enough to balance priciniples of equity in housing, do you really think they can be properly addressed for course ownership rights?  Keep in mind you are not dealing with one owner your dealing with 200 plus in most instances.  

Also, Craig, please articulate your justification for infringing upon a club's property rights to do what they wish with there property?  

At the end of the day, the clubs that get it right GCA wise will benefit from the merit of their decisions and those that get it wrong will suffer, and that, as I see it, is the way it should be.  

To impose a "historical" desgination upon a golf course and then restrict a club's ability to modify it's property is unconstitutional, a far bigger problem than losing the severity of some of Herbert Strong's greens in Roslyn, NY!!    

jason,

All I know is when someone wants to tear down or alter a building on the historic register, or a building with historic values, there are often protests and efforts to stop the changes.

All I know is if I owned the Mona Lisa and I decided I wanted to paint a mustache on her, there would be serious protests, if not legal actions.

All I know is, many classic courses have historic value equal to any building on the historic register, or the Mona Lisa, and they should not be altered.  

Craig Disher--I and others here have seen the sketch for the AWT West Course at Five Farms..there'sa lways been debate as to the reasons the club ultimatley didn't retain him to do the other 18

Jerry K--the 18th will be played as the 16th for this tourney and 1 and 2 will be played as the finishers

Jason,

Seth Raynor knows what he intended.

What would happen if I sampled a large portion of a Led Zepplin album and wanted to modify it?  

Could Jimmy Page sue me? Does he not have "rights" regading his music/art?

What standing does Seth Raynor have even if he is no longer around to speak for his art/design?

Craig:

1) You're not Seth Raynor and last I checked he's left the building!

2) If you owned the copyright to the Zepplin tune you were altering, or if you owned a license to create a derivative work from that song, you're alteration would be perfectly within your intellectual property rights, even if you butchered the song.

3) Jimmy Page could sue you and would win if you didn't have one of the rights articulated in 2, above (or some other form of permission).  BTW, in 100 years I'm sure Stairway to Heaven will be in the public domain so you'll be able to sample away.  Interestingly, the owner of the copyright to "Happy Birthday" supposedly never enforced the rights.

4) None, the owner of the property at issue has all the rights.  

   

Craig Sweet,

Copyrights enjoy legal protection.

Jason,

I will attempt to answer you here...without the benefit of MY morning coffee...

"Also, Craig, please articulate your justification for infringing upon a club's property rights to do what they wish with there property? "

I am not a lawyer, so maybe my sense of entitlement is warpped, but can one really say they "own" a Raynor anymore than you can say you "own" a Picasso or the Mona Lisa?  Do I have the "right" to draw squiggly lines all over my Picasso?

Lastly, I believe there are "things" owned by individuals and members, that have historic value to a much larger community. I feel the "keepers" of these historic "things"..a golf course in this case, recognizing the value of what they own, have a certain responsibility to be good stewards of what they posess.


"To impose a "historical" desgination upon a golf course and then restrict a club's ability to modify it's property is unconstitutional, a far bigger problem than losing the severity of some of Herbert Strong's greens in Roslyn, NY!! "

If I'm not mistaken, a "historical" designation involves the voluntery participation of the property owner???  In theory there are benefits for the owner(s) and the community.

I would bet there are private clubs in America that have voluntarily had their club house placed on the National Register. Why not the golf course?

I am a lawyer which likely just means I have MORE to say, it doesn't mean what I say is correct.  

However, an IP attorney's input here would be helpful re: the Mona Lisa, but I believe that the Mona Lisa owner can either do with it as they please, or, if they are restricted, they know that when they purchase it and so the restriction is all ready built into it's market value and hence it's purchase price.  

You are correct that items of historical value have significance and should be protected, however, the balance that has to be struck is between that interest and the owners property rights, and, IMO, it all comes down to the issue of notice.  If I acquire a "historical" home, I'm on notice of that when I purchase it, and, as stated above, the restricted rights I acquire should have impacted the purchase price so I arguably paid less for the home with the designation.  

It's an entirely different thing, however, to make an involuntary designation without a corresponding change in ownership or just compensation for the restriction of property.  If a club wants to, for instance, sell it's development rights to the town, county or land trust, and pass the benefit of the cash to it's members and future members in exchange for the right to change the zoning of the property that's legal, and equitable IMO.  

Also, I see no property right issue if a club voluntarily designated it's course "historical" but I do see a bees nest of practical problems that would, IMO, greatly out weight the benefits.  

My original purpose in posting was to question why these HISTORIC and CLASSIC designs are not being better taken care of. This group...GCA...would seem to be the logical advocates for preserving classic golf course design.  

I am curious as to why this isn't the case?

Craig:

Legally, it's about Public Interest and Notice.  And, it's also about the economic market place.  

I can't say the severity of Herbert Strongs greens at Engineers affects the Public Interest in the same way that the Mona Lisa does (and I'm not entirely sure the owner of the Mona Lisa can't deface her).  

In the case of the Mona Lisa, assume the owner could deface her, the market value would drastically decrease if the Mona Lisa was defaced so in a way the Mona Lisa is economically protected without the need for any external regulation.  

The difference between the Mona Lisa and classic GCA is that a significant enough market appreciation for classic GCA does not exist, thus, courses are altered because the market place does not punish the alteration enough to prevent it.  Gosh, I sound like Richard Posner's pupil (perish the thought of the day that I become a Law as Economics advocate).  

Irrespective of whether the owner of the Mona Lisa can paint on a mustache, I think the issue of GCA is better left to the free market.  Let the clubs do what they think is best and let the club market sort it out.  If you really want to change the GCA world voice your opinion without challenging a club's property rights and I think you'll find you're better heard.  

Craig asked, "Were AWT's plans for an additional 18 at BCC?"

When Tilly was hired to design Five Farms, his contract called for him to create 2 courses. After touring the property he had laid out in his mind how the two courses should run. He presented plans & began work, but as it progressed, he came up against a serious problem. He would write...

“After being informed that the development of the golf course has been retarded by the requests of the tennis players of the Club, who desired enough ground for forty courts, I find myself at a stand-still in preparing detailed plans and models…
      “I cannot conceive of the necessity for the unusual number of courts which the tennis player’s desire, but this is a matter entirely for your club to determine for itself. Obviously it is a question as to whether the Five Farms tract is to be developed to the requirements of the gold courses or tennis play and naturally I have assumed that the requirements of gold were paramount, although I did provide for the seeming demands of tennis.
      “If the area requested by the Tennis Committee is taken from the gold course it will be absolutely impossible to plan two courses each of eighteen holes, starting and ending at a reasonable distance from the club house and each with two swings of nine holes from nearby points. That is not debatable…
      “My reputation as a golf architect is at stake on the excellence of the courses which I am planning for you and I not only consider the holes which I have planned an exceedingly fine collection when developed, but those which may be numbered among the best to be found anywhere in the country. This is not conjecture but my candid opinion…
      “Certainly the elimination from the courses of the area desired by the tennis players would detract so seriously from the value of both courses as to render any development of exceeding mediocrity…
      “I am prepared to continue my work as soon as your Committee advise me to do so…”
 
Who could refuse Tilly when he spoke with such fiery retoric? Tennis players, that's who. After several meetings, the club's board gave in to the Tennis players demands for the amount and location of land for the courts, Tilly would also capitulate and write,

“I appreciate that there are certain questions which have been in the minds of some of your members after the planning of the first eighteen holes. You must appreciate that my plans were considerably hampered by the action of your Tennis
Committee in selecting some of the most desirable land we had; and although the area which has been taken for the tennis courts is considerable, I am very confident that I can fit in the second eighteen holes for the golf course in a manner which will be entirely satisfactory…
      “If you analyze the plans closely, you will see that the various holes have been laid out in such a manner as to eliminate entirely the climbing of hills, an evil which has existed on your present course [at Roland Park] and one which I have been instructed to avoid.”
      “I am obviously very much pleased with the work which has been done, and having before me your report of the resolutions passed by the Board of Governors, I am prepared to plan the second eighteen holes within the next week…”

The second course would never be built.

Jason, you asked, "Did the USGA butcher Winged Foot with the work that was done there for the recent mens am.?"

It is very easy to blame (and I'm not saying that you have) an organization such as the USGA for changes to even the greatest of courses when an event such as an Amateur or Open is held. At times though it is the membership itself that does this, and WF is a good example.

The par-5 12th hole has now been lengthened once with the addition of a new tee. It can be stretched out to over 630 yards. This was done by the membership and required purchase of a bit of property to accomodate the tee. The USGA had not made this recommendation nor were they involved in the decision.

Will this turn out to be a good decision? Only when the Open is played can that be stated. Does this extra lengthening fit in with how Tilly designed the hole to be played? NO, it goes completely AGAINST it.

The hole was designed as a 487 yard par-5 that could be reached in 2. Tilly wanted to see the heroic play here. In the 1929 playoff between Jones & Espinoza, they both went for it in two.

At 557 yards, the length it played for the PGA in the 90's, both Tiger Woods & Davis Love III went for it in two on Sunday. Both missed just right of the greenside bunker. Both got down in 4 more shots for bogeys. Risk/Reward at its best, now taken away by adding yardage.

It will most assuredly play as a three-shotter during the Open, what a shame.