I would suspect 95% of American golf clubs call their Green Committee a Greens Committee. Which means 95% of American clubs are incorrect. The "green" is the course as a whole. The Keeper of the Green is the person who cares for the course. The "green" as used in correct golf terminology has nothing specifically to do with "Greens", those surfaces on which putting usually takes place.

I have no problem with you. And, you're correct, I do not know you. But I'm in a conversation with you and I'm getting to know you. It would be interesting to know who you work for, or what it is you do with green committees.

To generally refer to people who sit on green committees as "morons" just further distances your ideas from those individuals — so it seems — that you feel can make an adjustment which might better fit your ideals.

If you truly feel green committe members are morons, then you do not "work with" them. You're just visiting them in your spare time.

JimHealy24,

I'm not troubled by the concept of added length at the tee.
Most architects allowed for it within their designs.
Bringing the tee shot back into the drive zone seems prudent,

The problem is retaining the approach shot intended by the architect.  For many years it seemed that 7-irons were hit at the 150-160 range, 4-irons at the 180-190 range. Today, guys are hitting wedges at 150-160 and 7-8 irons at 180-190.

It is the license given to green committees that seems most troubling.

Why do they need to change the golf course, why the need to alter its features, add new ones or eliminate originals.

Recently I talked to an individual who was about to become the President of his club.  He stated that he wanted his committees to consist of the broadest base of the membership, especially the green committee.
He wanted good golfers, medium golfers, poor golfers, old golfers, young golfers, middle aged golfers, female golfers, male golfers, beginer golfers, etc., etc..

Missing from his desire to seed the committee with the broadest spectrum of the membership, was the critical phrase, "golfers QUALIFIED to sit on the green committee"

In this situation, it would appear that political considerations outweighed practical and/or prudent considerations.

You can bet that this golf course will be quickly infused with colored flags, bold yardage markers and assorted trash.

Tom MacWood,

I understand what you're saying, but you can't fault a man for being published.

I'm not sure that I accept your trickle down theory and the extent of his influence.

If someone came to you and said, I can make you much better looking, far more attractive through plastic surgery, but, it will be a contentious decision for you, expensive, and you'll be laid up for a while, unable to function, I doubt that you would proceed, unless, there was something within you that made you feel inadequate, or you felt the compeling need for cosmetic surgery to improve yourself, and that is how I feel these clubs must have felt, inadequate, or in the perceived need of improving themselves.

I also doubt that there committees were filled with individuals familiar with architecture, agronomy and competitive experience at the highest levels.

Jim Healy hit on the need for keeping up with the Jones's, and I would have to agree with that.  Fortunately, today, keeping up with the Jones's is fueling restorations and tree removal programs.

But, I think, in the 50's and 60's and even the 70's golf courses became open season, and once one club made an alteration, it sparked and spurred other clubs to follow suit.

I wouldn't discount TV's golf impact in the 50's
Having graduated high school in 1960 I can tell you that we watched plenty of golf during the 50's.
Programs were developed over time like the "CBS Golf Classic" which was one of the favorites as was "Shell's Wonderful World of Golf", followed by "The Big Three".
At the same time, a guy named "Arnold Palmer" arrived on the scene, a powerful, charismatic figure, hitching up his pants and charging to victory, and the marriage was made,
TV, Palmer and Professional Golf.

Millions were exposed to the golfers and the golf courses they played.  People who never traveled to California could see what a California golf course looked like, the same for Texas, Florida, Metro New York and points international.

And, I'll bet you, that if the golfing viewers saw a golf course with a fountain in a pond/lake, that fountains were the topic of discussion at the next green committee meeting.

I don't believe that the genesis of alterations can be layed at the foot of RTJ and the USGA
I believe a number of factors, including the ones you listed, accumulated, until a critical mass was formed, that led to the alteration of golf courses in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.

Somewhere in time, golf course architecture went from inviolate to open season by amateurs and I wonder if these courses weren't a victim of their own popularity, the growth of golf, and the increasing distance between their creation, the life span of their architects and the current times ??

Thanks, Pat.  And, by the way, my background check on you indicates that you never graduated high school but were "offered a diploma in exchange for your departure." Is this true?

Sorry Jeff. Please share your experiences and feelings.

OK, Mr. Richardson, I'll share my experience.  Hopefully, what I say on this forum stays on this forum, where it should be.

Let me share a little story about a golf club I have worked at in my career, which will go by the fake name of "Bad Decision Country Club".

The "Green" Chairman at BDCC is a man that "sees" the golf course and the Superintendant on a daily basis.  This gentlemen definitely puts in the time at the club fulfilling his duties of overseeing the golf course.  Matter of fact, he is the biggest micro-manager I have ever seen.  It is almost impossible for a guy to rake a leaf without the "Green" Chairman telling the poor guy how to do it.  Mind you, this gentleman, prior to the year in question, had ZERO knowledge of course architecture or maintenance.  Now, all of a sudden he is a self-proclaimed guru of how to take care of a course.

Let me list off to you some of the wonderful decisions and goings on of this "Green" Chairman and his "Green" Committee in general.

1-  Flower beds throughout the course were deemed a higher priority than bunker maintenance and restoration.  

2-  After repeated complaints about the carpeting of a wood deck and stairway being extremely dangerous due to enormous rips and tears that would send someone flying into wooden rails, his comment was to try to get one more year out of the carpet.  Finally, someone has tripped and injured themselves.  We'll see if a suit is born from this.

3-  After consultations with the USGA, highly-respected superintendents throughout the area, agronomists, and his own superintendent the "Green" Chairman decided to go against suggestions to remove many dying and unnecessary trees to improve turf conditions because he liked how the trees "framed" the holes and they made the course look "pretty".  He then went and complained to and railed the Super on a daily basis about turf conditions and how they need to improve.

4-  The "Green" Chairman has repeatedly taken "free samples" of soil, seed, chemicals and equipment for his own use.  In other words, he has robbed the club while claiming the club doesn't have the necessary funds to do this or that.

5-  The "Green" Chairman considered his greatest achievement in his tenure to have been to institute a policy of putting range balls in a pyramid formation to beautify the range (sorry, "Practice Facility").

Now, Mr. Richardson, if this man is not a moron in your eyes then I question your sanity.

After repeatedly trying to persuade, suggest and push this man and his committee to do the right thing at committee meetings and in casual meetings I watched BDCC suffer from mis-management and the worst set of priorities I have seen in my career.

This is just ONE example of the many different committees, clubs, and chairman I have had the pleasure of working for.  I could make this post read over 10,000 words long but I'll spare you the details of the other ones that I have worked for.  I would say that only 1 out 10 has done the right thing in his tenure that I have worked for.

Jeff F.

Mr. Richardson,

I am very skilled in the arts of communication seeing that I am successful in the customer serivice industry and teaching business.  I tried every angle with this man and his henchmen.  Not even the Pope can change the mind of a blue-collar, self-made millionaire of a man that grew up on Flatbush Avenue with no money.  What he believes is right is right, and that's it.  

As poetic as your words are and as idealistic as you approach the topic, unfortunately, there is no changing certain peoples' minds and ways.

Jeff F.

Forrest Richardson,

You are correct.
In fact, I was offered a diploma after my freshman, sophomore and junior years in an accelerated attempt to get me out of the school system.   I stubbornly refused, until they promised to provide glowing letters of recommendation to the colleges I was considering.

It should also be noted that I had the identical experience after my freshmen year in college.

Jeff Fortson,

I feel your pain.

Quote from: CDisher on September 26, 2003, 05:03:44 PM

RTJ and television (primarily of the Masters) in about equal measures. I wonder how gca would have evolved in the last 40 years if there had been a once-a-year "major" tournament televised at Pine Valley.

What a great question to muse upon.

I agree.  However, I would rephrase the question to ask:

"I wonder how Pine Valley would have evolved if it had held a once-year "major" tournament voer the past 60-70 years?

My guess is that it would be as changed, if not more changed, than Augusta is now.

Tom

What's wrong with "idle posers?"  Many of us on this DG would fit that description, wouldn't we?

Of course, PV didn't host a "major' because they didn't want to host a "major."  Fine for them.  That's their prerogative.  But, IF they had chosen to go the Bobby Jones route, and have had their course subject to examination over 60-70 years by the greatest players in the game and hundreds of millions of fans watching every shot on television all over the world, do you really not think that the course today would be a very different one?  Never having played it, but avidly reading all the words and pictures of it that I can get from this website, I do.

If you would prefer not to use your imagination, that's cool too.

PS--how did you get on in the Crump?  If it's been played, I mean........

Shivas,

Saul was the designer's designer...although golf was not part of his life.

A favorite quote Saul gave us:

"The invention of the typewriter did not necessarily bring us better poetry...and the computer is not likely to bring us any better design."

Check this out:

http://www.saulbass.net/index.html

Tom MacWood,

Define "change" and "remodel", including features and scope.

Not one in a million golfers know exactly what RTJ did to Oakland Hills on a hole by hole basis, and when.

Knowing the names RTJ and the USGA doesn't provide one with the insight to determine exactly what they did to each golf course they were involved with.

If RTJ modified the 16th hole and others at Oakland Hills, what impact did that have outside of Oakland Hills at clubs like, Glen Ridge, The Knoll, Essex County East, Essex County West, Montclair, Mountain Ridge, Preakness Hills, North Jersey, Canoe Brook, Crestmont, Essex Fells, Forest Hills, Upper Montclair, Cedar Hill, Ferncliff, Green Brook, all of which are located just minutes from RTJ's office ?

Tom MacWood,

Do you consider Baltusrol and Oakland Hills classic courses ?

Could it be that RTJ's office's proximity to the USGA headquarters might have been a considerable factor ?

Seeing as how RTJ only gets credit for redesigning 20 golf courses prior to 1950 I don't see how you can attribute this enormous body modernizaton at his feet.   And, some of those 20 golf courses only involved a hole or two, and the extent of those alterations hardly qualifies as redesigning the entire golf course as you would have many believe.

He is credited with only redesigning approximately 20 courses prior to 1950.  In 1950 he's 44 years old, been in the business for a good number of years and only has 20 redesigns, of questionable scope, to his credit

So, the summary of his redesigns is 20 courses prior to 1950, 24 courses from 1950 thru 1956, 12 courses from 1957 thru 1959, 49 courses in the 60's and 25 courses in the 70's.  I'd say that tracks pretty well with the expanding medium of TV and the growth in the popularity of golf from the late 50's until RTJ was about 75 years old and winding down his career.

Again, many of the redesigns credited to him are minor in nature, sometimes a hole or a feature, yet you would have everyone believe that he redesigned entire golf courses,
which is a complete fabrication.

If you deny that more alterations have taken place from 1957 to current time, versus pre 1957, you're not in touch with reality.

Lastly, your dislike of the Jones's has so blinded your perspective that you're seeing conspiracies where none exist.

Tom MacWood,

Not only was he the most prominant designer of that time, he was also controlling the dialogue. And below the surface lurked the USGA, who had their hand in many of these modernizations.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me !