Was Ron Prichard correct ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles,

I would agree that once a given feature is altered/disfigured the golf course now becomes open season for every new green chairman, president and board.

The first domino has tumbled and the disfiguration is now underway for the foreseeable future.

I don't want you to think I'm exonerating architects from responsibility, I'm not, but often they are brought in because the club had previously decided that they want to make changes, and if architect X won't implement them, then they'll get architect Y to do the work.

You used a phrase that alarmed me, concerning the redoing of the 12th at GCGC to the "memberships desire"  
That's exactly what I'm talking about, and that's where you have to be extremely careful.

With aerial and ground level photos of the original, why should the hole be redesigned to the "memberships desire" and not the original hole

Now you see the dilema.

At one point, recently, GCGC was very close to restoring the 12th at GCGC, but an unexpected fly got into the ointment.

Perhaps we'll get lucky in the near future.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just trying to bring this back, past Bill Vostinak's bad jokes.

[john_stiles]

Just in general...where feasible...I would agree that a return to the original would be preferred in many cases at most of the classics.  

That would certainly be preferred in your situation based on what you have inferred about a disfigurement.  There is not a dilema in your situtation. It seems that GC can return. Very fortunate indeed.

I thought one of your points from other posts was that the membership, through their club committee and board (assuming course is owned by the membership), was primarily and ultimately responsible for any course work.  If I have misread from past posts, I now see, perhaps,  you do not exonerate architects from responsibility in all cases. I agree wholeheartly with that notion.

In my opinion, it was this combination of a disconnect, caused primarily by the depression and WW2, and the influence of the upswing of 'modernization' for national events that caused many problems at clubs.   The memberships (or their leaders) were also lost due to the same disconnect and I think the architects assumed a greater role in this era of widespread remodeling of the classics.

Now architects like Prichard, Doak, Silva, etc. and members like you and GCA gang are connected or almost hardwired to the classics.  

So, it reallys sounds like GC will go very well.

A nice before and after photo article would be nice for the 12th at GC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles,

Tommy Naccarato and others are the photo experts and can probably post the old and current aerials of the 12th hole.

I think you'll like the old hole.

I've always maintained that the membership is the ultimate custodian of their golf course and responsible for any changes to it.  They determine or approve what will be done and then they fund it.

[gookin]

For what it is worth at Fox Chapel we recently wrote a Mission Statement for the Green Committee.  It states the Green Committee is responsible for restoring and preserving the architectural integrity of our Seth Raynor golf course.  We hope that this will help keep us from repeating some of the mistakes of the past such as: bunkers in our Punchbowl, the removal of our Alps and Lions Mouth, rough growing on our Redan, and fairway for half our biarritz, trees planted in triangles adjacent to greens and in fairways. It is hard to imagine, but it happened.  Lets not let it happen again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Gookin,

It's been my limited experience that Mission Statements as your describe are great, but only if the club recruits future green committee members who understand their responsibility, as well as the traditions and architectural history of the club.

This usuallly provides for a high degree continuity and avoids disconnects that can lead to disfigurations.

More clubs should follow your lead.