News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


THuckaby2

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2004, 10:15:13 AM »
Gib:

Gotcha.  Thanks.  Some times I do get up on the wrong side of the bed...  ;D

And that is a bummer to hear about Lakeside.  Maybe it's best I do never play there again.

 ;)

TH

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2004, 12:03:53 PM »
Tom Paul,
I think its best to understand, and this is what I hope David Gookin and other green committee guys find out what Bill Greenwood has found out; that courses do evolve over a period of time, and this is much of Forrest's point about evolution of change, but it doesn't mean that you go out and change the architecture of the golf course.

Tastes change because members go out and see things at other courses that they want for their courses, and this is primarliy what is wrong right now at Rancho Santa Fe because they are trying to make their wonderful course compete with three other brand new near-by courses that can be compared to a shiney new car.  They are going to want the curbed concrete cart paths and the bridges with running water presentations that take place in the middle of all of that "Permanent Architecture" and this creates further problems in the architecture because of all of the modern immenities that have been implemented.

Its all like the computer game "Sim City" where you actually are given a site and are given the chance to build and expand and develop over a period of years--in minutes--all the while, episodes that are the result of your decisions to build-expand-develop take place. All sorts of disasters can happen from expansions from traffic delays, nuclear power plant explosions, fires, earthquakes and the like. Its quite hilarious, but its also quite interesting to see how evolution works.

Here is the website with a smaller version so you can play the game on-line: http://simcity.ea.com/

But back to RSF!

Rancho Santa Fe has suffered from the same mistakes many Golden Age classics have here in California and across the country. It barely made it through a depression and World War, and when it did, it was welcomed into a world where the original design which was neglected, was taken into a different direction architecturally. Trees were introduced and what many percieved as the unsightly nature of nature was taken for ugly, and this is where it was most unfortunate because the people in charge of making the decisions--several different people--too many people--just don't understand the parameters of what it was to grasp that nature and utilize it to its fullest. Why, its like designing a house in Rancho Santa Fe that may have Italian influences involved in its architecure--surely out of place in Spanish California and a community thats takes pride to its old "Rancho" days.

(Geoff, NOW I can see why the Bridges clubhouse doesn't work! ! ! ! )

Simply put, RSFCC has been on a path for a great many years that has taken it away from its roots. Imagine taking a Califronia Ranch-style ranch house, and over the years influencing it with Italian-like add ons, or landscaping it with a Japanese garden-like flair. This is the same at RSFCC, only its receiving its influences from other country clubs throughout the country and this is where they have lost it. BUT Rancho Santa Fe still has many of the features that are still shining through all of that melange of styles that have influenced it over the years, and it is recoverable, IF the right minds are willing to take the step to get it back.

Geoff_Shackelford

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2004, 12:36:13 PM »
Though it's hard to refute the sterling architectural evaluation that Forrest made, I believe Rancho Santa Fe is loaded with potential character. It is hard to tell today with the wannabe-Bridges motifs and the recent (grotesque) palm tree planting on the 5th hole designed to prevent long drives. Oh, and there's the recent bunker work, which is dreadful. In general, it's severely over planted and appears to be like too many other clubs, overly concerned about what longer hitters are doing.

Tommy is right, there is a lot going on in the ground and the routing is sensational. But the rich and carefully protected architectural character of the Rancho Santa Fe community has not extended to the present day course in any way. It's odd that a community can have such a unique architectural theme, carry it over to the clubhouse, and then completely lose touch with reality when it comes to their golf course. Then again, it's San Diego, home to more drab architecture (golf and otherwise) than any place on the planet. So it's not a surprise that the community standard-bearer is stooping to the level of its neighbors.

It's rather sad to think of what it once was and to see it today. Between the course design and the Crosby/Del Mar influence, it must have been one neat place to play in the 20s and 30s.

BCrosby

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2004, 01:06:07 PM »
Geoff -

It is an interesting fact about modern golf clubs how often they demonstrate impeccable taste in their clubhouses, cabins, pools and practice areas and at the same time are absolutely, totally, 100% clueless about their golf courses.

Can you flip that around for clubs in the '20's? Then they tended to build small, tacky, dumpy clubhouses (and related appurtenances), but they seemed to have impeccable instincts about their golf courses.

What happened?

Bob
« Last Edit: April 15, 2004, 01:46:43 PM by BCrosby »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2004, 04:35:07 PM »
BCrosby,

I'm not so sure I'd agree with your theory.

Winged Foot, Lido, Ridgewood, Baltusrol, Seminole and many other clubs built substantive clubhouses AND great golf courses.

Geoff Shackelford,

The trend seems to be universal.
Good solid golf courses are getting facelifts when none are needed.

There are those who theorize that there have been dramatic shifts in memberships over the last ten years, with a great number of these new members having no prior connection to golf or any golf course.

At some clubs the first thing new members want to do is change the club.   If they don't like it as is, why did they join it in the first place.

I sense that TV, Resort Golf Courses and Winter Golf Courses have helped contribute to what is perceived as "The Golf Course" to have.

For many members of clubs, if they didn't have bad taste, they wouldn't have any taste at all.  They can't see the value in the foundation of their golf course because it's beyond their abilities or it's too subtle, hence the need to glitz it up, to be recognized by those with minimal or bad taste.

But, it's not just San Diego, it's systemic.

Fortunately, a few clubs are going in the opposite direction, recognizing the underlying values of the foundation and features of the golf course and restoring or enhancing them, such as NGLA with its recent internal tree clearing process.

Hopefully, they'll continue their good work and reclaim lost bunkers and other wonderful features that might have been forgotten.

Like the nation, I see a continued polarization in the direction golf courses are headed.  Even some of the classic standard bearers have lost their architectural compass.

BCrosby

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2004, 04:46:33 PM »
Pat -

I don't agree with my theory either. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to be and sound facetious.

Bob
« Last Edit: April 15, 2004, 04:47:13 PM by BCrosby »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2004, 05:05:04 PM »
BCrosby,

I got the funny part  ;D

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2004, 06:43:01 PM »
Quote
Like the nation, I see a continued polarization in the direction golf courses are headed.  Even some of the classic standard bearers have lost their architectural compass.

I couldn't agree with this statement more.

Pat, Who do you think is responsible for leading to this polarization?

Perhaps Green Committees such as Merion, Riviera (ownership), etc. etc. etc. should be taken by the hand before making such changes and see what pro bono work will do for their designs....

The strangest thing of all is that how come I get it and the biggest name in Golf Architecture doesn't? Yes, maybe I might not get it in his terms, but then, what exactly are his terms?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2004, 07:43:14 PM »
Tommy,

I think there's a cultural gap.
Almost a generational rift.
You have those new to golf who don't understand its traditions and values, and those with a historical connection to the game and its venues.

It seems that membership turnover was minimal in years past, hence new members were gradually assimilated into the club, its culture and traditions, but today, the turnover is so rapid and so substantial that many clubs have a significantly different membership then they did 10-20 years ago, and that this rapid and voluminous influx has altered the culture of the club and the value attached to the golf course.

And as such, the thinking with respect to the golf course has dramatically changed, nothing is sacred, and everything is open to modernization.

Even at clubs such as GCGC, those who want restoration or retention of the status quo are reminded that golf clubs are meant to change, meant to be modernized, and as a shining example of this, ANGC is cited as the club whose architectural/alteration model should be followed.

Go chase that argument after last week.
But, that's the logic you encounter.

Forget the benefit or restoring holes to what can be viewed in 1936 aerials and ground level photos, some members want modernization for modernization's sake, without knowing or caring what the details are, or what the results will be.

How many Jedi Knights remain to fight the Evil Empire ?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2004, 07:45:57 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2004, 09:13:13 PM »
You had to bring that Star Wars-thing up didn't you Pat.  Next thing you know, I'll have all of THEM calling me Yoda! ;D

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2004, 10:48:19 PM »
Interesting add to Rancho Santa Fe.  I played today with a guy who lived in the San Diego area during some of the changes.  He loved the course the way it used to be.  He said that when the Dye Design changes were made, all of the members were blaming others for what happened.  No one was taking any credit, they all knew the changes were not for the better.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Scott_Burroughs

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2004, 11:53:36 AM »
To get a feel for the routing to go along with the pics earlier,
here's a small version of the aerial of RSFCC (which was AOTD #111).

Front nine on right:



A larger version, much easier to see details, can be seen here:Link

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2004, 12:21:45 PM »
Some great stuff there Scott. Neat reading the comments on the course from the AOTD, and maybe its something Forrest should also read so he can try to recant his statements.

From the looks of it, this maybe the best representation of Behr left, at least from his principles with only the greens and the bunkering having been changed. (Horribly I might add)

After talking to Robert more yesterday about the golf course, I can hardly wait for a return visit, and next time I hope its with Tom Paul so he can see Max's work in the ground.

This is such a good study because even though the greens and bunkering don't exist, the work of the fairways does, and it shines brightly for guys like us.

To echo Tom Huckaby's comments from the original AOTD, I do think its San Diego's best, and it still does beat Barona, and that isn't a slam at Baraona at all. It's just that there lies this greatness still in the ground and if you study golf architecture or at least hang around this website, its undeniable how good it really could be.




Patrick_Mucci

Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2004, 08:12:48 PM »
Lynn Shackelford,

Who at the club had the responsibility for the project ?

Why did the members approve of a design that represented a significant  departure from their original golf course ?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2004, 08:16:17 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2004, 01:24:12 PM »
Sorry Pat.  I am unable to answer your questions.  I don't know much about their set-up.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson