Worst New List

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I was just agreeing with you.
Mike

[ChipOat]

Tom D.

Re: The Country Club (Cleveland).  I don't have a credible answer for your question because I only seem to have time to read Golf World and Golfweek anymore (and I'm way behind on those, too).  Thus, I'm not up on just how comprehensive many renovations can really get.  However, I confess that the list you dislike does have some appeal (especially on GCA) as a public "outing" of both the bad and the ugly for all to see.

If a club is going to screw around with a Flynn design, they ought to expect some recognition and opinion of it in the media - right?

As you can tell, I am inclined to take the other side of the position regarding the sacrosanctness of (excellent) original designs although I do agree with Pat Mucci (and others) that armchair-architecture-by-committee often has unfortunate results.

Now I'm curious and need to go buy the magazine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I knew that.

[HamiltonBHearst]

spdb you could not be more wrong.  Read Pat's response, think about the committee's that run these clubs or better yet get on one, and then come back with an answer.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it is important to recognize both restorations and renovations. There is some very good work being done. Every course in Jupiter, almost without exception is doing extensive work, e.g., Cypress Links by Pete Dye turned into Dye Preserve by Pete Dye. A reallyfirst class job turning one of Pete's Pigs into a downright desirable play to play and belong to.

Ditto with Mike Strantz's effort at Monterey Peninsula. Mike's work showed his brillance and range and his ability to adapt to the land and his ability to adapt the land to his style. He made it work.

To only single out architects who are doing new work, when there is so much other work going on, is not fair to that other group of architects.

[SPDB]

Hammy -
I was going to ask YOU to explain why i "could not be more wrong," but then I realized that would require you to produce an original thought, a feat you have yet to accomplish since joining GCA.

Pat -
I have served on zero green committees, that doesn't change my opinion that this list will not have an appreciable impact  on golf course restoration/renovation vis-a-vis the Top 100 list. If any club is undertaking work to gain recognition it will be with an eye to making Top 100 or state lists, and not to be mentioned on the Best Renovation list for 20__.

[Mike_Young]

I think it is important to recognize both restorations and renovations. There is some very good work being done. Every course in Jupiter, almost without exception is doing extensive work, e.g., Cypress Links by Pete Dye turned into Dye Preserve by Pete Dye. A reallyfirst class job turning one of Pete's Pigs into a downright desirable play to play and belong to.

Ditto with Mike Strantz's effort at Monterey Peninsula. Mike's work showed his brillance and range and his ability to adapt to the land and his ability to adapt the land to his style. He made it work.

To only single out architects who are doing new work, when there is so much other work going on, is not fair to that other group of architects.

Cary,
The problem as I see it is just what TD mentioned .  The creation of more work than is needed.  Many of these places need just that old statement used for the wilderness, "take nothing, leave only footprints".  
Of course if it is a completly new course on the same piece of land then that is one thing but to "reno" a course when all is needed was maintenance , new green lines and some new bunker lines and pipe is what concerns me.

[Forrest Richardson]

Dunne — "...what makes a golf course great" is partially answered by bringing attention to courses, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with which ones have been selected. The reader is not as stupid as you imagine, and the panels are by no means entirely stupid either. The pretty pictures of today are placeholders for the grainy, black and white engravings of Golf Illustrated, c.1900, 1901, etc.

I agree with much of your post about the emphasis on short, "no-long-reads" in many modern periodicals. However, I believe each of our primary golf magazines has done well to keep golf architecture alive, allowing writing which gets at the heart of your "...what makes a golf course great" question. Whitten, writing about Jeff's work for example, passed on some philosophies which might stick with the reader. Of course, whether an opinion sticks is subject to many variables.

[Ian Andrew]

I don't agree with the category, I fear for what it will encourage. This is the only one that I could possibly win in, and I would still rather not see it exist.

Architects should never be up for remodelling their own work. That seems wrong to me. You reward them for screwing up and then spending more of the clients money to fix it.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Coming back to "tweak" a course is one thing... but a complete rebuild after a decade is a bit extreme. I agree.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ian — What will it encourage?

[Yannick Pilon]

I heard or read somewhere that Nicklaus had a clause in all his contracts stating that he was the only one that should be allowed to do any work or revisions to his own courses once they are open for play.

I wonder if there is any truth to this.

Can anyone confirm....

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
I think it wiil encourage some unecessary renovation and remodel to courses that really did not need it but chose to do it in order to try and be "listed".  I saw a recent example in Atlanta of a course that was 40 years old.  It needed irrigation, new greens and cart paths.  That could have been done for $2.2 million but it went to $4.5 because the membership felt it would be better received if they spent more money.  I guess it is sort of like having two shirts that were made in the same plant to the same specs but one has an alligator on it.  It must be better.
Sorry I answered a question for Ian.
Mike Y

[Ian Andrew]

Forrest,

"Ian — What will it encourage? "

A complete rebuild when it was completely unnessasary. I've seen a series of them that didn't have to happen. Club's get talked into work they do not need to do already. Now architects have another list, and more examples of why they should take that route. Often the decision is completely ego based, and has no view to what is appropriate, realistic or practical.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ian —

...complete rebuild when it was completely unnessasary...
Yes, of course. There are loads of things in golf that are not necessary. But the element of unnecessary should not preclude 100% of anything.

...club's get talked into work they do not need to do already...now architects have another list, and more examples of why they should take that route....
Yes, of course. There are bad professionals with bad motives. But the element of a few bad professionals should not mean we point the finger at the whole lot.

...often the decision is completely ego based, and has no view to what is appropriate, realistic or practical...
Yes, of course. But isn't your complaint here applicable to any endeavor ever undertaken by mankind? Let's face it. Golf, as a recreation and elective pastime will always be subject to egos and ego-based decisions. The architecture and design of such a pastime is bound to be caught up in some of the same ills. Again, let's admit that we cannot predict that all of the work will have no view to what is appropriate, realistic or practical.

[Tom_Doak]

Yannick:

I've heard that Nicklaus and Weiskopf have that clause in their contracts, that the owner may not alter the course for a set period of time, or they will disown it by removing the license to market it as "their" design.  So, if a client wants their name for marketing purposes, he has to sign a clause which most would consider onerous.

I can understand from the designer's side wanting control of your own artwork, but there are only a handful of architects who could ever present that clause in a contract without being shown to the door.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

A few years ago the MGA Magazine came out with a number of categories related to golf courses.

One of them was the best "landscaped".

You can't believe the impact that had, and what went on amongst committees, and then what was done to golf courses in an attempt to try to achieve the top position in that category, as well as several others.

Trust me, there's an element of  membership's that want their course recognized if there's a categrory to be recognized in, and that becomes a dangerous pursuit.

Once the process begins, it's hard to disengage.

Five years on a green committee would be an eye opener.