A "hands off" clause

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dodgy argument to be sure.
 
IMO, a golf course is not primarily a work of art.  

You have some wierd hangups about expecting people to pay for club memberships yet not expecting them to have a say in how the club is run.  

How do you think your theory holds up at Pine Valley, Seminole or many other clubs where joining members are best seen and not heard from ?[/color]

That works fine if here are a few owners who seek like minded members, but many clubs are owned by all the members.  

You have to learn to differentiate between an equal equity interest and an equal say in how the club is run.
The two are worlds apart at many clubs.[/color]

I could be persuaded to add a clause to the contract which you suggest if I was just joining a new club because I am presuming there is a reason I decided to join this new club - mainly the course.  

If at an existing club, I certainly don't want to relinquish any rights I have to a chosen few and an architect.  This is exactly why left a club this year - I didn't trust the folks calling the shots.  Oddly, it is my opinion that many changes were made (imo for the worse - hence the reason I left) that would not had the membership voted on each item.  Its often tough to convince a membership to change and many will feel it ain't worth the effort.  It was a chosen few who decided to plant trees, grow rough and narrow fairways.  I would guess this is the same for a great many clubs.  

Please go back and reread my opening post.[/color]

I can symphasize with you concerning some courses which should be preserved or at the very least modernized with a view to the original intent of the architect.  But at the end of the day, it really isn't any of my business unless I am willing to foot the bill.  

Don't forget, a great many courses have been drastically improved on the original.  Some of these improvements are examples of the greatest creations of the Golden Age.  To a large extent, change is inevitable.  The crux of the question is to what end will changes be made and how will they be managed?

Sean, I believe you have to examine the issue in the context of how clubs were run 80 years ago and how they're run today.

Most clubs weren't democratically run, nor did every member have an equal voice, despite having and equal equity investment.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, seems to me you'd prefer an archie licensing the use of their work to their clients as opposed to their clients paying them for a work for hire.

I'm embarassed to say I don't know the answer but have any gca's copyrighted and licensed their plans to others, say in the way that residential and commercial architects license their plans to developers/builders?

Short of owning the underlying dirt, can gca's develop lasting intellectual property rights in their courses that would give them a say in whether derivative works could be created later on?

I would think Jay Flemma has written about this, Jay?

Jason,

You're confusing artistic license with licensing.

[Sean_A]

Dodgy argument to be sure.
 
IMO, a golf course is not primarily a work of art.  

You have some wierd hangups about expecting people to pay for club memberships yet not expecting them to have a say in how the club is run.  

How do you think your theory holds up at Pine Valley, Seminole or many other clubs where joining members are best seen and not heard from ?[/color]

That works fine if here are a few owners who seek like minded members, but many clubs are owned by all the members.  

You have to learn to differentiate between an equal equity interest and an equal say in how the club is run.
The two are worlds apart at many clubs.[/color]

I could be persuaded to add a clause to the contract which you suggest if I was just joining a new club because I am presuming there is a reason I decided to join this new club - mainly the course.  

If at an existing club, I certainly don't want to relinquish any rights I have to a chosen few and an architect.  This is exactly why left a club this year - I didn't trust the folks calling the shots.  Oddly, it is my opinion that many changes were made (imo for the worse - hence the reason I left) that would not had the membership voted on each item.  Its often tough to convince a membership to change and many will feel it ain't worth the effort.  It was a chosen few who decided to plant trees, grow rough and narrow fairways.  I would guess this is the same for a great many clubs.  

Please go back and reread my opening post.[/color]

I can symphasize with you concerning some courses which should be preserved or at the very least modernized with a view to the original intent of the architect.  But at the end of the day, it really isn't any of my business unless I am willing to foot the bill.  

Don't forget, a great many courses have been drastically improved on the original.  Some of these improvements are examples of the greatest creations of the Golden Age.  To a large extent, change is inevitable.  The crux of the question is to what end will changes be made and how will they be managed?

Sean, I believe you have to examine the issue in the context of how clubs were run 80 years ago and how they're run today.

Most clubs weren't democratically run, nor did every member have an equal voice, despite having and equal equity investment.[/color]

Pat

All I can say is that clubs aren't what they used to be.  Perhaps the Pine Valleys of this world were the common way for clubs to run 80 years ago, but in my experience, this is a fairly rare situation these days.  In fact, I have only come across a few clubs where there was a private owner and the members were essentially honoured guests which only make a noise when their billfold opens.  I wonder how many guys who want a club like this would be happy if they were the honoured guest?  I expect you will say loads, but does that mean loads of millions or just loads as in hundreds?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

All I can say is that clubs aren't what they used to be.

Agreed[/color]

Perhaps the Pine Valleys of this world were the common way for clubs to run 80 years ago, but in my experience, this is a fairly rare situation these days.  

In fact, I have only come across a few clubs where there was a private owner and the members were essentially honoured guests which only make a noise when their billfold opens.  

I wonder how many guys who want a club like this would be happy if they were the honoured guest?  

Loads[/color]

I expect you will say loads, but does that mean loads of millions or just loads as in hundreds?

That depends upon how many openings for membership there are.

Ask anyone if they'd like to be a member of Pine Valley, Augusta, Seminole or Cypress Point, just to name a few.

I know I would, and I dare say that 99 % of those on and lurking on this site would.[/color]

[Jeff Goldman]

Patrick,

Based on your descriptions of Pine Valley, isn't that an instance where the "dictator prinzip" failed?  You have repeatedly talked about the deterioration of the place because of tree encroachment, and others have mentioned other areas that have gone down.  Others, like Tom Doak, have talked about how Augusta has been changed materially, and not for the better - again by a dictator.  Riviera also belongs on the list, and many of us know what happened at The Creek Club (where  boodles of Raynor bunkers were removed, among other things, again by a dictator).  We could probably add Yale to the list where an individual (there the superintendent years and years ago) with all power harmed, or even desecrated, a great golf course.

Of course the counterargument to this would be that a committee would have been even worse, but I'm not so sure.  The more people involved in a decision, the less likely it is that anything will happen.  That can be a good thing when one favors preservation of what is there (not so good when you need to restore what has been mushed).

I'm not decrying the dictatorship, just thinking that it isn't the be-all and end-all, and that each management model has pluses and minuses.  In the end, I think it depends more on the character of the individuals involved than the model.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Hands off clauses are very difficult to enforce unless you are a real big name. Lots of times some of my courses have undergone changes, one has introduced a pond in front of a 300 yard par 4 to stop anyone driving it. My intention was that it was driveable, what can I do. In future years people will forget and refer that to my work.
At Cumberwell, Marc Haring who posts here wanted 4 bunkers running up the right hand side of the fairway, whether I wanted them or not he was going to put them in. I'd like to know if Marc now thinks they are right because he know prefers more open tee shots. My design thoughts on this hole were that the right hand side of the green was heavily bunkered, so the premium tee shot was left to get a better angle. I wanted the tee shot to appear much more open, with the 'fool' not realising that a tee shot right would present a more difficult approach. From the tee there was trouble left, by putting the 4 bunkers in on the right, this took my whole design strategy away.
I have found its very difficult to work for old traditional members clubs, who are looking to do some changes, they merely want you to agree to their design so it will get the vote with the members, it all just seems to cause trouble and the best you get is them cherry pick the ideas, some of which only worked collectively

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Based on your descriptions of Pine Valley, isn't that an instance where the "dictator prinzip" failed?

Failed ?

Hardly.

I'm content with dictatorships if they get it 90 % - 95 % right and I believe they've attained that mark at PV, but, that doesn't mean that they haven't missed the mark in an area or two, which I believe they have on the issue of unabated tree growth over the years.

Not being perfect isn't an indication of failure.[/color]

You have repeatedly talked about the deterioration of the place because of tree encroachment, and others have mentioned other areas that have gone down.  

I've never made the statement, that "in general" the place is deteriorating.  What I've said is that benign neglect has allowed Crump's features and his intent, vis a vis benign neglect with respect to unabated tree growth over time, to be diminished and/or taken out of play.[/color]

Others, like Tom Doak, have talked about how Augusta has been changed materially, and not for the better - again by a dictator.  

I can't speak for Tom Doak, but again, ANGC remains a spectacular golf course.

As to the use of the word "material" some feel that THE "material" changes were all for the better.  
ie # 16, # 10 and # 7 are all substantially better than they were in their original form.

The changes that I lamented had to do with the inability to achieve horizontal elasticity, which occured once trees were planted.  ANGC is now removing some of those trees, but, despite what people tell you, the playing corridors remain quite wide.

And lastly, ANGC has transitioned from a club for the members that hosts a tournament, to a club that hosts the best tournament in golf, which also happens to be a Major.  
They've gone from serving one master to catering to another.
But, don't let anyone tell you that ANGC isn't a great golf course or a great golf club.[/color]

Riviera also belongs on the list,


Riviera remains a great golf course.[/color]

and many of us know what happened at The Creek Club (where  boodles of Raynor bunkers were removed, among other things, again by a dictator).  

I first played The Creek long after Joe Dey, who was a friend of my dad's, removed many bunkers.  When I played the golf course I recognized both its greatness and its potential to be better.

It's hard for you and others who didn't go through the Depression and the effects of WWII to understand the concept of "frugality" as it applies to golf courses.

Many courses were altered for financial and not architectural, aesthetic or playability reasons, and I think you have to factor that into your equation when evaluating changes made to the golf course.

When you look at The Creek, it's essentially unchanged since opening day, save for some of the micro work, which has and continues to be restored.  [/color]

We could probably add Yale to the list where an individual (there the superintendent years and years ago) with all power harmed, or even desecrated, a great golf course.

I disagree completely with respect to Yale.
There's no way you can elevate that superintendent, or any superintendent to the throne of power.

The reality is that superintendents, especially unsupervised superintendents can alter a golf course to suit their maintainance preferences without the knowledge and/or consent of the owner/members.

In fact, I'd venture a guess that many alterations that have occured on golf courses have occured to suit the superintendent's preferences as they relate to maintainance or other issues on their agendas.[/color]

Of course the counterargument to this would be that a committee would have been even worse, but I'm not so sure.  

The more people involved in a decision, the less likely it is that anything will happen.  

I'd amend that to: the less likely that anything good or great will happen.

As I've often said, "you don't see statues commemorating committees".[/color]

That can be a good thing when one favors preservation of what is there (not so good when you need to restore what has been mushed).

I'm not decrying the dictatorship, just thinking that it isn't the be-all and end-all, and that each management model has pluses and minuses.  In the end, I think it depends more on the character of the individuals involved than the model.


The examples you cited, Pine Valley, Augusta, Riviera, The Creek and Yale, all remain great golf courses, with only Augusta having substantive changes on a number of holes, yet, those hole changes have generally been regarded as improvements.

I think the "dictatorship" model worked spectacularlly at all of the courses, with the exception of Yale, where a dictator wasn't in charge, merely an unsupervised employee with rogue ideas.

As I reflect on it, I can't think of a single example where the "dictatorship" model hasn't succeeded royally.

And, when I reflect on the democratic model, laced with committees and boards, I see disfiguration after disfiguration.
It's almost a way of life at those clubs, part of the culture, where succeeding membership/leadership thinks the golf course is their personal canvas, to be drawn upon and altered as they see fit.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hands off clauses are very difficult to enforce unless you are a real big name.

In the U.S., in theory, everyone is equal under the law, hence the statue of blind Justice holding the scales.

A contract should be enforceable irrespective of the signing parties.[/color]

Lots of times some of my courses have undergone changes, one has introduced a pond in front of a 300 yard par 4 to stop anyone driving it. My intention was that it was driveable, what can I do. In future years people will forget and refer that to my work.
 
At Cumberwell, Marc Haring who posts here wanted 4 bunkers running up the right hand side of the fairway, whether I wanted them or not he was going to put them in.

I'd like to know if Marc now thinks they are right because he now prefers more open tee shots. My design thoughts on this hole were that the right hand side of the green was heavily bunkered, so the premium tee shot was left to get a better angle. I wanted the tee shot to appear much more open, with the 'fool' not realising that a tee shot right would present a more difficult approach. From the tee there was trouble left, by putting the 4 bunkers in on the right, this took my whole design strategy away.

I have found its very difficult to work for old traditional members clubs, who are looking to do some changes, they merely want you to agree to their design so it will get the vote with the members, it all just seems to cause trouble and the best you get is them cherry pick the ideas, some of which only worked collectively

I had mentioned previously that in some, if not many, cases, clubs previously decide what THEY want to do, and just bring in an architect to formulate and implement their plan.

It's frightening to sit on committees and boards and hear how different factions want to disfigure golf course after golf course.  And the wild thing about this is that they all think their ideas are spectacular, beneficial to all of the members, when they usually just serve the agendas of the proposers.

I take it that you're strongly in favor of a "hands off" clause. [/color]

[Adrian_Stiff]

Patrick - Im not really in favour of it because for me I would never get anyone to sign it. By enforcable I dont mean leagally, getting the instrument in place would not be easy to do. In an ideal world I would like to be consulted as to any changes made at course i have designed, some courses do still involve me and others dont, I have a good relationship at Cumberwell, 99% of the time Marc and I agree. I did walk away from a further nine hole addition at one because the client was too dominant and basically we could not agree on the routing. A 'name' got involved but most of the problems with that course stem from the initial problem I outlined with the client. The name was prepared to add his name, I wasn't. I probably walk away from more than 50% of jobs, but I dont think I would ever get them to sign a hands off clause.

[Marc Haring]

At Cumberwell, Marc Haring who posts here wanted 4 bunkers running up the right hand side of the fairway, whether I wanted them or not he was going to put them in. I'd like to know if Marc now thinks they are right because he know prefers more open tee shots. My design thoughts on this hole were that the right hand side of the green was heavily bunkered, so the premium tee shot was left to get a better angle. I wanted the tee shot to appear much more open, with the 'fool' not realising that a tee shot right would present a more difficult approach. From the tee there was trouble left, by putting the 4 bunkers in on the right, this took my whole design strategy away.

Probably wouldn’t put all the bunkers in now days Adrian but I wouldn’t have it open. The problem for me is the hole is only 350 yards from the tips, straight up hill and frankly not any real test without the bunkers on the right. Without the bunkers it would have been a simple smash up the right side and a flick with the wedge. The green is bunkered but not exactly severely. As you know, anyone with a wedge in their hands is just not even going to see those greenside bunkers and they’d be looking at birdie all day long. If it were 420 yards it would be another matter.

Here’s the hole:



Here it is without the bunkers:


To me, there is more strategy and interest with the bunkers but I see where you’re coming from. I just don’t think golfers are going to ever go anywhere near the OB on the left side when they don’t need to.

If we were starting again this time I’d probably want it something like this.


That way the long hitter has to stop short of the right hand bunker which will leave something other than a wedge in, or they may want to lay way short and right or carry the bunkers on the left which I think frame the hole a little better or they may want aim at the right bunker and draw it back around the left ones etc…etc. But then again maybe that is just a bit too formulaic, I don’t know.

I will tell you something though and I don’t know whether or not you agree; but this hole does illustrate one recurring problem and that is, owners just always seem to want the clubhouse on top of the highest hill for the views. It then becomes difficult to get good finishing holes and with the current prohibitive planning laws clubhouse development becomes a nightmare. Imagine if the clubhouse was located by our main lake with no one overlooking it. Great location and much easier to get some development through all the visual impact regulations do you think?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Marc- First thing I suppose is that when I designed that hole it was 1992 I guess, its 374 from the back with the tees aligned more sideways than forward, but quite sharply uphill so it certainly plays 400, which in 1992 was kinda drive 6 iron. If that was a 6 iron in from the right over the traps, that is quite a hard approach rather than from the left, so that was the philosophy. Things have moved on, I cant say I like all 4 bunkers but the furthest one does make sense in this day an age, perhaps there is some scope to sim ply grass out the first three and widen the fairway more left. I would not put bunkers in left, the principle being the premium approach is from that side and the crap left is enough to worry about.
I think overall its a good hole, its a second shot that gathers if you aproach it from the left side but repells the ball from the other which I think is quite a nice strategy to have.
The clubhouse was built there for three reasons. Firstly there was an old building near there so with planning law it was easy to get that position since it have been established. Secondly, whilst the Orange course only opened in 2007, I reckon Ive been working on that since 1988, as you know CP was always going to be 36, so that clubhouse point was good for both the courses, thirdly it provides a great view from there and creates a great atmosphere, clubhouse positions are important. Hiding clubhouses especially in green belt policy will become mandatory I suspect in time, but there is one green belt clause that is strange.. it states something like very special buildings of architectural merit will be allowed.. I would think most people in that area would recognise that clubhouse as a nice building and certainly no blot. Is your course open at the moment?

[Marc Haring]

Thanks Adrian


Open!!!! what do you think............

If there are golfers that want to play, we're open!