What clubs DON'T value their pedigree ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

To the point that they ignore their original design.

[John Moore II]

Augusta National has redesigned the club so many times that it is nothing like original. However, I might argue about how much the course plays like it originally did in 1933 when it opened. So, in that way I am not sure if it is very far away from the original idea or somewhere back near the original idea.

[Gerry B]

medinah ?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

To value your pedigree, you would first have to understand what it is/was.  

Like any well branded product, a club with a strong pedigree would understand their brand very well.  Those clubs or products that lose touch with their intrinsic values and history would tend to drift to the point where they might make decisions that take them further away from their 'pedigree.'  

Augusta National would seem an excellent example of a club that loses touch with its roots and then continuously reinvents itself.  Without the well branded tournament would any of us still really care about what is essentially a modern golf course?  

On the other hand,  Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT.  

I find these two excellent examples of the opposing concepts.

[CHrisB]

Shinnecock Hills and Muirfield

More recently, Pinehurst #4

[John Moore II]

Back to Augusta, has it totally lost touch with its roots or is staying in touch with what Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts would have wanted the course to be? With respects to equipment and such today, does the course play like it did when it opened? I think in some respects it does, instead of driver and wedges into par 4's. But maybe I am way off here. I just can't figure if Augusta is far removed from the original idea or if its returning to it.

[John Moore II]

Chris--I'm not certain if I agree with your assessment about Pinehurst #4. It was supposed to be a tribute to Donald Ross, but in reality it wasn't. However, at some level, it was meant to return to some of the original Ross ideas.

[Michael Christensen]

how does Muirfield not value their pedigree??  I think it is just the opposite...they treasure and protect their pedigree...with a little help (aka $$$) from non-club players!  

Medinah is the perfect example to Pat's subject line...

[CHrisB]

Johnny M,
The folks at Pinehurst didn't seem to value the pedigree of Course #4 when they brought in Tom Fazio to replace the original Ross design (later revised by Roger Tufts and RTJ but it was still a Ross). Perhaps Fazio's course was meant to be a tribute to Ross, but...new routing, new holes, new concepts, new course.

Michael,
Muirfield and Shinnecock Hills are examples of world-class courses that are radically different from their original versions. The changes which resulted in their current configurations mostly occurred long ago, but they are examples of clubs that overlooked their pedigrees to the point that they ignored the original design. In Muirfield's case, it was (I believe) Colt & Alison replacing the original Old Tom Morris layout in the 20's. In Shinnecock Hills' case, it was Flynn replacing the original Macdonald/Raynor layout, although to be fair they really couldn't value their pedigree enough to protect the original design--it was a NY State highway expansion which ate into the property and necessitated the redesign.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

 Patrick Mucci,-

Would you say that Garden City has not valued their pedigree by not restoring the 12th hole?

-Mike

[Sean_A]

Johnny M,
The folks at Pinehurst didn't seem to value the pedigree of Course #4 when they brought in Tom Fazio to replace the original Ross design (later revised by Roger Tufts and RTJ but it was still a Ross). Perhaps Fazio's course was meant to be a tribute to Ross, but...new routing, new holes, new concepts, new course.

Michael,
Muirfield and Shinnecock Hills are examples of world-class courses that are radically different from their original versions. The changes which resulted in their current configurations mostly occurred long ago, but they are examples of clubs that overlooked their pedigrees to the point that they ignored the original design. In Muirfield's case, it was (I believe) Colt & Alison replacing the original Old Tom Morris layout in the 20's. In Shinnecock Hills' case, it was Flynn replacing the original Macdonald/Raynor layout, although to be fair they really couldn't value their pedigree enough to protect the original design--it was a NY State highway expansion which ate into the property and necessitated the redesign.

Chris

Surely any club has a period of time to develop a pedigree.  Before moving to Muirfield HCEG's pedigree was based mainly on the club - not the course.  In the case of Muirfield they hadn't been at the new site all that long before deciding on a radical re-design - about 35 years I think.  I would argue that the new course has added to Muirfield's pedigree.  

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Johnny M,
The folks at Pinehurst didn't seem to value the pedigree of Course #4 when they brought in Tom Fazio to replace the original Ross design (later revised by Roger Tufts and RTJ but it was still a Ross). Perhaps Fazio's course was meant to be a tribute to Ross, but...new routing, new holes, new concepts, new course.

Michael,
Muirfield and Shinnecock Hills are examples of world-class courses that are radically different from their original versions. The changes which resulted in their current configurations mostly occurred long ago, but they are examples of clubs that overlooked their pedigrees to the point that they ignored the original design. In Muirfield's case, it was (I believe) Colt & Alison replacing the original Old Tom Morris layout in the 20's. In Shinnecock Hills' case, it was Flynn replacing the original Macdonald/Raynor layout, although to be fair they really couldn't value their pedigree enough to protect the original design--it was a NY State highway expansion which ate into the property and necessitated the redesign.

Chris

Surely any club has a period of time to develop a pedigree.  Before moving to Muirfield the club's pedigree was based mainly on the club - not the course.  In the case of Muirfield they hadn't been at the new site all that long before deciding on a radical re-design - about 35 years I think.  I would argue that the new course has added to Muirfield's pedigree.  

Ciao

ditto shinnecock hills surely?... the flynn course was only 15 years after the (reportedly average) macdonald/raynor layout was constructed and was a happy and fortuitous result from the highway expansion... the macdonald/raynor layout at the time improved on the willie davis / dunn design of 24 years previous... that's how i read it anyway...

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I've never thought of this before but perhaps one indicator of how a club has treated its pedigree is the design evolution (or lack of it) of the clubhouse. Think about that---in a pretty fair number of cases it's pretty indicative---eg Myopia, Newport, Fishers Island, NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC. And of course there are numerous others in that vein. But I will guarantee you that the most indicative of all those is Myopia. It just amazes me that clubhouse has lasted this long and they still allow smoking inside. If I as much as dropped my cigarette on the floor for two seconds that clubhouse would be history.

The really scary thing about Shinnecock is in the 1950s the club came within about a gnat's whisker of selling the entire place to a real estate development. I doubt anything like that will ever happen again, and not now that the Indians have apparently lost their lawsuit to have the place reverted to the Shinnecocks.

[Mark Chaplin]

Clubs that have done little to counter the modern game could be accused of failing to protect their pedigree.

This is not an accusation as it's a members club but Sunningdale Old is a case in point, in 1926 Bobby Jones shot a 66 I believe he used less than a 2 two for his approach shot twice in the round. The best players in the world will barely use a 2 iron twice for their approach in 2008.

So have Sunningdale stayed with their pedigree and reduced the test for the better player or lost their pedigree by not rising to the modern game as some courses have??

On saying all this Sunningdale is one of my favourite venues for a day out and a cracking pair of courses!

[Andy Troeger]

Augusta came to find first for me as well...but after more thought...

Hasn't the golf course always been greatly about the Masters Tournaments?

Hasn't it always been tinkered with to provide what the chairmen feel is best for the Masters?

You could argue and some would that they haven't done a good job with the recent tinkering, but I think as much as anyplace Augusta values what they consider to be their pedigree.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

I don't think you literally mean "original" design. That's what's throwing things off track here.

For example, East Lake's original design was by Bendelow. Was EL not valuing its pedigree by bringing in Ross for a complete redo? Isn't that a different sort of question than asking if Rees's changes to EL in 1993 were a violation of EL's pedigree?

A number of older courses like GCGC, Shinnie, EL, Muirfield and others evolved into designs (usually sometime pre-1930) that have since become the standard against which we measure changes to those courses. That stipulated (as in arbitrary but quite reasonable) date is the date from which changes ought to be assessed.

Getting people to agree to that date is a messy process. It's fraught with all sorts of problems. But its a necessary first step to answering your question.

Bob

[J Sadowsky]

"Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT."

I thought CPC lost the ATT because of its all white membership? (I know it wasn't a policy, just how it happened to come out and all, but it had nothing to do with its pedigree, no?)

[John Moore II]

Chris--Pinehurst's tradition extend not very far away from #2, a course that Ross himself changed numerous times over the years. Pinehurst also maintains a reputation as a great, high level club. Changing #4 away from a stuffy, dated course adds another top level club to the mix. #2 is the only game in town there, each of the other courses has been altered to allow for housing and other things. I think Pinehurst has kept with its tradition of an upper level champions club and changing #4 only added to that. As I said, it was meant to be a tribute to Ross, even though it turned out not to really be one.

[Jed Peters]

"Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT."

I thought CPC lost the ATT because of its all white membership? (I know it wasn't a policy, just how it happened to come out and all, but it had nothing to do with its pedigree, no?)

It doesn't have to do with black, white, yellow, etc. It has to do with their right to choose their own members.

Per federal law, if a club receives outside revenues (than that of its members) it is subject to federal discrimination laws.

Cypress Point (and its members) don't want ANYONE telling them what to do.

The way Augusta National gets around this is the fact that they host their OWN tournament.

[J Sadowsky]

"Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT."

I thought CPC lost the ATT because of its all white membership? (I know it wasn't a policy, just how it happened to come out and all, but it had nothing to do with its pedigree, no?)

It doesn't have to do with black, white, yellow, etc. It has to do with their right to choose their own members.

Per federal law, if a club receives outside revenues (than that of its members) it is subject to federal discrimination laws.

Cypress Point (and its members) don't want ANYONE telling them what to do.

The way Augusta National gets around this is the fact that they host their OWN tournament.

Regardless of the merits, this has nothing to do with its pedegree.  CPC isn't what it is because it is all white.  And certainly it has nothing to do with the pedigree of the COURSE.

[Jed Peters]

"Cypress Point understands its pedigree and has staunchly defended it to the point of giving up the $$$ from the Crosby/ATT."

I thought CPC lost the ATT because of its all white membership? (I know it wasn't a policy, just how it happened to come out and all, but it had nothing to do with its pedigree, no?)

It doesn't have to do with black, white, yellow, etc. It has to do with their right to choose their own members.

Per federal law, if a club receives outside revenues (than that of its members) it is subject to federal discrimination laws.

Cypress Point (and its members) don't want ANYONE telling them what to do.

The way Augusta National gets around this is the fact that they host their OWN tournament.

Regardless of the merits, this has nothing to do with its pedegree.  CPC isn't what it is because it is all white.  And certainly it has nothing to do with the pedigree of the COURSE.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

?

[J Sadowsky]

The original point was that CPC valued their pedigree so much that they gave up the ATT Pro Am.  As I pointed out, there decision wasn't based on their pedigree, but based on the fact that their membership (for whatever reason) was all white, and they were not going to make any changes to the membership to alter that in order to keep the Pro Am.  

As a result, they lost the ATT Pro Am, but not for reasons that has to do with valuing their pedigree - and that is regardless of whether or not you agree with CPC's actions.

Furthermore, the comparison to Augusta was not Augusta's decision to make Chenault a member, but Augusta's repeated decisions to alter their course.  One can easily find the first laudible, while be disappointed with the second.  I do.

[Jed Peters]

The original point was that CPC valued their pedigree so much that they gave up the ATT Pro Am.  As I pointed out, there decision wasn't based on their pedigree, but based on the fact that their membership (for whatever reason) was all white, and they were not going to make any changes to the membership to alter that in order to keep the Pro Am.  

As a result, they lost the ATT Pro Am, but not for reasons that has to do with valuing their pedigree - and that is regardless of whether or not you agree with CPC's actions.

Furthermore, the comparison to Augusta was not Augusta's decision to make Chenault a member, but Augusta's repeated decisions to alter their course.  One can easily find the first laudible, while be disappointed with the second.  I do.

Now, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but--what?

And--who cares?

[Mark Pearce]

Shinnecock Hills and Muirfield

More recently, Pinehurst #4

Well that certainly stopped me in my tracks.

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (let's get the name of the club right, since the question is about clubs rather than courses) doesn't value their pedigree?  I think that would come as news to all its members, past and present.

As to the course, I'm with Sean.  Surely a club has time to develop pedigree (250 years in their case) and the "new" course layout, if that's what you want to call it isn't too bad, is it?  I suspect even Pat Mucci isn't going to start campaigning for Muirfield to be returned to the OTM design.

[David Stamm]

IMHO, the question should be what club's DO value their pedigree since I believe it would be much easier to identify those. Until recently, with the beginnings of a restoration period we're seeing, it would seem alot of clubs couldn't care less about their pedigree.