[Keith OHalloran]

In the last 12 months, Shinnecock has made some imrovements to the 11th hole by removing  trees in the backgrpund sightline, making the green more of a table top, and lowered the tee making it look more uphill. The question is, if Shinnecock can still improve, is there any course that can not be improved upon?

[Mac Plumart]

I think it is clear that over time trees need to be trimmed up from time to time.

[Keith OHalloran]

Yes but beyond trees, could every course benefit from some changes of tees, some bunker renovation etc? Is there a course that the restoration expert du jour would turn down and say that there is nothing they could do?

[Chris Johnston]

Sure, most every course can be improved.  Most of the great ones have been improved a time or two, or continuously over the years.  Many changes (e.g. irrigation) are not necessarily visible.  Seems restorations are improvements as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, but once you get to a certain level of course, a change is more likely to be a detriment instead of an improvement.

Many years ago James Braid was asked what he thought of the improvements to Walton Heath ... his response was "You mean the alterations?"

[Sean_A]

Yes, but once you get to a certain level of course, a change is more likely to be a detriment instead of an improvement.

Many years ago James Braid was asked what he thought of the improvements to Walton Heath ... his response was "You mean the alterations?"

Yes, I do believe any course can be improved.  But, liek Tom says, once we are talking about very good or great courses, its a roll of the dice if mucking around is an improvement.  Take the 16th at St Enodoc for instance.  The club pushed the green back a few years ago to add yards, but they sacrificed a very good green and site right on the oob line to do so.  IMO it is a nett loss, but after 25 years nobody will remember the old green.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Its all down to opinion so its hard to gauge. The newer back tees at TOC could be an improvement in some minds and in other minds it won't be. Most courses can have something done to them though and even cosmetic changes which you could make to manicuring the approaches etc could be an improvement or as Mr Braid said just an alteration. Probaby in the minds of us on here the improvements at ANGC would be retrograde.

A golf course is very much a living thing and trees grow out a bit toomuch sometimes or perhaps an important one nears the end of its life and needs replacing, so there is always something to be aware of now, in the next 5 years and in the next 25 years and a good greens committee will understand that much of their work is for the future play.

[corey miller]

I believe a good Superintendent, knowledgeable in all aspects of the craft including architecture can improve any course without making what might be termed as "alterations". 

I am confident new courses such as those done by Tom Doak and others have Superintendents that know how the course should play and be presented.  I am less confident this is the situation in golden age courses run by committees etc etc, even those that have consulting agreements in place with those architects we normally admire.

[BCrosby]

Adding to Doak's and Arble's comments above, though you can't rule out a priori the possibility that a course can be improved, it does not follow that you, me or anyone else can in fact improve it.

A two corollary principles might go something like: For good historic courses (a) we should be pessimistic about our ability to improve them and (b) we should worry that efforts to improve them are likely to be, in fact, to their detriment.

Bob

[Tim Nugent]

I believe a good Superintendent, knowledgeable in all aspects of the craft including architecture can improve any course without making what might be termed as "alterations". 

I am confident new courses such as those done by Tom Doak and others have Superintendents that know how the course should play and be presented.  I am less confident this is the situation in golden age courses run by committees etc etc, even those that have consulting agreements in place with those architects we normally admire.

Be careful in your blanket assumptions Mr. Miller.  Or else, how would you explain the re-seeding of the original fescue roughs at Mr. Doak's Lost Dunes to Bluegrass?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the last 12 months, Shinnecock has made some imrovements to the 11th hole by removing  trees in the backgrpund sightline, making the green more of a table top, and lowered the tee making it look more uphill. The question is, if Shinnecock can still improve, is there any course that can not be improved upon?

Probably not, but, that's not the problem..

The problem is "risk".

The process of attempted improvement is fraught with risk.  The risk of disfiguring the course.

You're looking at the process after a successful alteration has been made, but, look at all the alterations where the hole/course has been disfigured.

Who decides on what should and shouldn't be altered ?

A committee ?  A committee whose composition can and will change over time, and with it the tastes, style and values of that commitee, resulting in further alterations.

Knowledgeable members, with a long history at the club, who love the club, who understand golf and GCA should be part of the process, a very thoughtful process.

And, those peope are becoming rarer and rarer to find as membership turnover accelerates

[RSLivingston_III]

Yes, but once you get to a certain level of course, a change is more likely to be a detriment instead of an improvement.

Many years ago James Braid was asked what he thought of the improvements to Walton Heath ... his response was "You mean the alterations?"

Yes, I do believe any course can be improved.  But, like Tom says, once we are talking about very good or great courses, its a roll of the dice if mucking around is an improvement.  Take the 16th at St Enodoc for instance.  The club pushed the green back a few years ago to add yards, but they sacrificed a very good green and site right on the oob line to do so.  IMO it is a nett loss, but after 25 years nobody will remember the old green.

Ciao

Great quote.
Far to often changes are referred to as 'improvements' (an affirmative term) when that has not been proven the case. I also see this far to often in describing new club tech.

[Tim Gavrich]

Show me a course where the members never complain and I'll show you a course that cannot be improved.

At a certain level, isn't the effort expended and nuisance created by making certain improvements going to outweigh the effect of the improvements themselves?  What really needs to be done to courses like Pine Valley and Cypress?  I guess you could tweak things endlessly, but is it worth taking a hole out of play for a couple months or closing the course altogether during a part of the playable season?

I can't remember which, but there is at least one Native Americans whose artists produce these beautiful patterned quilts but always intentionally make some noticeable mistake in the pattern.  They do this because of the belief that only their Creator can create something "perfect."  Perhaps the same holds for golf courses?

[Tim Gavrich]

Whoops; double-post. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Does anyone think that planting Scots Pine on TOC would be a good idea to give the holes better definition?

[Jim Nugent]

Can anyone come up with specific suggestions of how to improve highly-ranked courses?  How would you improve Pine Valley, e.g.?  Or CPC, or TOC, or NGLA or any other top course?

There has been no shortage of suggestions of how to improve ANGC.   

[Philippe Binette]

i believe yes, every course can be improved... but one some courses that means moving some tee adding or removing bunkers etc, on other courses it means ajusting mowing lines by a foot or two...

just don't try to fix what is not broken



would removing gorse in front of the tees improve the old course

[Phil_the_Author]

I think this is definitely a "slippery slope" question. The simple answer is "Yes" but that is where the slope begins to become slippery for then the questions of what should be done and when do we begin start. These are followed by the "I know this is the best thing to do" followed by the "No you don't my idea is better" statements. If restorations to bring back features are so very difficult to do, wouldn't changes to improve a course be even more so?

That is why I believe what really should be asked is "WHY" should an attempt be made to improve every course?" The answer to that is that they SHOULDN'T and that it should be done only after careful thought and consideration and an honest look at the necessity for doing so...

[SL_Solow]

I think the question is open to debate but it is undeniable that every course can be made worse.  Therefore, as others have noted, before a membership or owner embarks upon an "improvement " program they should carefully consider the possibility that they will end up going in the wrong direction.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In theory, yes. 

On the other hand, there is the old "first answer is usually the best" from school days that might apply here.

There is often the question of "adapting" to changing circumstances which is not a pure architectural question.

Lastly, I often run into situations where the client may want to "improve" a green, bunker, etc. and I ask "Is it worth it?"  In other words, is $75K to rebuild a green to flatten, add or remove bunkers, or whatever going to improve it 1%, 5%, 100%?  Sometimes, clubs are willing to spend a lot of money for a 1% improvement, which seems dubious.  Too many renovations just alter, but don't improve things.

Or, as I like to say, most clubs shouldn't renovate "just because."  If you can identify a specific problem (like too much slope in a green, too close to a road) then it can be fixed.  It gets a little dicyer when you generally don't like something or if the changes are initiated from the phrases "it doesn't fit my game" or "what if I hit it....here?"

[Sean_A]

In theory, yes. 

On the other hand, there is the old "first answer is usually the best" from school days that might apply here.

There is often the question of "adapting" to changing circumstances which is not a pure architectural question.

Lastly, I often run into situations where the client may want to "improve" a green, bunker, etc. and I ask "Is it worth it?"  In other words, is $75K to rebuild a green to flatten, add or remove bunkers, or whatever going to improve it 1%, 5%, 100%?  Sometimes, clubs are willing to spend a lot of money for a 1% improvement, which seems dubious.  Too many renovations just alter, but don't improve things.

Or, as I like to say, most clubs shouldn't renovate "just because."  If you can identify a specific problem (like too much slope in a green, too close to a road) then it can be fixed.  It gets a little dicyer when you generally don't like something or if the changes are initiated from the phrases "it doesn't fit my game" or "what if I hit it....here?"

Jeff

Exactly.  I am usually amazed at how much money clubs are willing to spend for very minor improvements.  If it were me the project would have to carry a serious bang for buck or I wouldn't really be interested in spending any real money.   Going back to the 16th at St Enodoc example I don't know what it cost (and the work ain't bad -  nor is the new green site/green), but the new green doesn't strike me as well spent money.  I look at the project as merely delivering X yards more for Y pounds.  In other words, spending a lot of money to buy yards.  Totally dopey if you ask me.  Now if they were to build a really great green (and obviously so - in your face) than perhaps I could be persuaded, but so far as I can tell the green isn't any better than the old one. 

Ciao

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can anyone come up with specific suggestions of how to improve highly-ranked courses?  How would you improve Pine Valley, e.g.?  Or CPC, or TOC, or NGLA or any other top course?

Jim,

I'd move the tee back on # 7 such that the "road hole" bunker complex would be brought back into play.

I'd move the tee back on # 18 such that the left side bunker complex would be brought back into play.

These changes would also improve the golfer's interfacing with the architecture and make for better second and approach shots on both holes.

In addition, I'd create a tee to the left, back of # 12 green, as an alternate tee for # 13, thus replicating the approach shot on # 7 at TOC.

At PV, I'd accelerate the tree clearing program AND return the mound/spine to the middle of the 18th green

There has been no shortage of suggestions of how to improve ANGC.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()