[Jay Flemma]

We've made remarkable progress in the world of GCA in the last 15ish years, but we still have a long way to go.

My buddy belongs to a small private club out west, and they are considering what to do about the technology making the layout obsolete.  People put forth ideas and architects names, but then one guy suggested:

"Here's another option for dealing with ball and club technology, one imminently lower in risk and cost: bring the fairways in 10 yards, grow the rough out two inches, and roll the greens down three pegs on the stimpmeter. That aughtta do it."  

He also didn't want to cut down the grillion trees lining many fairways..."they are pretty, and they keep the wind out of play."

We still need to keep up the fight!

[Bill_McBride]

How much do they pay you to be a member?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jay,

Identify the club.

Is this club "obsolete" for mid-handicappers?

[David_Elvins]

Jay

I can't get the link to work. 

Also, there is no "one size fits all" remedy for golf courses Different clubs require different solutions.

[Mark Saltzman]

Some courses are designed with trees.  On (some) of those courses, the use of trees has merit. 

It is the golf courses that lose the original strategic intent by a subsequent addition of trees that should focus on tree removal.

What do we know about the history of this course?  Would tree removal improve the golf course?

[Gary Slatter]

Well said Mark!  If people don't like courses the way they have evolved, they can play courses they like.   I don't mind trees presenting a challenge - does Westmount have too many trees?  The original strategic intent often has become obsolete to the modern golfer, and trees can provide new strategies.  Tree removal can improve some courses, tree planting can also help some.  Some people ride "western", are they wrong to?  as David says, "there is no one size fits all" and to this I say "great".

[Jay Flemma]

Steve, I'm not going to identify the club, just suffice to say it's really tree-lined with trees of no architectural significance whichcut down air space an d playing angles.  It's Anyclub C.C. in Anytown U.S.A. though.  Just a nice little local club where tree clearing and principles of Second Golden Age of GCA have not yet arrived.  Doing what that one guy suggests - narrow fairways, longer rough, and stupidly fast greens are the design mistakes of the 70s and 80s.

The guy sounded like the John Cleese golf course architect character in those golf ball commercials..."oh, you're going to neeeeeeed them" 

David, hilarious!!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jay,

This club should bring in Brad Klein to give the presentation he gave at the Mountan Ridge event last year.

[Sam Morrow]

If it's anyclub in anytown USA and the club is doing a healthy business why try and give architectural significance that doesn't sound like it was there in the first place? Not every course can be a GCA wet dream.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Sam,

My guess is that the low handicappers who usually control the Greens Committee in most private clubs think the course is now "too easy" because the can drive now 300y. I don't think any mid-handicapper in his right mind would agree with the doofus who made the statement in question.

[Sam Morrow]

I think the doofus who made the statement is closer to the average club member though.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Sam,

You're right but the average club member doesn't drive 300y because his swing speed is less then 85. The low handicappers who may control the Board or the Greens Committee are the probably the ones who think their course should be like the US OPen.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()