[Don_Mahaffey]

We look at what is happening at the home of golf and we sign petitions, write letters, go on facebook and raise hell, but what do we do at home, on our own courses? How many of you would live with a green that has 5% slope and is borderline pinnable when the greens get above 9? I know I do, but I’m lucky because I have that opportunity. But I also know full well I’ve been fighting this fight for years, even when it was unpopular.

Every year we wait to see what changes Augusta has been up to. We wonder what will be new this year? Same with our PGA Champ and US Open venues. Where was the national outcry when Merion softened greens or Mike Davis started playing architect. Sure, a few posts here and there, but no petitions, no boycotts, no teeth, just a small little outcry and then onto the next subject.

One of the best slogans I’ve ever seen was the environmental based, Think Globally, Act Locally. Why haven’t we been doing that all these years? And if we haven’t, why are we all so surprised that now even the shrine of golf is doing the same thing most of us have been allowing for years.

Why have we allowed the ASGCA to put a ban on criticism? It sure isn’t about protecting golf courses. There is so much needless work going on but we are afraid to name names, to call people out, we don't want to rock the boat.
Why have we allowed our ruling bodies to tell us what slopes and speeds greens should be? Why do all the greens have to play the same? For everyday play they don’t. Some are exposed, some protected, some south facing dry out quickly, north facing hold moisture longer, some are in low areas, some high…it was never a big deal before. Now we have championship agronomists with stimp meters, sub air, and all kinds of gadgets all in the name of uniformity. Some greens they double cut and roll, some they triple cut, some they skip, as long as all end up the same on the stimp. Why do they all have to be the same? Is that our game?

Good golfers try and take in all the elements, wind speed and direction, humidity, temperature, elevation…but they can’t deal with a green that rolls a foot slower or faster then another? Are they all that stupid? Is the only sign of character we're looking for is their ability to hit a shot under pressure on the 18th? What about the ability to use their brain, to navigate the course. Why do we continue to try and rub that aspect out?

Why have we allowed this march to standardization? To what end? Flat greens that role 14 that only the rich can afford to play.
Its time to act locally.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Don
I'm proud to call you a friend and colleague!

[Mac Plumart]

Amen!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Why have we allowed our ruling bodies to tell us what slopes and speeds greens should be? ...

Perhaps you meant to write the "tournament sponsors" instead of "ruling bodies". The USGA has been quite helpful at my course. The superintendent had been trying to push up green speeds at member behest. However, the USGA came in an advisory role and tested the greens and specified they were best kept at a slower speed. Problem solved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

You may recall that I and others were critical of the changes to the greens at WFW and Merion.

You may recall that members and supporters of Merion defended the changes.

You may also recall that these changes were a closely guarded secret, not revealed, but, hidden from the golfing public until a few familiar with the changes announced them.

So, there's an inherent conflict, those closest to the issue defending their actions and those furthest from the issue protesting those actions.

There's also the access issue.
No one, who seeks access to those courses, will speak up against the changes and in remaining silent, become unindicted co-conspirators  

At my local club, the 13th green was disfigured.
I and other members opposed it when it was proposed, during construction and continue to do so today.
But, we were outvoted.
Today, almost all now agree with me, but, it's too late, the damage is done.

I think the best you can do is voice your opinion in whatever medium is available to you.

Just because you're outvoted doesn't mean that your idea/cause wasn't the right idea/cause.

For 13 years I lobbied to restore the 12th green at GCGC.
While it should have been done a decade ago, better late than never.

You just have to keep fighting for your beliefs.  Just try to do the best you can.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - I hesitate to post, because for many reasons the great courses and gca isn't and can't be even one of my top 5 areas of interest/concern, whereas for you and many here it is vitally important. But Pat's post -- and he is one of the many I'm thinking of who puts his money and his time where his mouth is -- was a very good one it seems to me; and it reminded me that "the answer", as unsatisfying as it may be -- I know it often is to me, and I have to re-commit to it almost every day, in many areas of my life -- is to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness; or, as the Gandhi quote that Tommy W uses says: Be the change you want to see. I think you and others are doing that in the world of gca, and sometimes - most times, I think - that has to suffice.

Peter 

[Mike_Young]

Don,
As you know I watched them spend almost three million at my club for no apparent reason when $750000 would have done the job and saved a good golf course.  The "sympathetic restoration" has made the course at least 4 shots easier and no longer an ODG course.  All it took was about 4 influential guys who had seen some average resort courses in the area, a supt who had never seen many other courses of that era,  one construction company that had worked for some big projects in the area. Mix that  with the typical local club champion type in charge and we got what we got.  There was no talking to them.  It's sad but they don't know what they don't know.
 As noble as your post is, these things will continue and there is no stopping them whether it be local courses or prominent championship venues.
Trust me, I had never seen it from that side but it all comes down to who has the power and they rarely have a clue other than they think a good local player can handle it for them.  Now, I don't blame the designer nearly as much as I do the five individuals that did this.  

[William_G]

Congressional
Olympic
Merion
Pinehurst #2
Oakmont
Erin Hills

it's fun to play play courses with fun greens, LA North, The Vally Club, Pasatiempo...they don't have pro tournaments

but it's also fun to play Pebble, Sawgrass etc where they have the pros play

TOC is going for something here, maybe we will find out more later, but it is depressingly off the charts right now

I disagree that the blame is shared by all, who doesn't look forward to watching the Master's and their greens

I'm fortunate that my club does have greens that can be fun!  

[David_Elvins]

Don - I hesitate to post, because for many reasons the great courses and gca isn't and can't be even one of my top 5 areas of interest/concern

Pete,

GCA is not in your top 5areas of interest?  What are your top 5 areas of interest? Do you post on them in other forums? If so, please let us know where so I can go and read them.  

[Jaeger Kovich]

Why have we allowed the ASGCA to put a ban on criticism? It sure isn’t about protecting golf courses. There is so much needless work going on but we are afraid to name names, to call  people out, we don't want to rock the boat.


Don - This is one of the most interesting things I have learned over the past few days. The EIGCA and ASGCA not allowing one member to criticize the work of another goes against everything I ever learned while studying architecture and art in school. After trial and error (experimentation), peer review and critique is the greatest tool one has to gain knowledge and improve ones own work. Public critique in this fashion, while slightly different by nature as the back and forth that I for one desire to understand different perspectives on my work, will further the education of owners, developers, and so-on whose lack of knowledge is perhaps the biggest problem in our game.... I have been asking my boss for more and more critiques of my work over the past few weeks, and not only do I see my work get better, but I understand what to look for and how to fix my own work better without having to step away and ask for comments.

[Paul_Turner]

What is the official reason for ASGCA and EIGCA banning criticism?   The truth is,  it probably comes down to economic incentives and an anti-competitive"Guild" mentality.

[Jason Topp]

Interesting that few of the responses actually detail anything anyone has done on a local level. 

I spent 6 years on a green committee pushing the precise agenda Don suggests on a course with wonderfully difficult greens that become impossible at speeds above 10 on the stimp.  My task was pretty easy because both supers I worked with had the exact same view and the membership did not have a major push for increasing speeds.  Our course went from having a reputation of incredibly fast greens 20 years ago to now being slower than average for a private club.  According to the super, their speed remained pretty constant over those years.  The greens nonetheless remain as interesting and challenging as they ever were and all of the interesting spots to locate a hole remain.   

[Carl Rogers]

OK act globally or observe locally .... Riverfront is the only and best good course I know.
The changes to the course in my time of playing there a lot since 2005 have been:
- moving the tee back on no. 3 to make it a short par 5
- filling in the back bunker on no. 4
- filling in the back right bunker on no. 5
- shrinking the size of a bunker on no. 11

I was not consulted on these alterations.  As only a Golf Consumer, my options are limited .... pay and play or go pay and play elsewhere.

Don & et al, unless I empty out all of wife's, my own & joint and retirement accounts, quit my profession, and buy into a course somewhere, I am not sure what to do.

I am not to blame for:
- the state of the game
- alterations to any golf course
- how far the ball travels
- the pace of play
- the cost
- (anything else I can think of)

[Frank Pont]

Don - This is one of the most interesting things I have learned over the past few days. The EIGCA and ASGCA not allowing one member to criticize the work of another goes against everything I ever learned while studying architecture and art in school.

This was one of the main reasons I decided not to join the EIGCA

[John Kavanaugh]

Carl,

When did Riverfront install those big fans on the edge of the greens?  I did everything in my power to fight the powers, over educated supers, that were behind the big fan movement.  We the civilian golfer are not to blame.

btw...Blame for what?  Was I wrong to request that the new course at Dismal not have fescue greens.  Was this selfish of me because it offended the architectural fanboys on this site?

[Carl Rogers]

Carl,

When did Riverfront install those big fans on the edge of the greens?  I did everything in my power to fight the powers, over educated supers, that were behind the big fan movement.  We the civilian golfer are not to blame.

btw...Blame for what?  Was I wrong to request that the new course at Dismal not have fescue greens.  Was this selfish of me because it offended the architectural fanboys on this site?

Are you sure we talking about the same course?  Riverfront in Suffolk, VA?

[John Kavanaugh]

I mistook your course for the very excellent Rivermont near Atlanta.  If you don't have greenside fans yet you got one up on me.

[Jason Connor]

This made me think of those Real Housewife shows.

It seems that all the women end up looking exactly the same due to their plastic surgery (and not sure who finds it attractive, let alone why anyone is willing to pay to look like that -- but I digress.)

But the idea of all courses/green becoming similar in the name of 'improving' made me think of when I'm at the in-laws and that show is on.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I appreciate all the responses.

John K asks what are we to blame for? That's a good question and hard to answer as like many here have stated, they really have nothing to do with anything golf, other then they play. Nothing wrong with that.
So, what do I see as the problem? The problem at TOC, the problem at Merion, the problem at ANGC? The problem I see is the changes do not make the courses better.

If you are going to change something, shouldn't it make it better?
Nowhere, that I can find, in any of the PR crap released by the R & A and Dawson is a statement about the changes making The Old Course a better golf course. Why do we constantly spend millions of dollars changing our courses when we are not making them better? All we are doing is making adjustments for a certain type of player for a certain tournament. In the end, the courses are not better than they were before.

We hear about principles. How certain architects have principles and would never deface a classic course. Tom Doak is often mentioned as a leader of this group. I think it is about Tom's principles, but I also think it's about, would any changes make the course better? And if the answer is no, then why the hell do it? That's the key principle, IMO. Protect yes, change for the better OK, change for the sake of change, no way.

In golf we spend way to much money, energy, and time doing things that do not make the game or our courses better. Much of it is driven by an industry that thrives, and survives,  on activity. But lets remember what Coach Wooden said, "don't confuse activity with achievement".

[Garland Bayley]

We have had several people on this website champion the removal of trees from their courses, and they have succeeded. They have made their courses better.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Garland,
Absolutely they have. Change for the better, to truly improve the functionality of the course, the playability of the course, is a good thing.

I'm saying we need to be honest and unbending in our analysis of proposed changes. There are certainly people here who have been involved in strong stewardship of their courses. That is on evidence from some of the responses. But as a collective, be it golfers, or those of us who live off of golf, how have we done as stewards of our game and its courses? I say we can do better. 

[Bill Brightly]

Don,

You are obviously a little ticked off today. Understandably so, given what is now happening at the Old Course. And being in the business you see the effects of a concurrence of tremendously harmful forces: increased distance provided by the  ball and club manufacturers, higher green speeds and plusher playing conditions being demanded by golfers, clubs wanting to alter classic courses, increased spending requirements to meet these demands, and a shaky economy coupled with a decline in rounds played. I agree that there is a high degree of madness to it all.

GCA.COM may be a good place to vent, but the participants here are part of the solution, not the problem. We get it, and to the extent that we help spread the word, we help educate our friends. When we serve on boards, we tend to push the positions that you would support. I won't get too sappy, but IMO, the education that we (golf consumers, board members, etc.) get on this site represents a bright shining hope for a stop to the madness.

[Tony Ristola]

What is the official reason for ASGCA and EIGCA banning criticism?   The truth is,  it probably comes down to economic incentives and an anti-competitive"Guild" mentality.

One thing is certain, it is not in the best interests of the investor or golf. Is that ethical? Is it the highest standards as the EIGCA claims on their website?

It is interesting to note, the most vibrant era of golf architecture was during a time of straight talk, hard talk, and before the advent of golf architect associations.

I believe architect associations have done great damage to the game because of their decades long assault on free speech.

Industry doesn't progress without vibrant competition and you need free speech to accomplish this. Especially in golf architecture because the cost is serious and it usually is not a repeat sale. Normally it's once and out. For investors who end up with projects that come up short... it's not in their interest to advertise the fact... they need to recoup their investment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

GJ,

In many cases the trees that were removed were a relatively recent addition to the course and not original integral design features.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I appreciate all the responses.

John K asks what are we to blame for? That's a good question and hard to answer as like many here have stated, they really have nothing to do with anything golf, other then they play. Nothing wrong with that.
So, what do I see as the problem? The problem at TOC, the problem at Merion, the problem at ANGC? The problem I see is the changes do not make the courses better.

If you are going to change something, shouldn't it make it better?
Nowhere, that I can find, in any of the PR crap released by the R & A and Dawson is a statement about the changes making The Old Course a better golf course. Why do we constantly spend millions of dollars changing our courses when we are not making them better? All we are doing is making adjustments for a certain type of player for a certain tournament. In the end, the courses are not better than they were before.

We hear about principles. How certain architects have principles and would never deface a classic course. Tom Doak is often mentioned as a leader of this group. I think it is about Tom's principles, but I also think it's about, would any changes make the course better? And if the answer is no, then why the hell do it? That's the key principle, IMO. Protect yes, change for the better OK, change for the sake of change, no way.

In golf we spend way to much money, energy, and time doing things that do not make the game or our courses better. Much of it is driven by an industry that thrives, and survives,  on activity. But lets remember what Coach Wooden said, "don't confuse activity with achievement".

Don you originally asked what have we do at home and I'm one of those who have nothing to do with golf but playing.  That being said I think that's the most important thing that can be done for the game.  If not for those who love to play there wouldn't be golf. 

I'm not an architect or a leader in the world of golf but from other experience I know any important decision will have those in favor and those who are against.  All I can ask is those who are put in a place to make decisions on change really care about the changes they are making.  That they really try to study the impact the change will have.  I like to believe that Dawson and Hawtree truly feel the changes are making the course better.  At $250 a round I assume most are playing the course because it's designed for a certain type of player that plays in a certain tournament.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we each have our own opinions on what is better and what is worse.  I'm glad the discussion exists.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()