[Patrick_Mucci]

question about redesigning holes/courses ?

What is the incremental benefit ?

Seems to me that's a critical, if not "the" critical question that every course considering alterations should ask.

The hole/s being considered for alteration will be different, but, will they be better ?

And if so, to what degree ?

Did Winged Foot and Merion lose sight of Tom's query ?

P.S.   Tom, don't change the 7th green at Streamsong Blue, it's great just the way it is.

[Jim Franklin]

question about redesigning holes/courses ?

What is the incremental benefit ?

Seems to me that's a critical, if not "the" critical question that every course considering alterations should ask.

The hole/s being considered for alteration will be different, but, will they be better ?

And if so, to what degree ?

Did Winged Foot and Merion lose sight of Tom's query ?

P.S.   Tom, don't change the 7th green at Streamsong Blue, it's great just the way it is.

Are people asking for that green to be rebuilt? I wouldn't change a thing. Sets up perfectly into the dunes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Its a good question, and maybe more so for average courses than classics.  If I can't explain the benefit for changing something in three sentences or less, I figure it doesn't really need changing.  I rarely get to change something because I as a gca think its a good idea or would be "really cool."  The course needs to see some real payback to justify the change.

[jeffwarne]

question about redesigning holes/courses ?

What is the incremental benefit ?

Seems to me that's a critical, if not "the" critical question that every course considering alterations should ask.

The hole/s being considered for alteration will be different, but, will they be better ?

And if so, to what degree ?

Did Winged Foot and Merion lose sight of Tom's query ?

P.S.   Tom, don't change the 7th green at Streamsong Blue, it's great just the way it is.

I'd say about 300 underworked architects shuddered while he was speaking.
While I personally agree with Tom and Jeff's premise, it's certainly not an easy pill to swallow for those who are eeking out a living from change (not suggesting in any way that the changes are their idea, but that they are merely responding to requests for work and opinions)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

But the impetus to redesign doesn't eminate from external forces............ architects.

The impetus is internal, within the club.

They decide that the course or a given hole needs change, the architect is merely the instrument employed to effect a change from the existing course/hole.

The critical issue seems to be, will the change improve the hole ?

I've played alot of holes where I think a change would produce and improvement.

But, I think we have to examine WHY the club is clamoring for a change.

Often, the impetus is that the hole or feature comes into conflict with the game of a member or members.

In this regard, I often think of the 8th hole at NGLA, and how it would have been altered had it been sited at a public course or private course without it's current pedigree.

Does anyone believe that 100 years later the hole would remain intact ?

Now I know that fads come and go, I've seen their impact on golf courses for the last 60 years.

In many to most cases, the reason for changing a hole has been to eliminate what's perceived as a negative, rather than creatively enhancing a hole.

What holes are far better after they were redesigned ?

What holes are no better after they were redesigned ?

What holes are worse after they were redesigned ?

It's an interesting study.

Change for "Change's" sake doesn't inspire me.

[Paul Gray]

And without wishing to hijack the thread, wouldn't many owners/investors benefit from such an approach, i.e. what is the incremental benefit of adding a costly lake to this hole?

So many financially dumb excesses could have been avoided if only a few more egos had stayed at home.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I've always been curious about the genesis of these alterations.

At a club I'm familiar with, there's a movement to create a new green, located further from the tee and more than a few yards removed from the current green.

I keep asking, "WHY" ?

And, I keep saying that if they embark on this project, to retain the original green, ala, Pine Valley.
That way, if they make a mistake, or are dissatisfied with the results, they can always return to the original hole.

I just don't see the incremental benefit and I can't see the justification of the cost in terms of the potential result.

Yet, there are factions within the club that want to proceed and factions that want to retain the status quo.

It's an interesting dynamic

I just feel that it's a misguided idea, change for change's sake, rather than a dramatic improvement in the hole.

Time will tell.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

The most typical question that gets asked (at least at the non wealthy clubs I work with) is  "Will we save money, or get new members or new revenues from this change.  I know some clubs starved for more yardage who may move a green to get over a magic number (like 7000 yards) and some who just want the course tougher, no matter the cost.  I think those are in the minority these days.  You run in the rarified air of some very upscale clubs.

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

The crucial point here in your post, for me at least, is that you said "these days." No doubt with the economy being as it is many have adopted more fiscally sane approaches but I wonder how much of that has actually made it to the hard wiring and how much of it will simply be forgotten when the next bubble emerges.

[George Pazin]

I keep asking, "WHY" ?

Most people think they're smarter than the other guys. They conflate success within their own field with knowledge of everything, resulting in a general "I know more than everyone else, they should receive the benefit of my wisdom and intellect" attitude.

Humility is no longer a virtue in our broken world.

[Tom_Doak]

Most people think they're smarter than the other guys. They conflate success within their own field with knowledge of everything, resulting in a general "I know more than everyone else, they should receive the benefit of my wisdom and intellect" attitude.

Humility is no longer a virtue in our broken world.

George:

Years ago, I remarked to one of my older friends (a superintendent) that golf is a business full of big egos, and he still reminds me of that to this day.  Architects, guilty as charged.  Tour pros, check and double-check.  Superintendents, check.  Teaching pros.  Project managers.  Green chairmen.  And, last but not least, most people do not get into the business of developing a golf course unless they have been quite successful at something else, and developed a healthy ego from that pursuit.

[George Pazin]

George:

Years ago, I remarked to one of my older friends (a superintendent) that golf is a business full of big egos, and he still reminds me of that to this day.  Architects, guilty as charged.  Tour pros, check and double-check.  Superintendents, check.  Teaching pros.  Project managers.  Green chairmen.  And, last but not least, most people do not get into the business of developing a golf course unless they have been quite successful at something else, and developed a healthy ego from that pursuit.

Wise words, as always. I would only question your use of the word "healthy".

[JESII]

question about redesigning holes/courses ?

What is the incremental benefit ?

How would the incremental benefit of a $50,000 green renovation be measured?

If the membership thinks it's a good idea and decides to pay for it...and the job comes off well, it's a positive return. If it comes off poorly, it's a negative return...but there's really no way to know that up front, is there?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The most typical question that gets asked (at least at the non wealthy clubs I work with) is  "Will we save money, or get new members or new revenues from this change.  I know some clubs starved for more yardage who may move a green to get over a magic number (like 7000 yards) and some who just want the course tougher, no matter the cost.  I think those are in the minority these days.  You run in the rarified air of some very upscale clubs.

Jeff,

Very few clubs have been immune to the recent downturn in the economy, which appears like it will last for some time.
One thing's for sure, golf will never be the same, and as such, almost every club is clamoring for members.

Some need more members to fuel the reckless spending that produced bigger facilities requiring more operational costs.
Some, just to make their operating budget break even.

In all the years that I've been on Boards, Admissions Committees, etc., etc.., I've never encountered one prospective member who ever asked, are you going to fix that bunker on hole # X, or are you going to improve the putting surface on hole # Y, or are you going to elilminate the blind tee shot on hole # Z.

Prospective members don't drill down to detailed course specifics.'
They tend to take a "Macro" rather than a "Micro" approach.

Each club has it's own attributes, it's own physical plant and it's own culture.

So we come to a critical question, to what degree would any alteration to a golf course, other than a complete redesign, influence a prospective member's decision ?

Now, I understand the question posed by the member, he's essentially asking, what can we do to attract more members.
I just don't think the answer lies in fine tuning, or even a completely new hole.

I also tend to look at that question, a universal question today, and ask, "how did you attract members in the past"
Where did they come from ?
In most cases, it's from other members or family members.

If you ask any member if he likes his golf course, I think you'll get a positive answer that doesn't result in a caveat for a particular hole or feature.

Hence, at this late date in the life of the golf course, I don't see how or why some fine tuning could result in increased interest in membership.

As to the "saving money" question, you have to weigh the cost to alter to the long term cost savings projected in reduced maintainance.

But, do people seek architectural alterations and spend money on their construction, in an attempt to save money on the future maintenance of that feature ?

It would seem that both questions are a form of wishful thinking or false justification for a project.

Let's just say that I don't understand the questions based upon my 50+ years of experience at golf/country clubs.

What I am curious about is............... your answers  

[Patrick_Mucci]

question about redesigning holes/courses ?

What is the incremental benefit ?

How would the incremental benefit of a $50,000 green renovation be measured?

If the membership thinks it's a good idea and decides to pay for it...and the job comes off well, it's a positive return. If it comes off poorly, it's a negative return...but there's really no way to know that up front, is there?

Sure there is.

First, there's the intellectual aspect.  Analysis of the current green and analysis of what you're trying to accomplish vis a vis alteration

The construction phase is merely mechanical.   Did the contractor execute the desired plan.

Does the change to the green improve the green, improve the hole.
We know it changes the hole, but, does it improve it.
If not, you're not only wasting money, you're taking the hole out of play and depriving the membership
And, there's a cost to that, like, reduced guest fees.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick,

The most typical question that gets asked (at least at the non wealthy clubs I work with) is  "Will we save money, or get new members or new revenues from this change.  I know some clubs starved for more yardage who may move a green to get over a magic number (like 7000 yards) and some who just want the course tougher, no matter the cost.  I think those are in the minority these days.  You run in the rarified air of some very upscale clubs.

The most typical question I get asked (at clubs wealthy or not wealthy) is, "Won't that make the golf course easier?"  Whenever we talk about enlarging a green, widening a fairway, or removing some trees, there is a knee-jerk reaction that we shouldn't do it because that might make the course easier -- as if the only purpose of design is to continue to make the game harder.*  That is one main reason so many architects are so easily able to sell their added tees and deepened bunkers to fearful memberships.

* The one exception is when we want to preserve or restore an old bunker that is 180 yards off the tee; then they turn it around and ask if that won't make the course too hard for the average player!

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

You raise an interesting question. I was fortunate to be part of a discussion with a noted architect and one of his clients. Someone asked how much input the client had and the architect answered graciously.

The client laughed and said, here is  an example of some of my input. I made a suggestion and the architect said it was a great idea.  Then the architect said, but we are not doing it. The client asked why? He replied, because it won't make it better.

I adopted the "but does it make it better?" question during my green chair term and found it a great question to ask.

Second, to Tom's point, as we have been implementing our Master Plan, wider fairways, reducing rough and reclaiming greens leads to assertions that we have made the course "easier". After the freak tornado hit our course taking down hundreds of trees, our architect visited the course to inspect the damage and make recommendations. One hole had all the trees on the right side come down leaving a clear view and path to a previously blocked green from the right rough. He , of course said, we are not replanting trees there. This is exactly the look that the original architect wanted for this hole. I asked what do we do with the members who will say the hole is too easy now?  He replied,  "i understand that the perception is that it will play easier.  Let's wait a year and see what the reality is. "

I have used this perception and reality line often as we clean up the damage. It has worked like a charm because it is hard to argue with.

Cheers

[Gary Slatter]

Yes, Tom asked the correct question.   I say that, as I tour Dick Wilson's final design, Treasure Cay Golf Club in Abaco, Bahamas, and come to a par 3 on the back nine that I remember as having water to the right.  Now you have to carry the hazard.
I am still blessed to be seeing a wonderful Wilson course with very very few improvements!

[Tom_Doak]

I asked what do we do with the members who will say the hole is too easy now?  He replied,  "i understand that the perception is that it will play easier.  Let's wait a year and see what the reality is. "

I have used this perception and reality line often as we clean up the damage. It has worked like a charm because it is hard to argue with.

It is harder to use this line when you are trying to convince the members to take the trees down!

[Sean_A]

This is a very strange thread .

Ciao

[Mike Policano]

Tom,

That is true. But in the past three years, our argument was about planting trees. We lost a couple hundred trees in 2011 from Hurricane Irene and a freak snow at Halloween. We lost almost 200 trees from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. And we lost over 400 trees this year from a freak tornado.
Not the usual tree argument since nature already cut the trees down.  

[Joe Sponcia]

Patrick,

The most typical question that gets asked (at least at the non wealthy clubs I work with) is  "Will we save money, or get new members or new revenues from this change.  I know some clubs starved for more yardage who may move a green to get over a magic number (like 7000 yards) and some who just want the course tougher, no matter the cost.  I think those are in the minority these days.  You run in the rarified air of some very upscale clubs.

The most typical question I get asked (at clubs wealthy or not wealthy) is, "Won't that make the golf course easier?"  Whenever we talk about enlarging a green, widening a fairway, or removing some trees, there is a knee-jerk reaction that we shouldn't do it because that might make the course easier -- as if the only purpose of design is to continue to make the game harder.*  That is one main reason so many architects are so easily able to sell their added tees and deepened bunkers to fearful memberships.

* The one exception is when we want to preserve or restore an old bunker that is 180 yards off the tee; then they turn it around and ask if that won't make the course too hard for the average player!

Birdie.  

Tom,

I agree, the entire focus is keeping 5% of the membership from shooting the mythical low round that rarely happens, when every low score I have ever had is a result of great putting and a few good chips vs. a great ball-striking day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

You couldn't put yourself in position to have so many birdie putts without good ball striking

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()