[Michael J. Moss]

Many private clubs, especially those that have born the expense and inconvenience of undergoing major course renovations, maintain consulting ties between the club and their golf course architect.  But over time, the club leaders who originally led the charge are encouraged to pass the keys to the next generation. And herein lies the potential to do harm…the arrival of a new green committee chairman who, let’s say, now feels it’s time to make a few golf course features a little “more fair.” The consulting architect might dissent to any proposed changes to the work he did…but at the end of the day, he doesn’t get a vote.

Here’s my question: are there any examples where club leaders have put in place a mechanism where a potential renegade green committee or green chairman can be checked from affecting ill-advised changes to their club’s golf course? Are there any examples where a private club has established what might be called a “golf course architecture preservation committee?” And to give it some teeth, does such a committee need to be memorialized by amending club bylaws? The goal would be to put in place a layer of oversight to protect bold, well thought out golf course architecture!

There are clubs who over their long histories have literally hosted a parade of architects each of whom were acting at the wishes of some club leader who felt qualified to direct changes in order to perfect their golf courses. The results from this type of activity where club leaders don the architect’s hat is usually not great, yet the lessons of the past are often forgotten.
 

[Thomas Dai]

In the U.K private members clubs, repeat private members clubs, tend to have their own rules and regulations, articles of association etc that have evolved over time, vary depending on whether they are shareholder clubs etc and link-in with company law. Yes, a complicated situation!
However, my understanding is that recently in England, repeat England, there is now an EGU recommended template for the constitution of a private members club ... repeat, a private members club.

This template apparently contains various provisions, safeguards if you like, that can be inacted at any time to limit a rogue board of directors, director, or committee from undertaking activities that the majority of the members do not agree with. Ultimately this would be through the calling of General Meetings etc of the membership at any time should a certain percentage, and it’s not a big percentage, of the membership request such a GM. At the GM voting majority I believe applies. In theory and if necessary this means that the rogue element could be removed from office or their pet project stopped.
This is a general summary of my understanding of the situation. I’m sure lots more words could be written about it!

Note that not all English private members clubs will be following the EGU template however.

Atb

[Mark_Fine]

As much as I like the idea in theory, I am not sure it is a good one.  If the architect who designed the course is still living, that person is your best bet to help “preserve" the original design. 


Golf courses are living breathing things and they do need to age and evolve for many different reasons.  Some clearly do so better than others.  No question tinkering by well intentioned committees can screw them up (that is what keeps many of us busy).  However, I would be shocked if there is an architect out there who designed a course and said it was architecturally perfect the day it opened and years later felt they could not improve and/or would want to change something about what they originally built/designed. 


Until someone plays an18 hole course in 18 shots, there will never be a perfect round of golf played.  The same goes for the playing fields; they will never be perfect and will always be evolving for many different reasons, some for the better, some for the worse. 

[Dave McCollum]

I remember chatting with a member after a round at Cruden Bay.  We were discussing some of the quirky features like that huge dune-like mound in the middle of landing zone for the tee shot on, I think, the 17th hole.  I voiced the opinion that such a feature would be gone in the blink of an eye in the US.  He was disturbed by such an idea and assured me that a "improvement" like that would require a vote of the entire membership.

[John Emerson]

I remember chatting with a member after a round at Cruden Bay.  We were discussing some of the quirky features like that huge dune-like mound in the middle of landing zone for the tee shot on, I think, the 17th hole.  I voiced the opinion that such a feature would be gone in the blink of an eye in the US.  He was disturbed by such an idea and assured me that a "improvement" like that would require a vote of the entire membership.

Caddy told me that’s a Viking burial ground from the very last battle of Vikings vs Scots.  Scottish are buried in the town

[Tom_Doak]

There are a couple of clubs where I consult that have a steadfast rule that they won't make any changes to the golf course without my blessing . . . and they have managed to hold to that for more than 20 years through several different committee chairmen.  But, nothing lasts forever, and I don't believe such a rule would survive a rogue green chairman who was bound and determined to change something . . . the only question would be whether he would come to power at such a club.

[Tom_Doak]

However, I would be shocked if there is an architect out there who designed a course and said it was architecturally perfect the day it opened and years later felt they could not improve and/or would want to change something about what they originally built/designed. 

Until someone plays an18 hole course in 18 shots, there will never be a perfect round of golf played.  The same goes for the playing fields; they will never be perfect and will always be evolving for many different reasons, some for the better, some for the worse.

Shocker:  Pacific Dunes.  I was happy with it when it opened and I still am.  We've worked on a handful of bunkers to reduce sand erosion, if you want to count that on your side, but there has never been a thought of tinkering with the layout or the greens.  They haven't even added any tees!  [A few of Mr. Keiser's alternate tees have been abandoned.]


I agree with you that there is no such thing as perfection, which is why trying to tinker with a course over time to perfect it is so silly.  Generally speaking, I'm happy with all of my courses.  There are a few where I've had fleeting thoughts about changing a hole or two, but the artist in me feels that they are products of a certain period in my life and a group of talented people, and I should respect that history instead of messing with them when any potential improvement would be (a) costly and (b) just a matter of opinion.  There aren't many artists who paint over their best canvases years later.


Of course, there are many architects who don't feel the same . . . and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that many of them are trying to figure out how to feed their families or keep their businesses afloat, and that their ethics are in no way compromised by that position.


My one course that has seen the most changes is Sebonack, which really undermines the whole premise of the golf course as a design that both Jack Nicklaus and I worked together on and signed off on.


Likewise, does anyone REALLY think that Crooked Stick is better because Pete Dye kept changing it around?  That's not to say I would change it back if they asked me . . . but I wish he would have resisted the temptation to change it all around.

[Adam Clayman]

Lead the way. Sunningdale is the perfect choice, since it could be argued it has suffered the most, from it's first alteration.


 I'd suggest first establishing a culture that understands the finer points of the SPORT through, communication, education and competition. Then, change the by-laws so any future alterations need to pass a high percentage of votes by the entire membership. Include some emergency clause, in case time is of the essence, should a situation arise that requires immediate action to preserve the infrastructure.


Just spit ball'n.

[Dave McCollum]

Caddy told me that’s a Viking burial ground from the very last battle of Vikings vs Scots.  Scottish are buried in the town



Heard or read that too, but remain skeptical.  Too much work:  feed the crabs.  Way back then I was thinking about what our golfers would say if we had such a feature on our course in the USA.  I bet we would have gotten offers to remove it from guys with front loaders and dump trucks.  I went golfing in Scotland to learn about different styles of golf and attitudes of relating to their courses.  My own were changed significantly.   

[Adam Lawrence]

I've produced architectural history and evolution reports for a number of clubs, generally in collaboration with a golf architect, and as part of a masterplanning process. The idea is that we give them a better understanding of how the course has developed and the architectural styles and principles that are reflected in what they now have, and hopefully this helps the club to be more sympathetic to the historical significance of the design in the future.


How effective these are is a matter of debate. Our suggestion to clubs is that they should find a way of embedding our report -- and the process it creates for evaluating changes -- in their bylaws, in order to make it harder to ignore. And generally, if a club is prepared to invest in this kind of work, then it implies it already has an awareness of history and its importance. If our reports stop a future rogue greens chairman from digging a totally inappropriate bunker on a whim then I'd say they've achieved their goal. But I'm not naive; they will only endure as long as those in power at the club maintain interest in them.

[Michael J. Moss]

There are a couple of clubs where I consult that have a steadfast rule that they won't make any changes to the golf course without my blessing . . . and they have managed to hold to that for more than 20 years through several different committee chairmen.  But, nothing lasts forever, and I don't believe such a rule would survive a rogue green chairman who was bound and determined to change something . . . the only question would be whether he would come to power at such a club.

Tom,

Adam Clayman’s suggestion to first establish the right golf culture is a good one but a remedy that requires years (and years!) to implement. I am looking for a more immediate solution to any future “tampering by committee,” something that our Club’s golf course history is replete. And as Adam revealed, the club I’m referring to is Sunningdale CC in Scarsdale, NY.

Some timeline bullets that describes the massive changes to the course:

July 1918 – Seth Raynor’s Sunningdale course is open for play. But during construction a note from the Golf Course Construction Committee stated:

This Committee has proceeded upon the theory that the new course should
be so constructed that radical changes will not be required in the immediate
future.

Yet, November 1920 – another note goes out to the membership describing changes to the course “according to the plans of Mr. Travis:”

When the course is opened next Spring, with these changes, we will have
corrected one of the chief faults of the course, by eliminating nearly all of
the blind shots, and we feel confident our members will find a great
improvement.

 Imagine, eliminating all blind shots on Macdonald or Raynor course? Makes you wonder if the concept of introducing the "greatest holes" was ever properly explained, right?

November 1922 - The minutes of November 2, 1922 first detail the hiring of Robert White to “give advice as may be necessary to keep the greens and fairways in Condition,” and also to “Supervise any construction work that the Green Committee may deem necessary and advisable.” That last sentence sort of gets to the root as to how our golf course lost its way.

November 1930 – another note, this time from the Club President:

I am pleased to be able to report that the Golf course is being constantly
improved and today may be favorably compared with any course in
Westchester County. About two years ago Mr. A.W. Tillinghast was
employed to advise on various changes to be made to the course. He
recommended, among other things, the installation of a new twelfth hole, the
combining of the old 17th and 18th holes, changes to the 7th, 16th and 17th
greens, installations of new tees, etc. These structural changes have been
practically completed and paid for, and the so-called “Tillinghast Plan” has
thus been carried out.


1995-96 – a bunker renovation plan, which included some green expansion work carried out by Stephen Kay.

2005 through 2017 – a painstaking renovation/redesign by Traverse City Michigan’s first son, Mike DeVries! (btw, no dissents to the last statement will be accepted!)

But truthfully, Tom, with Mike being a member of your design firm’s family tree, I think you’d feel proud of his work for us. And when you consider the chronicle of member tampering that preceded Mike’s arrival, you can understand my interest in protecting his design from any future committee know-nothings. Lastly, I am aware that you’re on the road a great deal, but whenever you find yourself back here in the Metropolitan area, I would love to show you our finished product. I for one am extremely proud of it!

[Tom_Doak]

Traverse City Michigan’s first son, Mike DeVries! (btw, no dissents to the last statement will be accepted!)

That's okay - I am the first son of New York City!  (I don't think Mike was born in Traverse City, either.  Our kids were - and for the record, my son was born first.)


As for trying to legislate against future committees, the best thing you can do is to document just how much of the club's money has been wasted in changing things and then putting them back.


When someone talks sbout putting a master plan in the bylaws, I remind them they had done that with someone else's master plan back in the day, before it was found wanting and they'd hired me.  Indeed, those sorts of bylaws can wind up being an impediment to doing the right thing, depending on who writes them and where in the process it's done.

[Michael J. Moss]

Thanks, Tom...good stuff!

[Jeff_Brauer]

However, I would be shocked if there is an architect out there who designed a course and said it was architecturally perfect the day it opened and years later felt they could not improve and/or would want to change something about what they originally built/designed. 

Until someone plays an18 hole course in 18 shots, there will never be a perfect round of golf played.  The same goes for the playing fields; they will never be perfect and will always be evolving for many different reasons, some for the better, some for the worse.

Shocker:  Pacific Dunes.  I was happy with it when it opened and I still am.  We've worked on a handful of bunkers to reduce sand erosion, if you want to count that on your side, but there has never been a thought of tinkering with the layout or the greens.  They haven't even added any tees!  [A few of Mr. Keiser's alternate tees have been abandoned.]


I agree with you that there is no such thing as perfection, which is why trying to tinker with a course over time to perfect it is so silly.  Generally speaking, I'm happy with all of my courses.  There are a few where I've had fleeting thoughts about changing a hole or two, but the artist in me feels that they are products of a certain period in my life and a group of talented people, and I should respect that history instead of messing with them when any potential improvement would be (a) costly and (b) just a matter of opinion.  There aren't many artists who paint over their best canvases years later.


Of course, there are many architects who don't feel the same . . . and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that many of them are trying to figure out how to feed their families or keep their businesses afloat, and that their ethics are in no way compromised by that position.


My one course that has seen the most changes is Sebonack, which really undermines the whole premise of the golf course as a design that both Jack Nicklaus and I worked together on and signed off on.


Likewise, does anyone REALLY think that Crooked Stick is better because Pete Dye kept changing it around?  That's not to say I would change it back if they asked me . . . but I wish he would have resisted the temptation to change it all around.

The artist in you?  The old quote, “Art is like masturbation. It is done for you alone. Design is like sex. There is someone else involved, their needs are just as important as yours" may apply, LOL.


There really is no perfection in golf course design.  Nature changes, as you point out be remodeling some bunkers that wash out, and human nature changes, as well as the equipment we play with.  Lastly, situations change, as once prosperous courses face tough times and a hard to maintain bunker that catches two players a day may be deemed quite imperfect at any moment in time (i.e., post WWII, in the depression, now...…)


Not to mention, I never felt the bottom 200 Ross courses were necessarily good enough to restore.  The same would probably be true of your or mine bottom half courses...….and most would say my bottom 90% could be bulldozed without shedding a tear.  

[corey miller]

To what extent do all these "mandates" and "bylaws" protect most of the actual work in these restoration plans?


Tom may disagree with me but in many instances most all of the work of "restoring"/"renovating" classic courses is pretty common sense.  Expand the greens to the original sizes and restore the proper mowing patterns and of course tree work.   Even if we stipulate that my interpretation of "most all" is wildly exaggerated what percent of the work is then left to clueless committees and Superintendents trying to appease clueless committees?


I suspect most of these clubs regardless of "bylaws" do not have plans in place to preserve mowing lines unless the Super is diligent etc etc.  What about changes in mowing heights for rough areas? Green speeds?


A lot of danger in uneducated hands still resides in the hands of a committee regardless of bylaws.

[John Emerson]

I interviewed for a super job in upstate NY and they showed me the list of “club principles”.  I was very pleased to see that no architectural changes could be made unless approved by the consulting professional architect.  Also no trees were allowed to be planted within 65 ft of any green, tee, or playing corridor.  Bravo to those who made that list part of the culture of that club!!  All clubs should adopt these types of principles!!!!!!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()