Real world situations

[Mark_Fine]

I was recently asked to visit an older golf course (built in the 1950’s) to look over their golf course and offer any suggestions.  You guys tell me if anything is “broken”

The first thing I noticed starting with the 1st hole (this continued throughout the course) is that many of the bunkers were more like bath tubs.  They were still holding water several days after a rain storm.  Also the 1st green, as did most of the others, had shrunk dramatically in size away from the edges of the fill pad and many of the “greenside” hazards were now well separated from the putting surfaces.  Most of the approaches were hour glass shaped and “fairway” bunkers were all surrounded by rough.  The community where the golf course resides has several lakes and one of the holes meandered along one of them to a green located on a bluff with the water behind. However, someone had planted a row of pine trees around the back of the green completely eliminating what otherwise would have been a dramatic skyline green.  I don’t like making too many strong suggestions during a first visit as more study is always required but when we got to that hole I had to ask the half dozen or so committee members if any of them owned a house in the community on the lake to which all but one of them raised their hands yes.  I then asked how many of them had or would plant a row of trees behind their homes blocking the views of the lake?  Nothing more needed to be said and we moved on to the next hole

I am preparing for a follow up visit to this course in April/May where I will present my initial observations and talk about possible next steps.  I am wondering how many here think there might be something “broken” on this golf course?  If so, should I suggest any improvements or if not, just as Ally suggested in the one other thread, decide “if it is not broken, things well enough alone and shut the gate on my way out”?

By the way, I am told the trees beyond that one green have already been taken down and we haven’t even had our follow up meeting   Maybe there was/is room for improvement!

[Simon Barrington]

Mark

Is this "client" Facetious CC, Neglect City, IN, USA?

I think we all get the point of this extreme (and probably made up, note I didn't say unreal as each part of the story could of course be real) synthesised example for the point of argument discussion.

Cheers!

[Simon Barrington]

Deleted (Repeated)

[Ronald Montesano]

Simon, with a tiny bit of respect, what climbed in your knickers and bit your bum?

Mark, you know how to read a room. Trust your instincts and your experience. I'm certain that a bit of direct will win the day for you. Not enough, and you don't establish yourself as the leader. Too much, and they feel that you will change everything about the course.

[Mark_Fine]

Actually this is very real course/project and in the future (assuming they proceed with some improvements), I will have someone smarter than me who knows how to post photos, post them so you can see before and afters.  Some clubs don’t like this kind of thing in a public forum but I think this club will be ok with it. I will of course ask them first.

The point of this thread is that MANY courses out there need some help. Courses are not artwork and they change constantly whether we like it or not.  Everytime someone takes out a greens mower a course changes or when sand is tossed out on a bunker shot or when a green is top dressed or a storm takes out a tree or a stream overflows its banks or when a course gets surrounded by hardscape and becomes a catch basin,.., and no disrespect to any architect including my own projects, no course is perfect when it opens for play or even several years after. 

This doesn’t mean we haphazardly just change stuff for the sake of it.  But there is lots of room for improvement out there and if all architects/superintendents,… just left GCA the way it is now and locked the gate, this game and GCA would have never gotten to where it is today. 

Simon,
We tend to only discuss the cream of the crop elite courses on this site.  Be aware there are literally thousands of golf courses out there that don’t have million dollar maintenance budgets designed by celebrity architects and show up on Top 100 lists.  Most of these courses could use some help and it IS NOT just about throwing money at them.  Sometimes significant consequential change can happen with almost no cost at all.   

[Simon Barrington]

Mark
Is this "client" Facetious CC, Neglect City, IN, USA?
I think we all get the point of this extreme (and probably made up, note I didn't say unreal as each part of the story could of course be real) synthesised example for the point of argument discussion.
Cheers!

Apologies if my poor attempt at ironic British humour landed like a lead balloon.

As per the note in the parentheses, not surprising to me at all that these issues exist, and need addressing professionally...so we agree?
My guess is that no-one would argue otherwise...

[Kevin_Reilly]

Your first post was broken in terms of fonts and font-size, but from what you presented it seems more of a maintenance (bunker drainage, rough lines) than anything otherwise notable.  Shrunken greens are par for the older course, so you should know how to approach that.


What is the question here?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark, please alter your original post to reflect what I actually said:


“If it’s NOT broken, leave well enough alone and shut the gate on the way out”


Which is quite different to what you just quoted me as saying. This was responding to you saying that even if a course was not broken, there’s always something to improve / fix. Very different to your premise here.


Of course, my argument is also about what you might define as “broken”. Technical issues (drainage, turf quality etc…) are far easier to categorise this way than straight design issues. Minimal cost design interventions (e.g. mowing lines) are usually the next port of call.


After that, you need to be very clear that  your “improvements” are exactly that and will add value to the course (in both golfers eyes and financial terms). You are now in to the realm of subjectivity and it is the arrogance of some golf course architects in this area that can create as many problems as they “fix”.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I didn’t mean to miss quote you.  Sorry. What I am saying though is there is rarely if ever a situation where your quote should come into play:

“If it’s NOT broken, leave well enough alone and shut the gate on the way out”

What course out there doesn’t have something that is broken (or could use some improvement)?  Please tell me one or two.  It might be a bad example but even the iconic Augusta National gets altered seemingly every year.  Is it broken, you tell me but I am defining “broken” as not perfect and could be improved so in that sense yes it was broken and someone is trying to make it better.  I thought I made that clear and this thread was to sight a real world example. 


I realize this might be coming across as we should constantly be tinkering with every golf course.  That is not at all what I am saying.  Some architects do constantly make changes and updates but those changes should be managed by the original architect if that is still possible.  However, we should be constantly striving to keep our game fresh and innovation and change is part of that.  The is opportunity in GCA to make this game better and most interesting and fun,… to play.

[Kyle Harris]

Events and processes.


The key is to keep the processes such that you minimize the events.

[Michael Felton]

It might be a bad example but even the iconic Augusta National gets altered seemingly every year.  Is it broken, you tell me but I am defining “broken” as not perfect and could be improved so in that sense yes it was broken and someone is trying to make it better. 

It's obviously not perfect. Nothing subjective can be. But is it better as a result of those changes? How and why?


Take Pine Valley - some people say it's too difficult. So what do we do about that? Should we make it easier? How? It's pretty wide open. Only way really to make it easier is either to make it shorter, but there are up tees so that doesn't work, or pull its teeth. But its teeth are what make it great to others. Who gets to decide if it's broken?


There are plenty of examples of greens committees deciding that they need to put their stamp on the course and making it worse. The course you cited - those pine trees that blocked the view of the lake. Someone thought it was broken and was trying to make it better. Was that the right thing to do? Or should that person have shut the gate on the way out?

[Mark_Fine]

Change is happening all the time, much of it on purpose on many golf courses around the world.  Some of it is good, some of it is not, some of it is handled by the wrong individuals/committees/architects…, some of it is not, but very little if any is done without good reasons or intentions.  Sometimes the right answer might be to lock the gate and leave well enough alone. But you won’t know if you don’t take the time to look and study.  And obviously this varies from course to course and situation to situation. 

There is a reason sooo many courses have been closed over the last ten years.  Maybe they shouldn’t have been built in the first place or maybe they just didn’t adapt/change so they could remain viable as a golf course.   

Whether we want to admit it or not the game of golf is changing as are the types of players who play it.  It only makes sense that the courses where the game is played adapt with it.  It goes hand in hand. 

[Bruce Katona]

Mark:

I'm thinking with the "freebie" advise you provided on the intitial vist (tree removal behind the green) you have a terrific chance to get this commission.


You'll solve the bathtub sand bunkers with a drainage/rebuilding program and evaluate/revise the mowing patterns to bring fairway hazards back into play.


Best of Luck.


The Before & After pix will be a terrific case study for all to view.


BK

[Mark_Fine]

Bruce,
If I can get photos this spring I will find a way to post some before and afters at least of that one hole.  I actually have a ton of before and after photos from other projects.  It might be interesting on another thread to post before and afters and let people comment.  We did this at our ASGCA meeting in San Francisco.  We can take votes on how many think the changes made were good or if I should have left well enough alone and shut the gate on the way out 


Tom,
If you are following this, do you think we should have left well enough alone at Cherry Hills and just shut the gate and walked away?  Talk about a great course that had lost its way.  But then again as with GCA in general, it is all subjective. 

[Simon Barrington]

Simon, with a tiny bit of respect, what climbed in your knickers and bit your bum?

Mark, you know how to read a room. Trust your instincts and your experience. I'm certain that a bit of direct will win the day for you. Not enough, and you don't establish yourself as the leader. Too much, and they feel that you will change everything about the course.

Ron, no angst here, was just my poor attempt at humour (sorry) as Mark's post just seemed on first reading too obvious and possibly exaggerated.
I couldn't really see the point he was trying to make.

(BTW - when one includes a reference to "respect" being given, over here we read it as the exact opposite, another example of how words can mean very different things in translation. But, no harm, and no foul.)


However, and more positively, your second point is very interesting, and I think where Mark and any architect has a challenge to find the balance.

Bread & butter work to rectify these obvious (& pervasive) issues should, of course, be agreed and undertaken.

Where the contention lies is whether these then become the "trojan horse" for more extensive and expensive (possibly inappropriate) work either pushed by the Club's own decision makers (on the basis of their own game usually, or a pet peeve they have) or by a commercially driven architect.

Clubs today are in an arms race versus neighbours/peers and following the recent boom have too much money available to make mistakes with.
The Club concerned may even wish for him/her to "change everything”, and may be actively seeking an architect who they feel they can control to do as they wish (rather than one who may propose only what is more considered)?
This is why in many fields firms hire consultants, to give the air-cover and justification to do what they wished in the first place.

Careful historical research into and deference to the course's history can help find the correct balance (and often it leads to discovery of lost features and character which might return if appropriate). The best projects and architects increasingly use detailed historical research, and embrace it.

I suspect this is where Ally (not that I am speaking for him as that's certainly not my place) and I have expressed concern that over here in the UK & Ireland there has been some over-stepping of what should be done, and a great deal of unnecessary and mediocre work has been undertaken that changes the course away from its intent, character and uniqueness (of course a subjective view).

The work needed to deal with the obvious (dare I say, standard & common) issues Mark details in his example is one thing and very welcome.
Some of the issues may even have been created by a previous architect’s engagement (which he is unable to criticise).

But, the extension of that work can lead to altering the very things that made a course unique.

The burden of proof to justify any change is larger if there are genuine and notable architectural features, history, and ODG involvement etc.

Everyone's line may be positioned differently on this and in essence it is the key question for any project;

    Is it refreshing, recalibration (as per Mark's example), restoration, renovation, reimagining, or revision (possibly wholesale)?

[Simon Barrington]

...
"Simon,
   - We tend to only discuss the cream of the crop elite courses on this site. 
   - Be aware there are literally thousands of golf courses out there that don’t have million dollar maintenance budgets designed by celebrity architects and show up on Top 100 lists. 
   - Most of these courses could use some help and it IS NOT just about throwing money at them. 
    - Sometimes significant consequential change can happen with almost no cost at all. "
[/quote]

Thanks Mark,
Responses in turn (I'm going to be unusually brief for clarity):
  - The strength of this site is the huge variety of courses we discuss (well beyond the elite)
  - I am aware
  - Yes they could, and I hope you and the profession will help them do what is right (& not change for change's sake), cost effectively.
  - Agreed
Cheers!

[Thomas Dai]

Not to fussed what the exact words of the quote mentioned earlier in this thread are or aren’t but a couple of things come to mind in relation to parkland courses in particular that if let to go coz nothings seems broke and all seems ok so no need to fix that will likely come back and bite you ….. tree growth from when titchy wee saplings become big monsters and drainage, when the roots of the once tiny wee trees that are now big rascals invade and block them. Other things like the effects on sword quality too.
Sometimes things hidden in plain sight are the most difficult to see and might not appear to need attention when they actually do. Which is why oftentimes a view from outside the usual leadership and maintenance group can be beneficial.
Atb

[SL_Solow]

 One thing that hasn't been mentioned is budget.  Many of the issues mentioned in the original post, and none were surprising even when taken together, are the result of neglect.  Is the neglect simply that or does it reflect a lack of resources?  A bunker liner project, particularly if it is of the modern variety, can be very expensive.  I am certain that Mark can readily explain his observations. He is experienced enough to pick and choose if confronted with limited resources.  Sometimes it is better to just walk away.

[Craig Sweet]

If the fixin' is improving bunker drainage and removing trees that are damaging tees, fairways, and greens, what's the problem? Those are good things.  If the fixin' is adding bunkers, removing bunkers, softening fairway and green contours then you aren't fixing anything...you are seriously changing the course as it has been played.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps the high profile resorts, publics, and privates don't suffer from this as much, but how much does turnover and the ensuing loss of institutional experience & knowledge factor in to this?

In my line of work, losing key personnel can have quite an impact in the absence of documentation or "brain dump" before the departure.

[Simon Barrington]

Perhaps the high profile resorts, publics, and privates don't suffer from this as much, but how much does turnover and the ensuing loss of institutional experience & knowledge factor in to this?

In my line of work, losing key personnel can have quite an impact in the absence of documentation or "brain dump" before the departure.

This is in my limited experience probably the most significant factor in changes to courses.
The scourge of the new Chairman, President, Board or Committee wanting to make their mark, especially if there is money to burn.

I know an example when c.25 years ago a Club (post careful research & planning, public presentations, and member votes) determined unanimously (not a single member dissented, publicly) that they wished their course to be restored as far as possible back to the ODG's original intent and design. Remedying 80 years of piecemeal changes (Captain's bunkers etc.) which conflicted with the known original intent.
 
The Club then, post restoration, thrived during the golfing (& economic) downturn as its course differentiated itself from local competition and the membership grew, the course's unique character key in that.

Then other local courses closed, new members came from those, then newer golfers post Covid joined too, and now both have filled the leadership positions.

This group (of newbies, with little knowledge but high self-worth) have now steamrolled the membership (abusing their powers), along with a commercially focused architect (who knows little to nothing of the ODG's courses or principles) to make wholesale, strategic and aesthetic changes under the guise of a "Bunker Improvement Plan" (including the ubiquitous rubber lined white china clay ink-blots) that then morphed at the last moment into the oxymoronic "Course Improvement Plan".

BTW this was not even the architect's desired plan, but he allowed the Club to modify it extensively just to get the job through against vocal resistence, but he signed off on it instead of educating the decision makers or simply walking away.
He is a busy architect who could have done so commercially, but chose to dilute his body of work by keeping the business instead.

It is a travesty for that club & course, but no doubt there will be another chance to return the course to what it could have been and indeed was in the next iteration, which surely comes as those leadership bodies rotate again...and so the clock turns...and institutional memory fades...

One day I may write a book on this (anonymous) Club and what happened, in far more detail, to document how NOT to go about looking after a classic course. We learn more from failures and this is an abject one. Perhaps it will save other Clubs from themselves in the future...

I think you hit the nail on the head...it's human factors and arrogant stupidity that causes change...in Golf inertia can be a very good thing

[Mark_Fine]

Lots of good points raised.  Thanks. 


Budget is always an issue, at least on the far majority of courses that most of us work on.  In the case of this particular project, I would not say it is neglect or lack of resources that caused most of the issues, much of it is just time.  Courses age. Bunkers, if they even had proper/adquate drainage, will fail over time.  Greens shrink for a variety of reasons, sometimes on purpose to save money and sometimes just from normal mowing as those cutting greens try to avoid scalping the collars. Mowing lines tend to change as well once again sometimes on purpose and sometimes due to maybe a new irrigation system,…  One of (there are many) reasons older courses got narrowed is because of irrigation.  Single line irrigation which was often first used could throw water only so far.  Over time golfers didn’t like the burned out grass where the water didn’t reach so trees were planted narrowing everything up. 


At this course I first talked about, budget is definitely a concern and it will impact how much work will take place as well as how soon.  This one, like most of my projects, end up being true “long range” Master Plans and most take years to implement depending on when/what money is available. 


But change is necessary not just for maintenance reasons. At one course I worked on, it was deemed to be too difficult and one dimensional for most of their golfers and they were losing play to neighboring courses.  It was losing money and there was concern it would have to be closed. We did an extensive renovation on a very tight/limited budget and the results have been fantastic. Play is up for all levels of golfers and the course is making money.  We did much more than fix maintenance issues.


As Craig points out there are times (many times actually) when many of the issues are maintenance related.  But there are many as well where either the game has changed or the course might not have been ideal to begin with. On several of my projects we encounter for example greens severely sloped back to front (which is very typical on older courses for drainage) and some that have become almost unplayable at modern green speeds (I talking at even 9 or 10 not 12 or 13+ as some courses will get them  ).  There can be very limited if any hole locations and I’ve sat and watched players come through certain holes and four and five putt before picking up.  These issues do need to be addressed and yes budget plays a factor into what can and can’t be done. 



We talk a lot about “restoration” on this site but with all due respect, while every course deserves careful study before making purposeful change, very few would not benefit from modification to the design.  Sometimes it can be simple things like adding tees to restore design intent and make the game more interesting and fun or more challenging for certain players. Other times that option is limited and different tactics need to be considered.

[Tags:]

Tags: