USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
At my home track, we have an elected board of directors to run the business, and an elected comittee to run the golf/social side.
Over the last few years, there have been quite a few changes to the course, such as lengthening holes, reciting bunkers, and cutting down trees.
The lengthening made the front nine harder, and there are moves afoot to do the same to the back nine as it is percieved as unbalanced. This is decided by the comittee, with no consultation with the members. Average medal results show that the course is hard enough, as only about 20 or so beat par par is 72, and often CSS is 72/71).
Recently they have removed the conifers from the back of the 18th green, which dramatically changes the look of the hole, and plans to make the area where they were an internal out of bounds (We have no oob at present, and internal oob is one of my pet hates. the idea is that due to elf and safety the huge bank they have now uncovered is too dangerous to have golfers going down to play/look for balls, like someone is going to abandon a proV they can see, so why does oob make it safer?). There are also plans to remove more conifers from just short of the green to be replaced by a bunker, which will make it play much easier (in my view).
There was consultation over the 16th though, a blind par three, which has been left as it was designed (possibly a mistake as it is the hole I like least).
When you elect a comittee, are they custodians of the course, or do you expect them to dig bits of it up and change it as they see fit? They serve for a two year term, and have no stated manifesto when they are elected, so you don't really know what you are voting for, just whether the guy is a 'good bloke'.
We have about 700 members, so why should the course layout be altered significantly on the whim of 8?
Over the last few years, there have been quite a few changes to the course, such as lengthening holes, reciting bunkers, and cutting down trees.
The lengthening made the front nine harder, and there are moves afoot to do the same to the back nine as it is percieved as unbalanced. This is decided by the comittee, with no consultation with the members. Average medal results show that the course is hard enough, as only about 20 or so beat par par is 72, and often CSS is 72/71).
Recently they have removed the conifers from the back of the 18th green, which dramatically changes the look of the hole, and plans to make the area where they were an internal out of bounds (We have no oob at present, and internal oob is one of my pet hates. the idea is that due to elf and safety the huge bank they have now uncovered is too dangerous to have golfers going down to play/look for balls, like someone is going to abandon a proV they can see, so why does oob make it safer?). There are also plans to remove more conifers from just short of the green to be replaced by a bunker, which will make it play much easier (in my view).
There was consultation over the 16th though, a blind par three, which has been left as it was designed (possibly a mistake as it is the hole I like least).
When you elect a comittee, are they custodians of the course, or do you expect them to dig bits of it up and change it as they see fit? They serve for a two year term, and have no stated manifesto when they are elected, so you don't really know what you are voting for, just whether the guy is a 'good bloke'.
We have about 700 members, so why should the course layout be altered significantly on the whim of 8?
