Making course changes - Should members be consulted?

[BrizoH71]

The 7th hole at our place is called 'The Twa' Ditches' (that's the two ditches for non-Scots )...

Playing the course on Saturday, albeit shortened due to winter tees/greens, we reached the seventh hole to find that the first ditch was in the process of being filled in.

Both the ditches on the hole aren't/weren't particularly wide... about three feet, and the first ditch crosses the course at a slight diagonal. Off the yellows, the distance to the ditch ranges from around 170yards on the left side to 190yards on the right. The length of the hole itself is only around 340 yards off the yellow boxes.

Many of the membership I've spoken to are fizzing at the change, and they feel such a fundamental change to the hole should have been discussed at greater length; the issue was mentioned at the AGM, but was shot down and no vote or resolution was taken.

The consensus is the change seems to have been made to keep the older members happy, while the more able-bodied are less enthused. The explanation put forward is the ditch is going to be partially levelled out, rounded and grassed, so still a ditch although it can be played from; it is currently a yellow-staked hazard. Current/previous composition was sleepered walls with gravel bottom, about 18" deep.. play from the ditch wasn't possible due to restricted room so a lift-and-drop required.

For many members, the first ditch rarely comes into play anyway and the longer hitters can carry the ditch at the furthest point, and sometimes the second ditch for the really-long hitters; but it does give the hole some character and the ditch does provide a threat for some - off the whites the ditch is for me on the borderline of my driving carry distance if I go down the right-side as it gives a better angle into the green.

Should such a fundamental change to the course layout not have been member-approved, or do the greens commitees have the right to make changes as they see fit to the course without seeking the thoughts of the membership? Many feel the changes will ruin the hole as a challenge and is detrimental to the course overall; for some others it is the final straw and several are thinking of leaving for pastures new.

 

[chillicon]

They are making quite a few changes at my course this winter as well. Mostly it is reshaping bunkers & adding new drainage etc, however they are moving some bunkers and removing some others.

Some of the changes I like & the new shaping of the bunkers looks really nice. However I just dont understand why they have removed the bunkers they have and think the bunkers they have moved have been moved to the wrong place.

Like at your club, these changes are seemingly designed to be to the benefit of the older generation and the shorter hitters.

In the main I am happy for the committee to sort this stuff out, but certainly think that if they are making fundamental course changes (like removing ditches/bunkers etc) they need to have a broad cross-section of the membership involved so that decisions aren't only in favour of one group of members.

 

[chrisd]

I would hope any changes that fundamentaly alter the playing characteristics of a hole would be outlined, and opinion openly sought,, with the full membership before hand.

 

[BrizoH71]

I would hope any changes that fundamentaly alter the playing characteristics of a hole would be outlined, and opinion openly sought,, with the full membership before hand.

Sadly, it wasn't ... seemingly there have been several requests made to have the ditch filled in due to it being 'in play' when the wind is against; the wind usually blows across the hole or sometimes behind, but rarely does it blow into the face of the player on the hole in question.

Looking at some fellow members' Facebook pages where they've mentioned the changes on their respective walls, seemingly the vice-captain wasn't aware either until he stumbled onto the hole and saw the ditch had been filled.

All or SI are going to be reviewed also with a view to having them altered, assuming via the HDID data from the season past.

 

[bladeplayer]

We have this on going at our place at the min & my thoughts are that they should discuss it with either all members or at least a group across all the handicap & gender spectrum..

We are changing a par 3 hole ,

as you play it now its 160/170ish off the back tees , river is at the front of the tee box and there are bunkers left and right of the green , no trouble in front

New tee box will be from an elevated area and they are extending the rh bunker so now, tho the hole will be shorter around 145/150 off the back there is a carry to the water that was not there and if they do extend the bunker you will have to fly the ball the whole way to get on the green,

Personally ive no problem with this as its perfect 9 iron distance for me , but what about the ladies or older members who cant fly an iron that far ? there has to b an option to run it up aswell . the club is for all its members equally . i have asked them to get a wider spread of opinions before extending the bunker

 

[Foxholer]

I would hope any changes that fundamentaly alter the playing characteristics of a hole would be outlined, and opinion openly sought,, with the full membership before hand.

As long as the reasons for making the change are reasonable, then a simple notification of what change and why is all that's needed imo.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

My previous club had a similar situation. A course architect was brought in to bring back all the Colt features that had been lost over the years. Whilst the changes are improving the course, it is also making it more difficult for the older players. Some of the new and re-instated bunkers are so deep the seniors now really struggle to get out of them if they go in or carry over them off the tee.

As a 'better' player I'm all in favour of these changes, mainly intended to move the course up the Top 100 rankings. However, there was no consultation with the membership. There was a presentation evening to outline the changes then it was announced the work would start the following month. VERY wrong at a private members club in my opinion.

 

[Slab]

Think it will depend on the type of club/course i.e members, resort, muni etc but if its a members course didn't the membership appoint a committee to make decisions like this

A fundamental change to some will be incidental to others so where to draw the line about what needs to have the membership consulted?

And if as stated for many players the hazard isn't even in play then whats its purpose, if its only remaining purpose is to punish short hitters, it doesn't make sense, since when was that the point of golf!

Maybe a generation or two ago it was in play for most of the membership but with go longer clubs & balls it now only impacts the minority and it certainly should be considered if its still fit for purpose

There will always be difficulties if you cant carry a ball a good distance & I could be wrong here but this sounds a little bit like longer hitters unhappy that short hitters wont drop as many shots as they used to & that's not cricket (or golf)

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

A fundamental change to some will be incidental to others so where to draw the line about what needs to have the membership consulted?

Yes I agree and this is the 'defence' that was offered up by the General Manager when I approached him about it.

If the curtains in the clubhouse need to be replaced at a cost of £1,000 then yes, crack on and do it. But redesigning the entire course at a cost of hundreds of thousands, surely the members should have been consulted?

 

[BrizoH71]

And if as stated for many players the hazard isn't even in play then whats its purpose, if its only remaining purpose is to punish short hitters, it doesn't make sense, since when was that the point of golf!

Most of the short hitters reach for driver, even though they've no chance of getting over the ditch; it only punishes them because they're daft enough to try to get over rather than laying up.

 

[CMAC]

As long as the reasons for making the change are reasonable, then a simple notification of what change and why is all that's needed imo.

agreed!

 

[patricks148]

we always find out after or while its getting done, a bit like you.

It would be nice to know these things, but i doubt it would make much difference.

Our place took out loads of gorse in the last 5 years and that has opened the course out and made it easier. they are obsessed with players being able to see the sea from every hole, i would have thought one of the last considerations when deciding on playing a course from a visitor point of view.

 

[duncan mackie]

having lived most of this for the last few years I think I am able to see all sides - the real problems come when any particular issue becomes emotive; fundamentally the problem can be seen when considering the following;
1. do you vote on everything?
2. so when something affects 10% of members fundamentally but is a non-issue to the majority but they vote against, what are you going to do?

All of this is why you have committee structures.

In the example given it sounds to me as if the 1st ditch has outlived it's usefulness but that the Committee should have communicated the what and why of the greens committee recommendation better. it sounds like they raised it, got a push back then rather than face off they appeared to back down intending to just go ahead anyway = worst of both worlds!

if people really aren't happy with what's being done then they should vote for change - although at this point most 'can't be bothered to get involved'.

 

[Tarkus1212]

I am of the opinion that minor course changes that can be achieved within the annual greenkeeping budget (e.g. removing or installing bunkers) should be agreed at committee without the need for any input from the membership. It would be nice to be kept informed but I think some committees are scared to pass on information as it provokes a response. Anything that requires funding above and beyond the allocated budget should be brought in front of the membership.

In this case the biggest impact would appear to be that the hole will have to be renamed

If the loss of the ditch really does impact negatively on the way the course plays then it could always be reinstated.

 

[Val]

I'll be in the minority no doubt and say this is why you have a committee voted in by the members to make decisions for the great and good of the club without need for a members meeting every time a change is done on the course.

Frustrating I agree but if there was a meeting to vote on changes at any of our courses, how many members would you get to attend it? I don't think there would be that many as a percentage of the membership.

Both courses im a member at make changes without need for a general meeting of members.

 

[FairwayDodger]

We have this on going at our place at the min & my thoughts are that they should discuss it with either all members or at least a group across all the handicap & gender spectrum..

We are changing a par 3 hole ,

as you play it now its 160/170ish off the back tees , river is at the front of the tee box and there are bunkers left and right of the green , no trouble in front

New tee box will be from an elevated area and they are extending the rh bunker so now, tho the hole will be shorter around 145/150 off the back there is a carry to the water that was not there and if they do extend the bunker you will have to fly the ball the whole way to get on the green,

Personally ive no problem with this as its perfect 9 iron distance for me , but what about the ladies or older members who cant fly an iron that far ? there has to b an option to run it up aswell . the club is for all its members equally . i have asked them to get a wider spread of opinions before extending the bunker

Fully agree with this. We've had a bunker filled in recently which was probably a fair enough decision if you considered the hole from the men's tees but which, IMO, has made a fundamental difference to the tee shot from the ladies tees since it was very much in play from there. Things like that don't generally seem to be considered, unfortunately.

 

[Tarkus1212]

Fully agree with this. We've had a bunker filled in recently which was probably a fair enough decision if you considered the hole from the men's tees but which, IMO, has made a fundamental difference to the tee shot from the ladies tees since it was very much in play from there. Things like that don't generally seem to be considered, unfortunately.

Which sort of begs the question, who is your course set up for? Logically the course should be set up for the average member which would probably be an 18 handicapper. Most changes at our place seem to be done with the scratch players in mind, and often seemingly at their behest.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I'll be in the minority no doubt and say this is why you have a committee voted in by the members to make decisions for the great and good of the club without need for a members meeting every time a change is done on the course.

Frustrating I agree but if there was a meeting to vote on changes at any of our courses, how many members would you get to attend it? I don't think there would be that many as a percentage of the membership.

Both courses im a member at make changes without need for a general meeting of members.

Maybe a minority but +1.

At our club we had just such a meeting to discuss some very fundamental changes. Out of 650 members (all categories of playing members) 28 turned up but seemingly hundreds moaned after the changes were implemented.

In my experience most members find it very easy to excuse themselves from AGM's & EGM's but equally easy to complain.

 

[scottbrown]

Which sort of begs the question, who is your course set up for? Logically the course should be set up for the average member which would probably be an 18 handicapper. Most changes at our place seem to be done with the scratch players in mind, and often seemingly at their behest.

IMO all changes should be made with the scratch player in mind, everyone else's handicaps will follow suit from that.

 

[chrisd]

As long as the reasons for making the change are reasonable, then a simple notification of what change and why is all that's needed imo.

If the membership at a private club is similar to the contributors here you can see how diverse the opinion on things can be. What you see as reasonable someone else will be up in arms about and vice versa!

Also, committees are not necessarily made up to represent the playing abilities of the membership so it's vital IMO that when a real course restructuring is planned that opinion is sought from the membership