is all the constant changing of the some of the original AUS golf courses really necessary? what ive observed of the last few yrs is that some of the best courses seem to be changing parts of their courses for no reason. some pathetic designers have stamped their own work on courses where the clubs allow the desicration of the course permanently. the lengthning of the courses to fight technology is one thing, but why change unnecessary features for the sake of a pretty view. i thought the golf course designers placed practical features and not purely asthetic features, which usually do not sit with the orginal design nor the terrain of some the courses.

stone cold,

you mean like the removal of trees that makes courses easier for the sake of a pretty view? Can you open a can of whoop ass on some courses by listing some examples?

C'mon stone cold, it would be very unlike you to stir the pot without naming names.

What are you REALLY referring to? Examples please.

I'm confused Jack.
How can it be "unlike you", when it is stone cold's first post here ???

69'er, the REAL Stone Cold wouldn't micne his words. He'd just grab that microphone and tell it like it is!!.

Thats what I meant.

Cool jack, its a wrestling thing.
I'm not into this new fangled wrestling world, i'm still stuck back in the Mario Milano / Killer Karl Cox time zone.

stonecold said

constant changing of the some of the original AUS golf courses  
some pathetic designers  
do not sit with the orginal design

Welcome stonecold I think you're going to fit in just fine here. :roll:

i must say i dont get alot of chances to lay many different courses, but the few ive played prior to changes were i think better. lately the changes to such relativley prestigous courses such as commonwealth 5th greenside, with those absolutely horrible, and down rite useless high lips and the split bunkering is one of the worst attempts at sandbelt bunkering ive ever seen. the recent work around the green at riversdale, opening up the whole creek. those changes i saw necessary for the 13th green-14th complex, but through to the 10th &17th green -18th tee. there seems to be no separation between those holes now. the fountain/ water feature at kew golf club on the 18th, completely a waste of money and the 15th at yarra yarra. although those pines were dying or diseased they placed an unecessary mould of dirt!

stone cold

some good examples there - you just have to love that ridiculous water feature at Kew.
Havn't seen Riversdale but they wrecked that long ago with all those pot bunkers.
Commonwealth - lurching from one disaster to another and the biggest disaster is not getting on with fixing it.
How about 4,5 and 13 at Long Island?

stone cold,
Do you know Jim?

I think you have confused two separate questions...firstly, why do it, secondly if you are going to do it, how do you ensure you do it well.

My club in Perth is about to embark on it... their answer to the first question is that they must do it to remain financially viable ie/to attract the necessary subs and joining fees the course must be considered to be worth it by the existing and potential members. This problem might not exist in Sydney or Melbourne, but Perth private clubs are under pressure from the easily accessible daily fees course around the place. The bar has been lifted and the lesser private clubs are stuggling a bit.

The answer to the second question... I guess time will tell.

nfi

Mt Lawley -right?

Who is going to do the work?

yeah, the changes to marathon at long island didnt sit well. i clear example of these changes that have altered the course in a clearly negative way were those undertaken at huntingdale a few years ago. many players said they werent at all impressed with the changes for they didnt sit in with the design. i thought the moulds or hollows short of the 17th green, were not only useless but down right ridiculous when compared to the other holes. they werent natural, they didnt fit in with the landscape.

nfi, i havent played any courses in perth, so i cant comment directly on the situation there about the courses. all club commitees have some reason to why the course requires altering. some maybe financial which i believe is the most important reason if change to the course is undertaken. the longevity of a golf club is the key, because we play golf to not only to enjoy the course but to enjoy the social; aspect also other commitees may change the course to leave their mark, and its this mark which can ruin good courses :evil:
if changes are made the new designers need to understand the original designers reasons why they designed the course that way first, so as to fit the new changes in with the original design, so as not to have a definite "new" section and an "old" section.

in response to henry's question, i dont know jim.

Yes, Mt Lawley.

Even though we are well thought of, our waiting list is not what it once was primarily because the resort style courses (Vinces, Joondalup, Kennedy Bay, Araluen) are all only about 45mins from the CBD in Perth and many punters no longer see the value in paying big subs for a metro club when they can pay for play on these other tracks. I can see their point.

Mt Lawley therefore saw the weaknesses in it's course and also saw that at all costs it must act early to avoid getting on the slippery slide down from which it is very hard to get off. Once a course loses it's gloss, the ability to attract subs and joining fees reduces which in turn reduces the finances available to fix the problem. Whether the changes turn out to be positive of course is the big risk and this is the question the committe must ask, is it better to do nothing or do the wrong thing.