Pls help me understand

[Mike_Cirba]

OK, I'm with Ted.  I don't get it either.  I just went through their website, and to be honest, this looks like a damn nice golf course to be perfectly blunt.   Damn nice.    

Yep Dave...it looks damn nice.  Great views, too.

They also have created a "look" that tips the cap to their next door neighbor in spots and there are a fair number of really good holes (along with some flat out dogs).

What you can't see in the pics is the awkward routing, the lack of walkability, the significant shaping, the flaccid greens, or the lack of any meaningful strategy on most holes.

Since we're here to dissect those things, and to discuss what separates the good, better, and best among golf courses, I thought it fair to point that out.  Early marketing of the course (including a "side by side" comparision of Pine Valley and Pine Hill in either Golf Magazine or Golf Digest, forget which) played up the place on the coattails of its neighbor and I always thought it fair to bring up the marked differences between the two courses, as well.

It's in my Top 10 public courses in NJ, although towards the bottom half.

[JakaB]

Mike,

Seeing what the current price structure is to become a member....will you retract your statement that the course is overpriced...note:  The fall greenfee is currently $70 to boot..

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

The fact that the course is now looking to go private means to me that they couldn't financially sustain what it was built to be; a high-end, CCFAD (country club for a day) for public golfers.

The price vs value equation was obviously out of line.  The ownership seems to be shifting gears and hoping to sell enough memberships to generate a self-sustaining private model.

I think my original contention (remember, I played there when it was a public-only course) is proven by the present situation.

[JakaB]

Mike,

That is the first thing you ever said that really pisses me off...congrats.   I refuse to discuss the economics of golf in the world today as it relates to architectual value with someone who closes their eyes to reality to prove they were right....screw yourself...

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

When Pine Hill opened, I believe the green fee was somewhere in the $130+ range, making it the highest fee in the vicinity.

The "economic reality" is that type of rate might get someone out there once, twice, three times a year at most, especially when there are good and much cheaper alternatives available.  

The beautiful day that redanman and I played, there were a handful of other groups on the course.  This isn't Palm Springs, or Las Vegas, it's southern NJ, and Pine Hill isn't the only one going through these type of problems.  The fact is that course building (in costs of construction, types of courses, fee structures, etc) was done with a sky's the limit mentality through the late 80s and 90s and the piper needs to be paid.

Tom Fazio is probably the biggest proponent of the "we can do anything at a premium" school of architecture, so I think it's a fair and valid criticism.

John...by the way, I see that Pine Hill is ONLY $70 after 12pm after October 1st.  Jeez...too bad it's dark here by 4:30 or so.  Better take the afternoon off from work so I can get in line for that value!  

[JakaB]

Mike,

If the course was built at too high of an expense...how can they afford to offer such inexpensive private memberships now.  Do you honestly fault anyone for not predicting the effect 9/11 would have on the CCFAD model....When are you going to come out and say the C&C failed at Cuscowilla because it is still public and so many house lots remain unsold....oh yea....and when are you going to hold every course responsible for its press releases....Tom Doak himself is currently the crowned prince of hyperbowl...(hyperbowl..a device often found in head shops)

Hey...If you have something else to say quit changing your existing posts...I'm not going back and reading an entire thread every time I pull it up...

[JakaB]

And another thing...who the hell in the CCFAD demographic ever walks anyway...you seem to be left with your anti-strategy argument and we all know how full of crap that is...I personally am sick of seeing the same modern strategic template on course after course.....fairway bunker left...greenside bunker right...genius..it is getting old..

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

Economic cycles are commonplace.  Back in the late 90s when things were booming I asked the question on here of who these new courses were being built for because there was truly no new net growth in the game in terms of new golfers and an aging baby boom population.  

Most of the younger generation comes from socio-economic groups who do not have a heritage (or the money or mobility) of playing the game and despite the good intentions of the "First Tee" and Tiger's inroads to minority communities, there is not sustainable long-term financial health despite rosy NGF predictions in those days.

I think we'll see much more of this type of thing (going private, outright closings, sales to real estate, etc) in the coming decade.  

The fact that the cost of building many Fazio courses was considerable does not help the balance sheet, especially for a course that was built in the CCFAD model.

[THuckaby2]

I'll do it for Pat  - because Webster wrote this really cool book a long time ago.  

It's called a dictionary.

And amazingly enough it has separate definitions for great, architecture and value.

Still waiting for an answer from Patrick...  but in the meantime, in response to this, I shall say:  David, please.  This thread is as much about pure architecture as your family feud threads are.

TH

[JakaB]

Mike,

Next time we have a terrorist attact that shakes the nation to its core I will tell my children that economic cycles are commonplace....that should help.

Isn't going private a step forward for a club and not a step back.....Name one thing from a management perspective that makes going private more difficult...I would think every owner would prefer a private situation..

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

When a course opens trumpeted as a "public Pine Valley", at the highest green fees in the area and fails to get off the ground financially despite magazine rankings and hype, I'm not sure I'd qualify that as a success.  

[Brent Hutto]

Isn't going private a step forward for a club and not a step back.....Name one thing from a management perspective that makes going private more difficult...I would think every owner would prefer a private situation..

Even if running a private club is a "step forward" from running a CCFAD that's not exactly what we're talking about here. Attempting to go private is not a sure thing and in most cases being forced to make that attempt is sure enough a step backward. If you eventually get a fully-subscribed membership willing to pay high enough dues to be profitable and keep the course in great shape that's a good thing but then again buying a $1 lottery ticket and winning a million bucks is a good thing, too.

[Ted Kramer]

I'll do it for Pat  - because Webster wrote this really cool book a long time ago.  

It's called a dictionary.

And amazingly enough it has separate definitions for great, architecture and value.

Still waiting for an answer from Patrick...  but in the meantime, in response to this, I shall say:  David, please.  This thread is as much about pure architecture as your family feud threads are.

TH

Ok here a point on architecture and routing that I don't understand. What is "asthetics for asthetics sake" in terms of Pine Hill. I would understand that comment to refer to a huge waterfall a la The Donald, or perfectly manicured flower beds near tee boxes. Can asthetics exist for any sake other than "for its own sake"? Isn't the definition along the lines of beauty. Now an architect can uncover natural beauty or try to build it himself, that I wont argue . . .but without any flower beds and or waterfall type structures, where is the "asthetics for asthetics sake" at Pine Hill?

Now if this is the kind of thing where someone says, its tough to define, but I know it when I see it, well thats fine . . .Like I said, I'm just curious.


And here is another one . . .
"Lack of strategy"
I'd love to discuss this concept with you guys.
Is strategy in gca related to:
options?
risk reward?
decision making?

By using the term "lacking strategy" do you mean that the same strategy is used throughout the course too much. Or does it mean that the holes simply don't require any strategy at all?

#1 - mid length par5, tough to reach in 2, anything layed up to 175-125 is played from a side hill lie, bunker front left, collection area right, two tier green sloping from back left to front right . . . .if you don't see the strategy in that hole then I really don't understand the use of the term.

I would be happy to list as many other examples of strategy at Pine hill as you would interested to read. In my opinion strategy is a key element to the course . . . It really can't be overpowered by the average player, the greens aren't tricked up, and there aren't many blind shots. Now there isn't much risk reward, but there are tons of strategic nuances to many of the holes.

-Ted

[A_Clay_Man]

Economic cycles are commonplace.  Back in the late 90s when things were booming I asked the question on here of who these new courses were being built for because there was truly no new net growth in the game in terms of new golfers and an aging baby boom population.  

Mike, In the early nineties there was only one analyst (that I'm aware of) that predicted the uber bull market, that was over done by the late nineties. The strength in today's stock market, is still a function of that UBER call. It is the retiring of the boomers, that likely led the golf course project investment marketing tactics.

I'll go way out on a limb here, and say. those who are in a hurry to; grow-in, make money, are really in the wrong industry.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted;

You ask some great questions and I'll try to get back to you later today because it's going to be a busy one, but let me just try to address what I mean by aesthetic routing considerations.

When an architect utilizes a downhill, skyline view on one hole (a par four), and then marches you in parallel fashion  200 yards back up the same hill to utilize the same Philadelphia skyline view on the next par three (I believe the holes are 14 & 15?), I think that the postcard mentality is the predominant consideration.

By the way, I like the first hole a lot and it has the best green on the course.

[THuckaby2]

Ted:  those are great questions.  I haven't seen your course so I have no answers.  Just please do understand that I did not mean my posts as any knock:  I believe firmly that many things go into an assessment of the worth of a golf course, and to view architecture in a vacuum is folly for the golfer, best left to those in the business.  No one has EVER given me a cogent rebuttal to that, so I don't expect one here.  But I won't muck up your thread any more, my apologies.  It's just that when someone says "stick to the architecture" I simply have to ask "why?".

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Just one ironic thought before I get to work..

I recall that my complaints about the sterile greens at Pine Hill a few years back were met by a retort from Patrick Mucci that Fazio probably did this because it was a public course and challenging greens would be a slow-play consideration.

[Ted Kramer]

John;

When a course opens trumpeted as a "public Pine Valley", at the highest green fees in the area and fails to get off the ground financially despite magazine rankings and hype, I'm not sure I'd qualify that as a success.  

I have a tough time discussing markting along with gca. And the fact that people on this site wouldn't qualify Pine Hill to be anything even remotely close to Pine Valley doesn't mean that Joe Public's perception wouldn't be a quite a bit different.

And another thing . . .
Pine Hill is part of Club Max. Club Max owns 6 or 7 golf courses in the NY/NJ area. Right now 2 or 3 of them are private with the others working towards privatization. What I am looking at is an extremely good business model that is working. New Jersey National is a Club Max course that just went fully private after spending some time as a semi-private like Pine Hill. In my opnion you have to be able to deal on the fly in business and change with the times. The Club Max guys seem to be ahead of the curve in that department as far as I can tell.

-Once you join one Club Max course, you can play at any of them. That doesn't sound bad to me.

-Pine Hill will refund 1/2 of an initiation fee at the time of one's resignation, pretty forward thinking in an attempt to convert pubilc golfers who didn't grow up around CCs to Private Club members.

-The restaraunt will remain public for ever. Thus eliminating the need for "minimuns" and keeping dues down.

These guys are thinking outside the box. Just becasue their model isn't seen everywhere else doesn't mean that it isn't working or can't work long term.

-Ted

[JakaB]

Ted,

Please note 11 and 12 on the Sebonack routing....such blatant routing to provide back to back bay side greens is asthetics for asthetics sake....it is a good thing.   Mike lives in a bizarro world where things you don't pay for cost too much and people who pay $70 greenfees don't skip out of work in the afternoon to play golf..

[JakaB]

John;

When a course opens trumpeted as a "public Pine Valley", at the highest green fees in the area and fails to get off the ground financially despite magazine rankings and hype, I'm not sure I'd qualify that as a success.  

I have a tough time discussing markting along with gca. And the fact that people on this site wouldn't qualify it as anything even remotely close to Pine Valley, I think that the Joe Public perception might be a quite a bit different.

And another thing . . .
Pine Hill is part of Club Max. Club Max owns 6 or 7 golf courses in the NY/NJ area. Right now 2 or 3 of them are private with the others working towards privatization. What I am looking at is an extremely good business model that is working. New Jersey National is a Club Max course that just went fully private after spending some time as a semi-private like Pine Hill. In my opnion you have to be able to deal on the fly in business and change with the times. The Club Max guys seem to be ahead of the curve in that department as far as I can tell.

-Once you join one Club Max course, you can play at any of them. That doesn't sound bad to me.

-Pine Hill will refund 1/2 of an initiation fee at the time of one's resignation, pretty forward thinking in an attempt to convert pubilc golfers who didn't grow up around CCs to Private Club members.

-The restaraunt will remain public for ever. Thus eliminating the need for "minimuns" and keeping dues down.

These guys are thinking outside the box. Just becasue their model isn't seen everywhere else doesn't mean that it isn't working or can't work long term.

-Ted

Pulling up from the 24th slot of death.....

Ted,

I read the membership deal and even went to the web sites of the other courses....You are a lucky man my friend...I live in the economic bowels of our great country and don't have such a sweet deal...

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

I would have gladly paid the $130 to play Pine Hill...once.

I didn't rush off the 18th green anxious to get back to the first tee.  

If I lived closer, I'd look at the deal they gave Ted, because as he points out, they seem to be trying to get creative to attract play and attain solid financial viability as a private club.  Since Twisted Dune would be part of that deal, presumably, that would sweeten the pot.  

[Ted Kramer]

I'd like to address the comments about 2 holes in a row with views of the skyine. . . .

You can't see the skyline from #14(par4) or #15(par5).
You can see it, it is a distinguishing feature, on #13(par3), but like I said, you can not see it on #14 and if you can see it on #12 it is not at all prominent and you'd really have to look for it.

If a course was designed that marched people up and down for the sake of seeing the same scene over and over again, I would agree with those who thought that was lame. However, I can't think of 2 holes in a row with the view mentioned. Like I've said before, #3 and #13 are the only holes with that spectacular view and I think that those two holes are outstanding with or without that view.

Again back to the strategy discussion:

#3 - 442 from the Blue Tees, downhill tee shot to a right to left sloping fairway, bunker right is in play, waste area long left is tough to reach, big greenside bunker left, open run up area on the right side of the green, drive down the right side opens up the option of bouncing it into the green while the left side forces you to contend with a big mean greenside bunker.

#13 - Shortish par 3, green sloping from back to front almost enough to call it two seperate tiers, very tricky green built into a hill, tough to tell which way the ball will break in some sections, there are places where you would swear it goes one way and then it goes the other, tough to hold the ball on the front of the green making front pins tough, great par 3.

-Ted

[SPDB]

Ted - I've played Pine Hill 2x, once before it opened, and another shortly after.  A couple of thoughts, some of which may seem redundant:

• I can't remember the overall routing configuration, but I do remember it seemed awkward to me to have the clubhouse (which wasn't built yet) high on the hill. It sort of forced the routing to wrap around the side of a mountain (i think the property occupies the highest point in South Jersey). That was my only real complaint on the routing.
• The stretch of holes from ~4 to 9 are very good, and they include a couple of really strong par 3s (as a general observation, I seem to recall liking the par 3s a lot).
• The holes in the middle of the back 9, were really forgettable, especially the ones that play around the pond
• I really like the 10th hole. I still remember the exhilarating feeling of watching a towering 5 iron over the chasm of the latter part of the hole. Neat hole. (perhaps that view was colored by the fact that the shot came to rest 6" from the hole  ;D)

I'd get more specific, but I need to jog my memory more. I'm always amazed by the amount of detail those who post here can summon.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted;

The holes I had in mind were 12 & 13, my bad.  

12 is a downhill par four, with a sharply falling, almost drop-shot approach.  

Doesn't the next hole drive you 200 yards right back up the same hill to provide the view of the Philly skyline?

I thought the green at 13, benched back against the slope, was pretty tame and it was generally a de rigeur downhill par three with a beautiful view.  A few holes later isn't there another dropshot par three, perhaps 16?

[HamiltonBHearst]

Can we please stick to the architecture?  Mike C. says that there is a hole with a skyline green and then you trudge back up 200 yards and play a hole in the same direction with the same view.  

Ted says this is not true, and he is the member.  

Mike C-Did you play Pine Hills or Pine Valley?