News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brent Hutto

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #125 on: March 11, 2006, 07:14:51 AM »
Joe,

Are you saying that the cart fees subsidize walking golfers?

By that I mean is the difference between what a walker pays and a what a cart rider pays: a) more, b) less or c) approximately equal to the true cost of leasing, maintaining, storing and fueling the cart plus the cost of the additional wear and tear on the course?

I know that some of those costs are not the sort of thing that are actually tracked in your bookkeeping system. I'm just curious about a ballpark estimate off the top of your head.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #126 on: March 11, 2006, 07:20:42 AM »
I don't know the numbers, but I think without carts, the golf industry would collectively have to file Chapter 11
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #127 on: March 11, 2006, 07:23:41 AM »
Brent, I'd rephrase it just slightly. Without carts, clubs and courses would have to price their golf at a higher rate because for years they've been irresponsibly pricing the commodity in a misleading way. Cart riding has been encouraged as a revenue source to make up for their deceptive pricing.

Cary has stated the consequences pretty clearly.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 07:24:35 AM by Brad Klein »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #128 on: March 11, 2006, 07:24:25 AM »
I just did a quick look at our books, and our cart revenue is approximately 1/3 of what our greens fees and season passes generate. To keep up with our current level of income I would have to raise green fees and season passes by 35% and assume no drop in the number of rounds. Of course, the reality is that with our type of course, and in our competitive market the rounds would drop so dramamtically that we would be gone in less than a season.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Andy Troeger

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #129 on: March 11, 2006, 08:35:15 AM »
Just played Engh's Blackstone GC in Peoria, Ariz., west of Phoenix. Easily walkable. The land is rather low profile, which leads me to believe that Engh derived his approach to carts and riding on the basis of extreme Western mountainous sites, but as soon as he gets a flatter one he's able to do a course that's amenable to walking as well. In fact the private club is encouraging walking, whether carrying your own or one of those high-tech pullcarts. So it turns out Engh doesn't organize his design around riding and cart paths, but he is able to make his courses usable and enjoyable for those (in the majority) who do ride.

Brad,
  Thanks for posting this...I was hoping that was the case but I didn't want to say it without having played more of his courses. It seems reasonable enough that he tries to make the best of both worlds when possible, IMO.

Brent Hutto

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #130 on: March 11, 2006, 08:47:01 AM »
Quote
I just did a quick look at our books, and our cart revenue is approximately 1/3 of what our greens fees and season passes generate.

So it sounds like under the current pricing, cart fees are about 25%-ish of your revenue. I'd guess that represents a slight subsidy of the walkers but not enough to matter much. In other words, the walkers are paying about what it takes to cover the cost of providing them the golf course and the cart riders are paying about what it costs to provide the golf course and a cart.

So combining what Joe, Brad and Cary are saying here's my understanding of the situation. In the public course market, a major function of golf carts are to segment the market for tee times by price. Those who are most price sensitive tend to walk and pay the Green Fee while those who are willing to pay more tend to ride and pay Green Fee + Cart Fee. Sort of like my $400 airline ticket (with restrictions) versus the business traveller's $900 ticket (unrestricted).

If everyone actually wanted to ride and the only reason to walk was to save money, that arrangement would work perfectly. It fails to work perfectly only to the extent that there are some public-course players whose desire to walk or ride is not based on price. For instance, someone who must use a cart due to physical circumstances has to pay the higher price or not play at all. That's one imperfection in that model. The other imperfection is that someone like me who always walks is never going to have to pay the higher price so the walkers on average may not be paying as much as they'd be willing to and therefore the least price-sensitive among them may get a "good deal" (by their reckoning).

This is a very helpful thread for my understanding of the local situation I've experienced here in South Carolina. As Sean mentioned, most public and semi-private courses around here will not let you walk on weekends. Weekend morning tee times are the scarcest commodity for a public course and in a perfect market would therefore command the highest prices. Basically, the course owners are conflating the premium people are willing to pay for weekend morning access and the premium they are willing to pay for riding in a cart and just force-fitting those two together.

That does not explain the most frustrating part of the arrangement, though. The courses around here who do not allow walking will not let me walk the course (on weekends at least) even if I'm willing to pay the extra cart fee. I've been given the usual "slow play" excuse which I'm not going to waste time refuting but I've also been hit with a more elaborate reason. At one erstwhile home course of mine a few years back (a semi-private) they outlawed walking and would not let me pay the cart fee and still walk. The reasoning was that if other people saw me walking, they would want to walk too and they would bitch about having the pay the cart fee even though they weren't using the cart.

Here's where Cary's point comes into play. That course sold a lot of its weekday tee times in blocks to vacation tour operators. The deal was that the tour operator provides tee times at a course per day to visitors from out of town for one packaged price. Then the golf course collects a Cart Fee (which in that case was inflated, something like $30/round) from each visitor. So naturally, they don't allow them to walk and avoid paying the $30 or else the course would be giving away its tee times for free (they collected only a very nominal overall fee from the tour operator). What was happening was as long as the visitors thought the course was "carts only" they were happy to pay both the tour operator and the golf course, making their total outlay at least as much as the cost of a walk-up Green Fee + Cart Fee. But if they caught sight of a walking golfer, they thought they ought to be able to walk and save a few bucks.

So what Cary is talking about is marketing access to the golf course based on either an unrealistically low Green Fee or various "free" or packaged rounds that require the payment of a day-of-play Cart Fee. I've always said if the Green Fee is $40 and the Cart Fee is $20 and carts are required, then that's a $60 golf course. Yet some people will think of that as "a $40 golf course", which has always mystified me. I guess the idea is to create an image in golfer's minds of the game being cheaper than it actually is with the Cart Fee just being something you have to pay for along the way like clubs or balls or beer.

This has all been very enlightening. I've had a sense that I'm beating my head against the wall in trying to find rational walking policies at public courses. This explains the source of my frustration, once a certain proportion of golfers come to expect riding in a cart to be an automatic part of the game the rest is just freshman economics. It's a situation where a minority preference (walking) is indistinguishable by the market from a simple price preference (cheapness). That's why I have to spend several thousand dollars a year to be a member of a Country Club when there are fine golf courses all over my area that can be played on a daily-fee basis for half that much if you're willing to ride in a cart on weekends.

P.S. That last statement just made me think of something. Under the system I've described, the walkers who are actually cheapskates will walk at public courses. The walkers who are not cheapskates will be forced to move upmarket and join a private club where walking is always allowed. Curse you, invisible hand!

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #131 on: March 11, 2006, 08:48:04 AM »
Joe, I think that most clubs overstate the net effect of cart revenue because they rarely if ever account for the hidden costs of cart paths (land, design, $250,000 paving) and cart traffic damage to the golf course, plus the labor involved in servicing the carts. Once you account for all of this, the true net gain of cart revenue is about 15-20 percent less than most people think. Still considerable, but not that simple to calculate.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #132 on: March 11, 2006, 09:39:44 AM »
The frankness of Engh's comments were the genesis of this thread (that, and I wanted Brad to know that I pour over my SuperNews and Golfweek religiously).  Since it has devolved into a walk versus ride thread I'll chime back in:

The LPGA is using carts this week.

The Champions Tour is reinstating the use of carts except for the "major" events.  

I walk 90% of the rounds I play at home, despite having the equivalent of a 4th grader wrapped around my midsection.  I believe walking is an integral party of the game.

Let 'em ride.  Whatever.  It's their loss.

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tom Huckaby

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #133 on: March 11, 2006, 10:06:14 AM »
To Bruce Katona:

I too took Joe Hancock's comments very seriously, and in fact responded directly to him.  My issue here really isn't whether carts and cartball courses should exist; of course thay can and are necessary in a large way.  My question is how we should praise and celebrate NEW developments.  It still doesn't seem right to me to praise courses at which walking is given zero consideration.

Hopefully you can understand the difference. And it's not really a walking v. riding issue; to me that's a given - although I do ride all the time, I understand that the soul of the game is walking.

TH

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #134 on: March 11, 2006, 10:21:54 AM »
Brent Hutto

"this will force the upscale market to join a private club that allows walking"

Brent:

You are a genius!!

That is exactly what me and my buddies did. We belong to Admirals Cove in Jupiter which is cart only. We asked them to institute a caddy program for those of us who like to walk.

They refused saying that would hold up play and the club would lose revenue. So we said we would pay the cart fee plus, could we bring our own caddy in as an independent agent.

That got turned down, so we all joined the Ritz which is next door and they allow carts and/or caddies and I'm stuck paying for 2 clubs, etc. I can afford it so I'm not complaining and it was my choice, but this is the way it is in gated communities which make up most of Southern Florida, Arizona, etc.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 10:23:50 AM by cary lichtenstein »
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Matt_Ward

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #135 on: March 11, 2006, 10:34:28 AM »
Glad to see that Brad Klein in his #188 post was able to verify what I said previously about Jim Engh's qualities as a designer and this erroneous thought by a few people who have either not played any of his designs or simply one or two that Mr. Engh is unable to design courses that feature walking as a viable player option.

Now that Brad has opined maybe the zealots who take the hard line on such matters will open their eyes and minds.

I opined at the very beginning of this thread the nature of what Engh has encountered on so many of his western sites that are extremely hilly / mountainous. I also pointed out -- for those who wanted to listen -- that he has also designed courses where the walking and riding can go hand-in-hand.

A good number of the Engh designs I have played are well done and a good bit of fun to play. You have the desire to play them again and again and for me, at least, that's the work of a solid layout.

One other comment -- although the policy doesn't permit it -- one could walk Pradera and Lakota Canyon if the desire & opportunity were there.


Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #136 on: March 11, 2006, 10:55:19 AM »

For anyone to say that a golf course must not be worth keeping around because it relies on SOME cart revenue is either very young or very naive or too full of themself as a walking "maverick".
Joe

I don't know the economics of carts and cart paths (the benefits of cart revenue versus the construction and maintenance costs of paths) and won't pretend to, but I think my larger point is that we don't really need to worry about the health of cart golf in this country--it's here to stay.  We do need to worry about having affordable, walkable golf courses and the article cited at the beginning of this thread indicated that one of our more talented architects didn't seem to consider walkability in his designs, which I thought was unfortunate.  

These opinions have nothing to do with youth, naivete or being full of oneself.

DMoriarty

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #137 on: March 11, 2006, 11:18:26 AM »
Somehow these cart conversations tend to get turned on their head.  It is not really realistic to expect a course like Joe's to survive without cart revenue, and I dont think anyone is seriously telling him he ought to force people to walk while at the same time charging them more.

My concern is that more and more often it is the walkers who are having their choice taken away.  They are being forced to either ride, or not play at all.   That magazines treat these courses as if they are on equal footing with real golf courses is just another example of the industry's willingness to sell out the game for a buck.  

Tom Huckaby

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #138 on: March 11, 2006, 11:29:12 AM »
Somehow these cart conversations tend to get turned on their head.  It is not really realistic to expect a course like Joe's to survive without cart revenue, and I dont think anyone is seriously telling him he ought to force people to walk while at the same time charging them more.

My concern is that more and more often it is the walkers who are having their choice taken away.  They are being forced to either ride, or not play at all.   That magazines treat these courses as if they are on equal footing with real golf courses is just another example of the industry's willingness to sell out the game for a buck.  

AMEN!
This is what I've been trying to get at for page after page - thanks, Dave.  This isn't about existing courses and what they should do -it;s about new ones and how we they should be celebrated.  Because the more these cartball courses get built, and celebrated, the less great walkable golf there is, the more the soul of the game evaporates.

A very key and very simple point has been made by Dave in this thread: anyone can ride at a walkable course, if that's what they want to do.  At these cartball tracks, one only walks if he's Scott Burroughs or otherwise wants to prove a point or is masochistic.

And Dave, I know, it took me a LONG time to see this.  And sorry to be so humorless yesterday.
 ;D

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #139 on: March 11, 2006, 12:02:36 PM »
I always beleived that the courses I have designed some which for the most part are cartball courses because of topography and/or residential interruptions should not receive equal attention with golf only/truly walkable courses.  A truly walkable course should automatically receive significant points at the beginning of the evaluation process.  This attitude of mine certainly does not help further my professional career, but there are so many other things working against me I don't necessarily see that issue as holding me back.  I view this issue more from a standpoint of how a course should be put together from the beginning, and how I enjoy a course, which is definately on foot.

This notion of designing the cart path experinece is one of the oddest conversations I have ever heard on this site.  It makes my skin crawl to hear so much attention given to making the cart experience so wonderful, no wonder golf is too expensive.  
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 12:03:51 PM by Kelly Blake Moran »

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #140 on: March 11, 2006, 12:11:38 PM »
Mr. Moran, I've never had the pleasure of playing one of your courses, but I will now make a point to seek them out.  It's refreshing to hear your perspective.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #141 on: March 11, 2006, 12:43:20 PM »
The frankness of Engh's comments were the genesis of this thread (that, and I wanted Brad to know that I pour over my SuperNews and Golfweek religiously).  Since it has devolved into a walk versus ride thread I'll chime back in:

The LPGA is using carts this week.

The Champions Tour is reinstating the use of carts except for the "major" events.  

I walk 90% of the rounds I play at home, despite having the equivalent of a 4th grader wrapped around my midsection.  I believe walking is an integral party of the game.

Let 'em ride.  Whatever.  It's their loss.

Mike

I would LOVE to walk -- I really would -- but walking adds about 2 to 4 strokes to my rounds (especially on a hilly golf course). I'm not willing to pay that price, since when I do play, I'm generally either playing for significant amounts of money (for me), or am playing in a tournament.

And I know that I'm not alone in feeling that way. America is getting fatter and fatter and fatter, and there's no end in sight. Walking 18 holes is NOT easy for someone who is overweight or obese (I'm considered morbidly obese at 6' 295 lbs.)

Say what you will about me needing to lose weight, but when you're dealing with a society where 50% of adults are now significantly overweight and 25%(?) are obese to morbidly obese, you need to figure that fact into every business decision you make.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #142 on: March 11, 2006, 12:59:47 PM »
Someone needs to end this discussion as it its redundancy is setting a record
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #143 on: March 11, 2006, 06:07:59 PM »
To sum up, I think everyone agrees that golf is meant to be a walking game and carts can be tolerated but certainly not encouraged. ;D

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #144 on: March 11, 2006, 06:19:24 PM »
Shouldn't golf courses be fun to play and leave you wanting to play it again, whether one walks or rides? I mean, isn't that what its all about?

We have dozens of boring, but very walkable courses here in Montana.

If Mr. Engh wants to design a course here in Montana that is fun to play, and its open for public play, I could care less whether I, or others, might have to walk....or ride to play it.

ChasLawler

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #145 on: March 13, 2006, 03:29:36 PM »
And I know that I'm not alone in feeling that way. America is getting fatter and fatter and fatter, and there's no end in sight. Walking 18 holes is NOT easy for someone who is overweight or obese (I'm considered morbidly obese at 6' 295 lbs.)

Say what you will about me needing to lose weight, but when you're dealing with a society where 50% of adults are now significantly overweight and 25%(?) are obese to morbidly obese, you need to figure that fact into every business decision you make.

David - not to sound like too much of an a-hole, but have you ever considered how walking 18 holes in lieu of riding may affect your weight?

You sound like a guy who plays a lot of golf, so my guess is that it could be pretty significant.

Your argument may be the worst I've ever heard in defense of carts and truly makes my heart sink.


To put my 2 cents in on the golf cart business model...

Architecture aside - if 90% of golfers are going to ride regardless, then why do so many operators feel the need to charge the minority of diehard walkers the cart fee anyway (or even worse - exclude walking altogether)?

Wouldn't it be better business for the operator to let the walker do as he pleases (at a fair rate) in an effort to garner repeated plays?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 03:32:07 PM by Cabell_Ackerly »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #146 on: March 13, 2006, 03:53:50 PM »
This is a really great arguement.  It started off as a critique of someone's work and the quote attributed to him and got back to a pet subject of the group...walking v. riding.  Quite frankly, Jim Engh is correct, in what our numbers show us in terms of rides v walks.

Do I personally walk and enjoy it; yes. Does our customer/client/member... 90% don't.  They prefer to play cart ball and have the beverage cart girl come around with cold refreshments.  They are the customer (and hopefully a repeat one, and we try to supply what that customer base prefers.

There was one comment farther back from an owner running a course in Michigan.  The group really didn't want to listen to someone who is earning their livelyhood actually running a golf course.  And you wonder why (as spoken about earlier this week) interested parties in the buiness drop off.

I certainly sympathize with a course owner and would never try to tell them to do what someone else thinks is right at the expense of his pocketbook.

However, there is one big flaw in the "heck everyone's riding anyways..." logic: a walkable course is easily ridable. The converse is generally not true. So, if you build a walkable course, you can satisfy both segments, while if you build a primarily riding course, you're missing a segment of golfers. It might be a small segment, but in a business with tight margins - which damn near all businesses are today - that can make a significant difference.

At least it shortens my wish list. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jay Flemma

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #147 on: March 13, 2006, 04:20:47 PM »
Are we sure that we're not imparting something to Jim that might not have been accurate.

I've interviewed Jim twice now and it semms that his attitude is merely that 90% of people use carts...and that's it.  There is no "adjustment."

There is a difference between merly pointing out most people ride and not caring about walkers.  He has really wild topo sites...tough to walk.

That being said, lakota needs walking paths badly...that place is impossible without them.  I nearly had a heart attack walkin' that thing in the thin air.

Tom Huckaby

Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #148 on: March 13, 2006, 04:23:22 PM »
Jay:

How do you explain this quote:


He figures that because 90 perent of all golfers use a cart, there is no reason to design a golf course for the few who do not.  He's more interested in crafting good holes, each with its own identity, than making a golf course walkable.  Along the way, he's sure to highlight views of the course.  It's what he calls 'the golf cart-path experience.'"


Seems to me he doesn't give a rat's ass about walkers.  How else can one read that?

TH

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jim Engh Shoots Straight
« Reply #149 on: March 13, 2006, 04:39:22 PM »
Wouldn't it be better business for the operator to let the walker do as he pleases (at a fair rate) in an effort to garner repeated plays?

It might be.  At courses where carts are unnecessarily mandated I play less frequently than I might otherwise .

A course local to me, ANGC, (no, not that one, this one is Angeles National Golf Club), requires carts though the course is relatively flat.  The course walking conditions are more or less similar to Rustic Canyon, but slightly flatter.  The course is not onerous to walk, but it is not 20 yards from the green to the next tee either.  The longest green to tee distance on this course is about 250 yards.

I have the good fortune to be generally healthy and free of aches and pains.  I frequently play golf as a single walkup.  It sometimes takes a significant effort on my part to get the course officials at Angeles to permit walking.  The sequence is pay the green fee, appear at 1st tee, decline to sign the mandatory cart liability waiver, discuss, then walk.  Sometimes to the tee, other times back to the starter where I state my ability to play at RC instead.  I've never had to take a cart at Angeles, though I have ridden when playing with friends, or to go elsewhere, but it generally isn't a pleasant way to start a round.   Naturally it is the choice of the owner/operator how the course is managed.  I believe that Angeles loses some direct revenue (mine), and some indirect revenue via loss of "word-of-mouth" (witness this post), because the process required to walk is unenjoyable.  It could be better presented as "carts at no additional charge" rather than "cart fee included".

It just means I play at ANGC less and Rustic Canyon more.

In another aside, the concrete cart path routing at ANGC is a bit odd.  There are many tee junctions where you wonder if you should go left or right.  It can be amusing to see people go from say green 4 to tee 12, play to finish and wonder why they only played 10 holes.

For sites where multiple tee/green locations have traffic crossings and where the next tee box is off in some direction or another, how do planners try to make flow more obvious?