News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Losing the Old Gems
« on: October 08, 2006, 09:37:09 AM »
A thought I've been pondering for some time has me concerned about introducing new players to golf and retaining them.

In many areas around the U.S., course construction has saturated local markets.  While there have been exceptional modern courses built, many newer courses have been built as the centerpiece of real estate developments by architects restricted by the developer or lacking the talent to properly make use of the land provided.  I can provide a few examples near where I live that are now in the center of a shifting geographic population.

The problem I see is that the older courses in the area are now either in "undesirable" areas or separated by a great distance from the shifting population.  These older courses are fun, affordable, challenge both the high and low handicap players and posses tremendous architectural features.  They are played less as people tend to go to courses more convenient.  The future is beginning to look bleak these courses will survive.

The newer courses have tight playing corridors due to trees, out of bounds or both.  I personally don't find them fun at all.  If I'm a new player and these courses are my introduction I'm not sure I'd stick around.

Is the future of retaining golfers in jeopardy due to losing the old gem courses in favor of "development courses?"  Any thoughts?

Ken

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2006, 10:10:54 AM »
Obviously it ultimately comes down to economics and a case by case basis.

I was just biking past Pound Ridge GC in Pound Ridge, NY. It was a 9 hole Doak 3 course. Now the owners have finally decided to throw out the old and a new 18 hole Pete and Perry Dye course is now being grown in and should be open as a public option in Westchester next summer.

I can't think of one course that has had a major redo (say 50% of the holes change) that did not turn out better than the old.

Shinnecock - Flynn wiped out MacD
Whipporrwill - Banks wiped out Ross
Newport - Tilly wiped out Ross
Stone Harbor - much to this board's thinking, the current course is much much better than what was there

The only example that people may site is Timber Point, but reality is they added 9 holes to an 18 hole site. Maybe Mike Young is right and some of these "Dead Guy" Doak 4's should be torn up for new architect?

Mark Hissey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2006, 10:58:42 AM »
I took Jim Urbina down to Timber Point one day last summer. We spent quite a bit of time there. I believe there is plenty of resources available to make the place what it once was.

Jim loved it, but you can obviously see where there was so much of it which has been carelessly rebuilt.

Jim had an interesting observation in the he was convinced that the greens had maybe be redone a long time ago after they were originally built. We did it on a whim and so we had nothing to work with. It was purely a first look.

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2006, 11:16:08 AM »
Please bear with me as I try to get at this one through an analogy:

Students in the modern American education system (middle school and high school in particular) are not typically being exposed to what one might consider classic literature.  It's not that the teachers don't want to teach it, it's that students have become almost unwilling to read it.  They tend to find the meanings obtuse, the references obscure, and the language unitelligible or unaccessible.  Ultimately, Dante, Shakespeare, Hemingway, etc., are not on many reading lists.  They have been replaced by newer texts that address what might be seen as more modern themes and issues.  The goal of this shift is not to dissasociate the students from the greats, but rather, just to get them reading in the first place.  The theory is that once students are hooked on reading, they will at sometime (perhaps even voluntarily) pick up a classic, read it and appreciate it.  

There is no denying that American sensibilities, attitudes and interests have shifted in the past century, or in the past few decades, or even in the past five years, and this is reflected in golf course design as well (such a shift is likely in the rest of the world, but I won't pretend to understand international politics and attitudes).  So, now, the goal may be simply to use these newer housing development courses, which are arguably less intersting and less deserving of merit than our "old gems," to simply get people playing golf at all.  And soon, once they are hooked on the game, and understand its history, they they will visit, play and begin to appreciate the classics.

Just an idea.  Of course, it may be solely a matter of economics!!
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2006, 11:22:17 AM »
Steve, has that approach worked in education?

In my admittedly anecdotal observations, not even close.

I think there's plenty to be learned from the old Doak 3's. I'd guess they are generally a lot more playable than the newer modern courses (again drawing from my limited experiences). They're probably cheaper as well.

If I didn't have my own local Doak 3 muni, I probably would never have really developed my interest in the game, as I wouldn't have enjoyed the modern $50+ courses that have replaced many of the old gems, certainly not at that price.
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

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2006, 11:24:42 AM »
Imagine the wealth accumulation if....the USGA had stepped-in as white knights, at the low points of all these delapodated courses? They'd own a ton of land. Wouldn't that be a logical action if protecting the game at the root.

 BTW,

How many of these obsoleted delapodated are worthy of "great" status? If there are any, freedom and market forces would dictate that smart money will pick them up. It just so happens there ain't been much smart money other than Troon golf's acquisition. And we all know, "they" will fight to the death, to push mediocrity down our overpaying throats.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2006, 11:33:48 AM »
No doubt that it's as Mike suggests, economics and case by case, but I'd rather see the 4's and 5's remain. Every time one of them changes hands and/or gets written over the fees quadruple and that's not good for golf, in general. Just 'freshening' up some of these courses might be a healthy alternative, something along the lines of what Tillinghast did at the behest of the PGA.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2006, 11:35:08 AM »
The subtlety of the older designs and older works of literature don't seem to work for many in this world of instant gratification and in your face demands.  

Movies, Literature, Television and video games have left delicate nuance behind for the easier and more immediatley accessible.  

It would seem that much modern golf architecture is the same.  The finely tuned Perry Maxwell green at Prairie Dunes has been supplanted by the simple design of a Rees Jones, where pure speed is all too often used to create an instant impression.  

The twisting beauty of Cypress Point is in contrast to a recently played Palmer where bunkers are thrown about to create a visual picture with no strategy or meaning.  


Ultimately we are either lazy and over burdened and a s result we are thrilled by the spectacular while true art and its fine touches are ignored.  

No wonder the classics are endangered.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 11:58:23 AM by W.H. Cosgrove »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2006, 12:23:32 PM »
Bill Cosgrove:

I agree with you, but I don't know about your use of the word "subtlety" in this context.

I remember years ago talking with Pete Dye about the subtlety of Pinehurst No. 2 and he said "The first green has a six-foot-deep bunker on the left, a four-foot deep grass hollow on the right, and a green like the top of a dome.  What's so subtle about that?"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2006, 12:25:14 PM »
I remember years ago talking with Pete Dye about the subtlety of Pinehurst No. 2 and he said "The first green has a six-foot-deep bunker on the left, a four-foot deep grass hollow on the right, and a green like the top of a dome.  What's so subtle about that?"

No water.

 :)
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

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2006, 12:52:21 PM »
In my original question, the fact to keep in mind is that I live in what would be considered a small golf market in Indiana.  There are only so many roounds of golf to go around.  Convenience tends to win out when players choose a local course it seems.

Courses I'm refering to in this area are by no means "great," but they are fun, playable, interesting courses.  One in particular is a public course near our airport I would place as the best public course in town. Location is now taking its toll on the course's future.  If lost, it would be a great shame.

As I stated before, if I were new to golf, I wouldn't get hooked at the newer, local courses.  They are hard, filled with close proximity out of bounds, hidden water hazards, unwalkable and relatively expensive.  It's not a matter of taste or appreciation for finer architectural merits, but the fun and playability for all.  I'm a decent player and dislike ever visiting these newer courses.

To use Steve Burrow's education analogy, it would make little sense to analyze the merits of Longfellow or Shakespeare with a class of first graders.  They won't appreciate what makes the writings so great.  Now, introduce them to fun stories and most will get hooked.  Introduce them to a trashy novel filled with fluff and no soul, they won't get it, won't like it and may be turned off for good.

Ken

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2006, 02:36:08 PM »
Ken,
I tend to believe that courses on the outskirts, like the 'airport' course in your post, have a good chance of surviving because there is less development pressure on them, and if they remain in the hands of their present owners their fees can be positioned under those of the nearby market. They may need to update certain existing conditions, but as long as there is some population within a 30 minute drive, or some other reason that brings people to their area, like tourism, their chances of staying in business are OK.

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Ryan Farrow

Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2006, 03:59:23 PM »
I remember years ago talking with Pete Dye about the subtlety of Pinehurst No. 2 and he said "The first green has a six-foot-deep bunker on the left, a four-foot deep grass hollow on the right, and a green like the top of a dome.  What's so subtle about that?"

No water.

 :)




George, this reminds me, how many people have you heard say, Oakmont would really be great if it had some water.  :o

I mean 210 bunkers can't even get it done for some of these people and w/o the trees no single hole looks remotely similar to another but people still want water.

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2006, 04:25:31 PM »
to Ken Fry: great comment, I also feel that "new" players won't last without playing the old gems.  Many do survive, I think of Beverly in Chicago, Scarboro and Oakdale in Toronto-their neighbourhoods have really changed but the courses are so good they still look very healthy.  A true Gem that went south was York Downs in Toronto. It was relocated in the suburbs, the members got a 36 hole boring country club and lost a great golf club.  It would be very interesting to see the changes in membership from their old haunt to the new "country club". I do know they certainly have a lot of members, but do they really enjoy the course? Or do they know the difference?
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Losing the Old Gems
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2006, 06:26:11 PM »
Tom,
Thats why I didn't use Pinehurst #2 as an example ;)

As an editor you may suggest words like complexity, intrigue, or intricacy.  Subtlety just seemed right at the early hour!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back