[Andy Hughes]

Would you agree that if everyone is using these new clubs like you say they are then clearly they don't want the challenge that you say should be restored (kinda rhetorical--I know you can't say 'yes'  ) ?

YES, I agree, there is resistance, in many areas.
Bunker removal, flattening greens, dumbing down the design, the challenge.  These are all manifestations of making the game "more fair" or eliminating the challenge.
I think that's part of the problem golf is encountering.  The concept of "buying" a game instead of "developing" a game.
Instant gratification and making the game easier are the enemies of unique architecture.

I would offer NGLA, CPC, PV and other classic courses as Exhibit A, as to why golfers crave yesteryears challenge.
I think there are enduring architectural values which are timeless when contexted properly.

Patrick, I am not at all sure you have yet squared this circle.  You claim that:
a. People are using implements that intentionally remove the challenge of yesteryear
b. People want ('crave') the challenge of yesteryear
c. People care far more about winning their nassaus or ensuring they play well enough to be invited back to nice courses then they do about the challenge of yesteryear or interfacing with the architecure. (You, clearly, are in that group, correct? Your choices at NGLA, Sand Hills and presumably every other course you play testifies to that.)

While I get the points you are trying to make, how do you merge these views that are diametrically opposed to each other?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat


Of course, I don't intend to lift a finger to find the answers.  It is your task to prove length is the main reason for increased green fees.

That's easy.
If you need 150 acres and the land costs $ 500,000 per acre to design and build a 6,700 yard golf course, but, you need 165 acres to build a 7,400 yard golf course are you going to tell me that the cost to acquire the land and the additional expense of $ 7,500,000 to acquire the extra 15 acres isn't the major factor in driving up the green fees ?

Throw in the cost to build out another 700 yards, about 10 % more than needed for the 6,700 yard golf course and you begin to get the picture...... hopefully.[/color]

That's mighty expensive land Patrick.  That's $75M (do you mean for the land? or including the cost of designing and building the course on the land?  Clubhouse included?)  If the course built on this land were to average 30,000 round a year at $100 a pop the income stream would be $3M a year.  That might cover the debt servicing charge on the $75M.  If you're going to buy land that expensive, you're going to need to charge significantly higher fees (or go for  a high end private course initiation fee approach).

If you started out designing a 7,400 yard course on a 150 acre site, are you suggesting that you couldn't safely fit it in?  The build out costs (and maintenance) for an additional 700 yards could be reasonably minimal - you could just add a small back tee pad and leave the intervening land natural.  The build out costs for the additional 700 yards do not need to be pro-rata the same as the first 6,700.

At any rate, even if the additional cost was 10% more, that would mean a $110 green fee instead of a $100 fee.  My experience is that the cost of green fees have gone up a lot more than that.  Although increased length of courses no doubt contributes to the overall cost, I think it a leap to say that it is the major factor.

Time to go play at my local three course complex for $50, walking.  In a major metropolitan area.  With top 50 within country stature.  Built in the last 5 years.  One at 6,800 yards.  The other two around 7,100 yards.  All now at the same price (after an abortive attempt to graduate the pricing based on the owner's perceived value of each course).  Which hasn't gone up much in the last 5 years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I am not at all sure you have yet squared this circle.  

You claim that:
a. People are using implements that intentionally remove the challenge of yesteryear

Correct.[/color]

b. People want ('crave') the challenge of yesteryear.


You have to context the issue.
They don't want the challenge when their opponent doesn't experience the challenge.  It's a form and substance issue.[/color]

c. People care far more about winning their nassaus or ensuring they play well enough to be invited back to nice courses then they do about the challenge of yesteryear or interfacing with the architecure.

Again, it's an issue of context.
You have to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and ......

If you were a 10 handicap (with today's equipment), are you going to play a substantive money match against a 5 handicap (with today's equipment) and agree to play the match with equipment from 1970 ?

You're not going to maximize interfacing with the architecture when it costs you $ 5,000 to do so on every round.

And neither are you going to play in a tournament against scratch players using today's equipment, understanding that qualifying and your future invitations are conditional upon your play.[/color]

(You, clearly, are in that group, correct?
Your choices at NGLA, Sand Hills and presumably every other course you play testifies to that.)

My choices are dictated by the circumstances, not my whims.[/color]

While I get the points you are trying to make, how do you merge these views that are diametrically opposed to each other ?

It's simple.

There's a time and place for everything.

In addition, your argument is flawed because you assume that I'm totally unable to integrate with any facet of the architecture, and that's not true.

Ask TEPaul how the kids in a tournament interface with the architecture off the tee, or how the kids in the NCAA interface with the architecture off the tee.  

They're not interfacing with the intended architecture and it's hi-tech in I&B that's disonnected that interfacing.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

That's mighty expensive land Patrick. [/color]

That's true, but, even if we ratchet the numbers down, the extra 15 acres is expensive.

Mike Pascucci paid $ 46,000,000 just for the raw land at Sebonack, 298 acres.   That's about 155,000 an acre, and, I'll guarantee that the price is considerably higher today than it was in 2001.  In addition, he didn't know if he'd get the necessary permits.  I believe that Mike donated a good amount of acreage to the town and to a college, so the cost per useable acre is higher.  Then, add in all the development and construction costs and the cost per acre climbs dramatically higher.

Friar's Head was a different situation, the land was what amounts to a capital contribution by partners who owned the land for eons.  But, if you were to sell that land today for homesites, I'm sure the costs would be up in the low to mid six figure range.

Paul Fireman is investing $ 140,000,000 on 160 acres, 1,000 yards from the Stautue of Liberty.

Importing 3,000,000 CUBIC YARDS of dirt certainly adds to his cost of the land.  He had to cap what was an industrial, if not a toxic waste site underneath about 20 or so feet of soil.

Dick Younscap's cost per acre was minimal.
However, he had to buy about 8,000 acres and then some additional acreage, but, Sand Hills is in the middle of nowhere.

Many clubs in the Metropolitan New York area are being approached by developers who were offering staggering prices until the home market hit a bump in the road.
Many towns rushed to pass ordinances to try to prevent those golf courses from being developed.

So, if you're in a heavily populated area, the costs per acre for a new golf course are prohibitive.

At 15 extra acres, at $ 100,000 per acre that's another
$ 1,500,000, at $ 200,000 it's $ 3,000,000 and at $ 500,000 it's $ 7,500,000.  And, that's just for the RAW LAND.

The development and construction costs increase the cost per acre dramatically.[/color]  


That's $75M (do you mean for the land? or including the cost of designing and building the course on the land?  [/color]

That's just for the land, with NO development and construction costs included.  Then, throw in a clubhouse at between $ 200 and $ 500 per square foot and you can see how the costs are becoming prohibitive.[/color]


Clubhouse included?)  If the course built on this land were to average 30,000 round a year at $100 a pop the income stream would be $3M a year. [/color]

Yes, but your maintainance cost for the golf course alone is probably 1.2 to 1.5 million a year[/color]


That might cover the debt servicing charge on the $75M.  If you're going to buy land that expensive, you're going to need to charge significantly higher fees (or go for  a high end private course initiation fee approach).[/color]

I can't see a public course making it, even a high end course.

Although, an investment group paid a bundle for Pebble Beach and they seem to be making it, but, that's an unusual piece of land, golf course and set up.

And, even for a private course, it's a bit of a crap shoot.
My guess is that the exit strategy lies in the development of the real estate[/color]


If you started out designing a 7,400 yard course on a 150 acre site, are you suggesting that you couldn't safely fit it in?  [/color]

The problem with your assumption is that most forget about the multi-layered permitting agencies and the fact that most parcels have flaws or blemishes requiring remediation of one sort or another.

When an agency doesn't permit you to go withing 300 feet of a waterway, on BOTH sides, you begin to have constraints.

Designing and building a golf course today is far more difficult than 80 years ago, or 50 years ago or 30 years ago.
Navigation has become an artform and a deterant.[/color]


The build out costs (and maintenance) for an additional 700 yards could be reasonably minimal - you could just add a small back tee pad and leave the intervening land natural.  The build out costs for the additional 700 yards do not need to be pro-rata the same as the first 6,700.[/color]

You're dreaming.
You want the "big" course to be a stepchild, deprived of the same attention as the "little" course.  That ain't happening.
You still have to run your irrigation lines and care for the back tees just like you do the middle or forward tees.

You can't offer a diluted product.[/color]


At any rate, even if the additional cost was 10% more, that would mean a $110 green fee instead of a $100 fee.  [/color]

If you think a developer is going to sink 25,000,000, 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 into his golf facility and only charge you $ 100, you're out of your mind.

Just look at what the green and cart fees are at Pebble Beach and relate that to what the investment group paid for
the property.[/color]


My experience is that the cost of green fees have gone up a lot more than that.  Although increased length of courses no doubt contributes to the overall cost, I think it a leap to say that it is the major factor.[/color]

I NEVER said it was the major factor, the acquisition of the land, development and construction costs would be the Major factor.[/color]


Time to go play at my local three course complex for $50, walking.  In a major metropolitan area.  With top 50 within country stature.  Built in the last 5 years.  One at 6,800 yards.  The other two around 7,100 yards.  All now at the same price (after an abortive attempt to graduate the pricing based on the owner's perceived value of each course).  Which hasn't gone up much in the last 5 years.

That sounds like a terrific bargain.
Was the land acquired in the last 5 years ?
What's the name of the complex and is it subsidized at all ?[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Patrick, while you do it awfully well, you are still dancing around the issue.

Apparently we agree that people are intentionally using clubs that they believe will help them play better, as golfers have done since, well, forever.
But then you turn around and claim that people want, no crave the challenge of yesteryear.  As you have already agreed that people are doing all they can to minimize that challenge (and always have!), what do you base that on? The evidence of club and ball selection would seem to indicate you are all wet.  Your fallback position seems to be either:
a. people are betting lots of money and don't want to be at a disadvantage
b. people are being invited to nice courses and would hate to lose the invites because they played with lesser clubs or balls.

Unfortunately, that flies in the face of reality. Too many people make their equipment decisions based on neither big money nassaus or whether they'll receive another invite to NGLA. Right here on this thread you have examples like Sean and me.
However, if we agree to somehow overlook reality and accept your premise, what are we left with?  We must then say that even if everyone who is buying the latest and greatest deep down does want the challenge returned, they don't really rank that desire too highly. Their actions make that clear.
Or, perhaps, we can fall back on option B: the challenge is still there for the overwhelming majority despite all the latest and greatest equipment they buy.

If you were a 10 handicap (with today's equipment), are you going to play a substantive money match against a 5 handicap (with today's equipment) and agree to play the match with equipment from 1970 ?

Yeah, if I was that 10, I would be fine with both of us playing 1970 equipment. I'm surely going to lose if we both use today's stuff, so why not roll the dice and maybe the 5 is incapable of hitting persimmon for some reason.

You're not going to maximize interfacing with the architecture when it costs you $ 5,000 to do so on every round.

Patrick, as I keep trying to suggest to you, you really do need to look outside your world just a little bit.  I've never played a $5,000 nassau. I don't know Sean other than virtually, but I'll venture a guess he hasn't either.  But that's interesting that you guys were doing so at Sand Hills. Odd Huckaby never made mention of such large stakes....

And neither are you going to play in a tournament against scratch players using today's equipment, understanding that qualifying and your future invitations are conditional upon your play.

*Sigh* Again, please consider the number of rounds most people play that consist of tournament rounds against scratch golfers versus the number of rounds most golfers play that are not tournament rounds against scratch golfers. Are you starting to see that your examples are beyond extreme, and some might say that statistically you are approaching zero as a percentage?

My choices are dictated by the circumstances, not my whims.

Well, with respect and affection, that's both a lousy cop out and flatout false to boot.  You went to Sand Hills with a small group of True Believers. You mean to say:
a. You couldn't get anyone else to agree to 'return the challenge' among that group?
b. The stakes were so high at Sand Hills that it was not worth it to you to 'return the challenge'? On one the greatest courses in the world, was a burger at the turn really  more important to you then returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture?  How cheaply you sell your beliefs?   I just might have to stop believing in you as a golfing demi-god!
You played with Sweeney, another True Believer, at your old stomping grounds the other day (ps the course looked great in the pictures). Did you play with clubs that 'return the challenge' that day, or did you not? No sense answering, we all know the answer to that.

While I get the points you are trying to make, how do you merge these views that are diametrically opposed to each other ?

It's simple.
There's a time and place for everything.

When is the time and place for 'returning the challenge'?

In addition, your argument is flawed because you assume that I'm totally unable to integrate with any facet of the architecture, and that's not true.

Oh no Patrick, that is not my flaw. Ironically, that is your flaw. Remember, you are the one making the claim the challenege is gone and needs to be returned.  But if you are now saying that you, a talented and USGA-level golfer, are still able to interface with the architecture and be challenged, then what the heck are we arguing about? Whether Goosen is sufficiently challenged at Shinnecock or Merion?

Ask TEPaul how the kids in a tournament interface with the architecture off the tee, or how the kids in the NCAA interface with the architecture off the tee.

Why would I ask? I have tried throughout this thread to maintain the difference between topflight golfers playing in tournaments versus the remainder, the 99% of golfers and rounds that are not high-level golfers playing high-level tournaments.  Besides, those golfers ypu mention don't care to interface with the architecture--they just want to win. Different goals.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

You site a few examples of courses built on very expensive land.  

According to you, that's because of market demand for golf courses in those areas.[/color]

What about the vast majority of courses built on land that doesn't cost nearly the numbers you speak of ?  

What vast majority of courses ?

Could you cite some courses around New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles and other population centers where the land was cheap relative to the local economy ?[/color]

There is no point in carrying on a discussion if you are going to use extreme examples.  

These aren't extreme examples.
These are golf courses built in the last year or two in New Jersey and Long Island.[/color]

Lets try to stick with courses that are more the norm - whatever that is, but I know it isn't $100,000,000 land prices and $1,250,000 maintenance costs.

Then, you're not familiar with maintainance budgets in the greater New York area.

$ 1,250,000 is very close to the norm for 18 holes.[/color]

We already know that land prices haven't driven green fees up for most courses because they are older - what the land is worth now is not relevant.

We're not talking about older courses, we're talking about NEW courses.[/color]  

It would be interesting if some information for newer courses was posted by guys in the know.  

I gave it to you, and I know, you just don't want to accept the facts because they undermine your position, and I understand that.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

There is no point in carrying on a discussion if you are going to use extreme examples.  

These aren't extreme examples.
These are golf courses built in the last year or two in New Jersey and Long Island.

I like that!! The example wasn't extreme--the cost is typical for what hundreds of acres of waterfront land costs on Long Island adjacent to NGLA  

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is no point in carrying on a discussion if you are going to use extreme examples.  

These aren't extreme examples.
These are golf courses built in the last year or two in New Jersey and Long Island.

I like that!! The example wasn't extreme--the cost is typical for what hundreds of acres of waterfront land costs on Long Island adjacent to NGLA  

It's not extreme.

If you were familiar with the area you would know that.

Find me another site of 300 acres on the east end of LI where you can build a golf course ?

Friends of mine have been searching for years and they can't find any.

They also bid on Sebonack.

The only other site they found, which was spectacular, had been held by a family for generations, but, it was deeded to a land trust.

The New Jersey sites were on contaminated industrial sites, toxic areas that REQUIRED millions of cubic yards of clean fill to cap the hazard.

These aren't extremes, they're concrete examples of the newest courses in the metropolitan area.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

If we can't agree that property in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000 and maintenance budgets over million dollars isn't something well out of the norm for old or new courses then it is rather pointless carrying on the discussion.

With respect to maintainance budgets:

How would you know what was the norm in the Metropolitan New York area ?

How would you know what the norm was in South Florida between Stuart and Key Largo ?

Maintainance budgets of 1,000,000+ are the norm.

It's pointless carrying on the discussion, not because of the size of the budgets, but, because you don't know what you're talking about in this area.[/color]

Its just as well because I don't think I am quite ready for anymore of your dazzling realisms.

If you can identify some clubs in the Metropolitan New York area, or between Stuart and Key Largo that have maintainance budgets below 1,000,000, I'm willing to consider what you have to say.

Absent any empirical data, your position is fantasy at best.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

It's not extreme.

If you were familiar with the area you would know that.

Find me another site of 300 acres on the east end of LI where you can build a golf course ?

Patrick, that's exactly the point Sean was trying to make. What you have cited is a correct example of a course built in a unique location on incredibly expensive land.  That fact, which you have just highlighted, is what makes it extreme and far from representative of a typical new (or old) course.  The fact that you consider hundreds of acres on the water on LI typical and the norm is an example, yet again, of your apparent blinders--to think your reality is what is typical in the golf world.
Sean I am sure will not mind me thanking you on his behalf for making his point and agreeing with him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AHughes,

It's not extreme.

The reasons the NJ sites were available is because they were contaminated sites.

Where are you going to find 300 acres in urban areas for less than $ 500,000 an acre ?

Where are you going to find 300+ acres on Long Island for less than $ 100,000 an acre ?

I await your response.

P.S.  Sean is free to help you on this one.

P.S.S.  I'd also like to know the names of clubs in those areas
          with maintainance budgets below 1,000,000.
          Feel free to jump in on that one too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, while you do it awfully well, you are still dancing around the issue.

The only issue being danced around is the issue of handicaps.
I've asked you how would my handicap be determined if I reverted to Blue Max's, my H&B woods and my MacGregor irons ?

After it ballooned to 12, how would I be greeted when I played against other individuals or in net tournaments at my club and others, with my current equipment ?[/color]

Apparently we agree that people are intentionally using clubs that they believe will help them play better, as golfers have done since, well, forever.

Agreed, unless the USGA or other GA's do something about it, like the OGA.[/color]

But then you turn around and claim that people want, no crave the challenge of yesteryear.  As you have already agreed that people are doing all they can to minimize that challenge (and always have!), what do you base that on?

Conversations with owners, architects and other golfers.[/color]

The evidence of club and ball selection would seem to indicate you are all wet.  

Here's where you miss the point again.
NOONE is going to play with equipment that puts them at a disadvantage.  It's an all or nothing situation.[/color]

Your fallback position seems to be either:
a. people are betting lots of money and don't want to be at a disadvantage
b. people are being invited to nice courses and would hate to lose the invites because they played with lesser clubs or balls.


Now, you know I never said that about people.
I said it about a specific situation at NGLA, regarding me.
Be intellectually honest, let's not distort the issue or the facts[/color]

Unfortunately, that flies in the face of reality. Too many people make their equipment decisions based on neither big money nassaus or whether they'll receive another invite to NGLA.

I never said those were the only reasons.[/color]

Right here on this thread you have examples like Sean and me.
However, if we agree to somehow overlook reality and accept your premise, what are we left with?  We must then say that even if everyone who is buying the latest and greatest deep down does want the challenge returned, they don't really rank that desire too highly. Their actions make that clear.

That's also untrue.
First, where would they obtain balls circa 1970.
Second, NOONE is going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.[/color]
 
Or, perhaps, we can fall back on option B: the challenge is still there for the overwhelming majority despite all the latest and greatest equipment they buy.

The game will always present challenge.
I contend that the challenge has been dimished to the broad spectrum of golfers, not just the elite, as you maintain.[/color]

If you were a 10 handicap (with today's equipment), are you going to play a substantive money match against a 5 handicap (with today's equipment) and agree to play the match with equipment from 1970 ?

Yeah, if I was that 10, I would be fine with both of us playing 1970 equipment.

That wasn't the question/proposition and you know it.[/color]

I'm surely going to lose if we both use today's stuff, so why not roll the dice and maybe the 5 is incapable of hitting persimmon for some reason.

Again, that's not the issue/proposition.
You're being intellectually dishonest again.[/color]

You're not going to maximize interfacing with the architecture when it costs you $ 5,000 to do so on every round.

Patrick, as I keep trying to suggest to you, you really do need to look outside your world just a little bit.  I've never played a $5,000 nassau. I don't know Sean other than virtually, but I'll venture a guess he hasn't either.  But that's interesting that you guys were doing so at Sand Hills. Odd Huckaby never made mention of such large stakes....

It's the RELATIVE importance of the match that's at the heart of the issue, not the dollar amount.

Whether that be for $ 5 or $ 5,000, a tournament, or bragging rights against a highly competitive opponent.[/color]

And neither are you going to play in a tournament against scratch players using today's equipment, understanding that qualifying and your future invitations are conditional upon your play.

*Sigh* Again, please consider the number of rounds most people play that consist of tournament rounds against scratch golfers versus the number of rounds most golfers play that are not tournament rounds against scratch golfers. Are you starting to see that your examples are beyond extreme, and some might say that statistically you are approaching zero as a percentage?

Every golfer playing in his club championship, be it the Championship, A, B, C or D flight, or any other tournament, and clubs hold tournaments weekly, faces this dilema.

You idea of golf appears to be that golfers never compete, against anyone or for anything, when in fact, the golfing world competes 99 % of the time.[/color]

My choices are dictated by the circumstances, not my whims.

Well, with respect and affection, that's both a lousy cop out and flatout false to boot.  

It sure as hell isn't.[/color]

You went to Sand Hills with a small group of True Believers.

You mean to say:

a. You couldn't get anyone else to agree to 'return the challenge' among that group ?

Only Ran, who played Hickories, however, I had to increase the shots I gave him to 12, despite the fact that I could barely walk.[/color]

b. The stakes were so high at Sand Hills that it was not worth it to you to 'return the challenge ?

The stakes were that high.
I wasn't going to play equipment circa 1970 against Huckabee or TEPaul and I certainly wasn't going to return to that equipment giving Ran 12 shots.
My matches with Ran have been, and continue to be, some of the most ferociously competitive matches I've ever played.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

On one the greatest courses in the world, was a burger at the turn really more important to you then returning the challenge and interfacing with the architecture?  

A burger at the turn ?
Who cares about a burger at the turn ?
My match against Ran was far, far more important than any trifling amount of money, goods or services.[/color]

How cheaply you sell your beliefs?  

You don't seem to understand something, so I'll make it clear.
I could barely walk when I played at Sand Hills and I was still well under my normal weight and strength.

I certainly wasn't going to compete against a BITTER rival with equipment circa 1970, especially when the sand bagger came within a stroke or two of breaking 80 with his hickories and his Pro V's.[/color]

I just might have to stop believing in you as a golfing demi-god!

That's up to you.[/color]

You played with Sweeney, another True Believer, at your old stomping grounds the other day (ps the course looked great in the pictures).

Did you play with clubs that 'return the challenge' that day, or did you not? No sense answering, we all know the answer to that.

You don't think I was going to let Sweeney beat me do you ?

I played with my 1985 vintage Ping Eye 2's, My Taylor 580 driver, my Titleist 3-wood AND a RIFE putter.

But, if the truth be told, he was finished after I hit my drive on the first hole.  After that one drive, I could have used broomsticks and beaten him  [/color]

While I get the points you are trying to make, how do you merge these views that are diametrically opposed to each other ?

It's simple.
There's a time and place for everything.

When is the time and place for 'returning the challenge'?

It's when it doesn't conflict with other issues.

But, the real dilema is the handicap.

Suppose I reverted to the Blue Max, H&B woods, MacGregor irons and my handicap went up 6 shots, and then, I returned to tournaments and playing for a few dollars.  How do you think I'd be received by the golfing world ?

And, jumping back and forth isn't the solution.
Legislation from the USGA is.[/color]

In addition, your argument is flawed because you assume that I'm totally unable to integrate with any facet of the architecture, and that's not true.

Oh no Patrick, that is not my flaw. Ironically, that is your flaw. Remember, you are the one making the claim the challenege is gone and needs to be returned.  But if you are now saying that you, a talented and USGA-level golfer, are still able to interface with the architecture and be challenged, then what the heck are we arguing about?

It's clear that the challenge has been dimished, if not removed from the tee.  When kids at my club and others are hitting it longer off the tee than Ben Hogan or Gary Player and carrying fairway bunkers meant to interface with them, something is wrong.  You want to ignore that, I don't.[/color]

Whether Goosen is sufficiently challenged at Shinnecock or Merion?

It's got nothing to do with them.
Why do you think that local club after local club is lengthening their golf course ?  It's not to challenge Goosen.
It's because members and guests are no longer challenged off the tee because of today's hi-tech I&B.[/color]

Ask TEPaul how the kids in a tournament interface with the architecture off the tee, or how the kids in the NCAA interface with the architecture off the tee.

Why would I ask? I have tried throughout this thread to maintain the difference between topflight golfers playing in tournaments versus the remainder, the 99% of golfers and rounds that are not high-level golfers playing high-level tournaments.  

Let's eliminate those players.
Let's go to the local club players, including the young kids.
Those young kids are hitting it further than Hogan and Player, and, they're avoiding the fairway bunkering that the architect meant for them to interface with.

Last year I played in a member guest and guys who were high single digit handicaps were hitting the ball 300+ yards.

Hogan, Snead, Player, Palmer, Trevino, Watson and Nicklaus weren't that long and I'd call them decent players.

Since you brought up my match with Sweeney.
On the 17th hole, which I believe is a 508 slight dogleg par 5, I had 208 into the green after my drive.  That's ridiculous.
I'm 65.  My father, who played in dozens of U.S. Opens and U.S. Amateurs couldn't come with 70 yards of that in his prime, and neither could I.

I&B have gotten out of control.
You either want to allow hi-tech to continue producing more length or keep the status quo.  I want to see a roll back.[/color]

Besides, those golfers you mention don't care to interface with the architecture--they just want to win. Different goals.

Those golfers didn't just get long last week.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

AHughes,
It's not extreme.
The reasons the NJ sites were available is because they were contaminated sites.
Where are you going to find 300 acres in urban areas for less than $ 500,000 an acre ?
Where are you going to find 300+ acres on Long Island for less than $ 100,000 an acre ?
I awat your response.
P.S.  Sean is free to help you on this one.
P.S.S.  I'd also like to know the names of clubs in those areas
          with maintainance budgets below 1,000,000.
          Feel free to jump in on that one too.

Awat no longer!
While a helping hand from Sean is always welcome, I believe I'll take a stab at this myself.  The reason your example is extreme, and preposterously so, is because you have somehow gone from discussing golf courses and costs to making a course built on hundreds of waterfront LI acres as your example.  I don't know offhand how many courses have been built around the world the last 20 years, but it is within the realm of possibility that you picked as your 'random' course one that had the very highest land acquisition costs of any of 'em. Odd that you didn't 'randomly' select Barnbougle Dunes or Bandon Dunes as your baseline example. That, my friend, is why your example is extreme.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Awat no longer!

While a helping hand from Sean is always welcome, I believe I'll take a stab at this myself.  The reason your example is extreme, and preposterously so, is because you have somehow gone from discussing golf courses and costs to making a course built on hundreds of waterfront LI acres as your example.  

You should know that Sebonack donated the waterfront property to the town and it wasn't remotely close to being hundreds of acres on the waterfront.

Next ![/color]

I don't know offhand how many courses have been built around the world the last 20 years,

We're not talking about the world.
We're talking about Metropolitan NY and South Florida between Stuart and Key Largo.[/color]

but it is within the realm of possibility that you picked as your 'random' course one that had the very highest land acquisition costs of any of 'em.

Not at all, Bayonne and Liberty National are merely the two newest golf courses in the area.[/color]

Odd that you didn't 'randomly' select Barnbougle Dunes or Bandon Dunes as your baseline example.

That's funny, one course is 3,000 miles away and difficult to get to and the other is about 12,000 miles away.

Nothing like remote or extreme examples.

Hell, the cost to get to Barnbougle is a fortune.
That's a lot of money to spend on one round.

The same can be said for Bandon, it's difficult and expensive to get to, costly to stay and play.

You won't find a single round costing you $ 50 or Sean his
$ 110 at those sites.

One round would cost in the thousands[/color]  

That, my friend, is why your example is extreme.

My example is on the money.
Those are local clubs, the two most recently built clubs in the area.

Barnbougle is 12,000 miles and three light years away.
Factor in your transportation, food and lodging costs and tell me how much it equals per round for one or two rounds.
[/color]

P.S.  Send me the budget info as soon as you get it.

[Andy Hughes]

The only issue being danced around is the issue of handicaps.
I've asked you how would my handicap be determined if I reverted to Blue Max's, my H&B woods and my MacGregor irons ?
After it ballooned to 12, how would I be greeted when I played against other individuals or in net tournaments at my club and others, with my current equipment

Patrick, it has been many years since I had a handicap, so bear with me and lemme know if my facts are no longer correct (who am I kidding? You need an invite to correct me?  )
The handicap issue is a red herring, a non-starter. And I'd be happy to tell you why because I am just that kind of guy.  As I recall, handicaps were determined by the 10 best of your last 20 rounds. That still the case?  So you would just submit all your scores for handicapping purposes as you do now. Nothing would change  And because you would have lots of excuses to use your new equipment (a nassau here, a burger to play for there, an NGLA invite over there etc), combined with your assurance that your scores with older equipment would be at least 12 shots a round higher, your handicap would end up not changing at all. Not only would your handicap remain unchanged, but you would also get to return the challenge you crave.  Its win-win Patrick.

Agreed, unless the USGA or other GA's do something about it, like the OGA

I am OK with that, believe it or not. But then, I'd probably be OK with a rollback to the 1950s or the 1920s as well so I might not be representative.

But then you turn around and claim that people want, no crave the challenge of yesteryear.  As you have already agreed that people are doing all they can to minimize that challenge (and always have!), what do you base that on?

Conversations with owners, architects and other golfers.

Yeah, why believe your own lying eyes, right?  

The evidence of club and ball selection would seem to indicate you are all wet.  

Here's where you miss the point again.
NOONE is going to play with equipment that puts them at a disadvantage.  It's an all or nothing situation.

Really? So if you were playing against someone using, say just for example, hickory then you wouldn't need to use the latest and the greatest. You would then be able to return the challenge you crave as well as not using equipment that puts you at a disadvantage. Again Patrick, its a win-win situation!

Also, you may wish to look up the definition of 'crave'--I don't think it means what you think it does.  

Now, you know I never said that about people.
I said it about a specific situation at NGLA, regarding me.
Be intellectually honest, let's not distort the issue or the facts

True, I was just going for effect. You mean its not all about Mucci World?  

That's also untrue.
First, where would they obtain balls circa 1970.
Second, NOONE is going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

More red herrings.  Balls wouldn't need to be from 1970, would they?  Second, you continue to run from common sense--you play golf with True Believers and yet as far as I can tell you never actually play with lesser equipment. It would be trivial for you to play with the lesser stuff and your playing partners to do so as well--if you and they truly craved it.

The game will always present challenge.
I contend that the challenge has been dimished to the broad spectrum of golfers, not just the elite, as you maintain

I would agree the driver I use today is easier to hit than the one I used in 1987.  Paradoxically, I would not agree the game has gotten much easier either for me or for any of my friends.

It's the RELATIVE importance of the match that's at the heart of the issue, not the dollar amount.

Whether that be for $ 5 or $ 5,000, a tournament, or bragging rights against a highly competitive opponent.

Err, OK, but it was not I that brought up every round being for $5,000.  Why, when you play with True Believers, do none of you play with equipment that returns the challenge you crave?  Do you neverplay someone who decides to use hickory?  

You idea of golf appears to be that golfers never compete, against anyone or for anything, when in fact, the golfing world competes 99 % of the time

My idea of golf is that the percentage of rounds played as part of a club championship is something approaching nada. I have been pretty clear on this I believe. That is different than 'not competing'.  

Only Ran, who played Hickories, however, I had to increase the shots I gave him to 12, despite the fact that I could barely walk.
b. The stakes were so high at Sand Hills that it was not worth it to you to 'return the challenge ?
The stakes were that high.
I wasn't going to play equipment circa 1970 against Huckabee or TEPaul and I certainly wasn't going to return to that equipment giving Ran 12 shots.
My matches with Ran have been, and continue to be, some of the most ferociously competitive matches I've ever played.

Well, sounds like it was stirring and fun competition. What did Huckaby and TEP actually say when you asked them what they thought of using equipment that returned the challenge that they craved?
By the by, do you actually read what you write?  You were competing against someone who used equipment that returned the challenge. And what did you do in response? You played the nice new better stuff, refusing to do that which you claim you, and all golfers, crave. And please don't fall back on the 'giving strokes' issue--you have already made it clear that strokes were adjusted for Ran's hickories so the strokes could also have been reduced if you had played clubs that did what you claim to desire. You didn't.  And that, it seems to me, pretty well sums it all up.

[Andy Hughes]

You should know that Sebonack donated the waterfront property to the town and it wasn't remotely close to being hundreds of acres on the waterfront.

Next !

"Sebonack has been the most anticipated golf course in the nation since Michael Pascucci purchased 300 acres of land adjacent to National Golf Links of America in July of 2001."

http://www.publinksgolfer.net/articles/283/1/%3Cb%3ELong-Island-%7B47%7D-Metro-NY---FALL-2006---Sebonack-Golf-Club%3C%7B47%7Db%3E

300 acres is indeed 'hundreds', rather than not being remotely close.  Also, the picture of the course in the article above makes it appear that there is water nearby. Some might even say waterfront. But I've never been there, so if it is indeed an inland course I would appreciate you telling me.
Next!  

We're not talking about the world.
We're talking about Metropolitan NY and South Florida between Stuart and Key Largo.

Really? Why have you suddenly made that the entirety of the golfing universe? Talk about the ugly American.

Not at all, Bayonne and Liberty National are merely the two newest golf courses in the area

As always Patrick, please start to understand that there is a big world out there and the Met area is not the sum total of golf experiences, courses or golfers.

That's funny, one course is 3,000 miles away and difficult to get to and the other is about 12,000 miles away.
Nothing like remote or extreme examples.
Hell, the cost to get to Barnbougle is a fortune.
That's a lot of money to spend on one round.
The same can be said for Bandon, it's difficult and expensive to get to, costly to stay and play.
You won't find a single round costing you $ 50 or Sean his
$ 110 at those sites.
One round would cost in the thousands  

What's funny is that the course you picked turns out to be 3,000 miles from someone in Oregon and 12,000 miles from someone near Barnbougle Dunes. Imagine that! To them, your pick of Sebonack is remote, and it would cost a fortune to get to. For them, once you add in all the travel fees as well as the membership fees at Sebonack, that one round is now over $100,000 I believe, no?  Or maybe a little less if it turns out Sebonack is not on the water as you claim

My example is on the money.
Those are local clubs, the two most recently built clubs in the area.

Agreed. If the golfing universe consisting of nothing outside the Met area, you have hit the nail on the head. Sean is in England--not sure he would agree you have chosen clubs built 'in the area'.

Barnbougle is 12,000 miles and three light years away.
Factor in your transportation, food and lodging costs and tell me how much it equals per round for one or two rounds.

Sebonack is 12,000 miles away for our Aussie friends. Factor in your transportation, food and lodging costs and the membership, and tell me how much it equals per round for one or two rounds.
Or, conversely, expand your mind and realize there are courses all over the world, and some of them may have had lower land acquistion costs than Sebonack

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, it has been many years since I had a handicap, so bear with me and lemme know if my facts are no longer correct (who am I kidding? You need an invite to correct me?  )

The handicap issue is a red herring, a non-starter. And I'd be happy to tell you why because I am just that kind of guy.  As I recall, handicaps were determined by the 10 best of your last 20 rounds. That still the case?  

Yes[/color]

So you would just submit all your scores for handicapping purposes as you do now. Nothing would change  And because you would have lots of excuses to use your new equipment (a nassau here, a burger to play for there, an NGLA invite over there etc), combined with your assurance that your scores with older equipment would be at least 12 shots a round higher, your handicap would end up not changing at all.

I projected a handicap of 12, not 12 shot higher than my current handicap.[/color]

Not only would your handicap remain unchanged, but you would also get to return the challenge you crave.  

I don't follow your logic.

If I'm posting higher scores, my handicap has to change as more lower scores are removed as the rolling twenty become fresher.[/color]

Its win-win Patrick.

Agreed, unless the USGA or other GA's do something about it, like the OGA

I am OK with that, believe it or not. But then, I'd probably be OK with a rollback to the 1950s or the 1920s as well so I might not be representative.

But then you turn around and claim that people want, no crave the challenge of yesteryear.  As you have already agreed that people are doing all they can to minimize that challenge (and always have!), what do you base that on?

Conversations with owners, architects and other golfers.

Yeah, why believe your own lying eyes, right?  

The evidence of club and ball selection would seem to indicate you are all wet.  

Here's where you miss the point again.
NOONE is going to play with equipment that puts them at a disadvantage.  It's an all or nothing situation.

Really? So if you were playing against someone using, say just for example, hickory then you wouldn't need to use the latest and the greatest.

While that's true, the only person I know who used hickories was Ran, who has since abandoned them.[/color]

You would then be able to return the challenge you crave as well as not using equipment that puts you at a disadvantage. Again Patrick, its a win-win situation!

While that's true, since Ran and I don't see each other often enough and he's abandoned his hickories, the opportunities would be rare at best.[/color]

Also, you may wish to look up the definition of 'crave'--I don't think it means what you think it does.  

Now, you know I never said that about people.
I said it about a specific situation at NGLA, regarding me.
Be intellectually honest, let's not distort the issue or the facts

True, I was just going for effect. You mean its not all about Mucci World?  

That's also untrue.
First, where would they obtain balls circa 1970.
Second, NOONE is going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

More red herrings.  Balls wouldn't need to be from 1970, would they?  

Sure you would if you wanted to return the challenge.
The BALL is where a tremendous amount of the distance comes from.[/color]

Second, you continue to run from common sense--you play golf with True Believers and yet as far as I can tell you never actually play with lesser equipment.

True believers ?
Who, where, when ?
I rarely play with true believers[/color]

It would be trivial for you to play with the lesser stuff and your playing partners to do so as well--if you and they truly craved it.

You lost me on that one.[/color]

The game will always present challenge.
I contend that the challenge has been dimished to the broad spectrum of golfers, not just the elite, as you maintain

I would agree the driver I use today is easier to hit than the one I used in 1987.  Paradoxically, I would not agree the game has gotten much easier either for me or for any of my friends.

That's because you've aged 20 years since 1987[/color]

It's the RELATIVE importance of the match that's at the heart of the issue, not the dollar amount.

Whether that be for $ 5 or $ 5,000, a tournament, or bragging rights against a highly competitive opponent.

Err, OK, but it was not I that brought up every round being for $5,000.  Why, when you play with True Believers, do none of you play with equipment that returns the challenge you crave?  

Where are these true believers that I play with ?
And, why do you assume that EVERYONE I play with is a true believer ?[/color]

Do you neverplay someone who decides to use hickory?  

Ran was the only one I played against who used hickories and he wanted 12 strokes.

Ask Huckaby how successful that bet is[/color]

You idea of golf appears to be that golfers never compete, against anyone or for anything, when in fact, the golfing world competes 99 % of the time

My idea of golf is that the percentage of rounds played as part of a club championship is something approaching nada. I have been pretty clear on this I believe. That is different than 'not competing'.  

You can't state that golfers, when not playing in tournaments aren't wagering for financial or other gains.[/color]

Only Ran, who played Hickories, however, I had to increase the shots I gave him to 12, despite the fact that I could barely walk.

b. The stakes were so high at Sand Hills that it was not worth it to you to 'return the challenge ?
The stakes were that high.
I wasn't going to play equipment circa 1970 against Huckabee or TEPaul and I certainly wasn't going to return to that equipment giving Ran 12 shots.
My matches with Ran have been, and continue to be, some of the most ferociously competitive matches I've ever played.

Well, sounds like it was stirring and fun competition. What did Huckaby and TEP actually say when you asked them what they thought of using equipment that returned the challenge that they craved?

I barely got TEPaul out of the Denver airport.  Coming from all over the country, where would we get equipment circa 1970 from ?[/color]
 
By the by, do you actually read what you write?  You were competing against someone who used equipment that returned the challenge.

Sure, he used it in exchange for about 18 shots, a shot a hole.  That's a hell of an incentive against his fiercest rival.[/color]

And what did you do in response? You played the nice new better stuff, refusing to do that which you claim you, and all golfers, crave.

So, you would expect me to play hickories for the first time against someone who had been using them for months,  while he was whining for extra shots the entire time.
[/color]

And please don't fall back on the 'giving strokes' issue--you have already made it clear that strokes were adjusted for Ran's hickories so the strokes could also have been reduced if you had played clubs that did what you claim to desire. You didn't.  

Where would I get these clubs from ?
You make it sound as if I had several sets in reserve.
I had one set, just like everyone else.
Only Ran brought hickories since he had been playing them for months.

Note, he's no longer playing them.[/color]

And that, it seems to me, pretty well sums it all up.

Not really.
You keep implying that I have instant access to several sets fo clubs, from hickories to circa 1970 and 1980, when nothing could be further from the truth.

You're so desperate to have your conclusion support your premise that you miss the realities of the situation.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You should know that Sebonack donated the waterfront property to the town and it wasn't remotely close to being hundreds of acres on the waterfront.

Next !

"Sebonack has been the most anticipated golf course in the nation since Michael Pascucci purchased 300 acres of land adjacent to National Golf Links of America in July of 2001."

http://www.publinksgolfer.net/articles/283/1/%3Cb%3ELong-Island-%7B47%7D-Metro-NY---FALL-2006---Sebonack-Golf-Club%3C%7B47%7Db%3E

300 acres is indeed 'hundreds', rather than not being remotely close.  Also, the picture of the course in the article above makes it appear that there is water nearby. Some might even say waterfront. But I've never been there, so if it is indeed an inland course I would appreciate you telling me.
Next!  

I'm telling you.

The first green, and 18th hole are the only part of the golf course along the Sebonic Bay.  The land to the right is wetland and useless, it's also on the far side of the access road.[/color]

We're not talking about the world.
We're talking about Metropolitan NY and South Florida between Stuart and Key Largo.

Really? Why have you suddenly made that the entirety of the golfing universe? Talk about the ugly American.

Because I'm familiar with the green budgets in that section of the world, and we were talking about costs to acquire, develop and built, and I'm also familiar with those costs in those two areas, whereas you and Sean aren't familiar with green budgets or acquisition, development and construction costs in any section of the world, let alone those two areas.
[/color]

Not at all, Bayonne and Liberty National are merely the two newest golf courses in the area

As always Patrick, please start to understand that there is a big world out there and the Met area is not the sum total of golf experiences, courses or golfers.

You and Sean may feel comfortable pontificating about something you know nothing about.  If I'm going to pontificate, I prefer to be well informed, and, I'm familiar with those two areas, that's why I selected them.[/color]

That's funny, one course is 3,000 miles away and difficult to get to and the other is about 12,000 miles away.
Nothing like remote or extreme examples.
Hell, the cost to get to Barnbougle is a fortune.
That's a lot of money to spend on one round.
The same can be said for Bandon, it's difficult and expensive to get to, costly to stay and play.
You won't find a single round costing you $ 50 or Sean his
$ 110 at those sites.
One round would cost in the thousands  

What's funny is that the course you picked turns out to be 3,000 miles from someone in Oregon and 12,000 miles from someone near Barnbougle Dunes. Imagine that!

There's a simple way to evaluate the proximity issue.
Do it by populations within mile radii.
And, by quantifying the number of golfers who come from Oregon and Barnbougle versus the number that come from the NY area.

And, Bandon is a destination RESORT, a hotel complex, not a member owned golf course.[/color]

To them, your pick of Sebonack is remote, and it would cost a fortune to get to. For them, once you add in all the travel fees as well as the membership fees at Sebonack, that one round is now over $100,000 I believe, no?  

For every golfer traveling form Barnbougle to Sebonack, there's probably a 1,000 or more that go the other way.
Your analogy fails on the numbers.[/color]

Or maybe a little less if it turns out Sebonack is not on the water as you claim

Have you been there and seen where the golf course sits ?

A simple YES or NO will do.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law nor in posting on GCA.com.[/color]

My example is on the money.
Those are local clubs, the two most recently built clubs in the area.

Agreed. If the golfing universe consisting of nothing outside the Met area, you have hit the nail on the head. Sean is in England--not sure he would agree you have chosen clubs built 'in the area'.

Do you want to compare the number of clubs built in England in the last two years to the number in the U.S. ?

Sean isn't familiar with acquisition, development or construction costs, nor is he familiar with maintainance costs, AND, if you read my posts, you'd see that I indicated that remote locations acquire land at RELATIVELY low costs, using Sand Hills as an example.[/color]

Barnbougle is 12,000 miles and three light years away.
Factor in your transportation, food and lodging costs and tell me how much it equals per round for one or two rounds.

Sebonack is 12,000 miles away for our Aussie friends. Factor in your transportation, food and lodging costs and the membership, and tell me how much it equals per round for one or two rounds.

The realities and the sheer numbers destroy your argument.
What's the population of the area within 100 miles or so of Sebonack, Bayonne and Liberty National ?[/color]

Or, conversely, expand your mind and realize there are courses all over the world, and some of them may have had lower land acquistion costs than Sebonack

I already covered that, perhaps you weren't paying attention.

I specifically asked Sean to identify and quantify the cost of land in populated areas, not areas at remote areas, and Bandon and Sand Hills and Barnbougle are very remote. [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Somehow you have narrowed what I thought was a discussion about the rise in green fees across the board to two very limited areas in the world.  

Sean,

You indicated that $ 1,000,000 green budgets were extreme, well removed from the norm.

I stated that $ 1,000,000 green budgets are the norm in the Metropolitan NY area and in the area between Stuart and Key Largo, FL, two areas that I'm familiar with.

Two areas that have an enormous amount and concentration of golf courses, unlike remote locations such as Bandon and Barnbougle.

You also referenced green fees, or the cost to play golf.
Since three golf courses recently opened up in the area, I felt they were perfect examples of skyrocketing land costs, which impact green fees.  I also brought up Pebble Beach, an OLD course that was recently acquired for Millions upon Millions, and, we all know what happened to their green fees.[/color]

Since the discussion is neither informative nor entertaining the following is probably my best course of action to avoid further disappointment.  

If you think you have shown that the major reason for the increase in green fees for courses in general in the past 20 years  is due to the added length of golf courses then I am happy to meet the requirements of the bet.  

I NEVER stated that.
You're the one who wants to ignore the cost of land, development, construction and maintainance as the factors that determine green fees.

I provided a concrete example of how additional length resulted in increased costs, something you want to ignore.

The reality is simple, more length equals more land equals more costs.  It's irrefutable.
[/color]

I don't want anyone to think they were hard done by me.  Forward your address and I will post a tenner next week.  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I have no desire to get into the middle of your debate society meeting but I did want to make one correction for you ...

I've seen several people here give Ron Prichard credit for being "the first" to point out the need to restrict modern golfing equipment.  He certainly wasn't the first.  Everybody from C.B. Macdonald to Harry Colt to William Flynn to Alister MacKenzie has fretted over technological advances in equipment.  Pete Dye had me ghostwrite an article for him on that subject when I worked for him, in 1984 or '85.  The only architects who don't worry about equipment advances are the ones who make most of their living changing good courses in an effort to combat the trend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Thanks for the info.

I didn't realize that Pete Dye was concerned about the issue, although, I should have surmised it given his love affair with the PGA Tour players

[Andy Hughes]

300 acres is indeed 'hundreds', rather than not being remotely close.  Also, the picture of the course in the article above makes it appear that there is water nearby. Some might even say waterfront. But I've never been there, so if it is indeed an inland course I would appreciate you telling me.
Next!  

I'm telling you.

The first green, and 18th hole are the only part of the golf course along the Sebonic Bay.  The land to the right is wetland and useless, it's also on the far side of the access road.

Patrick, you are priceless!!   I say a course is waterfront, you say it isn't. I post a picture that clearly shows it is directly on the water. And you try to refute it by saying that part of the course is directly on the water. I swear, you do a far better job of showing your arguments to be flat out wrong than anything I could ever do.  I guess I should say thanks?

Really? Why have you suddenly made that the entirety of the golfing universe? Talk about the ugly American.

Because I'm familiar with the green budgets in that section of the world, and we were talking about costs to acquire, develop and built, and I'm also familiar with those costs in those two areas, whereas you and Sean aren't familiar with green budgets or acquisition, development and construction costs in any section of the world, let alone those two areas.

Let's see if I have this straight---for several pages you and Sean are discussing land costs, acquistion costs and maintenance fees. Then at the bitter end, you suddenly and arbitrarily decide on your own out of left field that Sebonack is suddenly a good example of a typical course to illustrate land acquistion costs? That's hilarious!! And you think that because you think you are familiar with the course, that that makes Sebonack an average course that fairly illustrates what it costs to buy the land for a typical course?
Also, so we are clear, you haven't a clue what I truly know or do not know vis a vis land costs in the Metro or any other section of the world. What a silly comment.

You and Sean may feel comfortable pontificating about something you know nothing about.  If I'm going to pontificate, I prefer to be well informed, and, I'm familiar with those two areas, that's why I selected them.

Ponitificating? Really Patrick, I do suggest you begin using a dictionary, as  these words you use do not mean what you think they mean. Or you intentionally misuse them, not sure which it is.  Pointing out the obvious silliness of suddenly using Sebonack as a typical is not pontificating. Its merely stating the obvious. But if you genuinely believe it is a typically priced course for the world of golf, then there is no reason to continue, as you have lost your marbles. Or you know you are wrong and can't admit it.

There's a simple way to evaluate the proximity issue.
Do it by populations within mile radii.
And, by quantifying the number of golfers who come from Oregon and Barnbougle versus the number that come from the NY area.

Yes, but Barnbougle has more 'B's in its name then Sebonack.  And as that has every bit as much to do with deciding that Sebonack is a typical, average course, what exactly is your point?  A course that has a greater population nearby is declared the more typical, normal course?  That may be the silliest thing I have ever read on gca. And that's saying something.

And, Bandon is a destination RESORT, a hotel complex, not a member owned golf course.

I take it back, you are getting sillier.  Don;t you realize that Bandon has just as many 'B's as Sebonack and is therefore just as typical as Sebonack vis a vis land costs?  
Do you always just come up with arbitrary reasons to divert a discussion? Or just when the obvious silliness of your position becomes clear?

Have you been there and seen where the golf course sits ?
A simple YES or NO will do.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law nor in posting on GCA.com

Sorry, I made the mistake of believing all the pictures that showed the water right there, as well as your own comments that state quite clearly that it has holes directly on the water. If I have made a mistake taking you at your word, I do apologize.

Do you want to compare the number of clubs built in England in the last two years to the number in the U.S. ?

Again, as relevant as the number of 'B's in the course name.  Wanna compare the number of courses built in England/Scotland/Ireland vs the Metro NY area the last 10 years? If the number is greater there, does that mean you should use one of those courses as the typical, average course?  Or do you then come up with some other completely random, capricious reason for saying Sebonack is a typical, average course?

[Andy Hughes]

Do you never play someone who decides to use hickory?  

Ran was the only one I played against who used hickories and he wanted 12 strokes.

Ask Huckaby how successful that bet is

While I can't help your apparently poor negotiating skills, you have made it clear that even when presented with an obvious chance to do exactly what you claim to want to force upon the entire golfing world, you choose not to. Now, in fairness, I should mention I don't blame you in the least. I would have done the same.
But you sound much too much like someone pushing Prohibition who enjoys a few drinks each day when they think nobody is looking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

300 acres is indeed 'hundreds', rather than not being remotely close.  Also, the picture of the course in the article above makes it appear that there is water nearby. Some might even say waterfront. But I've never been there, so if it is indeed an inland course I would appreciate you telling me.
Next!  

I'm telling you.

The first green, and 18th hole are the only part of the golf course along the Sebonic Bay.  The land to the right is wetland and useless, it's also on the far side of the access road.

Patrick, you are priceless!!   I say a course is waterfront, you say it isn't.

No, that's not what you said, you said it was property with hundreds of acres ON the water and nothing could be further from the truth.  Here's your quote:

"The fact that you consider hundreds of acres ON the water on LI typical and the norm is an example,"

Perhaps you'd like to amend you post.[/color]

I post a picture that clearly shows it is directly on the water. And you try to refute it by saying that part of the course is directly on the water. I swear, you do a far better job of showing your arguments to be flat out wrong than anything I could ever do.  I guess I should say thanks?

You stated that there were hundreds of acres on the water when in fact, one green, the 1st and one hole, the 18th are on the water.  Perhaps if you had actually seen the property you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement.

On this issue, you don't know what you're talking about.[/color]

Really? Why have you suddenly made that the entirety of the golfing universe? Talk about the ugly American.

Because I'm familiar with the green budgets in that section of the world, and we were talking about costs to acquire, develop and built, and I'm also familiar with those costs in those two areas, whereas you and Sean aren't familiar with green budgets or acquisition, development and construction costs in any section of the world, let alone those two areas.

Let's see if I have this straight---for several pages you and Sean are discussing land costs, acquistion costs and maintenance fees. Then at the bitter end, you suddenly and arbitrarily decide on your own out of left field that Sebonack is suddenly a good example of a typical course to illustrate land acquistion costs? That's hilarious!! And you think that because you think you are familiar with the course, that that makes Sebonack an average course that fairly illustrates what it costs to buy the land for a typical course?
Also, so we are clear, you haven't a clue what I truly know or do not know vis a vis land costs in the Metro or any other section of the world. What a silly comment.

I have a better clue as to what you know about green budgets than you have about the property at Sebonack.
But, I didn't isolate Sebonack, I took two other courses that were recently built in the Metro area.

And, with respect to green budgets I encompassed all of the private golf courses in the Metro NY area.  A green budget of
$ 1.000,000 isn't out of the norm.

If you'd like to produce evidence to the contrary, do so, or just shut up and admit that you don't know what you're talking about.[/color]

You and Sean may feel comfortable pontificating about something you know nothing about.  If I'm going to pontificate, I prefer to be well informed, and, I'm familiar with those two areas, that's why I selected them.

Ponitificating? Really Patrick, I do suggest you begin using a dictionary, as  these words you use do not mean what you think they mean. Or you intentionally misuse them, not sure which it is.  Pointing out the obvious silliness of suddenly using Sebonack as a typical is not pontificating. Its merely stating the obvious. But if you genuinely believe it is a typically priced course for the world of golf, then there is no reason to continue, as you have lost your marbles. Or you know you are wrong and can't admit it.

I never said that Sebonack was typical.
Those are your words, and an attempt to distort the truth.
Try reading what's posted instead of being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.[/c]

There's a simple way to evaluate the proximity issue.
Do it by populations within mile radii.
And, by quantifying the number of golfers who come from Oregon and Barnbougle versus the number that come from the NY area.

Yes, but Barnbougle has more 'B's in its name then Sebonack.  And as that has every bit as much to do with deciding that Sebonack is a typical, average course, what exactly is your point?  A course that has a greater population nearby is declared the more typical, normal course?  That may be the silliest thing I have ever read on gca. And that's saying something.

I adressed the issue of remote land and it's value.

How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Barnbougle.
1,500 ? 15,000 ?
How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Bayonne or Liberty National ? 15,000,000

Now go figure out land costs.

Anyone can buy land in remote areas at a relatively low cost.
But, buying land in, or adjacent to population centers is another matter.  I elaborated on that, but, you must have missed it.[/color]

And, Bandon is a destination RESORT, a hotel complex, not a member owned golf course.

I take it back, you are getting sillier.  Don;t you realize that Bandon has just as many 'B's as Sebonack and is therefore just as typical as Sebonack vis a vis land costs?  
Do you always just come up with arbitrary reasons to divert a discussion? Or just when the obvious silliness of your position becomes clear?

I can see why you would try to dismiss the facts.

Noone is coming from Bandon, Oregon to play Sebonack, Liberty National or Bayonne, but, thousands are coming from the Metro NY area to play Bandon.  The Bandon area can't support Bandon, they need outsiders.   Bayonne, Liberty National and Sebonack don't need outsiders, there are 15,000,000 people nearby, and because of that, the land costs are very high.[/color]

Have you been there and seen where the golf course sits ?
A simple YES or NO will do.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law nor in posting on GCA.com

Sorry, I made the mistake of believing all the pictures that showed the water right there, as well as your own comments that state quite clearly that it has holes directly on the water.

Now, you've turned into a liar.

I stated that the 1st green and 18th hole at Sebonack are on the water.  You stated that hundreds of acres are on the water when nothing could be further from the truth.
And the land to the right, on the water, isn't Sebonack's, it was deeded to another entity.

Try knowing what your talking about BEFORE offering it as fact.[/color]

If I have made a mistake taking you at your word, I do apologize.

You need to apologize for being disengenuous, uninformed and intellectually dishonest, but, I don't expect that anytime soon.[/color]

Do you want to compare the number of clubs built in England in the last two years to the number in the U.S. ?

Again, as relevant as the number of 'B's in the course name.  Wanna compare the number of courses built in England/Scotland/Ireland vs the Metro NY area the last 10 years? If the number is greater there, does that mean you should use one of those courses as the typical, average course?  

Or do you then come up with some other completely random, capricious reason for saying Sebonack is a typical, average course?

It's apparent that you can't tell the truth.
I never said that Sebonack was typical or average.
Your zeal to prove your point has caused you to transition from reasoned responses to a liar.

Sean's frame of reference is extremely limited and no amount of support from you is going to change that.

How many 2007 green budgets have you and Sean reviewed ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()