Absolute Necessities...

[Joe Hancock]

...or, what could we do without?

Mike Young has many thoughts on this. Without going totally primitive, or pasture golf.......what do we need or what could we do without? For example:

Do without: Irrigated roughs

Do without: Bunkers groomed by staff on a daily basis

Necessity: Greens, with a hole cut in it. Smooth enough to use a putter to move the ball from one side of the green to the other.

How far out of whack are we on this stuff?

Joe

[Mike_Young]

Joe,
I ask myself ths question alot.
I always go back to the thought " golf is played on a surface, not a color" as a basis.  I think the surfaces should be groomed to the best possible condition afforable for the partcular course.  Anything more is a matter of choice.  Inclding USGA greens, cart paths etc.
The biggest problem I see is the image it conveys for the architect.  Competition can make him out to be incompetent.  
Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe
I think that's an excellent way to put the question; and to me it ties-in with a number of the recent threads about where gca might go in the future.
 
The trouble is, I'm finding it hard to say anything that doesn't sound silly or naive. What I mean is, I could suggest that golf courses do away with a great many things, but immediately I hear words like "marketing" and "marketplace" and "demographics" and "expectations" and "real estate."  

We exchanged posts once about the on-going disappearance of the "mom and pop" golf course; all those words above were part of that discussion. Since the types of courses that, almost by definition, "do without" a great many things are also the ones that are disappearing, I fear that in this day and age a golf courses can't "do without" almost anything.

That seems to me the 'realistic' answer. I hope I'm wrong.  

Peter  

[Mike_Young]

Joe
I think that's an excellent way to put the question; and to me it ties-in with a number of the recent threads about where gca might go in the future.
 
The trouble is, I'm finding it hard to say anything that doesn't sound silly or naive. What I mean is, I could suggest that golf courses do away with a great many things, but immediately I hear words like "marketing" and "marketplace" and "demographics" and "expectations" and "real estate."  

We exchanged posts once about the on-going disappearance of the "mom and pop" golf course; all those words above were part of that discussion. Since the types of courses that, almost by definition, "do without" a great many things are also the ones that are disappearing, I fear that in this day and age a golf courses can't "do without" almost anything.

That seems to me the 'realistic' answer. I hope I'm wrong.  

Peter  

Peter,
I think those courses are still around.  BUT one will never hear of them becaus ethey make their money as a mom and pop from a very local golfer and have o need to be known or advertise outside their area.  Think about it.  17000 golf courses in the US and we only hear of around 500.....AND there are some good ones out there with just the basics.....that is where I get much of my work as do others....
Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Necessity:  Surfaces that are mowed and maintained to a sward of playable turf.  FWs that are maintained short enough and the ground groomed smooth enough that the ball can be struck with skill and the ball can run with enough predictablility to make it possible to preshot visualise what you'd 'like' to do - but firm enough that it can bound to unexpected places as well, but not to unfair or goofy situations.  

Necessity:  Putting surfaces that are smooth enough to be able to judge and hit a putt with skill, not just a crap shoot every time.  I don't care if speed is the prime factor so much as consistant roll.  Bunkers that are sandy, not dirt or stones, and interesting, yet not necessarily well groomed and perfectly raked.  

What golf could do without, IMHO, is a sense of classes, pretense, and exclusivity.  I would rather see far less private golf clubs and many more public ones.  I'd like to see golf more predominently a community recreation venue and supported and maintained to the level of community expectations.  I'd like to see golf do with less of a sense of society and more about a sense of sporting recreational or competitive lifestyle.  

I'd like to see an economic situation where housing development could be taken out of any golf development project concept.  

I'd also like to be 25 again...  

[Don_Mahaffey]

An interesting array of golf holes, challenging yet playable without losing balls, good golfing turf...throw in a bit of natural beauty and some decent folks to play with and I think you've got it.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think that people are looking for value for money. The small 'mom & pop' courses are still about but as already mentioned cater for local needs. I think courses need to offer a good playing surface and interesting holes. If it is a low key venture then a basic clubhouse and changing facilities will usually suffice.

Going back to earlier times there were some very good courses with no real facilities except the course who offered golf for little money. Take a course such as Gullane No.1 or North Berwick. If they had no clubhouse would they be worth £30 to play?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon, TOC has no clubhouse, is it worth £30 to play?

Ciao

Ohh, tricky one Sean, let me think.

No but that is the point. TOC costs maybe £250,000 for the maintenance. With and say you get 50 greenfees each day which for 300 days a year giving 15,000 meaning that they need to charge £16,67 to break even. Even charging only £25 they would be making almost £125,000 profit. Are the extra facilities really worth the extra amount you pay for them?

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:  My keyboard does not have a key for pounds Sterling, but it costs way more than 250,000 of them to maintain The Old Course at St. Andrews under the onslaught of visitor traffic.

Joe:  The popularity of The Sheep Ranch continues to amaze me, and to frustrate Mike Keiser, who still wishes it would just go away.  I think its lack of frills is a major part of the appeal, as much as the "go anywhere you want" routing.  (The oceanfront doesn't hurt, either.)  Not only is there no irrigation in the roughs, there isn't any in the fairways, either.  And there are hardly any bunkers!

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

Do you think the Sheep Ranch poularity is completely 'linked' to the success of the Bandon scene, or is there really something that truly attracts the interest on other merits?

I am not sure, since you are amazed.  What does this tell you about golf, location, features (the lack of bunkers, irrigation, etc.) and the simplicity (not a bad word mind you) of the design?

[Brent Hutto]

From the descriptions of playing the Sheep Ranch by guys on this forum, I think a big part of its appeal is that it somehow jibes with a mental image these guys formed years ago of Bandon as being some kind of idealized, remote, golf-only mystical destination. I remember when I first heard of the plans it conjured up a sense of an American Machrihanish on the coast of Oregon. Of course if reality it's just a golf resort with great courses, which is not entirely a bad thing.

In other words, the Sheep Ranch is something out of the ordinary and a part of the Bandon Experience that wasn't built for the "cigar and single-malt" crowd. Or maybe it's just that cool a place for a friendly game and I'm all wet.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike Young - thanks for that. As soon as I read it I thought "yes, of course".  In my defence, there are very few of them around where I live, so I forget that they're out there. A question: on those type of courses that you know/work on, what are "just the basics"?

Scott, Brent - good posts/questions. I don't know the Sheep Ranch except from this site, but I'd wondered before if the course was "transportable".  Is it one kind of "just the basics," with the kind of courses Mike Young's talking being about another kind of "just the basics"? I'm guessing that the immediate answer is "yes", but wondering if on some level they don't "function" more similarly than I imagine.

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

I'm not the least bit offended by the word "simplicity", one of my favorite quotes from Tom Simpson is this:

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship fortheir own sake, rather than overdecoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."

Just looking through his book to find it was the most fun I've had all day.

I do think the simplicity of The Sheep Ranch is a major part of its appeal.  It's three steps beyond those private clubs which have "no tee times", there is not even anyone there to tell you where to go or what to do!  You just go out and play golf, which gives it the aura of a personally-owned course or the feeling a member has when he lives on a private club course.

But, what I'm amazed at is that everyone enjoys the rough conditions and no one complains about the lack of challenging bunkers.

[Scott Witter]

Peter:

My gut tells me that the Sheep Ranch is NOT portable, though inherently, that would be great and if it was I think we would have seen it long ago, not Tom's design that is, but the concept you describe would have worked in many locations without too much change.

That, however, rubs the wrong way IMO with respect to design in general such that you need to have many of the features/characteristics all working in your favor to make a design like the TSR to truly work in a manner you describe.

I do think in some respects that THR is down to the basics as Tom D. eludes, but at the same time, I would guess that Tom & Co. did put condiderable time and effort to make it what it is, even if it is 'basic' which I can't confirm.  Additionally, I still believe that the location, the soil and the character of the site have all conspired together with a talented design team to make it as successful as it is...it surely sits in with some other good company and that doesn't hurt!

[Scott Witter]

Tom you must have posted just as I was, thanks...another question, or to take it a bit further...So what is it...? or what has changed the tastes/outlook of the golfers to better understand and appreciate the Sheep Ranch as they do, or do those who are playing the resort already 'get it' and therefore the ranch is actually neat/cool with its 'freedom package approach?  As Peter questions...I don't believe the Ranch would travel well, your thoughts?

[Scott Witter]

Tom:  my use of "simplicity" was an obvious compliment

[Steve Kline]

Scott:

But, what I'm amazed at is that everyone enjoys the rough conditions and no one complains about the lack of challenging bunkers.

For one round sure, but I'd bet they'd be complaining if they had to play a course like that everyday.

[Kalen Braley]

Scott:

But, what I'm amazed at is that everyone enjoys the rough conditions and no one complains about the lack of challenging bunkers.

For one round sure, but I'd bet they'd be complaining if they had to play a course like that everyday.

This is the aspect of the course I am interested in the most.  How viable is this on a ongoing basis?  How visited would it be if the resort wasn't there?

Are there examples of such a course like this that survives on its own without a major draw to the area?  Could this work in a bigger urban area where there are enough people around who wouldn't have to travel to play it?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon:  My keyboard does not have a key for pounds Sterling, but it costs way more than 250,000 of them to maintain The Old Course at St. Andrews under the onslaught of visitor traffic.

Tom,

sorry to have to disagree with you on this one but it although it can cost way more to maintain a golf course (bottomless barrel theory) it doesn't have to. The soaring cost of the greenfee is mainly due to the Links Trust's method of milking the cow for all that it is worth. They charge the greenfee that they do because they know that there are enough golfers willing to pay it. Going back to the mid 80's you could play around at TOC for about £18 if my memory serves me correctly. Now it costs £125 but the quality of the course has not improved by the same amount nor has the surrounding facilities. The argument about more people playing also doesn't hold water because more players mean more revenue off setting the costs. The old course has 40,000 greenfee players a year and even taking into account the reduced winter rates it still means they are taking more than £4,000,000 a year. Does the greenkeeping cost this amount?

I am aware that in the US that things are more expensive but in GB you can count the number of 18 holes courses that have or need £250,000 greenkeeping budget practically on one hand.