News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2009, 03:05:43 PM »
I used to teach at the junior "golf class" that Shivas mentions at the Wilmette Muni. The after 7 golf used to pack the 1st tee with kids who only sort of wanted to be there and dads who were really excited for free golf. It used to work better when the twilight at the club started at 3pm and play started to slow at 5pm. Now that the course has installed a new "super-twilight" after 5pm to squeeze every penny of revenue out of the course the first tee is now packed until 7:30, and the kids get pushed back.

Yes, and that boneheaded decision to come up with the super-twilight rate (resulting in a packed tee at 7 fricking PM!!) is what caused season passholders like me and Mike Kennedy to say "screw this".  Kennedy bolted for Winnetka, where you can actually step on the tee and 7 pm and sneak in 9 holes and I just said "screw it" entirely.  (well, that, plus the fact that the super can't grow grass in the fairways and the fact that the bunker in the dogleg on #9 is actually wider than the fairway itself...but I digress...) 

Amoung other things.

I honestly think they should of keep the pass-holders ("members") fees somewhat the same, then charge the golfing public $75 to play there (which would be about the same as the other Munis on the north shore). Then once you follow the same formula as most clubs with Twilight at 3pm the 1st tee opens up around 6.

Once the management stops treating the course like a softball field (the more people play the better we're doing our job), the course's condition gets better with less play.
H.P.S.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2009, 03:29:22 PM »

  
I am doubtful that the "take your child to the golf course" suggestion is the panacea.  My dad didn't take me to play golf, and I know many people who got into the game later in life after playing other sports.  As Pat Burke notes, many kids just don't seem to take to golf.  I offered my daughter the same opportunities to play the game as I did my son and she never gave a twit about it.


Lou,

Thanks for being a good sport after my last jab.

Lou I have been doing informal surveys for several years now where I ask a group of people to relate how they took up golf, and in almost every survey that I have done, at least three quarters of the people say that their interest in the game was cultivated by a family member who took them golfing as a child. Most the time it is a father or a grandfather, but sometimes it is a mom, an older brother, or even an older sister. We did that survey here on GCA a year ago and I think it was consistent with what those averages are generally.

At the last club I was at, I saw maybe 5 father/child rounds in 18 years. But at the club I am at now I see parents and their children playing almost every day, especially on weekends. I love being around a club that is committed to passing on the tradition to the next generation. It is so cool to witness. Golf is a tradition after all.

I might add, that in the American tradition, tough economic times have always made us stronger and wiser about who we are. I think that what we should be learning about ourselves right now is family values. Yea yea that all sounds corny I admit it, but every man I know who has been getting more involved with his kids these days, has been finding way more value in that then when money was easy to make.

I think we can emerge from this tough economic time stronger than we were before, but only if we strengthen our families. And that goes for every demographic and every economic indicator.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2009, 03:45:46 PM »
Shivas,

Don't blame golf, you just have given up!

In 2004 Shivas said: "I think it's all about the local muni these days.  Im trying to figure out where my new local muni, the Wilmette GC, fits into this.  I'm learning more about the course and what they offer as far as families.  One thing I have learned:   If your kids have passed a golf class they offer, a season pass holder can take his kids out for free every day after a certain time (6:30 or 7 pm) for however many holes you can get in. "

By the way, can you show me the family of 5-6 that is not on a reality TV show that does anything 40 times a year together?

Here is a Family twilight membership at a Doak 6 course 20 miles from Times Square for less than $3000.

http://www.rivervalecc.com/content/view/17/42/

Mike, I'm glad you've figured out the search feature.

But your ability to find a prior quote doesn't change the facts.

Golf is outrageously expensive and has priced itself out of the market.  Do you know what the tax base is in my town that enables that "reasonable" cost?  Didn't think so. 

I see no inconsistency between today's statement and the 2004 statement.  Too few can afford to play golf themselves, and far, far fewer can afford to spring for their families to play golf - which is why it's all about the local muni.

Shivas,

The Chicago muni market is very screwed up. In my opinion it is because the Cog Hill model was so damned successful - probably like no other "public golf" model anywhere else in the country.

I spent a day with the CFO of the Jemsek golf properties and it was hugely enlightening. Do you know that right up to the year he passed away Joe Jemsek would drive to all of his golf properties, every day and spend time managing those properties to make them run like a Swiss watch? And he knew exactly where to look for waste and inefficiency. That kind of cost control savvy takes years to perfect, and he had it down to a science. But the other public clubs, muni and privately owned, that tried to replicate that model in Chicago, all failed, because they didn't spend their money wisely. And ironically, the Jemsek courses were hurt by those failures. SO now you have a bunch of Joe Jemsek wann-a-be's who are in over their head, and that's why public golf is too damned expensive in Chicago.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2009, 04:10:21 PM »
Hell yes, I know that, Brad.

That guy was omnipresent.

He was unavoidable, highly off-color jokes and all.

This is most assuredly a screwed-up market. 

A kid cocky ass kid walked in to Pine Meadow one morning and Joe was behind the counter pouring coffee. The kid asked him: "hey old man - what is the record here?"

Joe humbly responded: "3 hours and 5 minutes".

I had lunch with Joe at the conference one year and all I can say from that experience was he lived and breathed service to the golfer. He was only about one thing: giving the best golf experience possible, for the best price he could deliver. He was a golf saint.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2009, 04:53:30 PM »
There is a pretty damn good muni here in Rockford, IL (I'm here visiting the in-laws for the week) that I played this morning.  Its called Atwood Homestead and its $19 to walk.  It is fairly uninteresting tee to green but the greens were phenomenal.  Despite having to fix 4-5 pitch-marks per green, the greens were smooth and fairly honest with the speed.  They also had a ton of character.  They were very large on average with several internal undulations and a lot of movement.  There were also some pretty diabolical pin locations that, if not approaching from the correct side of the fairway, were impossible to attack.

If I lived here, I'd play it all day every day and twice on Sundays.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2009, 05:12:36 PM »
There's plenty of cheap golf in western PA - less than $20 to walk 18. It's a lot of fun, too, even if the courses aren't "special". I can't wait to get my little man out there (he's 5 now, still a ways away - how early do kids typically start? Not the Tigers or Phils, but normal kids. I started at 29).

I can't comment on the economy or country at large or Bill McBride will call me a negative Nellie. :)

HUH?  I have always been a half full glass kind of guy and not negative.  This latest recession is pretty hard on us contractors though.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2009, 05:16:39 PM »
Affordability is the key...

We just had our best year since 1997/1998, did 174,500 rounds which is up 13,000 on last year and the range is up 10% as well

Where are you, Bethpage?  ??? ??? ;D

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2009, 05:25:54 PM »
There is a pretty damn good muni here in Rockford, IL (I'm here visiting the in-laws for the week) that I played this morning.  Its called Atwood Homestead and its $19 to walk.  It is fairly uninteresting tee to green but the greens were phenomenal.  Despite having to fix 4-5 pitch-marks per green, the greens were smooth and fairly honest with the speed.  They also had a ton of character.  They were very large on average with several internal undulations and a lot of movement.  There were also some pretty diabolical pin locations that, if not approaching from the correct side of the fairway, were impossible to attack.

If I lived here, I'd play it all day every day and twice on Sundays.

JC,

I grew up in Rockford Illinois. No kidding, when I was a boy I paid $2.50 for a summer season pass to all of the RPD golf courses, with the the only stipulation being that I had to tee off before 10:00AM. We used to ride our bikes to Ingersol or Sinnisippi, with over the shoulder golf bags, and you always had a game with the other juniors. Then I would ride my bike to St. Bernadette and confess to Father Gauhegan all the swear words I said on the golf course.  :-\

The golf course at Atwood was awesome after it was built, I think in about 1970. We used to call those greens potato chip greens because they looked like a potato chip laid on a table. I brook my arm there when I fell from a tree to get a club down that I threw up there.

Ok, I'm not Huckberry Finn, but the point is, golf is pretty much in my veins.



« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 05:30:39 PM by Bradley Anderson »

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2009, 05:32:29 PM »
Brad,

Currently, a student up to 24 years old can get a yearly pass for $240.  That is NOT BAD.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2009, 05:44:56 PM »
JC,

If you get a chance, go up to play Macktown in south Beloit. That golf course is short and sporty with incredibly steep banks that fall off sharply around the backs of the greens. Those greens can run really fast on a dry arid windy day. I love that golf course.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2009, 09:07:43 PM »
JC,

If you get a chance, go up to play Macktown in south Beloit. That golf course is short and sporty with incredibly steep banks that fall off sharply around the backs of the greens. Those greens can run really fast on a dry arid windy day. I love that golf course.

My father-in-law was just telling me that you can get a season pass to Macktown, The Ledges and Atwood Homestead for $430.  That, to me is a deal for those three courses and I've only played The Ledges and Atwood Homestead.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Matt Day

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2009, 10:40:47 PM »
Affordability is the key...

We just had our best year since 1997/1998, did 174,500 rounds which is up 13,000 on last year and the range is up 10% as well

Where are you, Bethpage?  ??? ??? ;D
Not quite on that scale, 36 hole public (muncipal course) in Perth, Western Australia.

I've got an 18 hole public track 10 minutes away as competition thats probably done 95-100,000 rounds for the year

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Demographics and the future of golf and its architecture
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2009, 12:06:05 AM »
JC,

If you get a chance, go up to play Macktown in south Beloit. That golf course is short and sporty with incredibly steep banks that fall off sharply around the backs of the greens. Those greens can run really fast on a dry arid windy day. I love that golf course.

My father-in-law was just telling me that you can get a season pass to Macktown, The Ledges and Atwood Homestead for $430.  That, to me is a deal for those three courses and I've only played The Ledges and Atwood Homestead.

My father had his only hole in one at The Ledges.

I used to play Macktown with my grandfather when I was a boy. The last four holes at Macktown are an amazing topography change for that part of the midwest. The 18th is very short par four, but it is at least 100 feet uphill to a very small green, and the 17th is a blind tee shot.