[Jeff_Brauer]

Had an interesting discussion with a respected golf course manager the other day, basically asking what features of courses I have designed were popular and unpopular.  (I do this regularly)

The summary of his response was that the features that made holes fun to play were the most popular.   Features that raised scores were not.  "Good Features" in his opinion (gleamed from golfers on his course and other GOOD players) included

Wide fw (not for strategy - just allows golfers to bust a driver)
Big Greens - to allow players to hit more greens in regulation rather than face chip shots
Flat Greens - no tricks, ability to make a birdie on many holes if close enough to the pin
Reasonable recovery shots, including chips.  Most players hate chips that "run away from them"
Feeling comfortable off the tee
No awkward shots where a tree blocks or forces a shot around.

Basically, the Tour Pro philosophy of "The course shouldn't EVER hurt you" is in the mind of the better club player now, which I guess I knew.  The funny thing is, he asks why I would ever put a feature in a golf course that would cause a bogey.  I replied "Well, I guess its the old gca and RTJ idea of "defending par", ya know".

His response?

"Those days are over!"

Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Possible alternate thread titles:

"America's Days Are Over"

Did the respected manager buy an $800,000 house with zero down?

[Mike_Cirba]

It's the new "I want something for nothing culture", exemplified in the glorification of celebrities like Paris Hilton who have achieved nothing, who don't work, and yet are seen as the ultimate "living the American dream".

Bill Maher did an excellent rant on this recently.

[Charlie Goerges]

Give those players a birdie ball and stick them on a lawn bowling court.

[Greg Chambers]

I think this person you talked to, however respected he/she may be, is wrong.  I've never met anybody that enjoys playing golf on a runway.

[TEPaul]

"His response?

"Those days are over!"

Thoughts?"




Thoughts?? Yeah, I got some thoughts on that cat and that list he apparently came up with for you, My Dear Mr. JeffreyB. Why don't you call him back and tell him he ought to run as golf's and architecture's world-wide Representative for the snivelling, spoilt, self-possessed, selfish golfing mentality that list of his perfectly represents?

Tell him for me all those people should seriously consider giving up golf and becoming club tennis players, bowlers or soccer Moms!

[TEPaul]

Yeah right, Cirba! Paris Hilton is all that but it doesn't mean those days are over that you still don't dream about nailing her.

[Dan Kelly]

It's the new "I want something for nothing culture", exemplified in the glorification of celebrities like Paris Hilton who have achieved nothing, who don't work, and yet are seen as the ultimate "living the American dream".

Bill Maher did an excellent rant on this recently.

Mike --

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious.

Who sees Paris Hilton that way? Do you know anyone who thinks of Paris Hilton that way? I don't. I think everyone sees Paris Hilton and her ilk for exactly what they are.

Jeff --

My thought about your list of what's "popular": Duh.

A possibly more interesting thought: This sort of degradation is what *always* happens when you cater to the marginal customer -- in every endeavor.

Dan

[Mike Hendren]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course.   One could argue that in today's consumer driven society, the golf course is merely another "thing" to be consumed, and as such valued based solely upon the enjoyment derived therefrom.  

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

[Steve Lang]

   Nice gca thought TEP

[PCCraig]

Jeff-

I would give him exactly what he wants!  

You should make the fairways as wide as possible, the greens as large as possible, and huge flat bunkers. Actually, as so long as the greens are heavily sloped...I would think the course could be interesting enough that I would play it.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with Tom P.

These people who want ultra-wide fairways ("so they can bust a driver"); "reasonable recovery shots"; big, flat greens; and, "no features that will cause a bogey" should probably give up on playing golf. What they're describing isn't golf.

I just can't believe this list of "popular (Brauer) features" represents what a majority of golfers expect of a golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

His list doesn't mention having a cart girl to light your Cuban and stir your Mojito on each tee.  How could he have missed that one?  

Tom Paul,

Oh, she's been after me for years but I'm not really into the GCA groupie type.  

[Steve Lang]

   those days have been over for a long time folks.. since the "POWER GAME" came to town..  perhaps best exemplified by Nicklaus' approach.  

[jeffwarne]

Had an interesting discussion with a respected golf course manager the other day.....

There's an oxymoron in that sentence...

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

I think there were a ton of teenage girls in the past ten years who fawned over everything that Ms. Hilton and her ilk exemplified.

But she is just an example of the mindset, the latest being the AIG execs who obviously felt quite entitled to millions in bonus money, despite the government handing them billions in bailout monies.

[Anthony Gray]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course.   One could argue that in today's consumer driven society, the golf course is merely another "thing" to be consumed, and as such valued based solely upon the enjoyment derived therefrom.  

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

  Good point. The consumer wants playability. Not many are going to pay money to get beat up by a golf course.

  Anthony

[jeffwarne]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course.   One could argue that in today's consumer driven society, the golf course is merely another "thing" to be consumed, and as such valued based solely upon the enjoyment derived therefrom.  

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

  Good point. The consumer wants playability. Not many are going to pay money to get beat up by a golf course.

  Anthony

nonsense,
the golf consumer wants an interesting product.
That can acheived without "beating up" the golfer and be completely playable.

[Mike_Young]

I think Jeff is right.....
Think about the old saying "sell to the masses..live with the classes"    He's not saying there will not be courses built such as discussed on this site but for the 24 million golfers in the US...the majority look for those things he mentioned....
Imagine if this site were re Home architecture....we would discuss about 100 homes in the US and we would all be living in something entirely different....or cars....you don't put a Mercedes dealership in Ludowici, Ga.
We can admire and look forward to playing stuff discussed here but for the most....Jeff and his golf dude are right....

[Anthony Gray]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course.   One could argue that in today's consumer driven society, the golf course is merely another "thing" to be consumed, and as such valued based solely upon the enjoyment derived therefrom.  

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

  Good point. The consumer wants playability. Not many are going to pay money to get beat up by a golf course.

  Anthony

nonsense,
the golf consumer wants an interesting product.
That can acheived without "beating up" the golfer and be completely playable.

  Jeff,

  What do you attribute the success of Bandon to?

  Anthony

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

I think there were a ton of teenage girls in the past ten years who fawned over everything that Ms. Hilton and her ilk exemplified.

But she is just an example of the mindset, the latest being the AIG execs who obviously felt quite entitled to millions in bonus money, despite the government handing them billions in bailout monies.

Mike --

I think you're being needlessly insulting to teenage girls, comparing them with these bailout bonus babies.

After all, teenagers of both sexes are notoriously drawn to dumb ideas.

Most of them grow out of it.

And most of them know, I'm guessing, even as they "fawn" (if they really do "fawn," and I doubt that they do), that it's all just a silly scam -- that Paris Hilton's lifestyle is no more (or less) deserved than the high-living lifestyles of those who juggle numbers for a living ... and who, so far as I can tell, never grow out of their own vanities.

We live in a cynical time, alas.

Dan

[Mark Smolens]

Dan,

I think there were a ton of teenage girls in the past ten years who fawned over everything that Ms. Hilton and her ilk exemplified.

But she is just an example of the mindset, the latest being the AIG execs who obviously felt quite entitled to millions in bonus money, despite the government handing them billions in bailout monies.

Not to hijack this thread even further, but I saw this yesterday from one of your so-called "bonus babies." 

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/news/get_story_text.cfm?id=100002962&SessionID=260058990441675

Just shows there's a lot of different points of view out there -- e.g., yesterday's thread about erosion which began with some pretty severe criticism of that project in Georgia, and ended up with some fast back tracking when more facts came to light.

[John Nixon]

ANGC originally had some wide fairways, no? And you can say that's cause they were strategeric, but whether they're strategic or simply allow one to bust a driver, wide is wide, eh?

[Dan Kelly]

The question wasn't asked of me -- and I've never even been to the place! -- but I'm going to attempt an answer.

Why has Bandon been successful?

Because Mr. Keiser decided NOT to cater to the marginal customer. He decided to cater to golfers -- not to people who "play golf." He decided to cater to people who love golf, not to those who have any other reason to be out on the golf course.

[TEPaul]

John Nixon:

ANGC's original wide fairways were for a specific strategic purpose that really did have plenty of strategic meaning and consequence, while some seem to want wide fairways just so as not to affect marginal to bad shots from generally the tee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()