[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

The marketplace sets the price of green fees, not a bunch of armchair architects.  Until you get Obama to nationalize golf courses, the desire of people to pay a rate will set what that rate is...

[Cliff Hamm]

Mike...You're absolutely correct that supply/demand sets the price.  We are not talking politics here.  It's simply a matter of when does a course cease to truly be public? 

As I tried to point out that price point is debatable.  Some might say $50, Richard stated $100-$150, Matt $200.  The argument is not the right of a course to set its price and the right of the consumer to choose to pay it or not.  The question is when is a course no longer really public because its greens fee is to the point that most golfers would not play it and therefore in essence it is no longer public (only for the sake of rankings)?

[John Moore II]

If you really want to talk about "public course", I think even $200 is too much. It should be under $150 or even better, under $100.

Of course, that would mean Pacific Dunes is out.

But I got a feeling that that would cause some consternation around here...

I doubt Pac Dunes being left off the public course list due to a higher price would cause much headache here. I mean, I have worked in Pinehurst. The Pinehurst Resort courses, the ones on this list anyway, #2, #4 and #8, are as generally as private as any of the other clubs in town, i.e. Forest Creek and CCNC. At Pinehurst Resort, you have to pay upwards of $250 ($405 this year for #2) to play any of those in season. Both the private clubs, from what I remember, have reciprocal policies with many other private clubs both within NC and nationally. For the person with a bit of money and connections, Forest Creek is no more private than Hyland Hills, while for those without money or connections, Pinehurst #2 is not much more accessible than Augusta National.

Its all relative. I would have no worries about putting a cap on the rates courses can charge to be on the public course list.

[Sean_A]

I like Matt's idea, a lot.  It might actually be a meaningful list in a wordl of ridiculous Course Rankings.

As for Pebble; does anybody seriously think it is a better golf course than Pinehurst No. 2?

Sean Arble - I am with you on Lakewood Shores' The Gailes.  If that golf course were in Monterey, or on the Ayrshire Coast (the topography of the Gailes would be passable in either locale), we'd be talking about it in the same reverent tones as we reserve for British Open rota courses, or for some of the great American classics.

Chuck

I know the course made a huge impression o me when I played it and I had already seen many links.  

I have said before that my ratings of courses include the price because I look at it as a day out sort of thing which means value matters.  I don't know enough about architecture and what the limitations were of projects so its difficult to give an accurate appraisal of the quality of the architecture and to be honest, I don' think many others do either.  I will rate courses without the cash involved like I did with Ian's ranking, but I feel I am on less sure ground and can only really relate to a comparison of courses rather than dealing in absolutes.  For instance, I recently played Kiawah's Ocean Course and can't see where there is much to dislike in terms of the quality of the design.  Its generally very good.  Having said that, I can get very good for much less money and Kiawah in no way represents something special in terms of design.  So, it is the cost and cost alone why I gave it a Recommendation rather than a 1*.  If the cost was $175 I would be happy to go back and even give it a 1*, but the cost is more than double that, so no, I am not happy to go back.  Which is a great pity, but I know its a business and thats life.  I spose some of the point is that if the raters had to pay the full rate I am sure this would effect how they see the course.  While it isn't impossible to accurately access the quality of the design when you are playing for free, it does throw a lot of doubt on the results.

Ciao  

[Matt_Ward]

For those from the course side -- especially those $200+ who lament that they would be cut off of a future ratings because of price I say just make a simple decision.

Does the rate matter more or the overall rating you can get if you keep the fees down?

Digest, as well as the other mags, need to move away from the fantasy -- sort of like the pipe-dreams you get from those seeing a centerfold and actually believing you can date one.

Price does matter -- the best courses with the best architecture that can fall below such a number -- no doubt my $200 is an arbitray one -- but a reasonable number needs to be involved. Richard's $100 and / or $50 is not a reasonable scenario in my mind.

When you level the playing field with price in mind you then have a better "apples to apples" comparison point for such courses. Those that are far beyond that -- so be it. When places start charging $400, $500 or whatever amounts they choose - it ceases from de facto standard to be truly public -- defined as being really accessible for the majority of players.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

This is a total arbitray arguement.  $200 is different to the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates' of the world than it is to a laid-off Detroit auto line worker.  The value of a round at Pebble, Pinehurst, Kohler and Kiawah is different to those who's passion is golf and golf architecture than it is for the average 10-times-a-year hacker.  It's all relative, thus making a dollar per round cut-off point (and this discussion) somewhat inane... 

[Chuck Brown]

This matter of "fees" with public courses raises another issue...

Let's take May River, part of the remarkable Palmetto Bluff development.  May River Golf Club (the full, correct name as far as I know) operates as a private club, selling pricey memberships to residents (and others in the area, outside of Palmetto Bluffs ??)

And, as part and parcel of of the resort development, the Inn at Palmetto Bluffs will arrange for guests to play at May River.  Therefore, the basic cost of playing is not merely the fee that such a guest is charged in addition to lodging -- rather, a standard guest should be looking at the per-night charge, plus the greens fee.  At Palmetto Bluff, that might be $300-$800 per night, plus additional golf fees.

I say all of this NOT to complain about Palmetto Bluff -- I LOVE the place.  It is a worthy, worthwhile, top-notch destination in the Low Country.  The resort is magnificent.  May River is a really fine golf course.  I recommend it heartily to everyone.  It is just that it isn't really a daily-fee course in any conventional sense, and the "Members" at May River might be a little surprised to see their golf course listed on the "Public" list.

Edit. - btw, all of the amenities, the practice range, the clubhouse, the staff, caddies, etc., at May River are all distinctly "private club" quality.  To the extent that May River is regarded as a "public/resort course" it is on a par with "resort" course operations like Pinehurst Number 2, or Harbor Town.  Distinctly a cut above most high-end daily fee operations like Bandon, or Arcadia Bluffs, which are all quality operations in their own right.

Truly, a lot of this is really stretching "public course" boundaries.  How many "public" courses supply caddies wearing white coveralls?  May River does, just like a certain National Golf Club a couple of hours away over in Georgia

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

The difference is there's only a handful of Warren Buffets and Bill Gates, but there are millions of Joe-Six packs including the sub-group of laid off Detroit auto-workers and soon to be much more.

While I do think drawing a arbitrary number in the sand is a difficult thing to do, I do think price could be reflected in ratings somehow.  Because at the end of the day one must decide if playing Pacific Grove for $50, (poor mans pebble), is a better value than the real Pebble at $500.  By my judgement PG is a greater value, but lower the price of Pebble to $200 and the entire thing gets flipped on its head.

P.S.  One of the few times I will agree with Matt is the Mountain West Time Zone is indeed chock full of great quality courses of which the vast majority can be played for less than $100.  (We can include Spokane in here too, because its almost in the MST)

[Philippe Binette]

When I say it's a top 50 course, it is because to me, there are great courses and then there is the rest... and Wild Horse is in the great courses category.

I've seen about half of the top 50 courses in the world, and the quality of Wild Horse on strategy, variety, aesthetics, design interest, firm and fast conditions and feel for the game is just as good as at any of the top 50 courses I've seen.

The only criticism I had for the courses was this one, and I had to search hard for it, was that it seems all the long holes needed left to right tee shots, and that's about it.

Among the courses I've seen, I'd rate Wild Horse in front of Royal Troon and Royal Birkdale... both are in the top 50..

[Tom Huckaby]

Among the courses I've seen, I'd rate Wild Horse in front of Royal Troon and Royal Birkdale... both are in the top 50..

Wow... I have to believe I am one of the biggest fans of Wild Horse on this site... love it love it love it... but even I wouldn't make that statement.  Isn't that a bit of hyperbole, Phillippe?

OR alernatively... are we basing this on bang for the buck?  Because it so it's no-brainer true.  Heck Wild Horse would have to be world top 10 in that respect.

But outside of that, well.... it's great... but better than those?  Hmmmmmmm

[Cliff Hamm]

One way around the price argument might be to separate out the resorts from the daily fee courses.  Most of the high priced 'publics' - Pebble, Kohler, May River (as mentioned), Kiawah, Pinehurst are all destination resorts.  Take out the resorts and the list would be more reasonable.   

[John Moore II]

This is a total arbitray arguement.  $200 is different to the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates' of the world than it is to a laid-off Detroit auto line worker.  The value of a round at Pebble, Pinehurst, Kohler and Kiawah is different to those who's passion is golf and golf architecture than it is for the average 10-times-a-year hacker.  It's all relative, thus making a dollar per round cut-off point (and this discussion) somewhat inane... 

Mike its not inane to look at this. The way you put it is the same way I put it up above just from a differrent point of view. For Bill Gates there is no difference between a 'public' or 'private' course. Pine Valley is no less accessible for him than Lakeshore CC here in Raleigh is for me. But Pinehurst #2 or Kiawah may as well be Augusta National from where I sit because of the charge. I would have to pay at least $400 to play #2 and whatever the rate is for Kiawah. Thats not public for anyone other than the rich for the most part.

For probably 75% of the golf public, Kiawah and #2 are no more 'public' than Merion or Oakmont, because at $250+ a piece, only that 25% can afford it.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

This is a total arbitray arguement.  $200 is different to the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates' of the world than it is to a laid-off Detroit auto line worker.  The value of a round at Pebble, Pinehurst, Kohler and Kiawah is different to those who's passion is golf and golf architecture than it is for the average 10-times-a-year hacker.  It's all relative, thus making a dollar per round cut-off point (and this discussion) somewhat inane... 

Mike its not inane to look at this. The way you put it is the same way I put it up above just from a differrent point of view. For Bill Gates there is no difference between a 'public' or 'private' course. Pine Valley is no less accessible for him than Lakeshore CC here in Raleigh is for me. But Pinehurst #2 or Kiawah may as well be Augusta National from where I sit because of the charge. I would have to pay at least $400 to play #2 and whatever the rate is for Kiawah. Thats not public for anyone other than the rich for the most part.

For probably 75% of the golf public, Kiawah and #2 are no more 'public' than Merion or Oakmont, because at $250+ a piece, only that 25% can afford it.

Regardless, there is a large percentage of the hard-core golfing public who will pony up the money to play the courses with long and storied histories.  It's a priority in their lives to have the experience.  Courses like Pebble, Pinehurst, Kohler and Kiawah are open to play for these folks, unlike the Pine Valley's, Cypress Points and Augusta Nationals of the world.  Public is public.  It's all a matter of priorities.  Prices set by all courses are totally set by supply and demand. 

[Sean_A]

When I say it's a top 50 course, it is because to me, there are great courses and then there is the rest... and Wild Horse is in the great courses category.

I've seen about half of the top 50 courses in the world, and the quality of Wild Horse on strategy, variety, aesthetics, design interest, firm and fast conditions and feel for the game is just as good as at any of the top 50 courses I've seen.

The only criticism I had for the courses was this one, and I had to search hard for it, was that it seems all the long holes needed left to right tee shots, and that's about it.

Among the courses I've seen, I'd rate Wild Horse in front of Royal Troon and Royal Birkdale... both are in the top 50..

Philippe

I don't find it surprising at all that you could find a cheapish muni which you believe is better than Troon because Troon has to be one of the most over-rated, dull slogs in existence.  There is no way on earth I would ever call Troon top 50 and if it is, architecture is seriously hurting.

In a way, we are sort of hoodwinked by golf magazines.  What hits the radar is what they tell us and we all know that what sells mags is lots of pretty pix which act to lure the reader.  So in that sense, Matt is correct.  The Agenda for magazines is too narrow in part because they have a product to sell and the marketing of courses is one way to sell mags.  Then of course, once a course is solidly in the rankings it is difficult to remove it - case in point - Troon.  The famous courses are sort of immune from relegation.    

Mike V

While I wouldn't place any specific upper limit to rating a course, I do think its important that the rater decide if the course is good enough for him to PAY for a return visit.  There are plenty of $200+ green fee places that I would recommend as excellent value and a load of $100 green fees I wouldn't recommend.  This is where the rubber hits the road and we get a true sense of the value of a course.  I say this is a decent measure because I have very little confidence in the ability of most everybody to actually access the quality of a design.  For instance, I am much more interested in the opinion of an archie when talking about architecture than I am in the results of any golf magazine Best Of list which uses non-archies for their panel.  Where I think the real value of a Best Of list can be is in what folks think about the value of a course.  Is it worth the money?  Is there something(s) special about the design which make it worthwhile playing?  Would one return?

Ciao

 

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Yes, I agree it's arbitrary -- but so what.

The continuation of "public" courses is meaningless once you permit any fees to be charged while permitting such facilities to be rated alongside courses far less in terms of overall fees charged. Like I said -- if a magazine of standing simply placed a ceiling figure for public course recognition -- (mine was $200) those facilities above that target limit would have to decide a simple thing: to be rated either lower the figure or go about their business as usual and not be rated.

Mike, what's "inane" is when magazines of standing decide to provide a field of recognition on an equal playing field to places which are clearly de facto private courses that opeated under the fantasy tagline of being "public."

Mike, I didn't say Pebble Beach, Pinehurst #2, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, et al -- can't charge whatever they want. I just said that with a ceiling only those falling at or below that number would merit being rated among the nation's real and bonafide public courses.

Kalen:

Thanks for "one of the few times" you agree with me. The desire to set a price point ceiling is to provide some reality to the tagline "public" courses. No one figure will be perfect -- but given my experience throughout visits to the entire USA - the $200 figure would be more than sufficient for just about all but the super expensive courses that long ago made a decision to eschew public players for those only with the deepest of pockets.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()