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.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Public golf courses and Golf Architects
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2009, 03:52:39 PM »
Ajay -

what I see least of all on the public/municipal courses I play is the "ideal maintenance meld".  I sometimes find good architecture/design, but I rarely sense that much time or thought has been given to how the maintenance style/regime supports and enhances the architecture.  I don't mean that I need lush and green and manicured (or even fast and firm and brown, for that matter ) -- I understand that cost is an issue, and I don't want to expect or demand too much;  but I'd just like to feel that someone was giving some thought to how they'd ideally like the course to be maintained, even if in the end it can't be achieved consistently.  I'm not comparing this situation the one at private courses - I can't, as I've never played one.  But if I could wish for something, it'd be that architects like the good and committed ones on this board will someday have a chance to design/work on a public course right along side (and from the very beginning, and in agreement about that "ideal -- and practical -- maintenance meld" with) an equally committed maintenance team

Peter

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public golf courses and Golf Architects
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2009, 05:43:38 PM »
As an owner of an affordable public course ($35 GF), most of the opinions expressed here are valid.  I think Peter P brings up the most important point: maintenance.  I have one of lowest maintenance budgets around, about $300K/year, and that just covers the basics--mowing, watering, fertilizing, aerating, etc.  We have good greens, a decent routing, a beautiful location, but overall, we are pretty rustic and always have hundreds of items on our wish list for improvements.  We only have 35K rounds per year and there is just so much you can do with our relatively small revenues.  Our regulars love their course but would prefer that we keep it affordable above all else.

I’ve thought a lot about beefing up the strategy and adding more interesting features and even about a complete remodel (I’ve done a partial and built several new holes and greens).  My conclusion is that I’ve attracted some new players and members, but it doesn’t really pencil out as a very good return on the investment and maybe no return at all in our market.  Apart from our world class location, why do people choose to play here or at any other course in the area?  I’m convinced that for the average golfer the answer is quite simple:  they play where their buddies play.  Many feel we have a better course and better players than at other area clubs, but every course has its loyal core of players who play there because they are comfortable and have made so many friends with whom to enjoy their golf. 

The average golfer has many opinions about golf and golf courses.  In my experience, very, very few understand anything about golf design or architecture.  I’m being tactful in my choice of words because these golfers are my customers, friends, play golf for fun, and love the game unconditionally.  Yet, the fact remains, 95% of golfers are totally ignorant about good design.  They play for fun and that is way it should be.  Its just a silly game, enjoy it.

Matt_Ward

Re: Public golf courses and Golf Architects
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2009, 06:45:05 PM »
Ajay:

A couple of comments to your reply to me ...

Keep this in mind -- many public courses from years ago were quite challenging -- in the years that followed -- many of their unique elements were removed in the spirit of "speed of play" and cost situations. Often, such a move failed because play never really picked up and the savings were simply swallowed up with increases in other areas.

NJ public golf is quite good -- in my mind it easily is the best in the Northeast and Midatlantic area on that side of the golf ledger -- save for The Bay State. Is it as good as the private side. No - but realize this the private bar is extremely high -- candidly, NJ would easily make the top ten states for private courses in the USA.

Years ago I would have agreed with your conclusion that the public side was way behind. The gap is still there -- it's just as wide as it was when I first started playing golf nearly 40 years ago.

Ajay, the issue for public golf is threefold ...

1). Keeping costs reasonable so play is encouraged

2). Providing quality instruction at an early point so people stay with the game

3). Making the game faster so people can do other things with their time

Peter Pallotta

Re: Public golf courses and Golf Architects
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2009, 05:56:59 PM »
Dave - thanks much for your post, and for the work you do -- so far in my golfing life, my golf has been made possible mainly because of people like you, and courses like yours.  A question: do you think it is possible for  courses like yours with tight budgets and affordable green fees to even try for an "ideal maintenence meld", however that may be defined for any given course and its architecture?

Thanks
Peter

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back