[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
I'm sure I'd enjoy Eagle Ridge, but I'm probably not going to fly across the country to play it. If I want mountain-goat golf (which I do enjoy more than most) I can get that in Colorado--the golf is pretty reasonably priced and its easier for me to get to! Ironbridge GC in Glenwood Springs, CO is an Art Hills design that probably shares many similarities.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

Why does it need insane contouring?  Why don't you just build a little course with cool greens and a few nasty bunkers in unusual spots and call it good?

[Jason McNamara]

There's a few of us need to take a reality check.  Do we expect the majority of houses or apartment blocks to have the architectural quality of St Paul's Cathedral?  Houses are built to live in, very few to be excellent works of architecture.  If 10% of golf courses are interesting to us (and I think the figure is much higher than that, at least in the UK) then that's a pretty good strike rate against building architecture.

The number may well vary from one country to the next.

US - 17,000 courses
UK - 2500
Can - 2000 (?)
Aus - 1500

Are there really 1700 US courses of architectural interest?  Seems a bit high.  Put another way, how many Doak 4s ("modestly interesting") or better?  Looking -very briefly- at the CG (150 US pages x 5 courses / page x 50% rated 4+) gives a SWAG of 375, plus let's generously say 125 since publication to yield 500.  Even if that's 50% too low, it's nowhere near 10%.

Likewise 200 in Canada, based on the posts I read here.  I think it's Ian Andrew (pls correct if wrong, Ian) who says Canada should have a top 50 list rather than a top 100 list (recognizing that's not exactly the same thing).  But maybe there are 250 such courses in the UK, almost certainly 10% of Scotland's 500 or so.

Similarly, if Joe 6 pack (as you guys seem to call him) enjoys his round of golf, the course is fine.  It's where a course is claimed to have architectural merit and falls short that I have an issue.  That doesn't happen with a local muni but with resorts and new private courses.  But I don't think 90% of those are rubbish.

Good distinction here.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

Cause it's fourth of July, and we're Americans, and we never "call it good".

Okay, I might have goon overboard with "insane".  But my true belief is that public golf needs bold contouring with minimal bunkering and decent width to be effective in the future.  Not Ballyneal greens mind you.  But interesting and somewhat boldly contoured greens.

But I would've preferrred if you addressed the first paragraph of my last post.  Since you are the current guru at getting the coolest clients and owners in the biz, I am interested to hear your take on that question.

[Mike Sweeney]

The holes flow in different directions to the wind and the feel of the course is unlike any other and still it could have been designed cheaply in any corn field in America.
Why not take elements from the classics and implement them into modern affordable gems. Does every new course in America need USGA spec greens? Hell no IMO. Why not amend sand to native soil and push up some modern classics. To me it sure seems a cheaper and easier way to create interesting greens.

Donnie,

Have you played TallGrass? An argument can be made that it is the public Garden City on Long Island? Flat land, sandy soil, interesting greens. Some drawbacks for this crowd but clearly a unique choice from the other public courses in the area. I would call it a Doak 6. As the owner is the sod farmer, the land was cheap (for him).

At the end of the day, it has probably only survived because it is used as a bargaining chip against the Town to get more houses. Right now that conversation is tabled, so they are probably just hoping to break even and again the land was free.

Developers are awfully smart. I know Mike Keiser helped out at Barnboogle but I am not sure what that means. Why has he not done Bandon II in the MidWest, Florida or other?

My guess is because he is smart.

How many times did Fishers almost go under? Shinnecock needed members in the 70's. Winged Foot had tough times and they always had the NYAC to feed them members. Eastward Ho! changed hands a bunch of times. Architecture is just a small piece of the puzzle as is exemplified by the small (relative) interest in this website.

By the way, is Hay Harbor part of the 10% or 90%?

[Robin Doodson]

i can't believe that this thread has received the support that it has. What a bunch of bloody snobs.

If you think that 90% of golf courses are garbage then i think it's time that you take up another interest. i personally have never had a bad day on a golf course in the last 30 years. the best thing about every golf course that we play is that it is different from the last. if you can't appreciate that then i suggest you go and take up tennis.

The best golf course i ever played was one which i designed myself in my back garden when i was 11 years old. there was some great holes around the washing line, over the retaining wall all whilst trying to avoid the veggie patch and the kitchen window. who cares, i was playing golf.

you guys really need to loosen up. i suggest you ban yourselves from playing any golf course in the top 100 for the next 12 months to give yourselves some grounding.


yours in golf



robin

[Donnie Beck]

Mike,

I have seen pictures of Tall Grass and it looks awesome but I haven't had a chance to get out and play. It is definitely worthy of a visit when I get a chance. While the rates are reasonable I still wouldn't put it in the affordable class. $75 with a cart isn't bad but is still a little high for the average working class guy to afford on a regular basis.
I am thinking we need more courses of that caliber with green fees in the $35 range to really see growth of the game.

I would put Hay Harbor in the 10% category. You drop Hay Harbor anywhere on the mainland rather than isolated on the island and it would be a very popular golf course.

[Trey Stiles]

Donnie ,

Here's a challenge : Figure out what your cost basis needs to be for a $ 35.00 golf experience . How about you start with these parameters.

   - $ 1,000,000 operating expenses ( trust me , that's cheap )
   - 70 Leased Carts ( not included in ops expense )
   - $ 500,000 in Leased Maint. Equip ( not included in ops expense )
   - 30% Equity with 10% return on equity
   - 70% Debt with 20 yr am and 8% interest
   - 5% of Revenue Capital Improvement Fund
   - 40,000 Rounds

OK , What do you have to invest in land , permitting , engineering , GCA fees , irrigation source development , bring utilities to he site , construction , grow in , on course structures , CH development , parking lot development , maintenance building development , pre opening marketing , pre opening operations , inventory ,  operating cash reserves , contingency , ect. .... All before the 1st tee shot gets hit .... Oh , and don't forget ... you've devoted your life to the game , so you can spend 24 months of your life putting it all together without compensation.


OK , What's your cost basis for the $ 35.00 Golf Experience ?

[Donnie Beck]

Donnie ,

Here's a challenge : Figure out what your cost basis needs to be for a $ 35.00 golf experience . How about you start with these parameters.

   - $ 1,000,000 operating expenses ( trust me , that's cheap )
   - 70 Leased Carts ( not included in ops expense )
   - $ 500,000 in Leased Maint. Equip ( not included in ops expense )
   - 30% Equity with 10% return on equity
   - 70% Debt with 20 yr am and 8% interest
   - 5% of Revenue Capital Improvement Fund
   - 40,000 Rounds

OK , What do you have to invest in land , permitting , engineering , GCA fees , irrigation source development , bring utilities to he site , construction , grow in , on course structures , CH development , parking lot development , maintenance building development , pre opening marketing , pre opening operations , inventory ,  operating cash reserves , contingency , ect. .... All before the 1st tee shot gets hit .... Oh , and don't forget ... you've devoted your life to the game , so you can spend 24 months of your life putting it all together without compensation.


OK , What's your cost basis for the $ 35.00 Golf Experience ?

Trey,

Interesting challenge. I have no experience on the development side of things so I will need help putting together solid numbers on that end but I can come up with solid operating costs. The numbers you have presented would never work. It would be fun to put together a profitable model based on 40,000 rounds and a $35 green fee.

[Trey Stiles]

Donnie ,

That's the point .... The numbers don't add up for new development $ 35.00 golf.

I'm like you , I think the game needs $ 35.00 golf to grow but it's a hard number to get to.

The way you get there is very little debt service , paid for maint equip , free water , small CH , modest maintenance , common sense service levels , and a great location .... Every time I've stuck to that formula , we've done OK ... Every time I've done the high leverage , new development , high service , ect. model , It's been a tough road.

[Tom_Doak]

Donnie is talking about construction & maintenance standards as much as he is talking about design.  And he is right, you are not going to get to $35 green fees building USGA greens and big irrigation systems and everything else to recent standards ... unless you are the third owner [and the second owner is willing to take a huge loss].

Ben:  I don't know what you were asking in the first half of your post.  I've already said that not many architects OR developers are willing to take a chance.  Even Mike Keiser didn't take as many chances as most people give him credit for ... he had a great piece of ground (though it WAS in a remote location), he hired top-quality designers (although we weren't as well known as some other guys), and he watched over the project carefully to make sure he was getting what he wanted.  He did not just turn anybody loose, although he felt the need to speak up in some cases more than others.

The bottom line is that 90% of developers and at least 75% of architects are afraid to do something outside the box, for fear it will fail.

[Mike Hendren]

The more I think about Donnie's premise, the more I tend to agree.  That said, so what?  I live in a rather large tract-mansion that is totally devoid of architectural merit - and I absolutely love my home and am blessed to enjoy such comfort.  The neighborhood and area are nice, schools are excellent and folks are friendly.  I'm also content with driving a 2005 Ford Explorer and wouldn't buy a Mercedes Benz if I had the cash sitting in a checking account.  

Using Donnie's 90% rule, I'd wager that 90% of the rounds of golf played in this country are recreational.  If so, how relevant is the architecture?  

The other side of the coin has merit.  I continue to wonder why even the most commercial architect doesn't have the professional pride and love of the game that drives him to do something with a little more thought and effort.  I think of the small pimple in the 5th green at Mike DeVries' Mines course.  That took a little time and effort (for which Mike and his shapers received absolutely zero compensation) that is likely unappreciated by 99% of the golfers that play there.  

Bottom line: 90% of golfers don't demand, recognize or appreciate architectural merit.  WE ARE THE LUCKY ONES.

Mike

[George Pazin]

Donnie is talking about construction & maintenance standards as much as he is talking about design.  And he is right, you are not going to get to $35 green fees building USGA greens and big irrigation systems and everything else to recent standards ... unless you are the third owner [and the second owner is willing to take a huge loss].

Ben:  I don't know what you were asking in the first half of your post.  I've already said that not many architects OR developers are willing to take a chance.  Even Mike Keiser didn't take as many chances as most people give him credit for ... he had a great piece of ground (though it WAS in a remote location), he hired top-quality designers (although we weren't as well known as some other guys), and he watched over the project carefully to make sure he was getting what he wanted.  He did not just turn anybody loose, although he felt the need to speak up in some cases more than others.

The bottom line is that 90% of developers and at least 75% of architects are afraid to do something outside the box, for fear it will fail.

The sums of $$ involved are too great to not be afraid. Golf does not have the cache of being too big to fail (can't imagine it ever will, given the class warriors stance).

Mike, interesting post, the only thing I think I'd disagree with is aI think many recognize architectural merit, at least on some level, they simply don't have the luxury of being able to do anything about it.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

Whether you meant to or not, you answered my original question. 

The bottom line is that 90% of developers and at least 75% of architects are afraid to do something outside the box, for fear it will fail.

This is why we don't have the type of courses you specified above. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Well, I have a couple of opinions on the subject. Assuming that Donnie's right, then what I'd like to say to the folks building the mediocre courses is "if you're going to be spending the money anyway, you may as well build something good". The local hardware store might charge a bit more (this is less the case these days than it used to be) for a screwdriver than a big-box store, but they'll make sure you get the right one.


And for the folks who say that 90% of the golfers don't care about architecture; you may be right about that, but think about why so few care about it. Could it be because most courses don't give them much reason to care?

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

Exactly.  Saying 90% of people don't care is not the same as saying that 90% of people will DISLIKE a more interesting course.  There are certainly some who will, but it can't be a majority.

And, as Michael pointed out, simple architectural interest (like a bump in a green) only costs more to the extent that the architect is charging a higher design fee ... it doesn't cost any more to build, and only a fraction more to maintain.

[Jason Connor]

e 90% of all courses are PURE GARBAGE and should have never been built in the first place.

100% of the courses I've played allow me to spend 4 hours walking in fresh air with dear friends or dear family members.

That alone proves that 90% of courses are not pure garbage.

[Pat Burke]

Ben:

Why does it need insane contouring?  Why don't you just build a little course with cool greens and a few nasty bunkers in unusual spots and call it good?

Tom, I'm done with playing and teaching!< can I come work for you!?!?
Your quote is my favorite in this thread  WTG

[Jason Topp]

I would agree that 90% of all courses are not inspiring but I do not equate that with failure.  For example, I think people on this site undervalue the low cost courses of the 60's that are enjoyable for all levels of player but should never receive acclaim as inspiring.  Examples I am aware of include:

- Bunker Hills - Minnesota
- Jester Park - Des Moines
- Finkbine - Iowa City
- Randolph North - Tucson
- Papago - Phoenix (pre recent changes at least)
- Spencer Country Club - Spencer, IA

With minor variations - these courses were stamped out of the same formula - 7000 yards, short par fives, long par 3's. par 4's that range from 350-450 from the back tees, relatively wide fairways and relatively few forced carries or severe hazards.  Nothing is inspiring about these courses but they are affordable, fun and playable.  I consider them successes.   

[Philippe Binette]

90 % of courses is pure garbage... man I would never say that...

I qualify the courses I see as Great or The Rest... but that doesn't mean the rest is pure garbage...

I believe there is somethingto be learned from every golf courses. I discover the game on definitely what Donnie would called pure garbage golf course but it was essential in my interest in golf course architecture.

I would say that most courses are like our society, over the top and mass produce and self destructive.

More garbage courses have been done by somebody trying to hard then by a design with humble ambitions.

[Kalen Braley]

For what its worth,

After perusing my list of courses that I've played, just north of 100 now, I can honestly say that less than 10% of them I would consider "garbage" and never seek out another round.  So I too agree that this % is flip flopped at best and only a small % of courses truly suck.....

[Wyatt Halliday]

Ben:

Why does it need insane contouring?  Why don't you just build a little course with cool greens and a few nasty bunkers in unusual spots and call it good?

Because Ben would be copying what was done at Common Ground.

[Jason McNamara]

For what its worth,

After perusing my list of courses that I've played, just north of 100 now, I can honestly say that less than 10% of them I would consider "garbage" and never seek out another round.  So I too agree that this % is flip flopped at best and only a small % of courses truly suck.....

So really the numbers are 10-80-10, or 5-90-5.

[Kalen Braley]

For what its worth,

After perusing my list of courses that I've played, just north of 100 now, I can honestly say that less than 10% of them I would consider "garbage" and never seek out another round.  So I too agree that this % is flip flopped at best and only a small % of courses truly suck.....

So really the numbers are 10-80-10, or 5-90-5.

If we keep it simple to say 3 categories....1) very good or better, 2) good/decent/average/OK, 3) crappy/awful...

Then my numbers would be 1) 20.... 2)70.... 3)10

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()