The Gilded Age of golf course design is dead.

[Jud_T]

Personally, I think one could make a pretty good case that an "ideal" golf course (at least in theory) is one with a high "course rating" and a relatively low "slope rating."

TEPaul,

An interesting theory, which I think makes a lot of sense.  I guess that puts Tobacco Road directly on the crapheap and Talking Stick North near the top of the ratings......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat

Its an honest request, nothing nasty just a simple clarification of meaning.

I think we have gone far enough off topic

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"An interesting theory, which I think makes a lot of sense."


Jud:

And it would probably make a whole lot more sense to a whole lot more people if so many did not constantly confuse "slope rating" with "course rating." It has always fascinated me how many golfers (and even very informed ones) seem to think that "slope rating" means what "course rating" means.

It doesn't!

[Marty Bonnar]

TEP,
since you're asking, and after some serious reflection, I'm going to plump for the Wally Westmore'd (look him up) porcine beauty.
Reason? Well, a pig isn't necessarily completely ugly in the first instance. Not that I've ever in any way been attracted to them (and besides that was never proven) and not that other even-toed ungulates are any less - or indeed more - attractive. I believe in your part of the world some people even keep them as pets...

Above all else, I'm also fairly partial to a good sausage.

But a turd will ALWAYS and can only ever be a turd.

 
QED!
FBD.

[Mike_Young]

"An interesting theory, which I think makes a lot of sense."


Jud:

And it would probably make a whole lot more sense to a whole lot more people if so many did not constantly confuse "slope rating" with "course rating." It has always fascinated me how many golfers (and even very informed ones) seem to think that "slope rating" means what "course rating" means.

It doesn't!

Agree...has always made a lot of sense....

AND yes I have seen State Golf Assoc rate courses before they open....and I have seen them measure a par 4 from tee to green while not considering the turn point....but the guy doing it had his pants pulled up under his armpits...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Like Mike, I've gone around with the state g.a. raters on two or three projects before they were officially open.  The courses were kind of playable, and they wanted to be among the first to play, and the client wanted to print scorecards with the course rating and slope already on there.

When they do that, they have to guess at things like how the ball will run out, what the greens will play like when they're faster, what the rough will be maintained like, etc.  Usually they come up with a fairly low slope rating that way, and it adjusts several points when they come back and re-do it once the course is mature.

[Mac Plumart]

Kelly...

I am unsure whether you are kidding or not, but I think the crux of your post is correct.  And that is that the Asian golf course market might be in the middle of a boom or just about to boom (as I am not in the business I can't make that call definitively).

If we focus on just the GB&I courses, I think that boom appears to be way over.  Just look at the difference between the quality of the courses on the Golfweek Modern and Classic lists for GB&I for proof of that.

Also, the US housing bust and the saturation of the market seems to have killed the boom in the US. 

And aren't most of the people on this site located in one of those two regions?  Therefore, in their world the market for golf courses stinks.

But Asia (and a lot of other global markets) seem to be growing...at least from an outsiders perspective.

Who moved my cheese...right?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

Thanks for that information. While still on the same subject I wonder what the Laos people think to 7600-8000 yard course or do you think they might be content with 5,800-6,400 course. I also wonder if carts were deployed early to assist the Laos people in their enforced move?

Does it not make those of you who build courses proud that one of your fellow colleagues will be undertaking this design and construction work – Gentlemen is this really “Land Fit For Purpose” and would you be proud to say well I kept the roof over my family while thousands were displaced. Only you can answer that question.

Gilded Age, sorry if this is happening in the name of Golf then should we not all be ashamed or have we become acclimatised and accept that golf course can and should be built anywhere in the world. My opinion for what its worth is no, there are places we should NOT BUILD GOLF COURSES. Perhaps more may start to think along those lines, then perhaps not as golf is now driven by money first and foremost. Also could you enjoy a round over land that in the 21st Century was cleared of it people for your enjoyment, it would not sit well with me, but what about you 

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Kind of like the Highland Clearances all over again!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

Good point, but whatever the army consists of makes no difference, or should not, its that question again is it Land Fit For Purpose be it forced or legally stolen by the power of money. Again its down to each of us to decide the right and wrongs of the issue, but the fundamental point IMHO keeps coming back to Fit For Purpose.

In Scotland in the 18th Century we had land clearance but that was for sheep not golf and that still surfaces from time to time even after 250 years.

Melvyn  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

I certainly take your point and perhaps there is a difference in squatters on someone else land vs. local population living their lives for generation on the land. Never been a supporter of squatters, as I see it as theft, which is tolerated by the authorities but that just my opinion.

Melvyn

[Jason Topp]

It may only be 3% but those that do play the back tees (and are good enough to do so) are a critical part of any club.

Jackie Burke has written about the importance of the good amateur golfer to the lifeblood of any healthy club.  His point is that good amateurs are the soul of any club.  Other members look up to those players, imitate how they play and are proud of the fact that such players are members of their club.  I think it is hard to deny that a top club (or public course) also has some very good players as members.

A 6500 yard course needs to be very, very good to attract good long hitting amateurs, who often have swing speeds that carry the ball as far as tour pros.  No-one likes to lay up all of the time and top amateurs hit a lot of hybrids and three woods off the tee at such courses.

My course is a 6600 yard par 70 and is a very good layout.  It rarely, if ever, takes driver out of the hands of a long hitter.  Despite raving about the course, top amateurs do not join (and a couple have left).  A primary stated reason is that they want to play a longer course on a day to day basis.     

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Define "good" amateur golfer...
I can show you more clubs ruined by good amateur golfers than helped.....I can probably show you more good amateurs that are not long hitting than good amateurs that are long hitters.....but most all good amateurs have a respectable short game. You later change to the phrase "top" amateurs when describing who does not join your course. 
I don't think length matters to good and top amateurs as much as strategy .....
I admire Jackie Burke and think that when he says good amateurs he is speaking of those that also have some respect for the game and it's heritage....we have some now days that think length is all that matters and bring zero heritage to the game.....IMHO
Cheers,
Mike

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

Well put, hit the nail right on the head.

Melvyn

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  If you read Burke's book he really is talking about amateurs who want to compete at high levels short of professinal golf even after they are in the working world.  Note that Champions has maintained as a condition of entry a handicap level which is relatively low.  At the same time Jackie favors building lower cost courses accessible to a wider group of players.  So there is some internal contradiction.  But make no mistake about it; when he talks about better players skill level is a factor.  In today's market, even at the club level, "better " players want to play "championship" courses and most believe legth is a requirement.  I don't agree but that doesn't change the reality.

[JMEvensky]

 In today's market, even at the club level, "better " players want to play "championship" courses and most believe legth is a requirement.  I don't agree but that doesn't change the reality.

My experience is the same.Wanna be's,used to be's,and never were's are all under the impression that you can't have a "championship" golf course without length.So long as every real televised championship is played on a 7500 yard golf course,they have a point.I,of course,concede that this length is wholly irrelevant to 99.9% of the perspective members who think this way--but you'll never convince them that they're wrong.

[Jud_T]

Until they get tired of hitting rescue clubs into every green and paying those $1,000/month dues...

[Jason Topp]

Jason,
Define "good" amateur golfer...

I admire Jackie Burke and think that when he says good amateurs he is speaking of those that also have some respect for the game and it's heritage....we have some now days that think length is all that matters and bring zero heritage to the game.....IMHO
Cheers,
Mike

I think of someone who can qualify for and make the cut at the state amateur.  I hit the ball about 250 off the tee under normal conditions in the midwest.  Nearly every good amateur under the age of 50 I have played with hits it 15-20 yards past me and many hit it 30-40 yards past me.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike;  If you read Burke's book he really is talking about amateurs who want to compete at high levels short of professinal golf even after they are in the working world.  Note that Champions has maintained as a condition of entry a handicap level which is relatively low.  At the same time Jackie favors building lower cost courses accessible to a wider group of players.  So there is some internal contradiction.  But make no mistake about it; when he talks about better players skill level is a factor.  In today's market, even at the club level, "better " players want to play "championship" courses and most believe legth is a requirement.  I don't agree but that doesn't change the reality.

I did read his book and I agree with you as to they type he was searching for...each state probably has less than 200 players that can play at a national am level if that many......but I don't see the contradiction just because he wants lower cost courses...they can still be made to accommodate such players.....and IMHO this level of player searches for length but does not dwell on it.....

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Define "good" amateur golfer...

I admire Jackie Burke and think that when he says good amateurs he is speaking of those that also have some respect for the game and it's heritage....we have some now days that think length is all that matters and bring zero heritage to the game.....IMHO
Cheers,
Mike

I think of someone who can qualify for and make the cut at the state amateur.  I hit the ball about 250 off the tee under normal conditions in the midwest.  Nearly every good amateur under the age of 50 I have played with hits it 15-20 yards past me and many hit it 30-40 yards past me.  

Jason,
And what is your point above....I play with plenty of low handicap seniors who hit it 265 but that is about average now....that doesn't mean they can play and it certainly doesn't require longer courses.....

[Sean_A]

It may only be 3% but those that do play the back tees (and are good enough to do so) are a critical part of any club.

Jackie Burke has written about the importance of the good amateur golfer to the lifeblood of any healthy club.  His point is that good amateurs are the soul of any club.  Other members look up to those players, imitate how they play and are proud of the fact that such players are members of their club.  I think it is hard to deny that a top club (or public course) also has some very good players as members.

This is one of the oddest quotes I have come across.  Why in the heck would a handful of the best players in a club automatically be considered the lifeblood of a club?  In my experience, the lifeblood of a club are those that volunteer for committees, team matches etc etc.  The best players are important, but by no means the lifeblood.  Perhaps Champions has a very different culture with its number of very good players as members. 

Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

It may only be 3% but those that do play the back tees (and are good enough to do so) are a critical part of any club.

Jackie Burke has written about the importance of the good amateur golfer to the lifeblood of any healthy club.  His point is that good amateurs are the soul of any club.  Other members look up to those players, imitate how they play and are proud of the fact that such players are members of their club.  I think it is hard to deny that a top club (or public course) also has some very good players as members.

This is one of the oddest quotes I have come across.  Why in the heck would a handful of the best players in a club automatically be considered the lifeblood of a club?  In my experience, the lifeblood of a club are those that volunteer for committees, team matches etc etc.  The best players are important, but by no means the lifeblood.  Perhaps Champions has a very different culture with its number of very good players as members. 

Ciao

I have to agree with Sean here. Without volunteers to fill these club positions, the club will die a slow death. These are the lifeblood of any club. Also, in my experience, the majority of the very low handicappers in a club don't put themselves forward for club positions. I don't fault them for this; most low handicappers are young and are competing in events at other courses. They simply don't have the time and choose to concentrate on golf rather than help run the club. Besides, there's plenty of time to volunteer for club positions when they are older.

Dónal.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I once did a project in Indonesia and was saddened at tearing up a little community but was told they were going to get all new houses somewhere. I wonder if that ever happened.  All the schoolkids were always so clean despite living in grass roof huts or old WWII quonset huts.  And they all waited patiently to play with one badminton set some kid got as a gift. (When I got home, I had to buy three play stations because my kids couldn't share)  I guess its all summed up with the phrase, "Progress, can't stop it!"  But it was sad,

The talk about the good player and the back tees got me wondering.  Has anyone ever heard of someone who has been in power at a club long enough to have demanded back tees in their 30's and now demand senior tees now that they are in their 60's?

[Jason Topp]

It may only be 3% but those that do play the back tees (and are good enough to do so) are a critical part of any club.

Jackie Burke has written about the importance of the good amateur golfer to the lifeblood of any healthy club.  His point is that good amateurs are the soul of any club.  Other members look up to those players, imitate how they play and are proud of the fact that such players are members of their club.  I think it is hard to deny that a top club (or public course) also has some very good players as members.

This is one of the oddest quotes I have come across.  Why in the heck would a handful of the best players in a club automatically be considered the lifeblood of a club?  In my experience, the lifeblood of a club are those that volunteer for committees, team matches etc etc.  The best players are important, but by no means the lifeblood.  Perhaps Champions has a very different culture with its number of very good players as members. 

Ciao

I have to agree with Sean here. Without volunteers to fill these club positions, the club will die a slow death. These are the lifeblood of any club. Also, in my experience, the majority of the very low handicappers in a club don't put themselves forward for club positions. I don't fault them for this; most low handicappers are young and are competing in events at other courses. They simply don't have the time and choose to concentrate on golf rather than help run the club. Besides, there's plenty of time to volunteer for club positions when they are older.

Dónal.

Of course all of those other roles are important to the operation of a club (although I would guess the percentage of good players active in committees and the like is higher than the percentage of the general membership).  Also, in my experience, having a subset of very good players adds tremendously to the atmosphere of a club.  I think those players are critical for both attracting and retaining members, particularly if you are interested in a "golf club" atmosphere rather than a "country club."