JD, Mike O' Neil:
Appreciate your take on what can happen if some "creativity" is employed by those on staff. I know many course superintendents who have followed the ideas both of you mentioned. Courses don't need to have the demands of a Bethpage Black to be challenging.
Clearly, you do have at some of the larger munis some superintendents who got hired simply because of political connections. And, lest I forget, you sometimes have unionized work forces that could frankly care less about the course once quitting time comes.
I don't doubt there are a number of impediments in designing taxpayer-owned facilities. Much of it is ignorance on behalf of the people who actually want a course. I think architects can assist the process in desiging courses with maximum flexibility so that average golfers can enjoy their day while building in greater challenges for the progressively better player. I do agree with some of the others who have posted that building Bethpage Black type bunkers today would not be helpful but you can incorporate "ground" features that do elevate csmart play.
Paul Richards:
I had the pleasure in playing Forest National when it some real teeth -- the course would bite any golfer who simply failed to execute. Wonderful course -- I'm sorry to hear from you and shivas that things have taken a turn for the worst. Great thing about Cook County golf is that for many years you had a good number of taxpayer owned facilities that didn't "dumb down" because it was politically correct to do so.
Paul -- from what you see in Chi town is the move to "dumb down" a conscious one to rid all hazards and challenges or is it because of just sheer neglect or lack of fundings for needed course grooming?
Tim W:
Quality taxpayer-owned facilities that I am familiar with usually pay for themselves if they are located in high play areas. In some cases -- when these courses usually reach the "black" that $$ is then used for other park considerations -- sometimes to the consternation of the patrons at that facility who believe all such $$ should stay with that course.
One more time -- My statements were for challengeing courses for ALL (repeat after me -- ALL) types of golfers.
As a matter of public policy I believe when you can provide people with pleasurable activities it is sound for government to provide such needs. Why? Because the private sector may be charging fees that keep out the bulk of the populace. That's happening today in my home state (8th most expensive according to the NGF).
Golf courses are not frills -- that's been the argument from people from years ago -- as you know, fresh air, exericise as well as preserving open space, are all part of what taxpayer-owned facilities can provide. You can also have quality taxpayer-owned facilities that have the elasticity to serve all types of players. I'm not asking for these type of courses to become de facto Black type courses -- one is quite enough.
But, I know from my travels throughout the nation many jurisdictions are doing this to much success and they have wonderful staffs that have dedicated themselves to provide a superior daily product.
Clearly, some municipalities, counties and even states may choose not to do this or simply provide the most basic of courses. That is their prerogative but progressive locales understand that giving people something for their tax dollars is beneficial and in many cases builds support for other programs by that respective jurisdiction.