[TEPaul]

Paulie:

Could one thing be that you found some cool old vestiges of Civil War embattlements in SC and actually used them in your golf course architecture after getting permission from the conservation and regulatory authorities to do so? And on top of that you did not even need to produce your "ace-in-the-hole" had they refused you their permission.  

By the way, Paulie, have you been to Fort Clinch recently? I was down there about a month ago. It was a toss-up on whether to buy a Union or Confederate cap but I went with the Union cap. For our wedding anniversary I got my wife a really cool yellow bonnet replicating the Civil War days which she seemed delighted to have at first but later reconfirmed her oft mentioned remark to me that I'm probably the most unromantic guy extant. However, I did tell her she looked real cute in her yellow Civil War bonnet but unfortunately that go about zero reaction one way or the other. You know what I mean----eg sort of like one of those ten second blank stares.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

If they kept the lighthouse at Turnberry, then keeping old artifacts/buildings can't be new....maybe groveling for permission from the US authorities is new, though!

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey:

How about building them so good and so realistic the conservation and regulatory bodies thought they were the real thing?  

I'd say THAT's A NEW IDEA!

Paulie is an expert reenactor you know. Or is he the real thing? Do you believe in reincarnation?  

Now what about those old rice fields?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I had an early project in Atlanta, which was right on the path of Sherman's march.  We found all kinds of artifacts, and got interested in the skirmishes that happened on site.  Pulling out old maps, we found that the Army of the Ohio crossed Pumpkinvine Creek near what would be the 14th green and when we got out there, there was a natural rock bridge right where the old maps said they crossed.  We adjusted the green to that site and saved the historic and beautiful waterfall/rock bridge.

Two years later, when the houses were getting built, an engineer routed the sanitary sewer right up the creek, and they dynamited that feature right out of there are all our hard work.  It amazes me sometimes how inartful and insensitive to history some are.

[Forrest Richardson]

Paul & Jeff — Thanks for joining in. I think salvaging old stuff and abrupt natural stuff, or using it, is a great "new" that has fallen out of favor for some designers and owners. It really adds something when done right. It certainly adds another variable.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey:

I may be mistaken but I think Paulie Cowley may've served in Georgia with Sherman's Army of Ohio. I do know he was one of the first of the Union soldiers to enter Tara and I do know that he was extremely kind to Scarlett O'Hara and her entire extended family, so to speak. I think Paulie even played cards occasionally with Rhett Butler.

[Mike Hendren]

So, today a lot of the work is renovating these "instant" layouts, either because it's necessary (they are falling apart) or a new owner wants to give it a re-birth and, hopefully, charge more for a membership or green fee.

Forrest, the definitive word in your statement is "hopefully."  Frankly, I don't see it. We must first acknowledge that golf in the U. S. is a mature industry, evidenced by the lack of growth and even declining demand.  Accordingly, when supply exceeds demand price declines.  I happen to believe that the architecture pricing curve is flat - in other words the retail golfer (setting aside the few beardpullers here who actually frequent daily fee golf courses) will not pay a meaningful premium for premium architecture.  (Whether the cognoscenti chooses to believe it or not the retail golfer is more likely to pay a premium for premium conditioning however.)  Of course there are always outliers like Bandon Dunes.  

As a commercial banker I work in a mature industry.  I predict we will be astonished by the merger/acquisition activity in the banking industry in the next two to three years.  Those banks that can't clean up their balance sheets will fail or be acquired at steep discounts below book value.  Those that effectively clean up their mess but can't reignite growth will be the next to fall as very attractive targets at only modest premiums.  

Unfortunately, you can't merge golf courses and acquisitions will be a cutthroat prices.   In such instances, architecture will be irrelevant and course improvements will equate to throwing good money after bad in a desperate and futile attempt to avoid the inevitable.  

Dang I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike H. — Thanks for the banker opinion. (My recent line to bankers has been, "Gee, I dislike most bankers, but I do like this guy from Nashville...")

Consider this: An owner in California operates a daily fee course that has been in the family for two generations. It is all paid off and yields a good profit every year, despite a very bad set of conditions. It is old, falling apart and very muni-like in all the wrong ways!

Let us say that you can play there for $18 during the week, walking. Now, if the course is brought to a "new" level of experience I am not optimistic that the green fee will be $38, but I can imagine getting $22. And, that 20%+ jump not only applies to the green fee, but also the breakfast burrito, the Coors, the glove and the bucket of balls. If they make a $1 million investment (which they need to anyway or the place might literally fall apart, not drain and dry-up) the pay-back will take 5-7 years, but...it will keep on giving, and it will stop the spiral descent (fall) that the property is currently experiencing.

The pro forma is not much different at a majority of U.S. courses because most were built between 1950 and 1990...and a bunch (most) of them are in dire need of a new experience, a re-birth, etc., not to mention infrastructure that is simply past its prime.

This does not mean that all of them will opt for this — but, a few will. And, those are likely the courses who will regain market share, or hold on to it. In the scenario above, the owner understands that if conditions are allowed to get worse, the 60,000 rounds they do now will begin falling because customers will migrate away. And, in the golf course business it becomes very clear that more players will usually not cost much more — and they trouble is nearly always worth it. Owners are beginning to see this again after having several robust decades.

[Mac Plumart]

Hey y'all...

I think this is new-ish.  




And here is a aggregated list (Golfweek, Golf Mag., and Golf Digest combined) of the Top 10 courses in the US:

Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills
Augusta National
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
Merion
Sand Hills
Nat'l Golf Links
Pacific Dunes

Two are new-ish.

And here is the Top ten outside the US...

St. Andrews (Old)
Royal County Down
Muirfield
Royal Portrush
Royal Dornoch
Turnberry (Alisa)
Ballybunion
Carnousite
Kingston Heath
Old Sunningdale


Nothing "new".


Forrest, I think you've posted on here more than once recently wanting to know what is "new".  Like has been mentioned before, why does anything need to be "new"...doesn't it just need to be good?

And don't we have a real good idea what makes for "good" golf?   Heck, even "great" golf?  

There has been some good threads fairly recently regarding this...in fact, JC Jones did one on the common thread of greatness.  Quite sometime ago, Dr. Mackenzie wrote a book that outlines his 13 prinicples and talks about an ideal hole.  Others have done similiar things.  

Enlighten me and correct any misunderstandings I might be having...why is "new" important?  Isn't "good/great" important?  Don't we know what leads to good/great golf?

Also, haven't there been a ton of "new" things regarding maintenance, grass, and construction?  Aren't these applied while designing courses?  For instance, Pinehurst #2 used to be all sand greens because they couldn't get a good strain of grass to use.  But now they are grassed.  East Lake (like many Southern courses) used to have winter and summer greens, but now they have bermuda greens and are doing fine.  Isn't that "new"?  I believe East Lake's greens were re-done in 2004.

Help me understand what you are driving at and what I am missing?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Somewhat related to the last two posts, but I spoke at length with a major management type guy last week and he notes that the club business model is still a money maker.  They have reduced dues, restructured initiation (but not eliminated it, because like housing, too low a down payment makes it too easy to walk away) and kept most members that they really wanted.  They view it as a realistic and sustainable business model under current dues.

It was nice to hear among the gloom and doom.

At the public level, he notes that the $150 player is playing $100 courses, the $100 player is playing $75 courses and the $75 player is playing $50 courses, etc. and rounds are nearly the same at the under $100 courses.  However, the lower end, under $50 has no place to go to reduce costs, but may play one less round per week, etc.  Most under $100 course are doing okay according to him, with $50-60-75 courses hitting the sweet spot in most big cities.

Responding to Mac's post (why do we always go to the top ten out of 15,000 courses?) perhaps "fun to play every day" is the new "extravagant golf "experience."?

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Jeff...

I've got a MUCH longer list, if you want me to post it!!!     But I just used a Top 10 for brevities sake. 

You "fun to play everyday" concept really hits home with me as I just joined another club that is like that, Rivermont.  Totally awesome, in my book.  But again, I don't see much "new" there.  Just good golf, great greens, very solid routing, and a variety of shots to choose from.  Isn't that what is needed?

[Tim Nugent]

"Responding to Mac's post (why do we always go to the top ten out of 15,000 courses?) perhaps "fun to play every day" is the new "extravagant golf "experience."?"

I have to agree w/Jeff on this aspect.  The last 2 remodels (1 private, 1 public) and the course I'm doing now are all in the 6,800 yd range.  I've found that a bit shorter course allows for more design latitude.  I think the 7k+ courses require a more straight forward, "down the middle" design approach which has become too predictable and hence repetitive. Shorter courses are not only more economical to operate, they allow the architect to design around the Line of Charm more boldly (and get away with it).  If my current project had been in the States rather than here in Europe, I might have been even bolder with infringing more directly upon the LOC.  Shorter designs also allow for more contoured greens because the approach shots are generally with higher lofted clubs.

So, Forrest, let's say that in terms of yardage, less get's you more.

Mac, that course looks like an old Harbor Fort.  I always wonder why people insist on doing things that like completely different from ground level than from 2,000 feet.  I hope this is in an airport approach, otherwise, it looks like an awful large amount of earth was moved.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike H. — Thanks for the banker opinion. (My recent line to bankers has been, "Gee, I dislike most bankers, but I do like this guy from Nashville...")

Consider this: An owner in California operates a daily fee course that has been in the family for two generations. It is all paid off and yields a good profit every year, despite a very bad set of conditions. It is old, falling apart and very muni-like in all the wrong ways!

Let us say that you can play there for $18 during the week, walking. Now, if the course is brought to a "new" level of experience I am not optimistic that the green fee will be $38, but I can imagine getting $22. And, that 20%+ jump not only applies to the green fee, but also the breakfast burrito, the Coors, the glove and the bucket of balls. If they make a $1 million investment (which they need to anyway or the place might literally fall apart, not drain and dry-up) the pay-back will take 5-7 years, but...it will keep on giving, and it will stop the spiral descent (fall) that the property is currently experiencing.

The pro forma is not much different at a majority of U.S. courses because most were built between 1950 and 1990...and a bunch (most) of them are in dire need of a new experience, a re-birth, etc., not to mention infrastructure that is simply past its prime.

This does not mean that all of them will opt for this — but, a few will. And, those are likely the courses who will regain market share, or hold on to it. In the scenario above, the owner understands that if conditions are allowed to get worse, the 60,000 rounds they do now will begin falling because customers will migrate away. And, in the golf course business it becomes very clear that more players will usually not cost much more — and they trouble is nearly always worth it. Owners are beginning to see this again after having several robust decades.

This owner's problem right now - and I think Mike will back me up - is finding a bank or someone else to loan him that $1 million.

He'll have a hard time doing the work in house out of current cash flow.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()