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.


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Finding Goldilocks
« on: July 13, 2011, 09:51:14 AM »
What should be the ground rules for a new course opening that prevents misguided souls from flaming your course?  I find it interesting that the Broadway show Spiderman has still not opened despite running for what seems like years.  I was surprised when I traveled to New York to see the Knicks and ended up at opening night of The Book of Mormon when the play had already been reviewed by John Stewart.  The morning after opening night the New York Times had a full page review based on solely the performance that night.  I can't imagine this was the first showing the critic had seen.  Truth is, I would never see Spiderman solely because of pre-opening reviews and John Stewart sold me on The Book of Mormon.  Where is the balance or what can a course do to find that Goldilocks moment?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 09:52:54 AM by John Kavanaugh »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2011, 10:22:31 AM »
Maybe with all the soft openings of golf courses, they should get Viagra and Cialis to compete for sponsorship of the.....uh, hard opening?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2011, 10:32:41 AM »
Maybe with all the soft openings of golf courses, they should get Viagra and Cialis to compete for sponsorship of the.....uh, hard opening?

I get it, you're sick of DD.  Sorry.  I will tell you that I seriously doubt Awarii will ever recover, much like Spiderman, at part because of opening too soon. 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2011, 10:34:17 AM »
John:

Not sure I understand your point here.  Are you complaining that people should not be allowed to criticize a new course?

If a new course doesn't want to be criticized, they don't have to let panelists and raters and the like out to play it.  But if they want all the benefits and none of the risks, I don't know what to tell them.  Access is a double-edged sword.

As to opening too soon ... it's their own fault, isn't it?  Bandon has done an excellent job of downplaying expectations for conditioning in preview rounds, but that's a lot easier to do when a course is an adjunct to an existing resort, as opposed to a brand new venue that you have to go out of your way to see.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2011, 10:53:22 AM »
Tom,

I have many friends who both post on here and are raters as do other members and Chris.  I do hope they can play the course as it evolves over the next few years.  I would hate for that be at the expense of the reputation of the course just because greens are slow or the grow in is patchy.

When Dismal Uno was opened many people on this site took great pains to take pictures of dead grass and exposed drainage pipes.  When Ballyneal opened the greens bordered on unplayable slow condition that required an imagination beyond stupid to appreciate.  My question is how to find a balance see the potential without focusing on the existing.  Keiser seems to have worked through this rather well with, as you say, low expectations.

I also don't agree that in this economy that it is completely up to the owner when they begin to allow outside play.  You can't make June wait. On an interesting note:  Hublot has introduced a new watch that allows you to slow down or speed up time depending on your experience at that moment.  It is a great way to meet self imposed deadlines.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2011, 11:45:08 AM »

I also don't agree that in this economy that it is completely up to the owner when they begin to allow outside play.  You can't make June wait.


John:

Part of this is the question of finishing at the right time, but fundamentally it is also about STARTING at the right time.

For example, I've been in a hurry to get started at Dismal this summer.  If we can do so, then we should have no problem finishing the construction next summer, and being ready to play sometime in 2013.  But, the seeding window for the sand hills is from late May to early September, so if we don't get any holes built by the end of August, then it will be a rush to try and finish the whole course next year.

Often, clients decide when they want to open, without accepting the reality of when that means they have to start spending their money.  That's the real source of the problem you are talking about.  Superintendents and architects always take the blame, but it's rarely really on us.

As for your point about stupid raters, you are right on.  There are too many who get turned off by grow-in conditions, who you just don't want to come and evaluate your course until it is pure.  That made it really hard to compete for Best New awards with other new courses that had a longer grow-in window by the benefit of their locale and grassing schedule.  But, now that the Best New is done for, the imperative to get raters there early should be less important.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 02:06:01 PM by Tom_Doak »

Mark Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2011, 12:00:05 PM »

I also don't agree that in this economy that it is completely up to the owner when they begin to allow outside play.  You can't make June wait.


John:

Part of this is the question of finishing at the right time, but fundamentally it is also about STARTING at the right time.

For example, I've been pushing Chris for two months to commit to this project and place a few orders so that we could get a little bit of the course built and grassed this summer.  If we can do so, then we should have no problem finishing the construction next summer, and being ready to play sometime in 2013.

But, the seeding window for the sand hills is from late May to early September, so if we don't get any holes built by the end of August, then it will be a rush to try and finish the whole course next year, and he will be on exactly the same schedule that the first course at Dismal was.

The business is full of owners who decide when they want to open, without accepting the reality of when that means they have to start spending their money.  That's the real source of the problem you are talking about.  Superintendents and architects always take the blame, but it's rarely really on us.

As for your point about stupid raters, you are right on.  There are too many who get turned off by grow-in conditions, who you just don't want to come and evaluate your course until it is pure.  That made it really hard to compete for Best New awards with other new courses that had a longer grow-in window by the benefit of their locale and grassing schedule.  But, now that the Best New is done for, the imperative to get raters there early should be less important.


Tom,

Is there any type of feedback you could get from an early review that would change how you finish / set up a course?  Or is the real trouble with early reviews that they just make the owners of the course a bit jumpy.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2011, 12:06:47 PM »
As for your point about stupid raters, you are right on.  There are too many who get turned off by grow-in conditions, who you just don't want to come and evaluate your course until it is pure.  That made it really hard to compete for Best New awards with other new courses that had a longer grow-in window by the benefit of their locale and grassing schedule.  But, now that the Best New is done for, the imperative to get raters there early should be less important.

“What's with all these awards? They're always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler.” -- Annie Hall (1977)

Would golf (and its courses) be better or worse off if there were NO Awards? I do wonder about that.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2011, 12:12:01 PM »


Would golf (and its courses) be better or worse off if there were NO Awards? I do wonder about that.


I think we have recently gotten a wonderful education of how the need to remain #1 has hurt Pine Valley.

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2011, 01:21:41 PM »
Unfortunately I can appreciate the importance (economic, pride, ego...) of being ranked number one versus ranked number three.  I do however feel the differences in quality are minor in similarly ranked courses and prefer the tier system utilized by many lists on this site.  I also liked the way the best new was done in Dec 2010 by Golf Digest and the article as a discussion of the noteworthy courses is more useful to me for newer courses than a pure list and agree the best new awards should be removed.

I disagree with the stupid rater mentality.  I don't feel panelists/raters are stupid when they rate a course poorly in the courses early years or if they point out flaws.  Part of the rating is conditioning and memorability.  I'm not a rater/panelist but find rankings useful.  If the rater/panelist plays the course when it is being aerated they better give it a pass because they know the impact is only a few weeks but if they give the course a pass due to grow in conditions which I’ve heard can last in the period of years (what is the expected range for grow in?) I think they are doing a poor job.  The rating reflects what the course is now and should be able to be compared to other courses now not what could be.  As stated if the owner doesn't want a rating of the course in its current state don't open it up to panelists/raters.

I don’t know how long ratings are valid but wonder what people think should be the utilized period.

To prevent individuals who pay nothing from flaming your course I would think is difficult but for a paying customer if the price is in line with the product personally I'll be happy.  I think the adjustment in fee is the way to go.  Indicate a grow-in special and prominently list the future price for the course when it reaches prime condition.  As stupid as it sounds I'm easily fooled and would likely think I'm paying 50% of the price, or whatever, which means the course will be 100% better when it's grown in.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2011, 02:17:52 PM »

I disagree with the stupid rater mentality.  I don't feel panelists/raters are stupid when they rate a course poorly in the courses early years or if they point out flaws.  Part of the rating is conditioning and memorability.  I'm not a rater/panelist but find rankings useful.  If the rater/panelist plays the course when it is being aerated they better give it a pass because they know the impact is only a few weeks but if they give the course a pass due to grow in conditions which I’ve heard can last in the period of years (what is the expected range for grow in?) I think they are doing a poor job.  The rating reflects what the course is now and should be able to be compared to other courses now not what could be.  As stated if the owner doesn't want a rating of the course in its current state don't open it up to panelists/raters.


Joe,

First of all I have met hundreds of raters in my travels and find them to be thoughtful and generous people.  I consider many my close friends and would love for them to see my new course as it evolves.  From what you say above I should expect them to give poor ratings for the first year or so until conditions are perfect.  Is that really fair to the owners and other members?  Until I feel the course has reached its maintenance potential should I insist that all my guests and friends disclose if they are a rater or not?  Should the members of the course who are raters, Golfweek allows members to rate courses where they are members, mark down the course during grow in to protect the public?  What do you suggest?

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2011, 02:41:02 PM »

I disagree with the stupid rater mentality.  I don't feel panelists/raters are stupid when they rate a course poorly in the courses early years or if they point out flaws.  Part of the rating is conditioning and memorability.  I'm not a rater/panelist but find rankings useful.  If the rater/panelist plays the course when it is being aerated they better give it a pass because they know the impact is only a few weeks but if they give the course a pass due to grow in conditions which I’ve heard can last in the period of years (what is the expected range for grow in?) I think they are doing a poor job.  The rating reflects what the course is now and should be able to be compared to other courses now not what could be.  As stated if the owner doesn't want a rating of the course in its current state don't open it up to panelists/raters.


Joe,

First of all I have met hundreds of raters in my travels and find them to be thoughtful and generous people.  I consider many my close friends and would love for them to see my new course as it evolves.  From what you say above I should expect them to give poor ratings for the first year or so until conditions are perfect.  Is that really fair to the owners and other members?  Until I feel the course has reached its maintenance potential should I insist that all my guests and friends disclose if they are a rater or not?  Should the members of the course who are raters, Golfweek allows members to rate courses where they are members, mark down the course during grow in to protect the public?  What do you suggest?

John-As far as the raters go I think it is important that they call em like they see em without a bunch of caveats. If ownership is concerned with grow in issues they have to decide what is potentially more important-cash flow or press.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2011, 02:54:48 PM »
If ratings are important, which I'd say they are particularly in the case of destination clubs, one shouldn't fling the doors open until the course is ready to withstand the traffic and the criticism.  Those who open the gates too early out of necessity get what they deserve, i.e. questions from raters and concern about the balance sheet from potential members...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2011, 02:57:43 PM »
I always liked the remark attributed to Tom Watson; " if a course has to be in great condition to be a great golf experience then the architecture isn't very good".  Surely those of us rating courses should be able to recognize "grow in" issues from underlying systemic condition problems.  At the same time a rater should be able to note that the course has not yet reached prime condition so that someone thinking about playing can evaluate whether it is the right time.  Interestingly enough, I doubt that anyone would approve of a rater downgrading the condition of a course just because they came to play right after an aeration yet I know of one course in Scottsdale that asked raters to stay away while they were aerating.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2011, 03:04:59 PM »
Alright I get it, you guys are joking with me.  You really had me going when you said that courses that let people play very early in the process get what they deserve.  Good one.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2011, 03:05:28 PM »
I always liked the remark attributed to Tom Watson; " if a course has to be in great condition to be a great golf experience then the architecture isn't very good".  Surely those of us rating courses should be able to recognize "grow in" issues from underlying systemic condition problems.  At the same time a rater should be able to note that the course has not yet reached prime condition so that someone thinking about playing can evaluate whether it is the right time.  Interestingly enough, I doubt that anyone would approve of a rater downgrading the condition of a course just because they came to play right after an aeration yet I know of one course in Scottsdale that asked raters to stay away while they were aerating.

Would the rater really wan`t to play right after aeration? Or for that matter does anyone really wan`t to play right after aeration?

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2011, 04:00:11 PM »
Tim,  Sometimes a person is travelling and would like to see a course.  Obviously, it won't be the same but we all have played under similar conditions and should be able to "figure it out".

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2011, 04:06:10 PM »
Oh look! Another anti-rater thread from John Kavanaugh...what has it been? 2 weeks?  ::)
H.P.S.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2011, 04:17:09 PM »
Oh look! Another anti-rater thread from John Kavanaugh...what has it been? 2 weeks?  ::)

I thought I was the one defending raters.

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2011, 04:59:06 PM »
Concur with what Tim said. 

Also I should have put this portion of the comment up earlier as I'm a complete novice, never played a course during its opening season so need some clarification on what exactly we are referring to with grow-in issues.  As I understand it we are talking primarily about issues due to erosion (depending on the weather it really could last years to resolve even with sound architecture) and then to a lesser extent placement and growth of landscaping plants and trees.  I've also read that bunkers may require an extended period of time to mature (not sure exactly what that means - is it edges, settling of sand or placement...).

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2011, 06:25:01 PM »

It is hard to overcome a bad first impression. It can take years.

Raters are human too and although they will say conditions do not matter, I don't believe it for a second. Conditions matter for everyone and a poorly conditioned course is just not much fun to play.

It is never a good idea to speed up grow-in in an attempt to get open. Short-term thinking leads to knee jerk decision making and that hardly ever works in golf course management. Good golfing turf takes some time to develop. I believe that is especially true when talking about grasses like fescue. What we love so much about a grass like that is also why it takes so long to grow in and to recover from damage. Force-feed fescue in an attempt to get open early and you are asking for trouble.

In the case of Dismal River, they already have an outstanding 18-hole golf course. The new course will only get better with age and I doubt there will be a huge push to open her up before she is ready. It will be worth the wait.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2011, 06:38:36 PM »
Here is a recent review of a course that opened too early.  The reviewer even says as much but still issues a death sentence.  I have deleted the names to protect the innocent.


Quote
I had an opportunity to play XXX last week in between my rounds at X and Y. I stayed away from this thread before the trip since I didn't want it to influence my review, but now that I have played it, I am ready to join the discussion.

I think XXX is bold, wild, and loads of fun. It has some really interesting and wild greens that make you go "Wow" when you look at it. The fairways are pretty wide, and have some interesting movements to them. And it is true that while there is distinct lack of greenside bunkers, I think the wild contours certainly more than make up for it in interest. There are some really fun par 4's like the punch bowl 17th which was a blast to play.

I really think this course shares the same DNA with Rustic Canyon with its really interesting greens and wide (flattish) fairways. I would have never guessed this is a ??? course if I didn't know it beforehand.

However, I cannot recommend anyone to visit this course right now. It is almost unplayable by mid to high handicappers.

And I am not talking about the spotty conditions. I couldn't care less about the bald spots and standing water. Stuff like that is going to happen with brand new courses. I thought the greens were in super condition overall and rolled very smooth and true. Conditioning is not the problem...

... in the fairway. But if you venture off the fairway, there are loads of problems. First, the fairway collars are cut at about 4 to 6 inch, and I fail to see why they need to be so long. Fairways are rolling pretty well, which means even good drives may roll off low spots and roll into the collars at which point they are hard to find and difficult to hit out of, which makes little sense to me.

This is doubly troubling as any ball off the fairway is an automatic lost ball. The "natives" around the fairways are about knee high and thick as anything you will ever see. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that you will find ANY ball if you don't hit the fairways. I know the fairways are pretty wild, but mid and high handicappers will still miss them, and when they do, they need not bother looking for the ball as it is impossible to find.

To put it another way, just replace the natives with water surrounding every fairway and those fairways are going to look pretty narrow even with their inherent width. But that is basically what you have at XXX.  You top a drive? Lost ball. You hit a slice? Lost ball. Missed the green on the wrong side? Lost ball. You rolled the ball 10 yards in front of you into a rough? Lost ball. You get the idea.

To make the experience even MORE painful, they have UGLY eyebrows on every bunker. I drove right down the middle on the 1st hole which hit the fairway bunker and rolled up to the eyebrows. Lost ball. I hit a couple of other side bunkers and failed to find them. Lost ball. Lost ball.

I played 27 holes and lost 18 balls (I was going to play 36, but ran out of balls). I know I am not the straightest driver around, but this was a brand new territory even for me. In comparison, I lost about 3 or 4 balls per round at X and 1 or 2 at Y.

Why they refuse to cut down the rough, I don't know. But I am guessing that they wanted to keep the slope and rating high enough to attract "good" golfers (especially with such wide fairways and large greens) and this was one way to artificially raise the slope. The receptionist at the clubhouse said they do plan to burn the natives during the off-season, but why they failed to do so before the opening is puzzling to me.

If you are the type who rarely miss fairways, you will probably do just fine like ?, but if you have any bend to your shots, you should just skip the course and save the headaches and your balls.

I don't think I will be making a trek back to XXX any time soon (if ever). I would much rather get extra rounds at A,B or C.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2011, 06:51:47 PM »

I disagree with the stupid rater mentality.  I don't feel panelists/raters are stupid when they rate a course poorly in the courses early years or if they point out flaws.  Part of the rating is conditioning and memorability.  I'm not a rater/panelist but find rankings useful.  If the rater/panelist plays the course when it is being aerated they better give it a pass because they know the impact is only a few weeks but if they give the course a pass due to grow in conditions which I’ve heard can last in the period of years (what is the expected range for grow in?) I think they are doing a poor job.  The rating reflects what the course is now and should be able to be compared to other courses now not what could be.  As stated if the owner doesn't want a rating of the course in its current state don't open it up to panelists/raters.


Joe,

First of all I have met hundreds of raters in my travels and find them to be thoughtful and generous people.  I consider many my close friends and would love for them to see my new course as it evolves.  From what you say above I should expect them to give poor ratings for the first year or so until conditions are perfect.  Is that really fair to the owners and other members?  Until I feel the course has reached its maintenance potential should I insist that all my guests and friends disclose if they are a rater or not?  Should the members of the course who are raters, Golfweek allows members to rate courses where they are members, mark down the course during grow in to protect the public?  What do you suggest?

John,

The decision to plant bentgrass greens should minimize some problems with young surfaces.  Seems to me bentgrass grows well there.  Is it possible to have the greens rolling around 9-10 for a few days in the second summer?  I would think that conservative.   Is it possible for a bentgrass green to fill in within 8-10 weeks?

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2011, 07:03:06 PM »
Here is a recent review of a course that opened too early.  The reviewer even says as much but still issues a death sentence.  I have deleted the names to protect the innocent.


Quote
I had an opportunity to play XXX last week in between my rounds at X and Y. I stayed away from this thread before the trip since I didn't want it to influence my review, but now that I have played it, I am ready to join the discussion.

I think XXX is bold, wild, and loads of fun. It has some really interesting and wild greens that make you go "Wow" when you look at it. The fairways are pretty wide, and have some interesting movements to them. And it is true that while there is distinct lack of greenside bunkers, I think the wild contours certainly more than make up for it in interest. There are some really fun par 4's like the punch bowl 17th which was a blast to play.

I really think this course shares the same DNA with Rustic Canyon with its really interesting greens and wide (flattish) fairways. I would have never guessed this is a ??? course if I didn't know it beforehand.

However, I cannot recommend anyone to visit this course right now. It is almost unplayable by mid to high handicappers.

And I am not talking about the spotty conditions. I couldn't care less about the bald spots and standing water. Stuff like that is going to happen with brand new courses. I thought the greens were in super condition overall and rolled very smooth and true. Conditioning is not the problem...

... in the fairway. But if you venture off the fairway, there are loads of problems. First, the fairway collars are cut at about 4 to 6 inch, and I fail to see why they need to be so long. Fairways are rolling pretty well, which means even good drives may roll off low spots and roll into the collars at which point they are hard to find and difficult to hit out of, which makes little sense to me.

This is doubly troubling as any ball off the fairway is an automatic lost ball. The "natives" around the fairways are about knee high and thick as anything you will ever see. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that you will find ANY ball if you don't hit the fairways. I know the fairways are pretty wild, but mid and high handicappers will still miss them, and when they do, they need not bother looking for the ball as it is impossible to find.

To put it another way, just replace the natives with water surrounding every fairway and those fairways are going to look pretty narrow even with their inherent width. But that is basically what you have at XXX.  You top a drive? Lost ball. You hit a slice? Lost ball. Missed the green on the wrong side? Lost ball. You rolled the ball 10 yards in front of you into a rough? Lost ball. You get the idea.

To make the experience even MORE painful, they have UGLY eyebrows on every bunker. I drove right down the middle on the 1st hole which hit the fairway bunker and rolled up to the eyebrows. Lost ball. I hit a couple of other side bunkers and failed to find them. Lost ball. Lost ball.

I played 27 holes and lost 18 balls (I was going to play 36, but ran out of balls). I know I am not the straightest driver around, but this was a brand new territory even for me. In comparison, I lost about 3 or 4 balls per round at X and 1 or 2 at Y.

Why they refuse to cut down the rough, I don't know. But I am guessing that they wanted to keep the slope and rating high enough to attract "good" golfers (especially with such wide fairways and large greens) and this was one way to artificially raise the slope. The receptionist at the clubhouse said they do plan to burn the natives during the off-season, but why they failed to do so before the opening is puzzling to me.

If you are the type who rarely miss fairways, you will probably do just fine like ?, but if you have any bend to your shots, you should just skip the course and save the headaches and your balls.

I don't think I will be making a trek back to XXX any time soon (if ever). I would much rather get extra rounds at A,B or C.


I had this experience (knee high native grasses right off the fairway) when I played Peacock Gap (San Rafael, CA) not longer after it opened after a remodel by Forrest Richardson.   It wasn't a big problem for me -- I may be short but I am pretty straight! -- but a couple of my playing partners spent a good part of the day out there looking for errant shots.

I learned the problem was that the native grasses couldn't be cut until they were thoroughly developed.  Early cutting would cause wholesale damage.   

So I guess that's a major issue during and shortly after grow in.   (I loved the terrifically interesting greens and still would have given the course a solid positive rating, were I a rater.)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finding Goldilocks
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2011, 07:15:52 PM »
Don

Yes, first impressions are important, but conditioning should be a secondary issue for ANY rater popping into town for a game unless they are exceptionally good or poor - by normal course standards - not high end country club standards.  The best courses I know of get away with average conditions and may in fact only shine very briefly each year.  For instance, my games at Formby three or so weeks ago will likely be the conditioning highlight of the year for me.  Does that mean I think the the course is any better than last year?  No, of course not unless I see it in superb condition for at least a few more visits and even then I would wonder about the weather VS green keeping changes.  I can put up with an awful lot in conditioning if the design is in some way superior, otherwise I wouldn't have been a member at Pennard for so many years.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back