[John Kirk]

I.   Introduction

The idea came during a long phone conversation with Jim Colton, and is inspired by Don Mahaffey’s thread “Do We Really Know What Golfers Want?”  I will start with the hypothesis that golfers are not different than other consumers.   Let’s take food as an example.  The guy who eats McDonald’s hamburgers once a week, but then goes across the street and tries an In ‘N Out burger one day, changes his loyalty because (many would argue) In ‘N Out makes tastier burgers.  Five Guys is another modern burger franchise taking market share in this segment.  That’s how big changes are made in corporate American industry.

Are golf courses different?  Like other industries, golfers will enjoy a superior product once it is presented to them.  Invent and produce a superior, sustainable golf course product, and take market share away from others.   I present my idea to commoditize American golf with a superior product, using the expertise and hopefully the labor of the GolfClubAtlas group.

I also point out that this idea is the antithesis of Ian Andrew’s fine post on the future of golf design creativity.

II.   Mission Statement

Build (25-100?) low cost, sustainable golf courses across the United States, using state of the art design and maintenance concepts, and homogenous “template” hole designs.

III.   Target Market

     A.  Lower-middle to upper-middle income golfers, willing to pay $30-70 per round of golf.
     B.  A secondary market exists for golf architecture enthusiasts who travel to see the various interpretations of the template designs.

IV.   Design Concepts

     A.  Easily walkable, with short green to tee walks.  Not too hilly.
     B.  Designed for fast play.
     C.  No artificial water hazards.  Natural tributaries, as always, are great.
     D.  No two courses exactly the same, each with a different complement of templates.
     E.  The courses shall be of medium difficulty:
          a.  Greens sloped just enough to encourage strategic play.
          b.  Sand bunkers of modest depth and difficulty.
          c.  A modest number of bunkers, all strategic in nature.
          d.  Medium-wide fairways, one cut of 1-2” rough.
          e.  The course slope should be about 125-130.
     F.  Hearty grass mixes selected for best health, depending on region.
          a.  Firm and fast, if possible.
          b.  Minimize water usage.
     G.  State-of-the-art irrigation and drainage engineering.
     H.  Modest low-cost structures for pro/coffee shop, maintenance shed.
          a.  Rustic Canyon is a good example.
     I.  Course maintenance budget in the $250-500k range, depending on location.

V.   Implementation
 
     A.  Form a working group of golf industry professionals.
          a.  All disciplines: design, construction, agronomy, financial.
          b.  Utilize the expertise and labor of GolfClubAtlas members and contributors.  Let’s get our guys busy and working.
     B.  Conduct several meetings to develop an overall business plan and rollout strategy.
          a.  Determine the 25-35 template designs to be implemented.
                i.  Not all classic templates, as implemented by Macdonald, Raynor, Doak/Urbina, and others, should be used.  In my opinion, the classic templates are a subset of the best strategic designs.  For instance, I like Sand Hills #8, the Lion’s Mouth.  I like Ballyneal #7, the “E” Green.  The strategy is to pick 25-35 templates, good, fun designs, where a famous example can be cited, and make medium difficult versions, over and over.  Give each architect within the firm a number of choices when scouting out a new site.  Make each version recognizable but different than the others.
     C.  Seek funding for the project.
          a.  Venture capitalist.
          b.  Individual municipalities.
          c.  National public works project.
     D.  Implement strategy.  Select sites based on:
          a.  Need for high quality low-cost golf.
          b.  Few environmental restrictions.  Rebuilding old golf course sites might be effective.

VI.   Benefits
 
     A.  Provide a superior product for middle-income golfers.
     B.     Develop awareness and appreciation of:
          a.  Strategic design.
          b.  Classic golf hole designs at the world’s great golf courses.
          c.  Fast play.
          d.  Low maintenance and low cost.
          e.  Firm and fast agronomics.
     C.  Develop a kinship and network with other template courses.
          a.  Collectors travel to see different templates, belt-notching.
          b.  Encourages out-of-town play over other public choices in town.
     D.  A nationalized network of similar products will help marketing efforts.
     E.  Gets our GCA professionals busy working and motivated for a few years in a difficult economic environment.

VII.   Drawbacks

     A.  Saturated golf course market.
          a.  The courses must be significantly better and cost competitive with other local courses.
          b.  Some difficulty convincing customers to change allegiances.
          c.  Animosity from:
               i.  Other courses.
               ii.  Municipalities.
               iii.  Environmentalists who hate golf courses.

VIII.   Conclusion

I see no reason why golf course development is substantially different from other industries.  Big corporations dominate by delivering the best product for the money.  If a target market of American golfing society is not served, why wouldn’t a corporate approach be suitable?  In my opinion, the low cost, low maintenance, low (water and fertilizer) input golf course is the great frontier of development.  Over the next fifty years, I predict that the cost of water, fertilizer, and diesel fuel will rise, making sustainable golf precious and valuable.  A template design approach also makes it fun and educational.  These thoughts may be offensive to the great architects who create the most exhilarating golf, but serious consideration should be given to a high quality, “homogenous” product for the average golfer.

[Jim Colton]

John,

  You might have lost some credibility mentioning me in the first sentence, but I like the idea. Perhaps there's an opportunity to reconstitute some existing courses in larger markets, a la Common Ground?

[Tom_Doak]

The land deals will kill you.

And, I'll sue you if you use the "E" green.    Just for fun; I've never sued anyone before!

But this has always been my fear over the love of Raynor.  I said years ago that I could build that stuff in my sleep.  So could someone else!

[Bill_McBride]

The availability of 150-200 acre tracts of land of decent topography in areas of population density will be a major problem, particularly at a low enough price point to achieve the desired green fee structure.

There may be enough NLE courses that banks are dying to unload that many could be rebuilt in this Captain Kirk model at reasonable cost.

I love the idea in general!

[John Kirk]

I'm trying to contribute something provocative and different.  It's hard to do.  We've all studied golf courses for so long.  About once a year I think of something I think is worthwhile.

Tom, maybe you can patent the "E" green, thus leaving other architects to build only "F" and "R" greens.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm trying to contribute something provocative and different.  It's hard to do.  We've all studied golf courses for so long.  About once a year I think up something worthwhile.

I do think it is a good idea, and worthy of discussion.

Tom, maybe you can patent the "E" green, thus leaving other architects to build only "F" and "R" greens.

What would you call the 12th green at Ballyneal, my personal favorite?  The "Green 'O Cross?"

[John Kirk]

I like Ballyneal #12 a bit more than #7, too, and thought about what I might call it.  Even though the green actually has three discrete sections (left trough, back right and front right bowls), it feels more like four sections.  The hole is perhaps too complex to make a template.

[Jason Topp]

While not exactly the same thing, I believe many public designs from the 60's were a version of this.  I have played several of them and they generally have the following features:

1.  Big Greens
2.  Fairly wide fairways
3.  7000 yards from the tips
4.  Long par 3's (presumably to get to 7000 yards)
5.  A lot of par fours close to 400 yards in length with a shorter hole mixed in on each nine
6.  Short par 5's
7.  Difficult to lose a ball (presumably for pace of play)
8.  some combination of a 5-3-4 finish.

Examples I have seen include Papago and Randolph North in Arizona; Jester Park, Finkbine and Spencer G&CC in Iowa; and Bunker Hills in Minnesota.  From the Hogan v. Snead video from Shell's Wonderful World of Golf it looks like Houston Country Club was built along the same lines.  I supect there are similar examples in many other locations. 

The courses are not gems but they are enjoyable to play and affordable.  It is interesting to see how the same concepts have been applied in different settings. 

[Jason Topp]

...

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

I would suggest that your concept is only realisable by an individual maverick. A larger organisation will never keep the initial costs of build and maintenance low enough. Maybe a franchise system of collective advertising and finance in exchange for a cut of the turnover might work but you would need most things to be spot on and more importantly the right people bloody minded enough to make it work.

As for the course. Very simple, no rough, big greens, closed off season and not to long 4500 front tees to 6400ish back tees.

Jon

[Jim Colton]

I'd like to see a robust junior golf program embedded as part of this. Perhaps add a caddy program that probably doesn't pay that well but offers scholarship opportunities and free golf during off-peak times.

[Kyle Henderson]

Common Ground was the first course that came ot my mind as well (though I haven't actually seen it with my own eyes yet).

I think that CG probably represents a more feasible business plan: renovations. Let's turn the concept into a franchise organization.

Taking the principles Capt Kirk established above but applying them to course renovations, rather than building entirely new courses, seems more practical to me. Using existing courses could circumvent many ofthe administrative/financial hurdles  (environmental impacts reports, approvals, etc) and limit the oversaturation of existing golf markets (since were replacing an existing pcompetitor). Better yet, the GCA Corp. could allow the existing owners continue to run their renovated courses under an agreement that requires them to pay a yearly franchise fees long after the renovation work (separate fee) is completed.

[Don_Mahaffey]

John:
Like others have said, buying the land kills you, but snapping up closed down courses that are already zoned and often have water rights...that's your ticket...as long as you have a real good answer about why they closed in the first place.


Your use of the phrase "state of the art" scares me. Just last week I was reading in an industry trade mag that a "basic" irrigation system starts at around $2M, which was news to me as the last two I've been a part of were less then $1M.  Just keep in mind that the head of Pinehurst maintenance was told he set irrigation design back 40 years by reducing the number of heads on #2.

To borrow a line from Moneyball “I believe there is epidemic failure within our game to understand what is really happening”. If you try and do things as they have always been done, you’ll get killed. I realize what you are proposing is a bit different, but bringing in pre conceived ideas about template holes…I don’t know about that. I think an intelligent designer can find holes that give the player the same feelings without going all the way to the template level.
Closing with another line from the same movie “Baseball thinking is medieval. They are all asking the wrong questions. And if I say it to anybody, I’m ostracized, I’m a leper”   For your idea to be a success you’ll need to bring in some lepers. They’re out there, a few even close to the mainstream; just make sure you throw out the first guy who uses the words “industry standard”.

[Mike_Young]

John,
I have been working off of your basics ( except did not consult with GCAtlas) for years.  And recently have bought some so that I would have a revenue source as design dried up.  The problem I see is that I can buy golf courses with club houses and equipment for well south of one mill and there is no way anyone can build for that.  But I think you have the right concept.  "Sell to the masses, live with the classes" is the motto of McDonalds owners.

[John Kirk]

Your repeated use of the word "state of the art" scares me. Just last week I was reading in an industry trade mag that a "basic" irrigation system starts at around $2M, which was news to me as the last two I've been a part of were less then $1M and the two designs I have on my desk right now are both a bit over $1M and that's only because of rock in the soil. I consider these designs to be very much state of the art in that they are durable (HDPE), high quality components, single head computerized control, and maintainable with a modest budget. Whose "state of the art" you use will be a huge decider in how well your business idea turns theory into a positive reality. Just keep in mind that the head of Pinehurst maintenance was told he set irrigation design back 40 years by reducing the number of heads on #2.

To borrow a line from Moneyball “I believe there is epidemic failure within our game to understand what is really happening”. If you try and do things as they have always been done, you’ll get killed. I realize what you are proposing is a bit different, but bringing in pre conceived ideas about template holes…I don’t know about that. I think an intelligent designer can find holes that give the player the same feelings without going all the way to the template level.

Closing with another line from the same movie “Baseball thinking is medieval. They are all asking the wrong questions. And if I say it to anybody, I’m ostracized, I’m a leper”   For your idea to be a success you’ll need to bring in some lepers. They’re out there, a few even close to the mainstream; just make sure you throw out the first guy who uses the words “industry standard”.

In short, I agree.

When I say "state of the art" irrigation, I mean modern, efficent and cost effective, and not "most versatile".  There must be a law of diminishing returns on irrigation, where a $2M system is only 10-20% more versatile or accurate than a $1M system, if that.  I'm just guessing here, by the way.  Is that right?  Maybe they are no better.

I have no intention of implementing this or any business strategy for golf courses.  I received an IM from somebody who thought I was actually thinking of getting involved.  My goal is to look at building and renovating golf courses from a different viewpoint, and provoke conversation.

I agree that building templates is not required.  In the case where multiple courses were built, it might develop a cult following, but it would be less interesting for the architects and developers.

Building $10-20 million golf courses is bad business.  Besides, the luxury golf segment is saturated with golf courses, therefore the biggest frontier for development should be catering to the middle to lower income golfer.  With modern technology and understanding, it's possible to build a good golf course, with out buildings, for $3-5 million.  Isn't that possible?

Moneyball is the best.  I saw it with my wife.  About halfway through the movie, we looked at each other in unspoken language that said, "Can you believe what we're seeing?"  I'm a lifelong baseball stats geek, and general social leper, especially at the local country club!

At some level, that's what Golf Club Atlas is, a group of industry lepers, willing to think outside the box, supported by their devoted leper fans.  Moneyball architecture.  The general sentiment here is that great golf does not cost a lot to build or maintain.

This is just an idea, an attempt to brainstorm on business ideas.  I haven't done any market research, but I'm pretty sure a good, low cost neighborhood golf course is a winning business strategy for the future of golf.   A recent problem has been the foolish largesse of individual and municipal financiers, who see golf as a status symbol, rather than exercise and a challenging game.  The sensible financiers should be right around the corner.  

[John Kirk]

John,
I have been working off of your basics ( except did not consult with GCAtlas) for years.  And recently have bought some so that I would have a revenue source as design dried up.  The problem I see is that I can buy golf courses with club houses and equipment for well south of one mill and there is no way anyone can build for that.  But I think you have the right concept.  "Sell to the masses, live with the classes" is the motto of McDonalds owners.

Yes, that's the current problem, and perhaps the near-term business prospects for developers are mostly renovations of courses and their infrastructure.

It's hard to overestimate the real estate building boom and bubble's impact on your industry.  I can't imagine anything more disruptive or demoralizing.

[Ronald Montesano]

Could you utilize already-built courses and redesign over them?

[Mike_Young]

I look at it as more opportunity than before.  Guys now realize where they were bullshitted and will not go that route again but if one can allow one's self to break away from just the Golf Architect stigma and use what he should have developed he can do ok right now....the golf business is full of deals...
But just like little johnny:
I like the way you are thinking
An elementary school math teacher asked her class one day, "If there are three birds on a wire, and a farmer shot one, how many are left?"

One little boy said two, but little Sally, realizing it was a trick question, said, "None, 'cause everyone knows that if you shoot at birds they all fly away." The teacher congratulates her on her correct answer.

Little Johnny, however, disagreed. He said, "No, there would be one -- the one that the farmer shot."

The teacher replied, "No, Johnny, you're wrong, but I like the way you think."

"OK, teacher, I have a riddle for you," boasted Johnny. "Let's say three women are at a bar and they each order a single scoop ice cream cone. The first one eats it by gently licking it around the edges, the second slowly sucks the ice cream off the cone from the top, and the third gobbles the top and then sucks the rest out of the cone. Which one is married?"

After a few seconds of contemplation, the teacher replied, "Well, I think it must be the third, the one that gobbles the top and sucks out the inside."

Johnny responded, "No, teacher, you're wrong -- it's the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way you think."

[Tim Pitner]

Common Ground was the first course that came ot my mind as well (though I haven't actually seen it with my own eyes yet).

Commonground is my home course and it's also what came to my mind upon reading this.  It's not a template course, although Tom Doak has cited Chicago Golf as an inspiration. 

[Josh Tarble]

This is probably going to seem blasphemous but isn't that what Trump is doing only on the extreme other end?  Giving the super wealthy  a bunch of similar course to play where-ever they go.

I've always thought some sort of national program would do great.  Players would have the option to play a course they know will be maintained and designed to their standards wherever they go. 

[Bill_McBride]

I like Ballyneal #12 a bit more than #7, too, and thought about what I might call it.  Even though the green actually has three discrete sections (left trough, back right and front right bowls), it feels more like four sections.  The hole is perhaps too complex to make a template.

I agree about the lovely complexity, that green is a one off.

[Adam Clayman]

Sounds like a good plan for whatever they are going to call the new WPA. Land costs won't be an issue, they can just re-distribute it for the greater good.

Plus, with all those people out of work, they might as well golf. Golf Stamps for those of the 25.3 million golfers who need them.

I'm hopeful today's political posturing was just that. Because Friday (and beyond) could get ugly if The President was serious.

[Kyle Henderson]

This is probably going to seem blasphemous but isn't that what Trump is doing only on the extreme other end?  Giving the super wealthy  a bunch of similar course to play where-ever they go.

I've always thought some sort of national program would do great.  Players would have the option to play a course they know will be maintained and designed to their standards wherever they go. 

I cut a similar passage out of my post above, but I had the same thought -- not just Trump, but also the TPC network, The Cliffs, etc. etc. have a similar approach. But, as stated by Sir Kirk, the model is being applied here to providing a cheaper product to golfers from lower income brackets.

If nothing else, my travels have convince me that golf is an industry where quality and costs are frequently mismatched.

[Shane Wright]

 John,

Interesting discussion, thank you.  

I think one important part of this plan would be the analysis in determining potential underserved markets.  Clearly most of the country has been saturated. But I think there may still be some out there....maybe possibly piggybacking with some universities.

Also, would it be cost efficient and appealing to build a course with little to no bunkering.  Quality shaping and interesting green surrounds could possibly make up the difference.  How much could a project save by doing little bunkering, both during construction and operations post completion.  I doubt the average golfer (16 handicapper) will complain too much about not having bunkering.    Curious on experts thoughts?

An outside the box junior program is a necessity.  That is the only way this works long term.  

Shane

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

In short, I agree.



I have no intention of implementing this or any business strategy for golf courses.  I received an IM from somebody who thought I was actually thinking of getting involved.  My goal is to look at building and renovating golf courses from a different viewpoint, and provoke conversation.

I agree that building templates is not required.  In the case where multiple courses were built, it might develop a cult following, but it would be less interesting for the architects and developers....

This is just an idea, an attempt to brainstorm on business ideas.  I haven't done any market research, but I'm pretty sure a good, low cost neighborhood golf course is a winning business strategy for the future of golf.   A recent problem has been the foolish largesse of individual and municipal financiers, who see golf as a status symbol, rather than exercise and a challenging game.  The sensible financiers should be right around the corner.  

John,
I understand its all hypothetical...pretty much like most everything else here.

Hypothetically speaking...While I like your basic idea (have you been hacking my emails ), I would be very careful about appearing to dumb down. That's what has always been done at the low end. We want them talking, thinking, and contemplating the architecture. The focus on the low end has always been about conditions, but if you can make it about the architecture, then while the conditions will still matter (they ALWAYS do) you can get away with just a little less manicuring (saving big $$$). I believe that to get them thinking about the architecture, you've got to get a little in their face, you've got to make them navigate it, make them experience it, sometimes in a harsh, but not penal (no lost balls) manner. I know everyone in the business thinks that's a losing proposition, but done right, it can still be very playable, and very fun.  I don't think you want them talking about McDonald, Mackienzie, or Ross; Sand Hills, Ballyneal, or Pebble Beach, I think you want them talking about your own unique brand of fun, adventurous golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()