[Steve Burrows]

Are there reasons for building average/mediocre golf courses?  ABSOLUTELY.  I would argue that, given the almost exponentially large number of factors that influence the financing, design, and construction of a new golf course - none of which are remotely guaranteed of working in harmony - it's a small wonder that good-to-great courses ever get built at all.  Not that anyone needs to just settle for an average/mediocre, but the expectation of a world-class facility for each new build is fallacy.  To borrow from Nietzsche:

"In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare." (Beyond Good and Evil)

[Gib_Papazian]

Jeff,

You certainly have a point that less can be more - it took quite a bit of courage for Bill and Ben to restore (not sure if that is the word) Pinehurst #2 by letting the groomed areas just sort of deconstruct at the fringes.

Neal is working on a project where we feel like it will be possible to eliminate 25% (or more) of the irrigated areas. This naturalistic aesthetic makes perfect sense given the cost savings.

One model I like to point to is Shinnecock Hills. If you have a look on Google, there are vast areas left to the whim of the weather - and nobody seems to think they ought to install wall-to-wall irrigation.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gib,

Ah yes, the California tax rebate driven turf reduction plan. We did that at La Costa, with Damian, and I have seen many other bids in CA for similar plans.

Somehow, I don't think that is what the thread is about, given the tastes of the folks around here, but I could be wrong.  To me, whoever said it costs the same to design and shape well as poorly has the gist of what it means.  I think I do that, and its hard to sell design differences in any sales situation.  Most club members/cities can't grasp the nuance I think people here are trying to get at.  They can grasp $XXX per acre for turf reduction, though.  I am not always sure that is good design. We get a lot of complaints from the old members about how hard we made the course.  I guess that is just golf in California moving forward.  Get better and get used to it......

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking (well, not actually thinking, more like typing is all): there are two approaches to keeping it simple, i.e.

You can either a) paint by numbers, or b) leave out the paint.

Leaving out the paint seems clear and simple enough for me, and much better than the alternative; you still get the numbers, but you allow the audience to participate by filling in the paint.

The trouble with most producers/clients is that they believe (though they'll say the opposite) that they're smarter than the audience  -- and that justifies them in demanding that all the paint gets filled.

(The truth, of course, is that it's the producers/clients themselves who don't get it. For the most part, they're idiots.)

[Kirk Gill]

Peter, an interesting and provocative topic.

From a design and construction point of view, I find myself agreeing with Peter's initial post. As an example I'll use a local golf course, Common Ground. Designed by Tom Doak, it is a course I find to be above-average (actually, I love it) that was built on a lackluster bit of ground.

What I'd be interested to know is, let's say the budget there was considerably larger. Would Tom Doak have built a "better" course? Would the routing have been different? Is it the talent of the designer and the dedication of the crew that makes it rise above the less-than-mediocre course that existed previously on that site? Or, if compared to the Pine Valleys and Cypress Points of the world, is it in fact a mediocre course that I'm over-rating because it exceeds my expectations?

[Mark_Fine]

Too many posts for me to read so this may have already been said, but just think if all the new courses opening today were like a Pine Valley or Oakmont, or Shinnecock Hills, or Sand Hills, or Merion, or Winged Foot, ...?  I think most of us would agree, these are all well above average/mediocre golf courses 

The problem is, if all the new ones were like those mentioned, participation in the game would be dropping even faster than it is today!  If I need to explain to anyone why, then you need to go out and play some public golf 

[Sean_A]

Too many posts for me to read so this may have already been said, but just think if all the new courses opening today were like a Pine Valley or Oakmont, or Shinnecock Hills, or Sand Hills, or Merion, or Winged Foot, ...?  I think most of us would agree, these are all well above average/mediocre golf courses 

The problem is, if all the new ones were like those mentioned, participation in the game would be dropping even faster than it is today!  If I need to explain to anyone why, then you need to go out and play some public golf 

I don't think anybody is suggesting the courses you mention are the bar for all courses...just that there is no excuse for a mediocre course. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Kirk - yours is a relevant question. My guess: no, Tom wouldn't have built a "better" course with a few million dollars more; but he would have created an "even better" course with a more interesting site to build on.
Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I know the Doak Scale doesn't exactly equate to poor, mediocre, good & great, but what number do you have in mind that an archie should be able to hit when designing any course practically anywhere?

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

A golf course needs to be built for nearer ONE million dollars, not millions. (UK figures - I accept Irrigation costs are $1M most places)

Rarely will they stack up as a business with multi million investment.

Obviously another reason why so many top enders go bust, they were too ambitious in their rounds estimate and can't service the debt/keep the course in good order.

[Colin Macqueen]

Sean, I cannot speak for Peter.

However in The Confidential Guide the Ashludie Course, a Braid, at Monifieth scored a 3.

Now I reckon I could go back and play that course and be quite content with the golf it provides. Admittedly a tad short at 5000yards but a lot of fun especially if you are a novice, a mid-handicapper or getting on in years!!  Parsimonious but very good fun.  I reckon Burnside cheek by jowl with Carnoustie would also fit  PP's stipulations.

Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

Col

Its hard to say if better than mediocre is playing a course a large handful of times a year or just maybe once a year.  Perhaps the Doak Scale doesn't work very well in this case, but I was thinking 4-5.  I was also thinking maybe my small r recomemndation "a good fall back on course if nearby" may be a decent barometer, but then I am happy to play some courses again and again which I wouldn't recommend others play.  This is a deal which likely is similar to all golf...to each is own. 

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

Peter,

This is a great topic! I agree with you that there is no excuse for building a mediocre golf course. The cost to build 3 acres of interesting greens (including the bunkers which are a part of the green) is not substantially more than the cost to build 3 acres of boring greens.

Garden City Golf Club demonstrates that you can have great holes with the tees built near grade.

Hazards through the green do not necessarily require major grading to have strategic merit.

Cart paths can be done in gravel.

The rough doesn't need to be irrigated if you have the right species in your mix.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, Colin - I was thinking about this. And as Sean says, I'm not sure Tom's scale 'fits' this - in part because my contention is that today there is no excuse for building an average/mediocre course. But, as Sean also suggests, I think the 5 is what I'm thinking of.  You can play it every day with pleasure, because the 'whole' works very well.

Peter

Bradley - thanks, that gets to the heart of it. Again, I think it was Ally early on who noted (and then Jeff B suggested the same thing) that it doesn't take any more money or quality sites or even better clients to shape interesting greens rather than boring ones, and hazards -- if they are to designed/built at all -- don't cost anymore to put in relevant and engaging spots rather than a banal ones.  

[Jud_T]

3 is by definition about the average golf course in the world.  If one assumes a normal bell curve distribution of golf courses, you are saying that there's no excuse for roughly two thirds of all the golf courses in the world.

[Jon Wiggett]

A golf course needs to be built for nearer ONE million dollars, not millions. (UK figures - I accept Irrigation costs are $1M most places)

Rarely will they stack up as a business with multi million investment.

Obviously another reason why so many top enders go bust, they were too ambitious in their rounds estimate and can't service the debt/keep the course in good order.

+1

[Sean_A]

3 is by definition about the average golf course in the world.  If one assumes a normal bell curve distribution of golf courses, you are saying that there's no excuse for roughly two thirds of all the golf courses in the world.

Jud, when you put it that way...it sounds a bit harsh.  But when you consider that the no excuse proposition only really matters for wing nuts, are one third of the world's courses really worth the time to play 

Ciao

[Tom Kelly]

3 is by definition about the average golf course in the world.  If one assumes a normal bell curve distribution of golf courses, you are saying that there's no excuse for roughly two thirds of all the golf courses in the world.

From the courses I see I would have to say this is about right, so many could be better with a few small tweaks here and there.

BUT......when most of them were built on the poor sites they are on, moving more earth to create the interesting features and improving drainage etc wasn't quite as straight forward as it is now. I know moving earth with machines...blasphemy.

So those old courses have an excuse but work done now, lots of it renovations on said courses doesn't have an excuse in my opinion.

[BCowan]

What is really missing on here is a course like Sweetens Cove.  Build on Clay and flat land.  Money was spent on Sand Capping, which also created movement in the land, which was i think done with earth moving machines.  They decided to spend money on the Drainage vs an ass trap clubhouse.  As Arble noted before (a joke) in the past about using TNT to create movement on flat land.  It is really easy to be a minimalist on land like Kingsley.  Creating great courses on flat land like Collins did at Sweetens is a great skill.  There is so much in the design that you really forget that the land is flat.   The difference is that there are talented archies that can make the most out of flat land without it looking faux and tacky.  So it comes down to priorities in spending money.  Many Doak 3's could be 5's and 6's.  The problem i see is not enough small groups of people who LOVE golf funding courses.  The RE quick buck mentality didn't help the situation.  Using clubs like GCGC and Seminole aren't a good barometer to use, for they don't represent the majority of golf in the US, like Sweetens does.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()