Should we want courses to restrict play?

[Jay Cox]

On the Yale thread, several people made comments suggesting that Yale allows too much play, to the detriment of course presentation and maintenance. 

I'd always had the view that people who care about architecture should want great courses to be as accessible as possible - that the best way to promote golf, to encourage great design, and to support the preservation of classic courses is to avoid a situation in which most golfers don't regularly see great architecture. 

Of course, I understand why members might reasonably want to minimize play on their course.  But I was surprised to see people whose main interest is in the broader preservation and appreciation of a golf course criticizing the course for allowing too much play (at least for a reason unrelated to pace of play). 

Am I missing the boat?

[Connor Dougherty]

Jay,
I completely agree. I had to go and read through the Yale thread to see what we were talking about. And certainly, there are things that need to be restored, and politics are obviously not good. But talk that they should significantly limit play is disheartening. There are many members of this site who are privileged enough to get access to a myriad of terrific golf courses. I'm so incredibly grateful that I've had the privilege of seeing some remarkable places, and getting through the gates of clubs that I tell my friends about, knowing all too well that there is very little chance that they will get to go themselves. It makes places like Yale, or Rustic Canyon, or Bethpage Black, so important for the game of golf. Maybe limit a bit more how many outside tee times can come through, but ridding of it entirely would be a significant tragedy.

[Benjamin Litman]

IF there were proof that, as Jim first suggested in the Yale thread, the number of rounds at Yale were a factor in its conditioning (let's be clear: the conditioning at Yale since Scott Ramsay took over in 2003 has been great), perhaps we could have a legitimate conversation (although I'd likely still side with Jay and Connor in favor of access). But I haven't seen or heard of any such proof. The overriding factor in conditioning seems to be about $ and care by the superintendent.

[Joe Hancock]

Is it possible that the question really is one of whether some golf course designs don't accommodate heavy rounds of play?

Yours is a good question, regardless.

Joe

[Jim Hoak]

Jay and Connor--No one is talking about "significantly" reducing play on the Yale course.  And no one is advocating denying access to people.  But last time I checked (and it's been a while so it could have changed), there were 35,000 rounds on the Yale course--over a 7 month or so season.  Absurd.
Certainly the course owned by the University should be open to all students and employees of Yale--at a very reduced fee.  But (again last time I checked), the course sold annual memberships at a very low price to people around New Haven with no affiliation to the school.  Maybe play--and wear and tear on the course--could be lessened by an increase in this fee.  And, who knows. maybe it would actually help the financial status of the course?  Maybe someone in the economics department could opine on that?
I hope that the Yale golf coach, Colin Sheehan, would enter into this discussion.  Colin is terrific--and knows a lot more than I about the Yale course.

[Benjamin Litman]

Jim: Do you have proof that the number of rounds has made the course's condition worse? And is it, in fact, worse? Vis-a-vis what year? To me, it's gotten better and better over the last decade. It would be interesting to know if the number of annual rounds has changed substantially since 2003, when Scott Ramsay took over.

[Terry Lavin]

35,000 rounds will surely affect conditioning, especially in a shortened season climate. Having said that, a public golf course is not a sanctuary, or a museum, so I would not be in favor of curtailing play significantly out of concern for architectural niceties. The argument would falter if we were talking a private course, but I'd say let em play and chop away on a public course. It's dirt, grass and sand, after all. The damage can be repaired.

[Jim Hoak]

I knew I was opening a hornet's nest when I mentioned restricting play a bit on the Yale course for non-university people.  I may well be wrong that overplay on the course has hurt conditioning.   But my observation was the last time I played that the course was in pitiful overall shape.  I don't mean just the grass--but also the condition of the bunkers, the quality of the greens, etc.  But I'm comparing it to many years ago--not the last few years only.
Certainly, I understand that non-Yale people like a low fee to play a great course, but I was struck by the 35,000 rounds number on a course only playable for a part of the year.  I'm not surprised that people would object to my observation.  Maybe someone without an axe to grind could tell me I'm wrong on the 35,000 rounds number.
In any case, I think we can all agree that the Yale course has suffered with the politics of Yale--and with the belief that a golf course is unimportant compared to the academic departments.  As someone observed, the Yale endowment is not going for athletic facilities.  Sad but true.
Most importantly, to lose to Dartmouth--and then Harvard today--in basketball and miss the NCAA tournament shows that Yale has a lot to do to restore its athletic excellence, not only its golf course!

[Jim Hoak]

35,000 rounds will surely affect conditioning, especially in a shortened season climate. Having said that, a public golf course is not a sanctuary, or a museum, so I would not be in favor of curtailing play significantly out of concern for architectural niceties. The argument would falter if we were talking a private course, but I'd say let em play and chop away on a public course. It's dirt, grass and sand, after all. The damage can be repaired.

Terry, calling the Yale course a "public course" gets to the heart of the matter.  It's only public because the University doesn't manage it well.  I'm all in favor of allowing open play on the Yale course, but I don't believe there has been any study of the benefits of charging higher fees for that non-University play.  At least there had not been a few years ago.  Using the free market through higher fees to reduce overplay might make sense--and actually make the course more economically viable.  I certainly understand why people who are currently paying a very low fee might object.
What do other University courses do? 

[Jay Cox]

It's only public because the University doesn't manage it well. 

Jim, I think your last post gets to the heart of my question.

It's fair to assume that more play impacts conditioning.  I don't know the details of Yale's economic model, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that Yale could achieve better conditioning without hurting its bottom line by increasing fees.

The question is whether not doing so is poor management.  A membership reasonably could make the call that it would like to trade higher fees for more open tee sheets and better conditioning.  Most memberships at great private clubs have made that call.  But I don't see why it isn't better for golf - and for the community of people that care about golf course architecture - to have another true marvel of architecture that is accessible, both to folks associated with the university and to the public.  

And a university managing a great golf course has much more leeway in that regard than most private clubs do.

[Wade Whitehead]

But a course is imagined and built to be played, isn't it?  Designing any layout, then restricting play to protect, may protect architecture, but it isn't golf.

WW

[Jud_T]

Wade,

Then by extension any private course with a limited membership and a waitlist isn't golf?

[Jim Hoak]

And Pebble Beach isn't golf because the fee is too high?

[Josh Stevens]

What are the grasses up in the north and how do they handle traffic?

Do cool season grasses not respond as well.

[Mike_Young]

This is really a golf spanker topic..come on...kidding???..go up to an owner that has had 150 players in the last month due to weather and ask them to limit play on their course and you might get shot.....we freak out over golf participation one minute and the next we want to limit it....

[Wade Whitehead]

I was trying to say that a golf course, no matter how good, is built to be played.

Didn't make that point effectively and may not have just now.

WW

[John Kavanaugh]

There is no good reason for any golfer to play more than three courses in their lives. Golf would be much healthier if we all played the same number of rounds on fewer courses. I don't want to restrict rounds but would love to restrict access.

[Josh Stevens]

I'm told Royal Sydney sees in excess of 60,000 rounds a year.  That's very busy, but with Bermuda fairways on a sand base in a sub tropical climate with mild winters, it is able to withstand that and seems to be in decent condition most of the time.  Courses in Melbourne would struggle with that as the longer dormancy period over winter would create problems.  I'm guessing that northern US courses with fescues and other less pervasive cooler climate grasses would also not cope.

How many rounds do they squeeze onto TOC per year and does the width of that course make a difference in spreading the wear and tear

What is the number that Yale for example could withstand, and what is the damage that is being seen as a result.

[BHoover]

There is no good reason for any golfer to play more than three courses in their lives. Golf would be much healthier if we all played the same number of rounds on fewer courses. I don't want to restrict rounds but would love to restrict access.

If only you set the rules, life would be so much better! Just curious, why three?

[Dave Doxey]

Restoration (and maintenance) requires money.  Play = money.  I would see the solution to be raising rates to generate more income, and using that to fund restoration. 

Being a school course, rates obviously need to remain affordable for students, but there is no reason for non-students to pay low rates for a great course.  Just having access is a gift in itself. 

Most important is avoiding the urge to direct the added revenue to uses other than restoration.

[John Kavanaugh]

A course to learn the game on, a course to raise your children on and a course to play out your life on.

[BHoover]

A course to learn the game on, a course to raise your children on and a course to play out your life on.

I'll concede that it makes sense. But a couple of questions come to mind: What if you don't have children, or they have no interest in playing the game? Would special dispensation be made in that case, or are you then limited to only two courses? How would you enforce restricting access to three courses? Is this applied on a going-forward basis? Is it applied retroactively? If the latter, what is the penalty for having exceeded the three-course limit?

[John Kavanaugh]

There is no enforcement or penalties because golfers in my utopian vision are once again honorable men. My point is simply that clubs need members more than they need visitors. Golfers loyal to a club improve every aspect of that club. To put it in lay men's terms, a man treats his wife with more respect than a john treats a prostitute. ie: Repair your ball marks. 

[BHoover]

There is no enforcement or penalties because golfers in my utopian vision are once again honorable men. My point is simply that clubs need members more than they need visitors. Golfers loyal to a club improve every aspect of that club. To put it in lay men's terms, a man treats his wife with more respect than a john treats a prostitute. ie: Repair your ball marks. 

My mistake. I was hoping you were proposing a new version of golf authoritarianism that would save us all. Regrettably, this is nothing but the musings of utopian hippie theory.

[John Kavanaugh]

No single factor has been more responsible for the building and success of the great courses in this country than restricted play.