What The Devil Is Going On With Modern Inland GB&I Courses?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I just don't think you can significantly drain some golf courses that they replicate the links courses. Installing drainage at 20 metre centres, 10 metres , 5 metre centres will make things better but the soil is still the conductor and if that has clay particles within it will inhibit the water movement.


At a cost you could replace the topsoil with an 80-20 Sand Soil mixture, but realistically it is a stupid move.


Golf courses moved inland to satisfy demand. Many golfers would give up or play less if the golf course was not convienent, so whilst Melvyn is right in as much as the land was not fit for purpose market demand has superceeded. Some places are 50 miles from the good golfing soils.


You can make things better by drainage but when you have winter rainfall in the UK it will always be on a scale of damp to bog if you are not on a naturally sandy soil.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian's members are never going to fully appreciate his best work. It's just not his market. The people who like bucket and spade golf courses are no more likely to appreciate Swinley Forest than the members at Swinley are likely to wax lyrical about a weekend at the Belfry. Horses for courses and all that. Adrian's members are buying a 'pile it high' product every six minutes. Profit lies in mass consumption, meaning overheads might be relatively high but, hopefully, enough come throw the gates to turn a profit. It works, financially at least, when there's a boom period.
 
Most people, but not all, like what they're told to like. Don't believe me? Think that's an arrogant statement? Then explain again how advertising works.
 
It's funny that Sean mentioned Leckford because I recall saying to him at Leckford that it was exactly the sort of place which I wish was build when demand boomed in the 80's and 90's. How different things could have been, how much more sustainable, if prudence and design integrity had led the way. Alas not.
 
What happened instead was the emperor's new clothes were produced on mass and you need a lot of advertising to convince people that's what they want to wear. The net result now then is a golfing populous conditioned to think that an open field with a few subtle contours and the odd bunker is low class while "7,000 yards, water on no fewer than 12 holes and over 200 bunkers" is a sign of high class. Class REALLY matters to golfers.
 
That's what did happen, and still is to a certain extent, but the bigger question is why it happened as it did.
 
I'd suggest the biggest reason is the path of least resistance. Competition was rife and the profit motive big. Subtle was never going to be an easy sell. It never is. What you needed, in the sort term at least, was something which could immediately grab people's attention, particularly new golfers who didn't have any great knowledge of what they were looking at. You couldn't sell great architecture to people who were architecturally blind. I give you sand and water.....and sapling trees (my resounding memory of junior golf is playing young courses with free drops away from staked trees). 
 
Secondly, we just didn't have any Tom Doak's who were happy to put artistic integrity ahead of the immediate profit motive. There was no one with exceptional talent prepared to p!ss into the wind and be laughed at by the new 'experts.'
 
Finally, there was an overriding culture of 'new is best.' Nobody back then thought it was cool to shop in charity shops. Things had to be modern and slick. A golf course designed by a great architect in the 1920's wasn't mature, it was dated and old fashioned.
 
Really, you had the perfect storm for mediocracy.   

[Sean_A]

Sean - I just don't think you can significantly drain some golf courses that they replicate the links courses. Installing drainage at 20 metre centres, 10 metres , 5 metre centres will make things better but the soil is still the conductor and if that has clay particles within it will inhibit the water movement.


At a cost you could replace the topsoil with an 80-20 Sand Soil mixture, but realistically it is a stupid move.


Golf courses moved inland to satisfy demand. Many golfers would give up or play less if the golf course was not convienent, so whilst Melvyn is right in as much as the land was not fit for purpose market demand has superceeded. Some places are 50 miles from the good golfing soils.


You can make things better by drainage but when you have winter rainfall in the UK it will always be on a scale of damp to bog if you are not on a naturally sandy soil.

Adrian...understood.  However, if clubs are going to operate 12 months a year, they have to be willing to accept criticism 12 months a year.  It then shouldn't be a surprise if many of the newbies aren't well respected in the rankings.  My only thoughts were that given the sheer number of new courses and the knowledge that rankings are a great marketing tool...why haven't drainage issues been taken more seriously?  To some degree, the classic courses which are middle of the road are even more guilty of this  attitude...at least those clubs had 100 years to sort stuff out.  And by sorting out I am not suggesting drainage on par with links, but a decent effort on the drainage front would still go a long way.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I thought I had just explained it. Everyone wants to be drier, rain is hard to beat, unless you are on '40 feet of sand or gravel' it is going to get wet.


By and large in constructions we can keep greens dry by using USGA formats, though primarily it is the sand that keeps things dry, you could construct the whole thing with 5 metre centres and rootzone, you could probably get away with 150mm depth, but it is costly my stab in the dark figure would be £50,000 per acre.


That £50,000 per acre is the kind of headstart a course gets with good soil v having to make it good.


The best sites for golf got taken a long time ago. If you build courses on non sandy sites you need to change ALL the soil. You can shape a new course to shed water, adding drains, gravel band, it will all help and most clubs have done that, worming helps, aeration helps but non stop rain will beat you.

[Niall C]

"The best sites for golf got taken a long time ago."

Adrian

Is that true in a UK context ? If you were to define best land and using the traditional economic model of size of population within a certain travel distance then that might be true but the Mark Parsinens and the Mike Kaisers of this world seem to be redefining what is an acceptable distance to travel for a top course, which is the standard we are talking about here.

Niall

ps. is anyone else getting fed up with the formatting on this site ?

[Adrian_Stiff]

"The best sites for golf got taken a long time ago."

Adrian

Is that true in a UK context ? If you were to define best land and using the traditional economic model of size of population within a certain travel distance then that might be true but the Mark Parsinens and the Mike Kaisers of this world seem to be redefining what is an acceptable distance to travel for a top course, which is the standard we are talking about here.

Niall

ps. is anyone else getting fed up with the formatting on this site ?

I am talking about the UK and inland golf. UK people won't travel very far for their regular golf, the guideline is 20 minutes, that figure plays a huge importance in what club someone joins. If you rewind time to the 1890s, golf course land went where farming was poor and until recently land classification needed to be grade 3 to be considered as a non loss to agriculture, so suitable for golf. Golf requires dry and non fertile, so in bad soil areas higher ground that repelled water where the prime golf sites.
The biggest negative we have in Golf at the moment is time. Golf courses further away won't be the saviour.

[Paul Gray]

I may regularly disagree with Adrian about architecture but his assessment of the business model is frequently, and in this case, spot on.
 
Proximity is paramout, particularly where membership is concerned. It's fine to talk about Keiser resorts but they are a different market. Population + money + turf = Surrey. And Surrey has already been done. 

[Niall C]

Adrian


I was thinking of the out of the way resort courses that Keiser and others have built in the US and what he plans in Scotland, and also what Mark Parsinen did at Castle Stuart. Neither is going to survive being a local club course but instead the model is as a resort course based on the best land for the job, although as an aside I would actually dispute this with regards CS. The point being though that you build a top quality course and people will come to an extent irrespective of the location, which means ideal golfing ground that wasn't previously feasible now is. Local demographics therefore isn't the determining factor.


Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


I was thinking of the out of the way resort courses that Keiser and others have built in the US and what he plans in Scotland, and also what Mark Parsinen did at Castle Stuart. Neither is going to survive being a local club course but instead the model is as a resort course based on the best land for the job, although as an aside I would actually dispute this with regards CS. The point being though that you build a top quality course and people will come to an extent irrespective of the location, which means ideal golfing ground that wasn't previously feasible now is. Local demographics therefore isn't the determining factor.


Niall

Niall - I think there is a niche market for those sort of courses, Askernish will never be a success in commercial terms simply because it is so difficult to get to, Castle Stuart has other good uns around it. Silloth suffers hugely from what it should/could be because it is an awful location, the problem with the 20 minute rule is that for links golf courses when you count the numbers part of that twenty minute circle (often half) is in the sea, it is no secret many 'good' courses are really struggling, the important thing you need to make a golf course sustainable is people and plenty of them, so I would say local demographics is the big bit. The topic was about inland golf courses in this country though.

[Sean_A]

"You can shape a new course to shed water, adding drains, gravel band, it will all help and most clubs have done that, worming helps, aeration helps..."

Its good to see there are ways to mitigate the problems of rain.  Though, I don't exactly believe that most courses have done what they can to mitigate poor drainage.  Regardless, if a club is open and charging a fee, I am not terribly interested as to why the course is in crap condition.  That is my prerogative as the paying and discerning customer. Give me a decent product in line with the green fee and I won't carp. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree but it is the reason why Winter Green Fees are often much cheaper than Summer price. It is a case of sifting through them and finding the dry bargains.


Places like Cleeve Hill should be packed. It would be interesting to see if they are.


I have never ran a survey of the pattern of how people play relative to Summer and Winter. Quite a lot don't play any rounds at all from November 1st to April 1st. Some play the same time every Saturday or Sunday regardless. Society wise based on an averaged 400 groups per year I think the split would be 300 for the 7 months and 100 for the 5 months (with quite a few around the Xmas time).

[Ryan Coles]

I don't think the lack of quality in uk parkland golf is anything new. Where are the great parkland courses by Fowler Colt Braid et al? It can only be attributed to soils and lack of budget to overcome them.


Lots of UK courses could throw literally millions at drainage and not really appease Sean or the "I'm paying, therefore I am" brigade. I think the key is to charge a fair price, as Sean suggests. Anyone playing inland Dec - Feb in the uk outside of Walton Heath or Ganton and co expecting dry conditions and repeatedly finding themselves disappointed are acting out the definition of insanity.


I don't subscribe to the view that clubs have had years to resolve the problems of winter golf etc either. Clubs initially had the problem of no irrigation hence construction methods aimed at retaining moisture. Very few older uk golf courses were built as commercial propositions or even on an equitable basis amongst all members. Wealthy founding members donating land etc were how many clubs evolved. Resolving the issue of clay soils will never stack up on an economic basis.


Winter golf sucks because we usually want someone else to pay for improving it.


Sean there's no way you'd be a member of a club on poor soils and pay them several thousand pounds over the going rate etc to improve matters. The benefits to cost do not stack up. Instead you and others will travel somewhere where someone else has already paid for it or Mother Nature has bequeathed it.



Jon is correct that expectations on winter golf in the UK need to be realistic, inland. Most members clubs and probably proprietary clubs would be better off treating it as the traditional summer sport it always was and effectively shutting things down from after Christmas until end of February. No one is on the village green playing cricket but they have every expectation of pushing their powacaddy through the mud twice a week. Inland courses are all the poorer for it come mid March when most sensible people think of getting the Clubs out.



Paul


I understand your grievance is about what was built, rather than why it was built during the 80's and 90's here. However I think you're way off on what most golfers like or want. I don't think they are brainwashed by marketing BS. They simply play where they can afford, what's nearby and where their friends are. No one from established clubs believed the hype and upped sticks and left the traditional heaths and links to play the new island greens etc. The people who play on the Surrey sand belt and on the coast aren't somehow far more discerning. It's what they can afford and it's where they live. To illustrate this, if you lived in say Gloucester or Swindon, where would a discerning officianado such as you play?


If you took an average Cumberwell member to say West Hill or Hayling, they would love it and recognise it as superior and no amount of marketing from Cumberwell would alter that.


I cannot believe that any golfer would fail to love Swinley and see it as inferior to the Belfry. They just don't share your loathing of the cumberwells or your love of the entry level, bargain buckets or quirk.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

You are missing the point.  I am not saying that joe blow inland course should be as dry as a links...I am saying they could and should be dramatically improved over the long haul. 

And no, I don't turn up at joe blow inland course in winter expecting great conditions....I think you know this.  In fact, I avoid many places in winter because they overcharge given the quality of conditions in winter.   As a guy who plays a lot of winter golf I can say the problem of drainage is becoming worse...because I know that so called heathland courses which are meant to drain well are failing to do so.  People can only talk about the weather for so many years before they must realize that things can be better with human intervention.  To do nothing over the course of many decades when all know there is a problem is a true sign of insanity stupidity.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Generally speaking, and there are admittedly some regional and ground condition variations, pretty much any golf in the UK between end Oct and mid March is a bonus.


If it weren't for the advances in waterproof shoes and clothing over the last few years only hardy folk would venture out regularly. Others might play a few holes but 4 hrs in the cold and damp on soft, wet grass, more likely to tell the Other Half your off to play and then spend the time in the bar instead!


Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

It's pretty unarguable that the amount of winter golf played in the UK has gone up by a mile in recent years. When I was a kid, albeit in a hilly part of West Yorkshire, we didn't play much in the winter, although one of my dad's regular golfing buddies, an extremely short hitter, did often say that he longed for a nice frozen January morning so his shots would get more roll.


Yesterday, I went to a media event at Stoke Park. Now, I know that conditions of late have been about as tough for greenskeepers as its possible to get, with lots of rain combined with ultra mild temperatures meaning that grass is still growing and so they are still mowing when they should be getting on with winter work. But really I was amazed. Driving into the Park, there was LOTS of standing water on may fairways, and yet there was still a reasonable amount of play going on. I spoke to the course manager and expressed my surprise they were open and he said it was more than his job was worth to close on Ladies' Day!

[Marc Haring]

Ryan

 As a guy who plays a lot of winter golf I can say the problem of drainage is becoming worse...because I know that so called heathland courses which are meant to drain well are failing to do so.  People can only talk about the weather for so many years before they must realize that things can be better with human intervention.  To do nothing over the course of many decades when all know there is a problem is a true sign of insanity stupidity.

Ciao

Sean


I know many will think I am suffering from insanity/stupidity when I say the problem is not the lack of drainage, the problem is mud caused by earthworms. Drainage cannot be getting worse on heathland courses as a drain that was put in a hundred years ago should still be effective and clubs only ever add to drainage, they don't remove it.


Many years ago I found a cheap agricultural source of carbendazim (the only approved worm suppressor on the market today) and sprayed the entire course three times over the winter and the course went from unplayable sludge to firm and positively pleasant conditions despite the heavy winter rain. Carbendazim is not so cost effective now and not nearly as good at getting rid of worms as the old products.


The only truly cost effective worm killer (chlordane) was banned in 1992 but it was so residual that many courses simply did not have an earthworm problem for many years after that date and many of the savvy clubs stock piled and hid away so have been able to continue using it. I would therefore propose that your observation that even heathland courses are getting worse in the winter are due to the banning of chlordane. Back in the 1990's and before every course would have much casual water but not much in the way of mud.   

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan

You are missing the point.  I am not saying that joe blow inland course should be as dry as a links...I am saying they could and should be dramatically improved over the long haul. 

And no, I don't turn up at joe blow inland course in winter expecting great conditions....I think you know this.  In fact, I avoid many places in winter because they overcharge given the quality of conditions in winter.   As a guy who plays a lot of winter golf I can say the problem of drainage is becoming worse...because I know that so called heathland courses which are meant to drain well are failing to do so.  People can only talk about the weather for so many years before they must realize that things can be better with human intervention.  To do nothing over the course of many decades when all know there is a problem is a true sign of insanity stupidity.

Ciao

Who pays to do something about it over the long haul?


The visitors wont - they avoid in all but optimal conditions. You're not paying for joe blow to improve their drainage, you rightly demand a price that reflects what's in the ground now.


The members won't pay for it. When costs come in, they go elsewhere cheaper or somewhere dryer, or vote the proposals down.


Owners won't - they'll never get ROI.

[Niall C]

Niall - I think there is a niche market for those sort of courses, Askernish will never be a success in commercial terms simply because it is so difficult to get to, Castle Stuart has other good uns around it. Silloth suffers hugely from what it should/could be because it is an awful location, the problem with the 20 minute rule is that for links golf courses when you count the numbers part of that twenty minute circle (often half) is in the sea, it is no secret many 'good' courses are really struggling, the important thing you need to make a golf course sustainable is people and plenty of them, so I would say local demographics is the big bit. The topic was about inland golf courses in this country though.

Adrian


Agreed, it is about inland courses and why the modern ones aren't as good as maybe they should be, and I was responding really to the suggestion that part of the reason is because all the best sites have been used. If we adopt the model being used elsewhere by Keiser and such like and apply it to inland sites rather than links then I'm sure that you could still find cracking landscapes with ground conditions eminently suitable to golf.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Niall - I think there is a niche market for those sort of courses, Askernish will never be a success in commercial terms simply because it is so difficult to get to, Castle Stuart has other good uns around it. Silloth suffers hugely from what it should/could be because it is an awful location, the problem with the 20 minute rule is that for links golf courses when you count the numbers part of that twenty minute circle (often half) is in the sea, it is no secret many 'good' courses are really struggling, the important thing you need to make a golf course sustainable is people and plenty of them, so I would say local demographics is the big bit. The topic was about inland golf courses in this country though.

Adrian
Agreed, it is about inland courses and why the modern ones aren't as good as maybe they should be, and I was responding really to the suggestion that part of the reason is because all the best sites have been used. If we adopt the model being used elsewhere by Keiser and such like and apply it to inland sites rather than links then I'm sure that you could still find cracking landscapes with ground conditions eminently suitable to golf.
Niall

As to inlanders, with 65m+ people in the UK I'm not so sure. Even less sure when population projections are taken into consideration.
Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall - I think there is a niche market for those sort of courses, Askernish will never be a success in commercial terms simply because it is so difficult to get to, Castle Stuart has other good uns around it. Silloth suffers hugely from what it should/could be because it is an awful location, the problem with the 20 minute rule is that for links golf courses when you count the numbers part of that twenty minute circle (often half) is in the sea, it is no secret many 'good' courses are really struggling, the important thing you need to make a golf course sustainable is people and plenty of them, so I would say local demographics is the big bit. The topic was about inland golf courses in this country though.

Adrian


Agreed, it is about inland courses and why the modern ones aren't as good as maybe they should be, and I was responding really to the suggestion that part of the reason is because all the best sites have been used. If we adopt the model being used elsewhere by Keiser and such like and apply it to inland sites rather than links then I'm sure that you could still find cracking landscapes with ground conditions eminently suitable to golf.


Niall

I think the problem finding new great sites for golf are that the best golf soils are only in pockets around the country, some are 50 miles away from a good soil. Some good acidic soily sites (that are not golf courses) are now SSSIs are so protected as they are rare and grow unusual plants and are habitats to a wide variety of animals that may not exist with change. I think the best golfing sites that could be left and 'possible' would be remote so in that respect a destination course could be possible. One possibility would be the purchase of an existing average course that has abililty to create one exceptional one. I actually have one if Mr Keiser would like to contact me. If Mr Trump would like to contact me I don't have one.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Why don't we model this theoretical discussion to find out:


1. Can we name the best "modern" courses built on inland, heavy clay, farmland in temperate climate US?
2. How many of these have been built on modest budgets? (and by modest, I mean British levels of modest)


If there are a lot of the above - and taking in to account the bigger number built in the US in total compared to the UK - then we can reasonably ask the question if there has been some level of creativity / vision missing from British architecture in the last 50 or 60 years.

[Niall C]

Niall - I think there is a niche market for those sort of courses, Askernish will never be a success in commercial terms simply because it is so difficult to get to, Castle Stuart has other good uns around it. Silloth suffers hugely from what it should/could be because it is an awful location, the problem with the 20 minute rule is that for links golf courses when you count the numbers part of that twenty minute circle (often half) is in the sea, it is no secret many 'good' courses are really struggling, the important thing you need to make a golf course sustainable is people and plenty of them, so I would say local demographics is the big bit. The topic was about inland golf courses in this country though.

Adrian
Agreed, it is about inland courses and why the modern ones aren't as good as maybe they should be, and I was responding really to the suggestion that part of the reason is because all the best sites have been used. If we adopt the model being used elsewhere by Keiser and such like and apply it to inland sites rather than links then I'm sure that you could still find cracking landscapes with ground conditions eminently suitable to golf.
Niall

As to inlanders, with 65m+ people in the UK I'm not so sure. Even less sure when population projections are taken into consideration.
Atb

Atb


To use one example - Gleneagles. Whatever you think of the courses there, particularly Nicklaus's effort, it is great golfing country is it not ? Indeed a new course has recently been built adjacent and yet the demographics are rubbish in terms of being a local club. Gleneagles really was a precursor for Bandon. Why don't we find more Gleneagles now that we aren't tied to rail travel ?


Niall

[Kevin Markham]

     Addressing the initial question, and focusing on Ireland, I'd agree strongly with Kalen's and Tom's responses at the very start of this thread. The K Club and Mount Juliet are perfect examples of courses loved by the Irish because they're seen as premier courses with big frills, big budgets, big names, big clubhouses and big spaces. I am told time and again that the K Club would be an also-ran in the US... but we only have ten or so big glamour courses in Ireland, so we tend to love them and we stick them at the top of any ranking that gets published. It’s the aspirational element and they tend to be rated above old ‘classics’ like Carlow and Cork.
K Club (Smurfit & Palmer), Mount Juliet, Adare, Druid's Glen, Killeen Castle, Fota Island, Concra Wood and Lough Erne. That’s 9 and you could squeeze in Luttrellstown Castle and Slieve Russell, too.
Is there anything truly sensational about them? From a design perspective? Maybe, maybe not. I adore Druid’s Glen, Adare and Concra Wood, but I’m less enamored with Mount Juliet and I don’t rate the K Club Smurfit course at all.
There are plenty of much smaller courses that have far smaller budgets and attitudes and yet they are far more fun.

Adam, I was given a tour of the Centurion Club before it opened. It's a perfectly decent course, but I don't know why people rave about it. There's nothing that stands out as being exceptional.
 

[Jon Wiggett]

You are missing the point.  I am not saying that joe blow inland course should be as dry as a links...I am saying they could and should be dramatically improved over the long haul. 

Sean,

I think it is you that is missing the point. Drainage only removes water that the soil cannot hold. Even if you were to build a gravel blanket under the entire course many inland courses would still be soft and soggy. What keeps them firm in summer is plant growth and evaporation. In winter only frosts and wind will firm up the course but no where near the same way it is in summer.

So the average inland course in the UK with great drainage will have no standing water on it and will firm up earlier than those with poorer drainage but will still be squidgy much of the time. You cannot beat nature which is why there are no good winter courses in NYC or much of Canada or.....

Jon

[Sean_A]

Okay, I have my answer.  Clubs don't believe it is worth spending money on drainage.  Very short sighted if you ask me because I have experienced huge improvements in course conditions with drainage improvements which in turn created better conditions in summer.  It wasn't as if it cost the earth to replace old drains, scarify fairways much more and slowly insert new drains where needed. 

Ciao