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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« on: December 22, 2015, 07:07:30 PM »
and which would have the most difficulty?
I'll start by saying Shinnecock and Newport best  and Shadow Creek least
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2015, 07:29:04 PM »
Most GB&I courses have smaller budgets and maintenance staffs than our comparable courses. 
Logged

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2015, 08:37:51 PM »
short season, low annual play rate, plays firm.     Crystal Downs?   Or are your looking for Longshadow? :).

MC&HNY
Logged

Lyndell Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2015, 08:59:53 PM »
Royal County Down best Augusta National least
Logged

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2015, 09:12:34 PM »
Pete,
I wasn't looking for Longshadow.  I'm trying to see how many are in "original golf" climates and how that equates.
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

BCowan

Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2015, 09:18:57 PM »
Mike,

   the key word is ''can''.  If that is correct many can.  Many Golden age courses can compared to some of the modern stuff I've played/seen.  Are you getting at surface drainage and irrigation?   
Logged

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 09:26:28 PM »
Ben,
To me the key word is "best"....I'm just listening right now..not trying to get at drainage or irrigation...
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 10:16:21 PM »
I think pretty much any of the UK links courses can get by on a very low maintenance fee. The courses will play like the weather dictates. Maintenance budgets at the big US courses are astronomically higher than the equivalents in the UK it seems to me.
Logged

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2015, 10:48:25 PM »
At first Mike I thought you were asking which architect could function best and worst on a lower maintenance budget!


Wouldn't it be any course in a mild climate, low humidity and a sand base?  That would not only include the GBI links but American courses like National or most courses in the sand hills regions of Nebraska, Colorado, etc?


For worst it would have to be any desert course for it's heavy reliance on water followed by ultra manicured parkland style courses (the Augusta Nationals of the world).


Ken
Logged

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2015, 03:38:28 AM »
I think you may as well leave out the GB&I links courses. They could all play well (in the sense of having a slight rugged look) with a full time green staff of four and a low input regime. The rest is the search for perfection and window dressing. A few of the Open courses would have to cut down on bunker numbers though.

I've played very few American courses but Mike's Shinnecock / Shadow Creek duo sounds about right to me.
Logged

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2015, 04:24:53 AM »
UK heathlands would have to be included plus what are confusingly called upland or downland courses as well. Sheep and cattle and goats etc time,....... unless there are any beasties around that are going to attack/eat or steal them!
Atb
Logged

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2015, 04:57:31 AM »
Quote from: Thomas Dai on December 23, 2015, 04:24:53 AM
UK heathlands would have to be included plus what are confusingly called upland or downland courses as well. Sheep and cattle and goats etc time,....... unless there are any beasties around that are going to attack/eat or steal them!
Atb

On all but the most barren tree wise, the heaths take a fair bit of maintaining  due to the need to keep the heather free of tree debris.
Logged

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2015, 05:37:48 AM »
I am not sure there are any greats that could ever be cheap to maintain.

I would think courses with few trees, few sprinklers, few bunkers and grazing animals in a moderate climate on well draining soil would be the cheapest to maintain to a reasonable standard.  Step up Cleeve Cloud.  I am not sure about Kington because of the ferns...don't know how much effort it is to keep that stuff at bay.


Most well known links would quickly become swamped in horrible rough.  Most heathland courses would quickly become swamped in rough and heather. 

I don't know of any good courses in the US that are even in the conversation.

Ciao
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 05:44:47 AM by Sean_A »
Logged
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2015, 07:07:53 AM »
Sean,

A low maintenance budget does not mean NO maintenance! 
Logged
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2015, 08:32:34 AM »
If this is a U.S. conversation (there may not be a single great UK course with a budget as high as the US average...) then I'm going to be a homer and nominate William Flynn.


His courses seem to use the natural terrain as their primary defense. The number of bunkers could drop significantly with no loss of interest or challenge. Speaking of the course of his I know best, Huntingdon Valley, bunker maintenance is an astonishingly high portion of a relatively low budget. I think I could eliminate all but one per hole with no sacrifice to the overall quality of the golf.


Playing corridors seem to have pretty decent width as a rule so mowing frequency/height combined with fewer inputs would not necessarily hurt the playing experience as much as some of the other Golden Age greats in my opinion.
Logged

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2015, 09:01:21 AM »
Based on my one play, I would say Somerset Hills CC. It doesn't get the same amount of play to put a great stress on the course itself, and the crew have done a fantastic job to bring back the firm and fast element to the course. The greens are not overtly large, and there are not a ton of bunkers (although they are present on just about every hole). I don't think they have a massive crew there as it is, but could see them even getting by with less if required.
Logged

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2015, 09:19:43 AM »
Fishers Island
Logged

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2015, 09:26:31 AM »
Sorry, I was trying to keep it to American courses....
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

BCowan

Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2015, 09:48:22 AM »
Quote from: Mike_Young on December 22, 2015, 09:26:28 PM
Ben,
To me the key word is "best"....I'm just listening right now..not trying to get at drainage or irrigation...

Mike,

   Without mentioning course names, any course that doesn't have rough is going to have much less maint.  Fescue only has to be cut or burned 1-2 a year. 
Logged

Jonathan Mallard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2015, 10:06:52 AM »
Are you limiting the discussion to budget for golf course maintenance only?


Or, will you accept the costs of maintaining what (can be) very large clubhouses and other facilities as affecting the bottom line of the entity?
Logged

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2015, 10:09:51 AM »
Jonothan,
I'm just thinking course maintenance...
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2015, 10:13:13 AM »
I've been told for years that Augusta National would be BETTER with a lower maintenance budget. Now you guys are telling me it wouldn't function without every blade of grass combed?
Logged
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2015, 10:23:53 AM »
Quote from: Jason Thurman on December 23, 2015, 10:13:13 AM
I've been told for years that Augusta National would be BETTER with a lower maintenance budget. Now you guys are telling me it wouldn't function without every blade of grass combed?

Architecture Claus to the rescue!
Logged

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2015, 10:34:48 AM »
Mike,


For some reason I thought "Greats" meant architects, not specific courses. I even read your nominations of Shinnecock and Shadow Creek...


Wouldn't it just be the current greats with pretty low budgets?


Fishers Island probably
Garden City probably
Newport probably
Crystal Downs probably


I say probably because they all give the impression that they do it on a relatively low budget but I have no idea what it actually is...
Logged

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which of the greats can function best on a lower maintenance budget
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2015, 03:22:24 PM »
Pebble Beach.  Over watered and over maintained.  Management believes they need to keep it pristine for Asian tourists.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back