[Peter Bowman]

I'm 3 pages from finishing this thread (which likely wont happen for me) but I'll chime in anyway.

All golf courses should establish a culture to create the level of success they desire.  That may even require some experimentation.  I talk a lot about Hooper because I'm heavily involved in it, so I'll use recent events as examples.

With the new ownership came a lot of new decisions about how we want to present the course "brand".  Since we're a 93 year old course we wanted to be sure it has that historical feel to it, which guided the design of our current logo, intending to make it look from the 1920s. 

Hooper had the image of pretentiousness in the eyes of non-golfers.  Maybe that was the case with the largest membership base from the 50s to the late 90s.  As those members began to pass away, there were few replacements in membership and it dwindled until 2008 when it really hit the fan.  All these golfers had a deep appreciation for golf, no doubt.  Hooper didn't have strict dress codes and rules until the new Pro came from 2010 to 2016, and his rules turned off a lot of golfers.  For example non-members were turned away before 10AM even if the course was empty; same if they wore denim and no collared shirt.  Not the best strategy for a golf course starving for golfers

If the only good thing COVID had to offer was a new spark/explosion in interest in golfing, I'll take it.  This year we had the luxury of establishing a new brand that new golfers will pay attention to and want to play our course.  The members of the marketing committee and I had to decide what image we want to project.  Do we want to project the image of exclusivity and formality like in the past?  Not a chance.  A course like Winged Foot will likely be able to keep their status quo for generations, but Hooper can't.

Demographically we noticed that the largest influx of new golfers are millennials and we placed our focus on them.  They're the best long-term play for sustainable memberships is we can make Hooper appeal to them.  Hooper is barely starting to make big news these days with GOLF giving Hooper its #13 ranking in the world for 9 hole courses and "Best bargain in NH", so that will attract those who have a deep appreciation for golf, but it wont sustain the course.

We decided to make Hooper appear as unpretentious as possible with the goal of inspiring as many new golfers as possibly to try us out.  On Sunday of our club championship I was in contention to win, and I purposefully chose to wear a casual tee shirt with Jack Nicklaus holding a whisky and a cigarette wearing shades and his Green Jacket.  I won the tournament and posed for my picture published on social media in my casual tee.  I thought little of it, but the consequences were surprising.  In the weeks that followed we had an onslaught of new/hacker golfers playing Hooper for their first time.  We did discover many of them--all millennials--said it looks like a fun place to play golf and not have to worry about their appearances.  We do not have trouble with poor behavior and slow play.  They seem to understand those guidelines.  Music is sometimes played on the course but it is quiet enough to bother very few.

What I'm getting at is for Hooper to have continued success, we have to reinvent the game for our golfers by making us stand out from the stereotypes of golf courses.  We do night golf on a regular basis and few other courses are doing it, and they're big money makers for us.  We encourage BYOB, loud music, hollering, and plain old fun at night golf.  Night golf tee sheet fills up completely within 24 hours of announcement and we can't keep up with demand.  Best part is 60% are nonmembers coming to play. 

While there is a deep satisfaction and importance in preserving the history and spirit of the game, many courses need to evolve with the times to remain appealing.

I'll finish with one more justification.  Despite the more relaxed and casual image we're portraying at Hooper, I am confident our golfers are developing a "deep appreciation for GOLF," because we have literally nothing else to offer.  We have a modest pro shop, 9 holes of excellent golf, and that's it.  No tennis courts. No restaurant. No pool.  Just 9 holes of golf and 11 carts and creative ideas.

[Peter Bowman]

This reminds me of the 5th best day of my life: the day I got to play Cypress Point with my best friend, dad and uncle.  My best friend is a construction worker and he showed up almost as if he came from work, wearing safety orange shirt with a pullover I think, cargo pants and tennis shoes because he couldn't find his golf shoes (he's a 20 hcp).  I was surprised they had no qualms about his dress code but they did encourage slack instead of cargo pants but they didn't belittle him in any way, which was nice. 

Way to bend the rules and still be welcomed, Greg! (best friend)

[Mark Pearce]

Too much here to consider everything but a few observations.


My eldest son, at the age of 12, felt comfortable going up to Elie for a bite to eat with his friends before playing, despite its apparently old fashioned style.


HCEG is a club first, then a golf club.


I maintain a membership at Crail because of how welcome I have always felt at the club.


I loved the feel of the club at Port Fairy, more than any other club on my trip to Australia.


There are huge contrasts here, so Tom D's plea for variety seems most apposite.


By the way, and since Garland's thread ranting about the dress code at Elie appears to have been deleted (odd, on a site where the 147 Guardians thing is big), in a recent consultation amongst members, support for Elie's long sock rule was strongest among younger members.  It's a big world, and there's room for all.

[Thomas Dai]

As a generalisation grandee elite historic private member clubs have a special aura about them and it’s not necessarily snooty, although it can be. Cheap and cheerful, rural and rustic, low spec private members have a special aura about them as well and they aren’t usually snooty either, often far from it.
It’s the private members clubs in the middle where there is sometimes an inclination towards snootiness and self-envisaged superiority.
Each to their own though.

Atb

[Peter Bowman]

As a generalisation grandee elite historic private member clubs have a special aura about them and it’s not necessarily snooty, although it can be. Cheap and cheerful, rural and rustic, low spec private members have a special aura about them as well and they aren’t usually snooty either, often far from it.
It’s the private members clubs in the middle where there is sometimes an inclination towards snootiness and self-envisaged superiority.
Each to their own though.

Atb

I don’t doubt this for a second. Perhaps it’s more about ‘the club’ than it is the golf in these places?

[Ira Fishman]

As a generalisation grandee elite historic private member clubs have a special aura about them and it’s not necessarily snooty, although it can be. Cheap and cheerful, rural and rustic, low spec private members have a special aura about them as well and they aren’t usually snooty either, often far from it.
It’s the private members clubs in the middle where there is sometimes an inclination towards snootiness and self-envisaged superiority.
Each to their own though.

Atb

When we played Swinley Forest and St. George’s Hill, I expected some snootiness. Nothing could be further from the case. The members were welcoming and sought us out in the bar to ask if we enjoyed our day. They were genuine in hoping that we did.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

Like the unfortunate "custodians" list, I nearly resent, but ultimately dismiss these cultural investigations with a wave. The essential differences between a "golf" club and "country" club were understood (prolly by you too) before I joined this forum, before it was created in fact.


I didn't know about William Flynn, nor the diversity and history of Template designs and their designers; I didn't know about or view many many fine courses around the globe, or learn more about the ones in my own backyard. I didn't know too much about the meld of golf tech advancing as fast as tech does in information data, to the consternation of both my absorption of elite golf and classically-held architecture...


But I knew the difference between a country club meant for broad recreation and gracious luxury for many types, and a golf club focused on the play of golf and little else.



There is no common cultural ideal on anything (I mean can't the last 4-4000 years tell you that?); it doesn't exist anywhere. My ideal of a golf culture is unrealistic for both me and probably you....and it has nothing, zero, to do with the architecture, maintenance of design, restoration of design and how the course presents amusing and lively golf.  Maybe on its ornaments and utility flesh, but very little that is in the bones.


The amusement I had, and CBM (imo) wanted me to have, deciding to putt a 45 yard approach to a green at NGLA, has nothing to do with which way my hat is turned or if I'm going to check my text messages when I get back to the cart, or really if my shirt is tucked in or if my shorts have cargo pockets on the outside.  None of those things matter to  the architecture. Furthermore, even if his unrealistic ideals would deem me not "worthy" to play his design for those faults/violations, he didn't live and design when I had to live and play... headgear was different then, there were no cellular phones, you weren't even allowed to wear shorts, which were like pajamas I suppose to... female persons could not vote.  (If this was a sonnet, you would identify that as the "volta"...but this isn't a sonnet.)


It's like beholding a FLWright edifice and wondering where its historical owners position the key ring by the front door... or insinuating that because the designer of that same home deemed that the hearth should be the center of a home, when you, 50 years later, decide that's where you wish to watch TV (and others tend to stay away, unless they like what you're watching), you are denigrating the culture of that home, that design.


I promise you, you will like playing a fine, well-designed course, a custodian or not, hats over crotches, even if they are blaring a different hair metal band on a crackly PA at every green. Actually, that might enhance your memory of a great golf place.

[Ted Sturges]

Like the unfortunate "custodians" list, I nearly resent, but ultimately dismiss these cultural investigations with a wave. The essential differences between a "golf" club and "country" club were understood (prolly by you too) before I joined this forum, before it was created in fact.


I didn't know about William Flynn, nor the diversity and history of Template designs and their designers; I didn't know about or view many many fine courses around the globe, or learn more about the ones in my own backyard. I didn't know too much about the meld of golf tech advancing as fast as tech does in information data, to the consternation of both my absorption of elite golf and classically-held architecture...


But I knew the difference between a country club meant for broad recreation and gracious luxury for many types, and a golf club focused on the play of golf and little else.



There is no common cultural ideal on anything (I mean can't the last 4-4000 years tell you that?); it doesn't exist anywhere. My ideal of a golf culture is unrealistic for both me and probably you....and it has nothing, zero, to do with the architecture, maintenance of design, restoration of design and how the course presents amusing and lively golf.  Maybe on its ornaments and utility flesh, but very little that is in the bones.


The amusement I had, and CBM (imo) wanted me to have, deciding to putt a 45 yard approach to a green at NGLA, has nothing to do with which way my hat is turned or if I'm going to check my text messages when I get back to the cart, or really if my shirt is tucked in or if my shorts have cargo pockets on the outside.  None of those things matter to  the architecture. Furthermore, even if his unrealistic ideals would deem me not "worthy" to play his design for those faults/violations, he didn't live and design when I had to live and play... headgear was different then, there were no cellular phones, you weren't even allowed to wear shorts, which were like pajamas I suppose to... female persons could not vote.  (If this was a sonnet, you would identify that as the "volta"...but this isn't a sonnet.)


It's like beholding a FLWright edifice and wondering where its historical owners position the key ring by the front door... or insinuating that because the designer of that same home deemed that the hearth should be the center of a home, when you, 50 years later, decide that's where you wish to watch TV (and others tend to stay away, unless they like what you're watching), you are denigrating the culture of that home, that design.


I promise you, you will like playing a fine, well-designed course, a custodian or not, hats over crotches, even if they are blaring a different hair metal band on a crackly PA at every green. Actually, that might enhance your memory of a great golf place.

I had to read this post twice, and must admit, I still don't think I comprehend the message you are wishing to convey.  I guess I'd start with a question...What is "unfortunate" about the 147 Custodians list?  And my follow up would be...I think we simply view most of these issues differently (and I'm still not certain how in fact you view them).  It is my belief that in just about any organization in any facet of life, culture is everything.


TS

[V. Kmetz]

My point is that the custodians list has nothing, zero to do with architecture. And culture isn't held in custody or conceived in the mind of any one person


And this thread... its similarly fatuous.  Which crap course will get your love, their for its otherwise fabulous culture.


Both things need to get the lint of out their navel on their own.

[Duncan Cheslett]

When we played Swinley Forest and St. George’s Hill, I expected some snootiness. Nothing could be further from the case. The members were welcoming and sought us out in the bar to ask if we enjoyed our day. They were genuine in hoping that we did.


Ira

At the really elite clubs such as the ones you mention, you will get very little snootiness.


It is at the lower tier "posh" golf clubs in the suburbs of all major conurbations that you will encounter the snooty member. They will imagine that their course is something really special, but inevitably it fails to feature in anyone's rankings.

[Ted Sturges]

My point is that the custodians list has nothing, zero to do with architecture. And culture isn't held in custody or conceived in the mind of any one person


And this thread... its similarly fatuous.  Which crap course will get your love, their for its otherwise fabulous culture.


Both things need to get the lint of out their navel on their own.

I suggest you take a few minutes and read the 147 Custodians of the game essay again.  If you don't think a course's maintenance practices and how the course is presented is related to architecture, I'm not sure we're having a meaningful debate.


TS

[V. Kmetz]

My point is that the custodians list has nothing, zero to do with architecture. And culture isn't held in custody or conceived in the mind of any one person

And this thread... its similarly fatuous.  Which crap course will get your love,  for its otherwise fabulous culture.

Both things need to get the lint of out their navel on their own.

I suggest you take a few minutes and read the 147 Custodians of the game essay again.  If you don't think a course's maintenance practices and how the course is presented is related to architecture, I'm not sure we're having a meaningful debate.

TS

We would be I suppose if that's the meaningful scope of the custodians piece; it's not...its about clubs larded with this or that, or not having this bauble or this or that tradition or conduct of play or etiquette.  I mean, I have no desire to give it more oxygen in debate...but WKYGAYL as custodian?  In that neighborhood? Bunk.  Solid, enjoyable course...better with renovation...end of story.


And this thread is far afield from those (agreed) maintenance/presentation aesthetics.  Look at most of its posts and tell me its not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()