Value of "Ordinary" Golf

[Sean_A]

I've never felt the majority here REALLY takes value into account.Good on those who don't care or don't have to.
When I finally cross the pond for my bucket golf trip, Sean A will be my first and only guide.

Peter:


It's just hard to do value, because there are so many different price points / comfort levels.  The same course can be affordable for one poster, a worthwhile splurge for another, and a total rip-off as far as the third guy is concerned! 


Plus when you try to set a price point for the discussion, you eliminate some of the most prominent golf regions entirely.

On the other hand, countless courses enter the discussions because most of the best courses are so expensive. Which naturally means that fewer people consider these courses good value...hence the bucket list is born.

Happy Hockey

[Ira Fishman]

I've never felt the majority here REALLY takes value into account.Good on those who don't care or don't have to.
When I finally cross the pond for my bucket golf trip, Sean A will be my first and only guide.

Peter:


It's just hard to do value, because there are so many different price points / comfort levels.  The same course can be affordable for one poster, a worthwhile splurge for another, and a total rip-off as far as the third guy is concerned! 


Plus when you try to set a price point for the discussion, you eliminate some of the most prominent golf regions entirely.

I am curious about the economics of destination courses. Obviously they are able to charge the fees they do because people are willing to pay them. But is there a bit of a vicious circle? Most Americans expect that great service should accompany high fees which seems to lead to more staff, higher end food, etc. Is there a model out there where the fees are set to emphasize great golf at more affordable rates? I am not talking about $25 per round but not $250-300 either. I have not played Lawsonia Links but it seems close to what I asking about.


Thanks,


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


As Tom says, it falls all over the map.  Traditionally, regional resorts do pretty well in recessions.  Golfers don't stop playing, they merely substitute a driveable destination to save airfare.  On a local level, they switch from $70 courses to $45 courses, etc.


Even regarding design and ambiance, it still falls into the value category for most golfers.  I have always said my Giant's Ridge courses sort of hit the sweet spot almost by accident.  Many MN resort courses strove for Twin Cities like conditions.  Not that GR didn't, but we left the clearing without underbrush, and in general, there were some more slightly ragged edges to conditioning.  IMHO, people don't go to the Northwoods seeking slick courses, they like rustic, and I think the courses hit their preconceived notions of golfers there.

[Phil Carlucci]

Where is the appreciation for your home club down the street?  The course with a fuzzy architectural heritage and a few too many ornamental trees.  The locker room is musty-smelling and the snack bar is staffed with sullen teenagers.  Is it possible to find excitement and strategic interest in these places – and say so out loud?  Or is it like parking a dented Camry in the far corner of the lot and hoping none of your friends ask what design elements you value in it?

To get to the point: does the echo chamber’s (here on GCA and elsewhere) emphasis on “new” and the “best [choose your adjective]” drown out the appreciation for the ordinary and mundane of golf?  Is stating that you enjoy a Doak 3 akin to admitting that you’re an uncultured rube?

As much as I consider myself an advocate for the exact type of course you describe, personally I couldn't care less if big golf media takes an interest in covering the unheralded local publics of the world, because to me it almost always comes off as condescending.  Who needs coverage of the local "track" when it undoubtedly features beer-swilling, cigar-smoking dolts to be admired like zoo animals, or a bunch of bros crowded around for a group selfie?


The previous commenters have done a great job describing why there isn't a huge thirst for widescale coverage of these types of courses.  It bothers me more though when these courses are ignored or under-represented on a local or regional level.  I understand why magazines and golf influencers fall over themselves to publish profiles and photos of Friar's Head or Sebonack; I don't understand why the local golf association will rarely do the same for a Montauk Downs or Tallgrass (RIP).


With so much focus on the destination/exclusive clubs and glamour shots, I worry that the sudden influx of new and young golfers will consider what they see on TV and Instagram as the norm, and come to view the local nine-hole muni or the tough-but-unremarkable public in the neighborhood as beneath them because they don't have stylized drone shots and influencer endorsements plastered all over their social media feeds.

[Tom_Doak]

I am curious about the economics of destination courses. Obviously they are able to charge the fees they do because people are willing to pay them. But is there a bit of a vicious circle? Most Americans expect that great service should accompany high fees which seems to lead to more staff, higher end food, etc. Is there a model out there where the fees are set to emphasize great golf at more affordable rates? I am not talking about $25 per round but not $250-300 either. I have not played Lawsonia Links but it seems close to what I asking about.

All you've got to do is look at what happened to golf in the U.K. once it became a "destination" for Americans.


When I caddied in St. Andrews in 1982 it was the most expensive green fee in the U.K. at £15.  Not long after that, they figured out if Americans would pay for the plane ticket to get there, they'd probably pay more than that for the golf, and the price of golf started moving toward what the American market would bear.  But, as it did, there started to become greater expectations for conditioning, and greater need to increase the fertility on the courses to withstand the additional traffic.


All of this made perfect sense to the local members, but they kind of priced out their fellow U.K. golfers in the process.  Many of the people I caddied for that summer were members of places like Formby and Prestwick and Deal, but I doubt they fork over the full fare to play The Old Course now.




As to mid-level pricing, anyone with a business degree will tell you that you're either right at the top of the market where you can name your own fee, or you're competing on price in a race to the bottom.  That is not 100% true but more so than most people understand.

[Tom_Doak]

Where is the appreciation for your home club down the street?  The course with a fuzzy architectural heritage and a few too many ornamental trees.  The locker room is musty-smelling and the snack bar is staffed with sullen teenagers.  Is it possible to find excitement and strategic interest in these places – and say so out loud?  Or is it like parking a dented Camry in the far corner of the lot and hoping none of your friends ask what design elements you value in it?

To get to the point: does the echo chamber’s (here on GCA and elsewhere) emphasis on “new” and the “best [choose your adjective]” drown out the appreciation for the ordinary and mundane of golf?  Is stating that you enjoy a Doak 3 akin to admitting that you’re an uncultured rube?

. . .

I don't understand why the local golf association will rarely do the same for a Montauk Downs or Tallgrass (RIP).

Well, the Metropolitan Golf Association was founded by all the rich clubs; they might not like the competition.  When I wrote a piece a couple of years ago about how unnecessary consultants were driving up the price of golf to unsustainable levels, someone on the board killed it before it went to print!


And for those little regional and local magazines, coverage is directly related to the amount of advertising dollars you spend.

[Ira Fishman]

I am curious about the economics of destination courses. Obviously they are able to charge the fees they do because people are willing to pay them. But is there a bit of a vicious circle? Most Americans expect that great service should accompany high fees which seems to lead to more staff, higher end food, etc. Is there a model out there where the fees are set to emphasize great golf at more affordable rates? I am not talking about $25 per round but not $250-300 either. I have not played Lawsonia Links but it seems close to what I asking about.

All you've got to do is look at what happened to golf in the U.K. once it became a "destination" for Americans.


When I caddied in St. Andrews in 1982 it was the most expensive green fee in the U.K. at £15.  Not long after that, they figured out if Americans would pay for the plane ticket to get there, they'd probably pay more than that for the golf, and the price of golf started moving toward what the American market would bear.  But, as it did, there started to become greater expectations for conditioning, and greater need to increase the fertility on the courses to withstand the additional traffic.


All of this made perfect sense to the local members, but they kind of priced out their fellow U.K. golfers in the process.  Many of the people I caddied for that summer were members of places like Formby and Prestwick and Deal, but I doubt they fork over the full fare to play The Old Course now.




As to mid-level pricing, anyone with a business degree will tell you that you're either right at the top of the market where you can name your own fee, or you're competing on price in a race to the bottom.  That is not 100% true but more so than most people understand.

Tom,


There are plenty of industries, including travel and hospitality, where there are not just high end winners and low price "losers". Perhaps this is more true in golf than I know which is a point Jeff made. In thinking about our own travels, I would take the value proposition at Brora, Golspie, and Elie in a heartbeat over Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns. Yes, I understand that the business models are different, but that is exactly the question about which I am curious.


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer and I have posted on here numerous times (and just recently) that his site is primarily focused on the Top 1% or so of golf courses. It is a fact and that is fine but that is not where the world plays golf.  It is like The Masters - we love to watch and great to talk about, but not reality for 99%+ of the golfers who play this game.  This site could probably make a difference if it focused attention on the 99% of courses that don't get mentioned and how the collective knowledge and experience here can help/influence those kind of golf courses.  I proposed a month where no course on any Top 100 list gets discussed.  That went over great    Those threads sadly don't create much interest.  Feel free to give it a try.

Mark,


To a great extent I agree with you. The world doesn’t play the courses we discuss at this site. That is exactly why quite a few times over the years I mentioned the great thing about golf in the Cleveland/Northeast Ohio area. It is not any of the courses you have heard of or that we would discuss here. Rather, it is what I call the Mom and Pops, courses that were built during the post WW2 era on inexpensive land with actually pretty good topography, probably at very little expense.


But I also agree with Tom Doak. It would be hard to name one that would be interesting to discuss and often hard to think of even one or two holes that merit discussion.


One funny experience I had one time at Little Met, a 9 hole course that used to charge like $6-7 dollars to play. I got fixed up with this very pleasant young guy who seemed to love playing but was really a terrible golfer.


Somehow we got into a conversation about how much he loves to play. Naively I said:
“Well, the game gets even better when you play a good course”.


Hell no, he told me. He said he did that onetime and never wanted to do that again.


So I asked him why and responded telling me he played a course where you had to hit over about 50 yards of water. No thanks!

[Tom Bacsanyi]

On the other hand, it seems difficult to go through the permitting and assorted legal hassles, land clearing, architect selection, routing and shaping, irrigation install, grow-in, assorted facilities construction, and turn around and charge $40 a round. Especially if you think you could charge $80. Or $200!


Given all of the above, what is a minimum green fee that could be charged to generate some kind of decent return on investment? Assume land costs, permitting, all on the low end, and minimalist architecture, irrigation, construction, and facilities?


Perhaps a better model is the renovation of existing golf courses that are uninspiring or bringing courses back from the dead that are zoned and permitted for golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Good story.  We both know, not everyone is going to care about where they play or what is good or bad in golf architecture.  Most are not going to run out and buy the kind of books on the subject you and I might find appealing.  But that doesn't mean we can't try to get at least a few here and there to take more interest.  My friend Tom Ferrel and I wrote a series of articles for a year with Golf Tips magazine some time ago that were geared toward explaining how a better understanding of the golf course you are playing and how architects think can actually help your golf game.  Who knows if it helped or not?   What I do find though is that when talking with golf committees and stewards of different courses, it is rewarding when you can get someone to look at their course in a different light.  Maybe that gentleman who couldn't carry the 50 yards of water could still care less.  But if we can help some others with how to better manage the care and long term plans for their golf course, we can make a positive difference.


Tom,
As I tried to point out on one or two of the other threads, I think there are lots of things you can do to existing courses that are minimal cost.  These things can help improve and maybe help attract more golfers.  It is all case by case dependent.  One thing for sure, it is best to start with the low hanging fruit.  If you are an architect you might not make as much money, but if your real objective is to truly help that golf course, it is sometimes amazing what you can accomplish.  I did plans for improvement for two daily fee courses called Willow Brook and Shepherd Hills.  Both had very low budgets and all the work was done in-house when time permitted.  We changed or eliminated bunkers, expanded greens, took out problem trees, added some new tees,... Seemed to work out pretty well for both properties. 

[Jim Sherma]

Mark - There is no fixing Shepherd Hills - them staying open this long is a function that the course really does not matter much to the paying customer. Usually it is in decent enough shape. Played a tournament there back in the 80's or 90's when it was burnt out. Virtually impossible as there was no rough to keep the balls from running ob. Only tournament round I walked in and no carded. Saying that , there are a few decent shots on the course.


Who did the bug renovation at Allentown Muni when they changed the old round tilted greens to what is there now. Also took it from par 73 (2 par 3's and 3 par 5's) to the current par 72 (4 and 4)?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Regarding Shepherd Hills, it fits in that category that I talked about on other threads.  I did a Master Plan for that course back in 2002 when it was owned by Jim K.  Budget was tight but we got a number of changes implemented while he was still the owner that improved the golf course - trees, bunkers (added or removed), grassing lines, tees,...  As I have said many times, most courses have room for improvement and while some golfers might not care or even notice, these things can help the course.  Look at Bethlehem for example.  Most thought that course was what it was.  It would have been easier to simply put some new sand in the existing bunkers and call it a day.  People love the changes.  There is a good article coming out in the USGA Green Section in the spring that talks about all the improvements (fixes if you will). 


As far as Allentown goes, that is a 1952 Ault & Clark design.  It was redone many years ago I believe by the same group.  We have been involved of late with some of the recent changes and upgrades (trees/mowing lines) and hopefully more work will be done in the coming years on the green sites.  Things get done as budget is available.  The super and GM there are great to work with.  The super is doing a fantastic job. 

[Jim Sherma]

Mark - no argument that every place can be made better. When Allentown got re-done back in the 90's the work was a nice upgrade from a shaping standpoint and added some interest to the recovery shots around the green when compared to the original round and  tilted set of greens. It seems to me that the greens that are there currently don't have enough pin-able space to spread the wear around. At least in my limited rounds there over the past 25 years that's my take.


Allentown has always seemed to be well run, in many ways a stark contrast to Bethlehem. They always seemed to be much better at making a golf-centric culture and feel that had nothing to do with the courses themselves. I've knew their current pro, Jeff Wambold, dating back from high school golf and a period where both of our dad's were at Harker's Hollow. He always could really hit the ball a looong way (I believe that he competed in the national long drive contests at one point). It's been a while since I've made my way out there but from what I hear Jeff has been doing a great job.   

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Jeff Wambold has been great to work with as has Chris Reverie the super.  They have a tough job with a limited budget but they have done fantastic things for that property.  And you are right about some of the greens.  That is all part of our plan when more funding comes available.  There are a lot of disconnects with the surrounds as well that will be addressed. 


As far as Bethlehem goes, we should go play it together in the spring.  The new team over there is doing a phenomenal job and I expect the newly renovated course to flourish.  But by no means is anything a slam dunk.  There are lots of challenges and they know it.  The new super who came in from Northampton CC is great and I expect the course to be in the best condition ever come spring.