Do members at your club want to make the course more architecturally interesting

[Garland Bayley]

It depends on where you belong, but generally, if you've joined a club that isn't architecturally interesting, you are probably less interested in revising it than someone who seeks out architecturally interesting courses.

On that point, I believe you are wrong. Perhaps the person doesn't want to selfishly consume the household finances disproportionately to join an architecturally more interesting course. Would not such a person be more interested in upgrading the course he has than the already interesting course?

[Jeff Spittel]

A few things that have been instrumental to getting our course project approved at BraeBurn:


- A well-traveled board of golf junkies who collectively understand what good looks like
- A thoughtful communication program that has articulated the value of the project beyond architectural considerations (i.e. conditioning)
- The formation of a long-range committee which has been entrusted with the development of an achievable, holistic master plan for the entire campus
- The recognition that the golf course is one of a few foundational elements of the club's long-term financial health 

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
What you are saying I think is true.  I am doing a renovation right now of Brookside CC in Pottstown, PA.  I was just talking to one of the key decision makers at club the other day.  He said to me they know they will never be a Merion or an Aronomink but that is ok with them.  He said they just want an upgraded experience for their membership and that is what we are all trying to provide.  We have been slowly chipping away at the Master Plan I did for them back in 2005 (I guess that is why they call these things long range master plans)    and now they have decided to implement almost everything that hadn’t yet been done (we have work underway on the majority of the 18 holes) and it should be wrapped up by spring (the blizzard that just hit the East Coast will slow things down a bit).  I give the super and the GM who have been there from the beginning a lot of credit for championing the process and maintaining the vision.  It is clubs like these that are instrumental in golf being successful.  There is a core group of people that have been involved and are passionate about their golf course.  It is exciting to meet with many of them who have been coming out to see the construction progress (I encourage that as it helps with the learning process we are talking about). 

[Terry Lavin]

I’ve been a member at Beverly for 34 years. It took 10 years to get 10 members interested in making meaningful changes to our tough but sort of dull course.


10 years later, we had 40 members interested. 7 years later we passed a Master Plan and managed to effectuate 65% of that vision. 10 years after that we had a huge tree clearing and last year almost all of the original Ron Prichard plan was implemented.


The process of planning, education and sales takes a lot of time to achieve a big renovation/restoration at a private club, to understate matters considerably.


The volatility of the dissenters has greatly dissipated, but I’m sure we will start hearing rumblings about changing this or that. Some people never use their mute button in this regard.

[Rob Marshall]

That’s why we hired Ian Andrew at my club. He did a great job with our bunkers and we’re moving on to trees.

[Terry Lavin]

That’s why we hired Ian Andrew at my club. He did a great job with our bunkers and we’re moving on to trees.

I love the smell of sawdust in the morning. It smells like victory!

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not sure that most club golfers even have the vocabulary to think in terms of architectural interest. Accepting that the median club player at most clubs is not a particularly good ball striker, it is difficult to see what a more interesting course would mean for them. Most of the more interesting architectural aspects of the two courses at my main club tend to be things that the median golfer thinks of as unfair or in need of being flattened out.

Median golfer? Gotta call bs on that. In my experience, it is the golfer whose ego is wed to the scorecard who calls unfair. The median golfer learned long ago to roll with the punches, and knows interesting architecture offers rewards along with its risks. Such golfers rejoice in their successes, and don't wallow in their defeats.

[Tim_Weiman]

Over the past 60 years I have belonged to a bunch of different clubs. I can honestly say that the clubs where the courses were least interesting had less interest in upgrading the course than clubs with very good courses. At one of the clubs all they had to do is change some of the mow lines and it would have been better. At the better courses most of the members welcomed changes that made the course more interesting. Of course, some of the better courses had more low handicappers. Maybe that makes a difference. I remember remarking to one 25 handicapper that 12 might be the worst hole in the state. He replied, "That's my favorite hole. I can par it once in a while."

Tommy,


Along the same lines, I once got fixed up with a really bad, beginning golfer on one of the Cleveland Metroparks nine hole courses.


This guy was terrible, but a very nice guy who seemed to love playing golf.


So, we started talking about golf courses and I naively said “what’s really nice is playing a good course”.


The guy replied he did that once and never wants to do that again. Why?


“This course had a hole you had to hit over water.......like 50 yards”.

[Jim Sherma]

Garland - simply no. You’re the aberration. Pin a more aggressive spot, have a hook lie in the fairway with a green that needs a cut to hold, a pin that you can’t two putt from above the hole ... wha, wha, wha it’s not the 0-6 handicaps complaining in my experience. Make the greens firm enough that a 150 yard hybrid hit 20 feet up in the air won’t hold...
Etc...

I'm not sure that most club golfers even have the vocabulary to think in terms of architectural interest. Accepting that the median club player at most clubs is not a particularly good ball striker, it is difficult to see what a more interesting course would mean for them. Most of the more interesting architectural aspects of the two courses at my main club tend to be things that the median golfer thinks of as unfair or in need of being flattened out.

Median golfer? Gotta call bs on that. In my experience, it is the golfer whose ego is wed to the scorecard who calls unfair. The median golfer learned long ago to roll with the punches, and knows interesting architecture offers rewards along with its risks. Such golfers rejoice in their successes, and don't wallow in their defeats.

[Garland Bayley]

...
So, we started talking about golf courses and I naively said “what’s really nice is playing a good course”.


The guy replied he did that once and never wants to do that again. Why?


“This course had a hole you had to hit over water.......like 50 yards”.

I concur. Ponds are the architect's crutch for not doing anything of note. My primary example is Monarch Dunes par 3 course. Lots of ponds. You hit it in the pond, there is no recovery. But, yet some of the other par 3 holes have no pond and very interesting recovery shots for the less than well struck tee shot.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland - simply no. You’re the aberration. Pin a more aggressive spot, have a hook lie in the fairway with a green that needs a cut to hold, a pin that you can’t two putt from above the hole ... wha, wha, wha it’s not the 0-6 handicaps complaining in my experience. Make the greens firm enough that a 150 yard hybrid hit 20 feet up in the air won’t hold...
Etc...

Who cares if you can't hit a hybrid more that 20 feet in the air if there in no pond in front of the green. Run the ball up on to the green, or to the best spot possible. Nothing to complain about. The median golfer (> 10 hcp) has no expectation of knocking it close to the aggressively placed pin.

I don't know what your experience, but I played several years in a senior interclub tour. Competition was four ball. Over the years I had three partners. Two were single digits, and one was my level of ability. With the single digits we would get paired with the lower handicaps. With the high digit we would get paired with other higher handicaps. When playing with the low handicaps, I thought I somehow had gained admission to the BMW club (bitch, whine, and moan). No end to calling things unfair, or "clown's mouth". When paired with the higher handicaps, no complaining, but a lot of laughing about our muck ups. When my low handicap partner got dragged into a higher handicap pairing with me, all he did was bitch and whine about how much noise we made talking and having a good time.

[Sean_A]

My guess is most members of my club don't think about the course except in relation to their game. Many are concerned with green quality and rough management. If there is talk of change it is usually based on what will make the course look better. At board level it's mostly about change to drive rankings by creating better views and drama. Some of the changes are good, some not so much.

Ciao

[Tom Yost]

...
Not that it's consistent across handicap levels.  High handicaps want it easier, low handicaps want it harder, i.e., grow the rough.
...

Problem is that features the low handicappers typically believe will make the course harder, just make it harder for the lesser golfers.

[Tommy Williamsen]

...
Not that it's consistent across handicap levels.  High handicaps want it easier, low handicaps want it harder, i.e., grow the rough.
...

Problem is that features the low handicappers typically believe will make the course harder, just make it harder for the lesser golfers.

You're right. All of the changes I want to make at the course where I live would make it more interesting for me but much harder for the bulk of members.

[Bernie Bell]

1/. I think regular players care primarily about greens, drainage and turf conditions.  At least I do.  Even the "most interesting course in the world" would be a drag for members if those things are not attended to. 

2/. Tom - do you ever fantasize about what the Bryce course could do with the ground where the airstrip is? 

[Tommy Williamsen]

1/. I think regular players care primarily about greens, drainage and turf conditions.  At least I do.  Even the "most interesting course in the world" would be a drag for members if those things are not attended to. 

2/. Tom - do you ever fantasize about what the Bryce course could do with the ground where the airstrip is?

Bernie, twenty years ago there was a push to scrap the airport and make three holes there. I don't think it ever even got to a vote. The ski people didn't want to spend the money on the cost of three new holes. We don't have many private planes but enough to keep it somewhat busy.


As an interesting aside[/size][size=78%], or maybe not,  as one of the few member owned golf/ski resorts, there is a lot of friction between the skiers and golfers. Golf loses anywhere between $150,000 and $200,000 a year. Skiing and now mt biking pay the freight. Skiers don't want to spend much on golf. Yet, they all know that without golf the resort loses members and house prices go down. [/size]

[cary lichtenstein]

I found thru the years that almost no club members cared about the architecture of our course nor knew a thing about golf course architects or architecture. I was amazed and shocked by this, but it is universal.

[Lou_Duran]

Ditto Cary.  Probably a good reason why this site is successful.  It also amazes me how many club pros can't tell you who designed their course.  Is this an indication that golfers don't see the importance of golf architecture in playing the game?

[Thomas Dai]

During a post round group discussion of the type of luggage to take on a golf trip a naughty person once mentioned Samsonite suitcases, Gladstone bags and Vardon grips in the same sentence. One or two could be observed smiling wryly. The others? Totally oblivious.


atb

[AChao]

From my experience, no.


First most important at a club with a bunch of low handicappers was to make it more "fair" -- for example, in the sense you couldn't just bail-out in another fairway and get a better angle, etc.  Bad shots needed to be punished appropriately.


Second, economics seems to drive things also.  My friend actually left a club because their were too many bad players (who wanted more flowers, etc.)


At the clubs I've been at, architecture is third or lower down -- Though, I've never lived in an area (when I was old enough and could afford to join a club) with what I would call a super interesting course architecturally.

[mike_malone]

AChao makes me realize why members at my club are aware of architecture. It’s because there are a lot of interesting courses in Philly. The competition is intense and as members play other courses they come home demanding a better course. Luckily we can compete.




But I still say that BEFORE we do something resistance to change is there but after the work is done they love it.

[AChao]

Yes.  Philly is great.  I went there for business school.  What a place for golf ... or New York or Long Island or Boston or SF and other citifies.  Unfortunately for me and others, we live in architecturally not-so-great areas.

AChao makes me realize why members at my club are aware of architecture. It’s because there are a lot of interesting courses in Philly. The competition is intense and as members play other courses they come home demanding a better course. Luckily we can compete.




But I still say that BEFORE we do something resistance to change is there but after the work is done they love it.

[mike_malone]

Yes.  Philly is great.  I went there for business school.  What a place for golf ... or New York or Long Island or Boston or SF and other citifies.  Unfortunately for me and others, we live in architecturally not-so-great areas.

AChao makes me realize why members at my club are aware of architecture. It’s because there are a lot of interesting courses in Philly. The competition is intense and as members play other courses they come home demanding a better course. Luckily we can compete.




But I still say that BEFORE we do something resistance to change is there but after the work is done they love it.

Move!

[David Ober]

I think many more members today than 20 years ago, certainly. The amazing design work that has been going on for the last 20 years or so has won converts. It's gotten far more people talking about architecture than ever before -- at least in my circles. Still not as many as I would like, but definitely far more.

Over the past 60 years I have belonged to a bunch of different clubs. I can honestly say that the clubs where the courses were least interesting had less interest in upgrading the course than clubs with very good courses. At one of the clubs all they had to do is change some of the mow lines and it would have been better. At the better courses most of the members welcomed changes that made the course more interesting. Of course, some of the better courses had more low handicappers. Maybe that makes a difference. I remember remarking to one 25 handicapper that 12 might be the worst hole in the state. He replied, "That's my favorite hole. I can par it once in a while."

[Anthony Butler]

I’m not sure what the term ‘architecturally interesting’ means in this conversation, but we fired Greg Norman and hired Tom Doak.


Does that answer the question?