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.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
RJ,

While I don't disagree with your basic principals, in actual fact, it hasn't worked out that way. Perhaps it will change in the near future, but the cost of the course itself is about 33-40% of the total cost of building a golf facility.

Thus, saving $300,000 on a $3,000,000 golf course isn't a 10% savings, it's a 3% savings.  Most operaters feel as if it's a better risk to add the 3% for the "wow factor" to build a better mouse trap, and hope that the greens fees can reflect that.  

More math - That $300,000 translates (at $7-10 per month, per 100, to about $25,000 K per year, or about $1 per round.  The operator needs only $1 more per round, or a few more rounds to justify the extra expense.  Reallly, a pretty easy justification.

More than that, the typical golf course annual budget - $400,000-600,000 each in debt, maintenance, pro shop operations, and hopefully, profit, means that the eye candy really adds a lot less to the basic cost of a new course than many would think.  And, when you consider that old courses are subtle, and for a lot less money - assuming their debt is low or paid off, the decision to spend on eye candy makes more, not less, economic sense, in the vast majority of new courses.

Spending even more money to correct basic drainage, irrigation and cart path problems before they start has a way of lowering on going costs, as well, especially in a low interest rate environment.  At least, thats how the people who have the real money to build new courses view it.

Besides, there (shameless attempt to reconnect to original topic here) is no reason that a course can't have good visuals, and good strategy!  Why a choice between the two?  

I was going to post a similar thought under one of the Fazio bashing threads, (whoops, there goes my drink) concerning framing and strategy.  There is certainly no reason a course can't have both - and Purgatory seems to be a good example of that! It is framed with bunkers and brown grass, not berms, more like MacKenzie, but it has great framing.

Jeff

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

GeoffreyC

Jeff

I think its pretty discouraging when a valuable member of our discussion group is so dogmatic about what has been going on here. This especially from someone in the business. When you say

"The point being, getting away from Fazio/Rees bashing will only solve half the currently percieved problem here - it will just move many over to bashing modern courses of other architects! Fire away!"

I hope this doesn't discourage the ongoing debate.  You and others do a good job of explaining the realities of designing courses today.  Sometimes the discussion gets a bit out of hand but most of the time our discussions work very well especially when we are called to task to give the details to back up our arguments.

From my recollection of the Purgatory discussion it was not at all bashing.  I remember a good discussion with some most actually liking the hole and others somewhat critical of all the bunkers. I will try to find it in the archives.-


T_MacWood

I agree with those who say many do not consider strategy -- as Tom Fazio says the modern golfer is looking for the "wow factor." But I also think that golfers have always wanted and appreciated a certain amount of "wow factor", decades ago MacKenzie wrote about giving the golfer thrills. The problem can be an over-emphasis on 'wow' at the expense of strategy. There really is no reason why they can not co-exist.

Even with many modern golfers not focused upon it, the strategy found on a well designed golf course really can not be ignored. The golfer is constantly faced with decisions which is the essence of strategy. Especially with the greens, it seems to me that most strategy revolves around interesting greens. And no matter the skill of the golfer everyone has to face the ultimate target.

Another strategy that can not be ignored and provides great interest are natural undulations. There sould much greater emphasis on interesting land forms and less emphasis on water as a strategic interest. A variety of hazards and strategic perdicaments are found on the courses that are the most fun to play.