Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: William_G on October 29, 2013, 10:37:20 PM
-
I just read a comment from a prominent golf course architect that essentially was a complaint about how difficult it was to design length and tees to accommodate golfers of varying ability in their pursuit of having fun with golf...
In essence, the implication is that golfers are more impatient and can't necessarily figure out how to have fun on their own, yet that is the hope, and has been the hope for decades or centuries.
In our fast food, fast everything society, do golfers need to be spoon fed, should they be spoon fed or figure it out on their own?
Should golf course architects attempt to cater to all golfers in 2013 and beyond, or is this like Don Quixote?
"the only way to do great work is to love what you do" Steve Jobs
8)
-
Don Quixote
-
gracias
-
I think this echos to some recent posts which discussed combo tees. This is becoming more popular and gives many courses 2 or 3 different looks when blending the tees to create a 'composite' course. If you could alter the middle and back most tees, by angle, hazard, etc. this would provide the variation many our looking for. The golfer is the one who needs to have less ego and move up from hole to hole to change the look.
-
William,
Historically, architects did cater (to a degree) to all levels of golfers.
But, today, with the spectrum of golfers expanded, exponentially, it's almost impossible
-
thanks, making it happen for all golfers would be my approach if I were a golf course architect, and no doubt in every endeavor the consumer is more demanding today in 2013/2014.
should the golf course architect face the challenge or place head in sand?
-
thanks, making it happen for all golfers would be my approach if I were a golf course architect, and no doubt in every endeavor the consumer is more demanding today in 2013/2014.
should the golf course architect face the challenge or place head in sand?
To me, the problem is getting GOLFERS to understand the nature of the game. There is nothing in the Rules [or in the history of the game] to suggest that the golfer should be provided with 18 holes tailored to themselves. In fact, one of the things I've always tried to do is see that NO player was comfortable with all 18 holes, so as to treat everyone the same.
There are lots of courses where a player with certain skills [most likely, skills resembling the architect's skills] can go along comfortably hole after hole, while players who don't carry the ball quite so far must play around all the hazards, hole after hole. Indeed, the better players think this is a mark of superior design -- if you can't carry it 220 yards [or 280!] you are just not good at golf, and should not be able to score so well.
The golf architect's mission should be just the other way around -- to mess with the good players while letting the bogey golfer get on with the game. That's not to say the bogey golfer shouldn't face his share of hazards, too -- he just shouldn't face the lion's share of them.
-
Are golfers more demanding in 2013? Yes, of course. But, it's mostly Americans. We need five sets of tees. Greens must be perfect. Rough must be uniform so that there are no bad lies. And on and on. My experience is that UK and Irish courses have far less of that. A tee for men and a tee for women with a few tees that are only for championships. Greens are slower (some may even vary in speed on within the same course) yet roll well. Rough is not uniform at all.
Should the golfer be catered too? No, but courses have to meet what the market demands. More courses should be like Ballyneal and Double Eagle with no tee markers put out.
-
I agree with Pat that with the diverse golfer playing, its hard to accommodate at least six basic levels of tee shot distance. Just like restaurants have evolved from one stop broad menus to specialized menus, it may be time for golf courses to stop trying to be everything to everybody.
Frankly, I believe the best trend would be to leave the best golfers out of the mix when trying to cater to the masses. Less than 1% of golfers play the back tees, so why bother with them? This presumes of course, that they already have places they can play with back tees over 7200 yards or whatever. It eats up land, cost to mow, etc. As Churchill once said, "Never has so much golf course been built for so few" (or something like that)
Just because there is not much in the history of golf trying to level the playing field, doesn't mean that its the right history. I always took it to mean that those in charge of golf just really didn't care. Maybe that was fine as long as golf was growing, but now with more options available for recreation, if you were a course owner, would you adopt such a cavalier attitude? From what I can see, "Screw 'em" is a far better attitude on the internet than in the real business world......
-
Just because there is not much in the history of golf trying to level the playing field, doesn't mean that its the right history. I always took it to mean that those in charge of golf just really didn't care. Maybe that was fine as long as golf was growing, but now with more options available for recreation, if you were a course owner, would you adopt such a cavalier attitude? From what I can see, "Screw 'em" is a far better attitude on the internet than in the real business world......
Naturally, I object to the characterization of my attitude as "Screw 'em." I've wrestled with the issues every bit as much as you have. And, my approach seems to have been fairly popular in the marketplace.
-
Are golfers more demanding in 2013? Yes, of course. But, it's mostly Americans. We need five sets of tees. Greens must be perfect. Rough must be uniform so that there are no bad lies. And on and on. My experience is that UK and Irish courses have far less of that. A tee for men and a tee for women with a few tees that are only for championships. Greens are slower (some may even vary in speed on within the same course) yet roll well. Rough is not uniform at all.
Should the golfer be catered too? No, but courses have to meet what the market demands. More courses should be like Ballyneal and Double Eagle with no tee markers put out.
Steve,
I'm not sure Ballyneal is a good example of what the market demands. The pictures are stunning, and it seems like a nearly perfect club to me, but considering they were trying to draw from the entire nation and could only sell about 100 memberships prior to bankruptcy, I'm not sure that's what the broader market is really looking for.
So much of this discussion, like many here, is market location specific. In my area with approx 100k people in a 20 mile radius there is 1 Private Club, 1 20 year old semi-private with 4 sets of tees, 3 established 18 hole semi-privates and a few 9 hole courses.
While the private club I'm a member of struggles, the course that is thriving is the newer course with 4 sets of tees. They have a good superintendent who has the greens smooth rolling about 10.5 and the bentgrass fairways very nice. The rough and bunkers suffer in comparison to most high end clubs due to the tight budget, but they offer a great value with annual memberships under $1,000 and I believe you can walk for about $20. While the cart path locations and bunker styles are probably offensive to many, good greens and fairways go a long way for a cheap price, and it's plenty accommodating for the novice or the cart driving, beer drinking golfer. With back tees at just over 6,800 and 73/134 it can hold USGA qualifiers, but with the white tees at 5,700 and 68.3/123 it is fun and playable for almost all.
This is the course, it's not the greatest, but with low rates and fairly cheap beer, it meets market demands better than most.
http://www.senicasoakridge.net/course-tour/ (http://www.senicasoakridge.net/course-tour/)
While I can certainly enjoy the occasional cart round with a few drinks, I generally like my golf walking and much more traditional. It would be nice if we could collectively change the "market" to fully accept and support the version of the game most on this site love, but right now I think the market is far from that. I'm sure one of the downside of so many more public access courses is people learn the game in a different manner than at a course with a membership culture. That said, if done right courses can easily present multiple tees without being a huge cost burden, which does allow courses to provide a fun path for beginners and a reasonable challenge for better players.
-
Today's golfer is far too demanding of conditions, length and architecture (whether or not they understand or appreciate it).
I was looking at some residential building sites in East Nashville yesterday and decided to drive by the 18 hole Shelby Park muni which I'd never seen in my 28 years of living in the Nashville area. I was blown away by its simplicity: nary a bunker, beautiful tiny pushed up greens, heaving topography. Virtually empty. Built in 1926. Rumor is there are some Ross plans. Whatever.
Why don't I play there? I have no excuse.
Hey Tim Bert, want to give it a try? I haven't heard of any hold-ups over there in a few years.
Bogey
-
??? ::) ;)
Jeff , realistically speaking how can you cater to everyone? If you build a course with tee's to accommodate all golfers , its a mess and a maintenance nightmare . I'm on board with Tom iin the respect that golf isn't a game of perfect.
This doesn't of course mean you have tiger tees only and the most difficult greens , it's obvious the market for this is limited , and less fun equals less participation. Architects can find some middle ground that works for the demographic they are looking to serve and the client building the course. we've had some great discussions here in years past on "flow" and how a great design melds some easier holes into the mix, a breather so to speak .
Management can help by knowing on busy days to set the tee markers forward and make the pins on the easy side. When you have your club events look at the participants for the day , and set up your golf course accordingly . An architect can only do so much , the club needs to help make it work .
-
Andrew - I wasn't clear in my post. I didn't mean to suggest that Ballyneal or Double Eagle (just the lack of tee markers there) are what the market is demanding. But, I do think golf would be better for it.
-
"To me, the problem is getting GOLFERS to understand the nature of the game."
At some deep/foundational level, I think that's exactly it.
Do we (moderns) give ourselves over the the game, defer to it and to its ethos and challenges, participate in IT? Or do we instead demand that it remake itself to serve US, and expect that the game and its fields of play change and defer to our own personal wants and needs?
I think we (moderns), in just about every area of life, expect and live by the latter approach, centred as we are on ourselves in an increasing (and increasingly obvious) way.
The challenge, the great challenge -- and methinks, sadly, the insurmountable challenge -- is to try to turn that ship around, to try to encourage and teach a different world view and approach to the game, without duplicity or disrespect but also without making it primarily about the teaching (lest we moderns get our noses out of joint).
Peter
-
You know it's the age old dilemma of trying to educate folks while at the same time trying to grow your popularity.
So do you face the challenge or whine about it?
One thing about BN is that it is a great match play course in that the greens are extreme and FUN yet if a score is what is sought that may not be the architecture for it.
If the goal is for folks to have FUN and play against your playing partner that is fine.
Yet most Americans are trained by the pros and they play for score week in and week out, which is not really fun.
Maybe the golfer must figure out that a course like Old Mac is fun if you accept the 3 putts after your GIR and playing it via match play is the way to go.
So how can you be catering to the golfer in 2013 while still educating them that the architecture is part of the game and is meant to be enjoyed while overcoming fun challenges?
As far as conditioning, that is also less of a concern in match play, yet some retired folks want to be spoon fed as they move from one seasonal course to another. ???
Catering may have to start in the pro shop as opposed starting with the design.
Yet whining about it is so unattractive, and facing the challenge as best as possible is the way to go, IMHO.
Finally, this is not about me needing any catering to, LOL
-
As for the second part of the question, imho golfers must be catered to just like any other consumer. Consumers value that which meets their needs, it's as simple as that.
In a mature industry where there is no growth, increased or new rounds must come at the expense of the competition.
By analogy, the quality of today's music coming out of Nashville pales into comparison to the good old days, but any song-writer worth his salt has to pander to the masses to earn a decent living. Ms. Swift has it down pat.
Bogey
-
Andrew - I wasn't clear in my post. I didn't mean to suggest that Ballyneal or Double Eagle (just the lack of tee markers there) are what the market is demanding. But, I do think golf would be better for it.
Makes sense. I tend to agree with you, but I do struggle a little on the multiple marker thing.
If players learn the game young, like we did, I don't think it matters. I was content starting at the 150 marker, moving up to ladies tees and finally graduating to mens tees.
When trying to get an adult to play the game it's probably a little harder, and I wish I had the best answer, but generally speaking I like the idea of a set under 6,000 yards, and I don't like the idea of playing from that set myself on a regular basis, so I probably am too demanding.
-
As for the second part of the question, imho golfers must be catered to just like any other consumer. Consumers value that which meets their needs, it's as simple as that.
In a mature industry where there is no growth, increased or new rounds must come at the expense of the competition.
By analogy, the quality of today's music coming out of Nashville pales into comparison to the good old days, but any song-writer worth his salt has to pander to the masses to earn a decent living. Ms. Swift has it down pat.
Bogey
+1 same as Ms. Hill
It's one thing to cut a record or secure a deal to build a golf course, but to have it achieve GREATNESS is a whole nother thing
-
Today's golfer is far too demanding of conditions, length and architecture (whether or not they understand or appreciate it).
I was looking at some residential building sites in East Nashville yesterday and decided to drive by the 18 hole Shelby Park muni which I'd never seen in my 28 years of living in the Nashville area. I was blown away by its simplicity: nary a bunker, beautiful tiny pushed up greens, heaving topography. Virtually empty. Built in 1926. Rumor is there are some Ross plans. Whatever.
Why don't I play there? I have no excuse.
Michael,
I think one reason that today's golfer is too demanding is because the overpopulation of golf courses allow it. It's been 15 years since I've played golf in Nashville, and I'm admittedly not very familiar with the area, but in 5 minutes on line I can see that it will cost $26 to ride at Shelby Park Muni, and I can get a tee time at nearly 20 courses on GolfNow in the area for that price or less tomorrow.
I'm not sure on the location, but some courses appear quite nice, Greystone, Windtree, The Tennessean, RiverWatch, etc.
I think that has really hurt the very simple basic course, in a lot of locations there are decent options for very low rates.
-
There's an old saying, "No one knows the formula for success, but surely, the formula for failure is to try to please everybody."
You just can't please everybody, it's impossible.
What an architect can do is forge a disinterested challenge that favors no one element of golfer.
That task has been made far more difficult by the expanded spectrum of golfers and distance.
The danger I see is the dumbing down of features/holes in order to accomodate the greatest percentage of golfers.
Take the 3rd hole at NGLA, the Alps. A brilliant hole, off the tee, on the approach, on recovery and on putting.
How long would that hole remain intact, without any alteration, if it was on a public course ?
-
Patrick,
An interesting theory, to be sure. The biggest loser, as it were, in accommodating public/average golfers is the cross hazard, which CBM used a lot.
That said, we know the cross hazard rarely troubles the modern player as it did when balls didn't have the lift. They still trouble the average golfer. So, is leaving cross hazards out (except for maybe a single example as an "homage" to the old days) really dumbing down the design, or just adapting for both modern good and average play?
Things do change over time, and sticking with an old golf concept might be akin to continuing to build the Edsal, no?
-
Things do change over time, and sticking with an old golf concept might be akin to continuing to build the Edsal, no?
Jeff,
Asking a question in that format is the easiest way to show you grew up in or around Chicago, no?
:P
-
Yet most Americans are trained by the pros and they play for score week in and week out, which is not really fun.
This is fairly typical of consistent theme that pops up pretty regularly on here. I for one really don’t understand it.
What isn’t fun about shooting a personal best score?
What isn’t fun about posting (by your own standards) a great number in trying conditions?
What isn’t fun about ticking off milestones such as breaking 100, 90, 80 or even par for the first time?
What isn’t fun about being able to track your improvement and see actual progression as your scores get lower?
What isn’t fun about starting a round poorly but then setting in and resurrecting a respectable score?
I am a big fan of match play and love playing it. I am also a big fan of strokeplay and have fun playing that also.
-
Yet most Americans are trained by the pros and they play for score week in and week out, which is not really fun.
This is fairly typical of consistent theme that pops up pretty regularly on here. I for one really don’t understand it.
What isn’t fun about shooting a personal best score?
What isn’t fun about posting (by your own standards) a great number in trying conditions?
What isn’t fun about ticking off milestones such as breaking 100, 90, 80 or even par for the first time?
What isn’t fun about being able to track your improvement and see actual progression as your scores get lower?
What isn’t fun about starting a round poorly but then setting in and resurrecting a respectable score?
I am a big fan of match play and love playing it. I am also a big fan of strokeplay and have fun playing that also.
I can tell you that most of the young golfers my age play golf singularly for this reason. Their enjoyment comes from the challenge of trying to master the game, which we all know is impossible, not from the actually act of playing it. The amazing part of golf to me is that so many people continue to play only for the purpose of improving, when they are actually missing out on the best part of the game.
-
"That said, we know the cross hazard rarely troubles the modern player as it did when balls didn't have the lift."
Oh, I see now. The modern day duffer easily lofts his ball over cross hazards. Perhaps my age disqualifies me from being modern day. ::)
Duffers hit bad shots. Dufners hit good shots. Duffers often fall in cross hazards. Dufners seldom fall in cross hazards.
-
This problem is well illustrated by the number of posters on this site that feel entitled to not post under their real names as asked by Ran. It's an all me all the time world now.
-
Patrick,
An interesting theory, to be sure. The biggest loser, as it were, in accommodating public/average golfers is the cross hazard, which CBM used a lot.
That said, we know the cross hazard rarely troubles the modern player as it did when balls didn't have the lift. They still trouble the average golfer. So, is leaving cross hazards out (except for maybe a single example as an "homage" to the old days) really dumbing down the design, or just adapting for both modern good and average play?
Things do change over time, and sticking with an old golf concept might be akin to continuing to build the Edsal, no?
Jeff,
I guess the question comes down to: To what level does the architect diminish the challenge in order to accomodate a golfing public that doesn't have the will to stand up to a sterner challenge ?
Where will that slope end ?
What's really amazing to me is the challenge some courses, like Hollywood presented, when the equipment and ball didn't come close to matching the performance of today's equipment and ball.
In part, I think the shift in emphasis, from match to medal play is greatly responsible.
-
"To me, the problem is getting GOLFERS to understand the nature of the game."
At some deep/foundational level, I think that's exactly it.
Do we (moderns) give ourselves over the the game, defer to it and to its ethos and challenges, participate in IT? Or do we instead demand that it remake itself to serve US, and expect that the game and its fields of play change and defer to our own personal wants and needs?
I think we (moderns), in just about every area of life, expect and live by the latter approach, centred as we are on ourselves in an increasing (and increasingly obvious) way.
The challenge, the great challenge -- and methinks, sadly, the insurmountable challenge -- is to try to turn that ship around, to try to encourage and teach a different world view and approach to the game, without duplicity or disrespect but also without making it primarily about the teaching (lest we moderns get our noses out of joint).
Peter
As ever, very eloquently put.
Golf, although it's not always obvious, has taught me about humility by teaching me to adjust to what is, rather than demand that the world change to accommodate my immediate wants. It's the same philosophy which makes me wince at the thought of too many sets of tees, thus enabling everyone to shot, theoretically at least, a 59. I've yet to meet the improving kid that told me golf was boring because he or she was always having to hit fairway woods and many of the par 4's were three shotters.
And to put it as ineloquently as possible "fe@k 'em." If I've tried to teach you the ways of this great sport and you refuse to get with the program, go invent your own game. As Pat so rightly said, the best route to failure is to try to please everyone.
-
Patrick,
An interesting theory, to be sure. The biggest loser, as it were, in accommodating public/average golfers is the cross hazard, which CBM used a lot.
That said, we know the cross hazard rarely troubles the modern player as it did when balls didn't have the lift. They still trouble the average golfer. So, is leaving cross hazards out (except for maybe a single example as an "homage" to the old days) really dumbing down the design, or just adapting for both modern good and average play?
Things do change over time, and sticking with an old golf concept might be akin to continuing to build the Edsal, no?
Jeff,
I guess the question comes down to: To what level does the architect diminish the challenge in order to accomodate a golfing public that doesn't have the will to stand up to a sterner challenge ?
Where will that slope end ?
What's really amazing to me is the challenge some courses, like Hollywood presented, when the equipment and ball didn't come close to matching the performance of today's equipment and ball.
In part, I think the shift in emphasis, from match to medal play is greatly responsible.
Patrick, and GJ,
Wholly crap! What attitudes......
Truthfully, it is part of the problem that everyone in the golf business simply loves golf, golf courses, and the golf experience. So, courses tend to get designed that way.
If we took a survey of why the average American golfer plays, (and some have) its not about beating the golf course at all. Its about beating your friends for a nickel about half the time. (Camaraderie) along with exercise, etc. These surveys show that all the average golfer wants to do is shoot within 5 strokes or so of their normal score. Sure, once or twice a year they love the idea of playing the best courses in town, and every other year, those who can afford it take a buddies trip to Pebble or Bandon.
I get the impression that if the marketing guys got a hold of golf course design, the challenge would be reduced greatly, and yes, in your eyes, they would be pandering to those "without the will to stand up to a sterner challenge." IF we design for the customers who are going to play the golf course, it stands to reason they will enjoy it more. Is giving the crowd what they want such a bad thing?
What business model is successful in "teaching those people a lesson?" Or, trying to elevate their tastes from action flicks to opera?
Surveys also show these disturbing facts - the average golfer hits only 5-15 good shots a round. "Good shot" means airborne and in the right general direction, so the bar is pretty low. Less than 5 good shots on average, and golfers quit. So, my comment on the frontal bunkers is that I have actually seen the frustration of an average player hitting a "good shot" that the architect has repeatedly turned into a bad shot for them. When they hit the good shot, they wish to be rewarded.
And, going back to my comment earlier, in general, if cross hazards punish average players 4-5X good players (and it may be 10X) and there are OTHER challenges we can design in, why use them often? Usually, enviro restrictions cause us to use them more often than we would otherwise, which is why I rarely use full cross bunkers at a green or fw. (I do like a fortress green every so often!)
Or put another way, does the good golfer need every type of challenge on every course, every day, such as a Redan, Cape, etc. holes? Of course, on a Cape hole, with tee positioning, a wide fw (which in no way diminishes the actual challenge of the Cape) and other factors, we can usually make it work okay for others. Naturally, helps if the water is on the left, not right.
That sort of thing is what gca's have been doing for decades. The great thing is, a few have built great courses for either good players or that twice a year outing, which is fine. What we are talking about is the courses ten miles from golfer X front door and what they should be like.
-
The more I think about it, the more I think about that in any other industry, manufacturers respond to the market by carving out their own little niche. Some people want a Mercedes; some people want an SUV; some want a car that gets 50 MPG.
But in golf, everybody insists on a 7000-yard Mercedes, with tees that will make it play like an SUV. The rankings are partly to blame, because conventional wisdom is that you have to have a golf course that's long to be respected and get it ranked. Even if it's only being ranked as GOLFWEEK or GOLF DIGEST's top 30 public courses in Minnesota, they don't change their criteria ... which is stupid.
I only started being successful in this business when I learned to stick to my own niche and try to dominate it [or co-dominate it], instead of trying to get jobs that were other guys' niches.
-
TD,
Well that is a whole different subject, but one of interest. How many GCA's rebranded themselves from one niche to another at some point?
CC went from remodels to new courses, after being sort of stuck for a while.
Perry Maxwell went from a CBM disciple at the original Dornick Hills to a $100K all in, easy to maintain course model.
Tilly went on his bunker reduction tour, and MacK preached public courses after a string of building the best there were, finally building three of them, from memory.
Perhaps Gil Hanse? Mostly remodels to start, but that isn't all that atypical. I might consider Ron Prichard, who went from Von Hagge associate (mostly new courses, and real estate courses) to a Ross expert. Brian Silva similar with Raynor, although I don't have the impression that is all he does.....
Any other examples out there?
-
Tom & Jeff,
I think one of the problems with golf and the design of golf courses, is that golfers tend to only view the game through their eyes and their game with little consideration given to the games of others.
Whereas, you have to view play of the game from the broad of spectrums and forge a balanced challenge that doesn't favor any one golfer/element.
In general, I think there's a curve that's age related as it relates to the preferred distance a course should be.
Young bombers, irrespective of their shot pattern, want long courses.
Somewhere around 60, and often earlier, golfers come to accept that the challenge is beyond their ability and start to seek a lesser challenge in the form of forward tees.
But, still, you have to design for the young bombers and the realists alike.
Not an easy task.
-
... GJ,
Wholly crap! What attitudes......
...
My apologies Jeff. I misunderstood your post on first reading.
-
Tom & Jeff,
I think one of the problems with golf and the design of golf courses, is that golfers tend to only view the game through their eyes and their game with little consideration given to the games of others.
Whereas, you have to view play of the game from the broad of spectrums and forge a balanced challenge that doesn't favor any one golfer/element.
In general, I think there's a curve that's age related as it relates to the preferred distance a course should be.
Young bombers, irrespective of their shot pattern, want long courses.
Somewhere around 60, and often earlier, golfers come to accept that the challenge is beyond their ability and start to seek a lesser challenge in the form of forward tees.
But, still, you have to design for the young bombers and the realists alike.
Not an easy task.
Patrick:
I think you missed my point entirely.
I was lamenting the fact that developers can't decide what niche they are aiming for. Why don't some aim at the young bombers, and others aim at the realists? Why do they ALL try to suit EVERYBODY? My business sense tells me that's not the wisest strategy.
-
I'm totally with Tom here.
I and most guys I play with like interesting, challenging, quirky courses which allow us mid-handicappers to reach most greens in regulation if we're playing well. This generally means courses of 6000 - 6500 yards.
Many very accomplished golfers prefer long, flat, 'fair' courses of 7000 - 7500 yards because they are rewarded for their very particular skills.
Why should both types of golfer have to be accomodated on the same course? Simply adding extra tee boxes to a quirky course so as to increase the overall distance on the card makes no sense to me. A quirky course should be played on its own merits; if the tigers don't like it then let them play somewhere else - somewhere flat, long and boring. They'll love it!
I sometimes think that the 'better' the golfer, the less the apppreciation of golf course architecture.
-
I sometimes think that the 'better' the golfer, the less the apppreciation of golf course architecture.
Maybe not "less" so much as differently.Really good players play a different game,so maybe it stands to reason that they would look at the playing field differently.
-
Tom Doak wrote: "I was lamenting the fact that developers can't decide what niche they are aiming for. Why don't some aim at the young bombers, and others aim at the realists? Why do they ALL try to suit EVERYBODY? My business sense tells me that's not the wisest strategy."
1. Because it was not so very long ago that they could aim to suit EVERYBODY.
2. Because a private course would like to get members while they are young and project future income from them and hold onto these members as they age.
-
Yet most Americans are trained by the pros and they play for score week in and week out, which is not really fun.
This is fairly typical of consistent theme that pops up pretty regularly on here. I for one really don’t understand it.
What isn’t fun about shooting a personal best score?
What isn’t fun about posting (by your own standards) a great number in trying conditions?
What isn’t fun about ticking off milestones such as breaking 100, 90, 80 or even par for the first time?
What isn’t fun about being able to track your improvement and see actual progression as your scores get lower?
What isn’t fun about starting a round poorly but then setting in and resurrecting a respectable score?
I am a big fan of match play and love playing it. I am also a big fan of strokeplay and have fun playing that also.
I can tell you that most of the young golfers my age play golf singularly for this reason. Their enjoyment comes from the challenge of trying to master the game, which we all know is impossible, not from the actually act of playing it. The amazing part of golf to me is that so many people continue to play only for the purpose of improving, when they are actually missing out on the best part of the game.
Tim
What is it that you consider the best part of the game?
-
Tom & Jeff,
I think one of the problems with golf and the design of golf courses, is that golfers tend to only view the game through their eyes and their game with little consideration given to the games of others.
Whereas, you have to view play of the game from the broad of spectrums and forge a balanced challenge that doesn't favor any one golfer/element.
In general, I think there's a curve that's age related as it relates to the preferred distance a course should be.
Young bombers, irrespective of their shot pattern, want long courses.
Somewhere around 60, and often earlier, golfers come to accept that the challenge is beyond their ability and start to seek a lesser challenge in the form of forward tees.
But, still, you have to design for the young bombers and the realists alike.
Not an easy task.
Patrick:
I think you missed my point entirely.
I was lamenting the fact that developers can't decide what niche they are aiming for. Why don't some aim at the young bombers, and others aim at the realists?
Why do they ALL try to suit EVERYBODY?
Because they don't want to leave out a segment of the golfing world that can afford to buy their product.
The want to get members/money from anyone and everyone that has it.
My business sense tells me that's not the wisest strategy.
I'd agree.
I don't think you can be all things to all golfers.
I would tend to think that mentality resides within those who aren't purists
-
But, why do you have to be a purist to do the same thing businesses do in most other fields -- diversify and try to find your own niche?
Scotland is full of golf courses that are 6500 yards or 6000 yards or 5500 yards, and all of them have found an appropriate membership. In fact, the memberships do not segregate based on length nearly as much as we Americans might imagine. Rich Goodale, for example, is a very good player who's a member at a course that is under 6000 yards from the tips; he understands that a course of that length can still provide plenty of challenge. But the golf business in America (and anywhere else in the world where the Americans have influence) have dismissed the idea that a shorter course can be appealing to a big enough market. In fact, "dismissed" is not the right word ... they have attacked the idea.
-
Tom,
What belief about their target market do you think drives this dismissal of shorter courses among developers in USA? Do they think short courses appeal to old guys and old guys are cheap? Or are they operating on some kind of theory that lesser players tend to follow the "opinion leaders" who are mostly the big-hitting young and middle-aged men?
Or do you think it's more simplistic and just comes down to "nobody wants to play at a short course"?
Or maybe it's an equating of "shorter" with "older" and "longer" with "modern"...
-
At least I see more folks, mostly seniors, coming to grips with their actual length and what is fun to play. Used to me no man would play under 6000, so no matter what, they lied on the card, or made sure of the distance. Now, I hear many senior men say that if there isn't a tee set under 6000, they won't bother to play.
Sadly, my belief is, that with more internet tee booking, and several courses getting their first review via that method, that the "stats" of the course may become even more too important, rather than less.
That said, for a while in the go go 90's, Fazio seemed to buck the trend with his high end clubs, with many not exceeding 6800 yards or so. It felt like a good match of design to target golfers, since most who could afford those clubs didn't need 7000 yards, due to their middle age.
-
Tom, how many of those courses in Scotland have been built in the last 50 years?
There are quite a few successful longstanding clubs stateside under 6,500 yards, and a few under 6,000. Obviously we've seen more clubs increase length from their original design here. Have any clubs in Scotland done that? Have the 5,500 - 6,000 yard courses refrained out of purity, cost, or land constraint?
Do elements and topography have influence as well? I can think of a few courses in 6,000 yard range I'd be happy to be a member of, but most have the topography that allow them to play differently than a flat inland 6,000 yard course.
-
But, why do you have to be a purist to do the same thing businesses do in most other fields -- diversify and try to find your own niche?
I think in part, because ego, and not pure business rationale are in play.
For many developers, building a golf course is a lark, a foray into a field they love, but a field that's more of a hobby
Scotland is full of golf courses that are 6500 yards or 6000 yards or 5500 yards, and all of them have found an appropriate membership. In fact, the memberships do not segregate based on length nearly as much as we Americans might imagine. Rich Goodale, for example, is a very good player who's a member at a course that is under 6000 yards from the tips; he understands that a course of that length can still provide plenty of challenge. But the golf business in America (and anywhere else in the world where the Americans have influence) have dismissed the idea that a shorter course can be appealing to a big enough market. In fact, "dismissed" is not the right word ... they have attacked the idea.
Tom, I also think that developers are guilty of mimicking what they see on TV every week
Didn't the developer of PGA West tell Pete Dye that he wanted the hardest golf course in America.
For some reason, and I can't explain it, over the last 40 or so years, people have associated difficulty with greatness.
And, once that mindset comes into play, it's hard to dismiss and eradicate it.
There's a mentality that's not confined to golf that says, let's try to appeal and please everyone, and like you, I don't think it works.
I don't think that "once size fits all" is conducive to designing a great golf course.
-
But, why do you have to be a purist to do the same thing businesses do in most other fields -- diversify and try to find your own niche?
Scotland is full of golf courses that are 6500 yards or 6000 yards or 5500 yards, and all of them have found an appropriate membership. In fact, the memberships do not segregate based on length nearly as much as we Americans might imagine. Rich Goodale, for example, is a very good player who's a member at a course that is under 6000 yards from the tips; he understands that a course of that length can still provide plenty of challenge. But the golf business in America (and anywhere else in the world where the Americans have influence) have dismissed the idea that a shorter course can be appealing to a big enough market. In fact, "dismissed" is not the right word ... they have attacked the idea.
Couldn't agree more.
Education, education, education. Because education, perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, makes golfers less demanding.