USGA Golf Courses

[Dale_McCallon]

With the PGA playing this week at another TPC course, it got me wondering.  Why doesn't the USGA go into the course design/ownership business?  Is this something they have ever tried?

Think about it.  Over a period of years, the USGA could build sites all over the country and use these courses not just for their championships, but also for the other missions of the USGA (jr golf, agronomy and/or rules clinics, etc.).  By doing this, the USGA could eliminate the large payments to host clubs, control all other revenues, and if the courses were public make money from the fees from the courses.

I know part of the lore of the game is going back to great venues for these championships, but if they built great courses couldn't these place build up their own traditions?  

Maybe I'm an idiot, and I'm sure most of you guys who are staunch traditionalists will cringe at the thought.  But if this makes you cringe, don't complain the next time the USGA sets up a course in such extreme ways that it takes away the original intent of the architect.  

[ed_getka]

Dale,
  Who do you think would build those courses? I would guess Rees Jones, given his Open doctor moniker. I'm not saying he couldn't build some great courses, but I would like to see more variety, which isn't what the myopic USGA is known for.
   Why would the USGA want to deal with the headaches of developing a golf course and keeping it financially viable between tournaments? Seems like coming in and taking over at the clubs that grovel for the opportunity to host an Open is much easier.
     Of course, any golf course with enough room for the infrastructure could host an Open nowadays. You make it play 7400 yards, narrow the fairways to 15 yards, make the greens rock hard, and push the greens to the edge of their life to stimp as fast as possible.

[Dale_McCallon]

Ed,

Would it matter who the architect is?  Maybe to people like us on this site.  Do you really think people watch the US Open because of the course's lineage?  How many people that watched this years Open could tell you who William Flynn is?  Like you said any course that can stretch to 7400 yards... can host an Open--so why would it matter if Rees Jones built it or someone like Doak or C&C.

And your comment about keeping it financially viable?  Don't you think if you hold a US Open at the same public site every 8-10 years, it would make money hand over foot?  Considering these courses would need to be near metro areas, I would think tee times would be at a premium.

[TEPaul]

Dale:

Interesting you say that. There was a time in the late 1920s when William Flynn who occassionally wrote for the USGA Green Section report proposed this very thing in a USGA Green Section article. We have that article of Flynn's but it's also part of the USGA Green Section record online.

Flynn's reasoning was if the USGA wanted to experiment with golf architecture in the sense of continuously changing it on  golf courses to accomodate such things as improved equipment and the increasing distance the ball went and would unfortunately probably continue to go it might be prudent if they built their own courses and did that only on their own courses.

Flynn may have viewed this suggestion as a form of an on-going architectural laboratory. He didn't exactly say it but he may have been implying he'd be a good candidate to design and build these courses for the USGA.

In any case seeing as what's happened to architecture and all those inclined to continuosly change it in ensuing years Flynn's 1920s suggestion does seem a bit futuristic or perhaps even ironic, don't you think?

[Tom_Doak]

Dale:

The USGA has explored ownership of individual golf courses a couple of times in the past.  At one point they were ready to buy The Golf Club, in Columbus, and move Golf House there, but were rejected by the club.

However, the USGA board is a very conservative group and getting into the golf "business" is not a part of its mission statement, so owning a chain of courses as you suggest would be a big stretch for them.  The PGA Tour justified it as an asset to their pension plan, and I'm sure it has been.

The irony is that every year there are a couple of courses whose developers want to "build a course which can host a U.S. Open," and yet none of those courses ever host a U.S. Open.  The USGA is too much into holding events at traditional venues, even if it means changing them beyond all recognition to protect their integrity.

[TEPaul]

Last time I was at the USGA in Far Hills there was mention of the USGA considering buying a chunk of land either next to them or even contiguous to them. When I asked if they were considering building a golf course on it the answer was; "Maybe."

[Dennis_Harwood]

Competition is a huge drawback (as it should be)-- The USGA members are not just individual golfers, but also golf courses to whom the USGA provides assistance on agronomy, green construction, turf care, conducting events, etc--

To directly compete with those courses in the market place would be "bad form".

Perhaps courses being built under the donation concept in areas where it would clearly be a "money loser" but would grow the game by bringing golf to an area where no courses exit may make sense.  But I would doubt they would explore construction of course(s) as venues for their events.

[Dale_McCallon]

Dennis,

Good comment on the competition factor.  I never really thought about it taking away from the current courses.  Surely though you are talking about little known courses that would take a possible financial hit.  I mean do you think if the USGA built a course in the LA area the members of LACC or Riviera for example would panic?

[ed_getka]

Dale,
  I think Dennis brings up a good point regarding competition/conflict of interest.
   I also like Dennis' idea of having a "loss leader" in areas that don't have a decent/affordable course in the interest of growing the game.

[Dale_McCallon]

Ed,

Read my above post and you will see that I also thought Dennis made a very good pt.  One that I had not thought of.

What parts of the country would be considered a dead area for golf?  Here in my neck of the woods we have several courses within an hours drive, but really nothing special.  But where in the US is golf completely off the horizon.  Having never traveled to Big Sky country maybe out there somewhere?  I would have said the Dakotas,  but it seems like there is plenty of golf there if you go by all the Matt Ward's reviews as of late.

[ed_getka]

A course could be built here in NorCal (north of the Bay Area), as there are plenty of areas where the USGA could build a course if they were so inclined "for the good of the game". Except the USGA isn't really that interested in growing the game IMO. Otherwise the average round wouldn't be 5 hours and $50-60 here in the Bay Area. I don't think that is conducive to growing the game. Golf is an expensive and time-consuming sport. Having longer courses, that take up more space,and more time to play, and are more expensive to build are not helping the game.
    Once upon a time I thought the USGA cared about the game, but then I realized that fairy tales start with "once upon a time", and I no longer belong to the organization.
   

[TEPaul]

Once again, I've got to say I've had issues with the USGA over the years but I sure do hope threads like this don't turn into another general bashing of the USGA for some reason.

The USGA sure isn't perfect but we all should realize if they happened to go down and out the game of golf most of us love and enjoy would be in a world of hurt.

Who'd step in to fill the void---Tim Finchem? Finchem seems to be a good professional tour administrator but I sure wouldn't want to see this great game of golf run by someone like that trying to do some of the necessary things the USGA has done for golf in this country for over 100 years.

[Steve Lapper]

Last time I was at the USGA in Far Hills there was mention of the USGA considering buying a chunk of land either next to them or even contiguous to them. When I asked if they were considering building a golf course on it the answer was; "Maybe."

Tom,

   The "powers that be" over there off Liberty Corner Road have now had three seperate chances to "buy" major pieces of land nearby (and in one case,abutting their land). They never even gave them serious looks! Granted, the piece abutting their land was surrounded by tract housing that would naturally be a turn-off for all but the blind (and some of those guys may rightly be accused of being just that ), but the other two sites were amply able to serve the USGA as a "home" course. Other than the overabundance of clay and lack of sandy soil, no other good reason exists. Any thoughts on why?

Steve

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Do I have any thoughts on why they didn't buy the land? No I don't but I'll try to ask. I'd like you to look into something for me if it's no trouble. There's a really beautiful farm next to or really close to the USGA if you come out of their driveway and turn left and go down the road about 1/2 mile or so. I have a funny feeling that farm might've belonged to Max Behr at one point. Obviously, that was well before he moved to California and way before the USGA moved out of NYC and to Far Hills but still I find that sort of ironic!

[Kevin_Reilly]

A course could be built here in NorCal (north of the Bay Area), as there are plenty of areas where the USGA could build a course if they were so inclined "for the good of the game".

Note that the NCGA owns two courses, one of which is used for a number of their competitions (Poppy Hills).  So the association ownership model does work on the local level (though I dislike Poppy Ridge intensely).