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.


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The "F" Words
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2006, 11:58:31 PM »
Darren,

 You concede that golfing on firmer turf adds variables to consider before pulling the trigger. (IMO, that can still be done in a timely fashion while one is approaching their ball.) Healthier turf is justification enough. My residual arguements are more about the culture that has been born out of the inferior GCA & standardized maintenance. There has been an overall lack of shotmaking requirements placed upon the "better" golfer directly related to that lethal combination.


Dan,
 I can commiserate with the owner/operator's dilema. However, Getting back to a sport that inspires both sides of the human brain, will eventually fill your tee sheet. Because these customers will be real golfers, not the fickle 4-5 times a year go'ers.

Dialing in a number and having the outcome predictable is what is at the root of losing customers, industry wide.

 
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Dan_Lucas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The "F" Words
« Reply #51 on: October 25, 2006, 10:29:52 AM »
Adam

The 4-5 times a year golfers are a very small percentage of golfers with that viewpoint. I think that is something that is not understood by a large number of people on this site. The public courses are full of these people including probably 80% of the league players that pay the bills at a large number of public courses around the country.

I have been very lucky here at Kingsley that Mike D. and Fred Muller sold the owners on this premise before I even came on board. Every member that has joined here knew what we were trying to do BEFORE they joined, therefore I get to do what I do without playing any political games. I actually get complaints from members when it rains and the course softens for a day or two.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The "F" Words
« Reply #52 on: October 25, 2006, 05:38:13 PM »
"What golfers want should have zero bearing on what they get."

All good for you to say unless you own a golf course.

If your competitor down the road is maintained lush and wet so Joe Bogey's 5 iron approaches splat down and stay put, Joe Bogey will play there instead of your place. Even if your greens putt much better, he would much rather stake that 5 iron than admire the perfect roll on his 40' birdie putt at your place.


While I think Adam's statement is a bit ridiculous (talk about the opposite of "the customer is always right!") I don't believe your assertion either.  I certainly hear higher handicap golfers complain about F&F conditions on the greens because their approaches won't hold well, but complaints about the greens being too slow and/or too bumpy/chewed up greatly dominate them.

Given a choice between not having their approaches hold and putting over a sea of ball marks and spike marks, I think the vast majority would choose the former.  But amazingly I think many golfers don't think about the correlation between receptive greens and greens with lots of ugly ball marks.

Maybe they expect the maintenance staff ought to be able to do something about them -- after all, when the pros play a wet course where every shot leaves a big hole, the greens are still beautiful on TV.  But they don't understand that's because those courses haven't received anything like the play their course does in the week or two prior to the event, and that pros are much better than regular golfers at fixing their ball marks.  I wonder if those courses giving players those special repair tools that force people to fix marks correctly (instead of pulling up on the roots like 98% of golfers do, if they bother to fix the mark at all) have seen improved greens?

I do think some people are being a bit unfair to Steve here, I do believe he has a valid point that some golfers prefer slow and lush conditions.  I happen to think they are wrong to want that but many of them have rarely experienced anything else so it is just what they are used to and have designed their game around.  If you hardly ever play F&F conditions, you will not learn the ground game, or about thinking about approach angles, so everything just seems unfair as they try to hit the same high shots they normally do.  Just like some golfers will never play on a windy day because they do not appreciate the challenge or understand how to play the shots demanded of the golfer in such conditions.  I do think that if they realized the benefits of F&F environmentally, cost-wise, turf health wise and green trueness/appearance wise they might be willing to live with what they see as the "negatives" of F&F and over time many would become fans of F&F.  But if a super at a course that's been S&L for years in a climate that would permit F&F decided to go F&F, I think its likely he'd have a hard time getting full member acceptance without selling them on it first.  For a public course its different, you can just do it, and if the cost savings in lower maintenance costs outweighs plus new play from people who like F&F outweighs the revenue loss from people who prefer S&L, you are fine.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The "F" Words
« Reply #53 on: October 25, 2006, 06:34:58 PM »
Doug, My statement is only a bit ridiculous because golfer's are not asked to adapt to the conditions du jour. And, are instead fawned over for their dollars, rather than their comraderie, golfing accumen or personality.

Listening to people whose lawns are the only experience they have with turf, is completely ridiculous.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle