[Andy Troeger]

I'm all for having the affordable category for public courses, but looking at this year's list I'm not sure there were enough to merit having the category. Even having $75 as the cutoff misses the point to an extent as to what's actually "affordable" for a recreational golfer--it really has to be closer to $50 and with that standard NONE of the top ten qualify. I'm not sure if any of the other candidates would either.

Still, there's a big difference between $75 and $350. To play the Dye Course at French Lick you also have to stay at the hotel which is probably minimum $150-200 per night.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

To be fair -- $100 as a ceiling limit is not unfair or out of whack. No doubt if a person can only handle $20-25 green fees then it would be doable.

I am not saying a cutoff can't work at $50 or even $25 if you want to push matters. But keeping costs at no more than double digits would likely be the best target cutoff to be appllied throughout the USA in my mind.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I don't see recreational golfers paying $100 to play a round of golf on any kind of regular basis in most areas of the country. The course in Albuquerque that gets the most play BY FAR is Arroyo del Oso which is the best of the three municipal courses and is maybe $30 give or take.

When Blackthorn and Warren in South Bend, IN got their fees up to that $75 range with cart on weekends their play dropped off rather significantly. Now I think one can get on either for $50 or under most of the time and from what I have heard play is back up. Both of those are pretty nice courses for the money.

If you compare only golf courses then courses like those are pretty good deals in terms of value for the money. If you compare even $75 courses to other types of recreation then the value drops off significantly.

All that said, economically you are right in that $100 has become somewhat of a cutoff for new affordable golf courses. I think that's a problem, however, if we actually expect people to continue to play.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Correction to your post ... I said no higher than double-digit fees.

Keep in mind, I am speaking about a facility that people won't be playing likely everyday -- especially those on a budget.

In regards to NM golf -- no doubt it MUST be low because of the residents in and around the vicinity.

Digest erred in getting rid of the best affordable category -- the issue is not quibbling on a final ceiling price but having something that celebrate relative accessibility -- keeping an award category for those at $99 and less would be a real bonanza for those who have limited access issues to private / resort types and those that are too pricey from the so-called "public" connection.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
If pictures say a thousand words that one is a motor mouth!   

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

Correction to your post ... I said no higher than double-digit fees.

Keep in mind, I am speaking about a facility that people won't be playing likely everyday -- especially those on a budget.

In regards to NM golf -- no doubt it MUST be low because of the residents in and around the vicinity.

Digest erred in getting rid of the best affordable category -- the issue is not quibbling on a final ceiling price but having something that celebrate relative accessibility -- keeping an award category for those at $99 and less would be a real bonanza for those who have limited access issues to private / resort types and those that are too pricey from the so-called "public" connection.

Matt,
There are six courses under $100 on the list itself and price is mentioned. I do get there is a subtle difference between being listed #5 overall vs #2 affordable and just the actual act of having categories for the differences, but its not like readers can't figure out what the top affordable courses are by their own definition. If that definition happens to below $59, too bad this year 

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

The separation for a particular category should remain -- that was my main point. One cannot say that the order the courses finished would remain the same if they had been segregated into their prior categories.

Price certainly does matter -- no doubt getting a particular price to always serve as the nationwide figure can be a tough thing -- those in NM would see $99 as quite high - the people at Black Mesa certainly have to deal with this even though their top figure of $87 is still a steal to me when I compare that to other layouts in my neck of the woods.

With less courses being built -- it may be tough to have winning candidates each year but I don't think eliminating the category is fair to lump courses with $350 price tags to be hooked up with those that charge a far lower amount.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:
One cannot say that the order the courses finished would remain the same if they had been segregated into their prior categories.

How do you figure that? The categories should have nothing to do with how the courses are rated.

[Matt_Ward]

Clearly Palouse Ridge would have finished first in the best affordable listing -- then others underneath would have been mentioned as layouts to play.

That was my point.

Digest does little from a service point in not having the affordable category around -- throwing forward $350 price tags as being noteworthy is wonderful - for those folks with the considered wherewithal to play them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()