[Joe Leenheer]

I recently played a round of golf with someone who I would define as moderately influential in the golf business.

When I asked this person about what they look for in a course or club he answered something to the like of, "A course that looks difficult from the tee, but plays exactly the opposite.  This ideally allows the golfer to keep the ball in play and possibly score well on a course they perceive is difficult thus leaving them with a positive outlook on the course itself."

The more I thought about it the more it made sense.  To the masses, the better they score, the more likely they are to approve of a course and its design.  Subsequently they are more likely to wish to play it again.

Is this the antithesis of GCA?

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

I doubt it's the antithesis of GCA, since Alister MacKenzie once wrote much the same thing.

However, there has to be a balance between playability and difficulty.  Too much of either will be a turn-off to some players.

[Joe Leenheer]

Mr. Doak,

I agree...but what is more frustrating then being out of the hole while still standing on the teeing ground?  I have yet to experience it first hand, but do you think that this is the reason Old MacDonald is gaining popularity? Playability?

One of my mentors once explained golf to me as "hit it, find it, hit it again."

I believe the middle one should not be harder then the first or last....

[Mac Plumart]

What makes a great golf club?

I think it is a great membership.

[Scott Warren]

Mac,
The operative word appears to be "successful", not "great".

Joe,
Certainly having watched my home course go from one where many were out of a hole after their tee shot and the subsequent attempt to escape from trees and rough to one where second shots from short grass with horror angles are common, it seems to me that -- not at all surprisingly -- golfers love to play more golf before they discover the hole has beaten them. They don't mind being defeated, but they want to have some fun and hit as many shots as possible.

And yes, scoring well on something you perceive to be difficult (but may not be as tough as it looks) is a great thrill. Something many of the great courses have in common.

[Jim Nelson]

What makes a great golf club?

I think it is a great membership.

Thanks Mac.  That's what I thought this thread was about when I first saw the heading.  For me, there is a distinction between a club and a course.  When both are great, you truly have something special.  Of course, this mostly applies to private clubs although there are plenty of public courses which have a strong group of players.  The questions is which do you chose?  Would you prefer a lesser course with a strong club or a great course without the vibe?

Jim

[cary lichtenstein]

It's all about the membership.

If you can find the combo of a great course and great membership, you are blessed.

[Stephen Britton]

What makes a successful club?............ No F&B... just golf.... F&B = financial loser. 

[Mark Johnson]

What makes a successful club?............ No F&B... just golf.... F&B = financial loser. 

F&B can add some value.   The key is simplifying the menu, carrying low inventory and keeping the bar food.


If more clubs had the following menu

Burger
Fish & Chips
Cobb Salad
Pizza (for kids)
Grilled Chicken Sandwich
Eggs made to orders with Toast

3-4 beers on tap
Various fountain drinks


And That's it.   Someone could probably add an item or two that makes sense, but you get the point.

The issues with F&B generally is not that they dont generate revenue, its that they dont generate profit.   What drives this?

1) too much inventory
2) too much spoils, written down food driven by #1

[Dan Herrmann]

Great club = few rules.  I was looking at the website for Vancouver GC and their dress code rules are insane (measuring shorts by kneeling!).  Keep the rules simple and have fun - the rest will take care of itself.  

BTW - I wrote the rules and bylaws for my club

PS COMPLETELY agree on the F&B point

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe:

I doubt it's the antithesis of GCA, since Alister MacKenzie once wrote much the same thing.

However, there has to be a balance between playability and difficulty.  Too much of either will be a turn-off to some players.


Tom,

When I initially played Bayonne, I thought that it was visually intimidating.

Repeat play somewhat softened my opinion.

If something doesn't look good to the golfer's eye they won't be prone to return visits.

On the other hand, at first glance Sebonack generally looks more benign, yet it can play very difficult.

I've always felt that generous fairways provide every level of golfer with a good degree of comfort, versus tension and fear.

If you asked me which course I'd prefer to play, especially on a windy site, I'd opt for the course with the wider fairways, physically and visually.

[Adrian_Stiff]

You need a great course firstly but you also need the right people. You need the situation whereby everyone wants to play in the teams and the competitions and everyone is fair and nobody cares about wealth or non-wealth and people are measured by height.

[Dan Boerger]

One thing I've observed and can state with total confidence: one size certainly does not fit all.

Easy course, extremely difficult, no F&B, excellent F&B, Pool, no Pool ... etc. I've seen all work

If there's demand, utilization and a strong team in place a club will be successful.

[Mike McGuire]

#1. Good events.

 A club with historical competitions that are well attended are a good sign of health.

A collection of check writers, who don't participate, is a big red flag.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I recently played a round of golf with someone who I would define as moderately influential in the golf business.

When I asked this person about what they look for in a course or club he answered something to the like of, "A course that looks difficult from the tee, but plays exactly the opposite.  This ideally allows the golfer to keep the ball in play and possibly score well on a course they perceive is difficult thus leaving them with a positive outlook on the course itself."

The more I thought about it the more it made sense.  To the masses, the better they score, the more likely they are to approve of a course and its design.  Subsequently they are more likely to wish to play it again.

Is this the antithesis of GCA?

Joe,

Paraphrasing Tom Simpson, he wrote that a hole should either look easy but play hard or should look hard and play easy. It should never play as it looks because that would be the obvious answer and the obvious answer is almost always the wrong answer...

Always controversial Tom Simpson but I'd much rather veer towards his philosophies on golf course architecture than the safe ones that are often taught in the modern age.

[Bob_Huntley]

Joe,

I can tell you what doesn't.

1. Attempting to get their course(courses) into the Top 100 rated course by some magazine.

2. Having seven different  locations for dining.

3. Allowing a plethora of non-Club events to be held to the detriment of the members.

4. Having a substantional F&B but making the minimums charged in a sixth monthly period....out of town members who spend a few months   in the summer months get hosed.

5. Having a hole on the course changed not once but twice within less than a year.

6. Board members with little or no golfing skills making decisions on multi-million dollar projects.

I could go on but these should do.

Bob
 

[JMEvensky]

6. Board members with little or no golfing skills making decisions on multi-million dollar projects.


 

+ 1,000,000

[David Cronheim]

6. Board members with little or no golfing skills making decisions on multi-million dollar projects.


 

+ 1,000,000

Couldn't agree more...The irony for me is that so many clubs want to crack the Top 100, but have decision-makers who have played or seen only a handful of the courses they so ardently strive to be. I'm often reminded of this when I get outside the GCA bubble and hear people talk about their favorite courses, very few of which would be highly regarded by persons on this site. Yet with the same breath, they think their course is a Top 100 or could host a PGA.

[Jud_T]

Haven't we had this thread about a dozen times before?

Most importantly- a course that members don't tire of after 150 rounds.  This is a given.  Everything else is negotiable IMO.

[Mike_Trenham]

Convenient location or great golf course, if you have both look out.

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike,

My favourite statement from Frank Lloyd Wright was, "Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility; I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change."

I rather liked that.

Bob

[Mike Nuzzo]

As Tom says, maybe not the antithesis of GCA, but certainly the opposite of Wolf Point.
It is just another subtle flavor in the big world theory.
And the looks hard plays fun genre is more than covered by Fazio - some would consider that firm successful.

[Brett_Morrissy]

For me, if we are talking about a successful club, as opposed to a successful golf course or design, then it has to be about what makes people happy, right?

By encouraging interaction and engagment of members with each other is a great step forward, a relaxing environment, with other members that not only respect each other, but by extension respect the rules or protocols of the club.

I used to belong to a club, where I was always apprehensive about my guests turning up in clothes that may contravene the rules - cargo pockets on pants for example. I agree with the policy, but it still reduced my enjoyment of the club.

I now belong to a club, that in the early days (a young club), many members played each other on Wed and Sat comps, for 50cents, it encouraged many members to mingle, chat to tables and other members after golf, make new friends, etc

Also a two tee start assists in having more golfers pre/post golf congregating in the clubhouse - more social.

Goal for a successful club should be that most members are happy to put there name on the time sheet with ANY other member.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()