Should you evaluate a course in light of its purpose?

[Phil McDade]

Kalen:


Well, I'm in Sean's camp on this one. The local 9-hole muni that's 2 minutes from my home I'll play almost anytime, because it has several holes and greens of interest -- not on the order of a Lawsonia or Milwaukee CC, of course, but interesting and challenging to play. But there are several courses within an easy drive of my house -- < 30 minutes-drive -- that I just don't play anymore, because once was enough; they just aren't very good at all, even at rates oftentimes under $30 for 18 holes. (One of the cheapest courses in my neck of the woods I simply won't play -- it's just not any good.)


Unless you're living in a truly remote area of the country, most of us have some choices, and those choices always (at least in my experience and those of my golfing friends) involve some calculus of time, money, convenience, "value," and who you might be playing with that day. I don't think University Ridge -- a course I referenced earlier in this thread -- is that great of a course, but it has some good holes, and it's usually in very good shape, and I'll play it with friends or as part of an outing.


But I'd rather play at my favorite "value" course in Wisconsin, which is two hours from my home and thus involves a full-day commitment. And that course gets at some of the things that I think Jason was trying to address that go beyond value -- does the course meet certain benchmarks, or criteria, for spending X amount of dollars and X amount of time playing?


One other question that comes to mind is: Should your personal favorite course necessarily equate to what you think is the best course you've played? It's perhaps a take off on Jud's view that a $20 pizza actually does trump the $80 steak -- not just in terms of value, but actual merit.

[Jon Wiggett]

Surely the first question to ask when rating a course is...is it any good?  I am all for value for money, but its not great value to spend $20 and 4 hours on a course we don't think is any good.  To me, that bar of quality (and the bar is different for everyone) doesn't alter regardless of price.  If the course is no good a cheap green fee doesn't fix it.  Some courses I won't play (in fact the closest course to my house!) because they are crap.  Some courses I won't play because they are too expensive for what they offer.


Ciao

I would say that even if a course is great if the fee is too high you would not play it regularly as would be the case with a really poor course that has a low fee. Both cases you would be judging value for money not quality of GCA. Indeed Joe Bloggs has very little interest in GCA choosing the course to play based mostly on location, who else plays and affordability which is another way of saying value for money.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Surely the first question to ask when rating a course is...is it any good?  I am all for value for money, but its not great value to spend $20 and 4 hours on a course we don't think is any good.  To me, that bar of quality (and the bar is different for everyone) doesn't alter regardless of price.  If the course is no good a cheap green fee doesn't fix it.  Some courses I won't play (in fact the closest course to my house!) because they are crap.  Some courses I won't play because they are too expensive for what they offer.


Ciao

I would say that even if a course is great if the fee is too high you would not play it regularly as would be the case with a really poor course that has a low fee. Both cases you would be judging value for money not quality of GCA. Indeed Joe Bloggs has very little interest in GCA choosing the course to play based mostly on location, who else plays and affordability which is another way of saying value for money.

Jon

No, my first concern is quality in a broad sense and we all have different ideas of what quality means. I am not saying the course has to be awesome, top 100 or anything like that, but it needs to be of substance. Value for money is the next concern.   I don't mind not playing the very best courses if I can play good enough courses for far less money. 


Using your example, I think the quality of Dornoch outweighs the value of Golspie (which isn't that cheap!) and so I would rather play Dornoch.  For me, Dornoch does quite well in terms of mixing quality and price and comfortably makes my Happy 100.  Carnegie would be a distant 3rd.  It passes the good course test, but is in no way special and I therefore don't believe the green fee is justified.  I wouldn't particularly seek a return engagement for Carnegie of Golspie unless I was on a deal or invited. 


Of course, as prices continue to rise, more courses are written off...leaving me to either play other courses or stop visiting these areas altogether. 


[size=78%]Ciao[/size]

[David Wuthrich]

I think that you bring up a good point. 

I look at courses differently depending on the conditions of ownership of the course.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

I am not sure we are disagreeing with each other here. In the end you feel that Dornoch is better value for money than Golspie I do not see it this way. I think we both agree that Dornoch is the better course however I do not think that that difference justifies paying three times more to play. To be worth that Dornoch would need to resolve the flaws that it has. Were the greenfees set at £85+/- then I could start to see the comparison.

Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Phil,
 
I think we're mostly saying the same thing here.  If you can pay $20 to play a course that's 2 minutes away, the assumption is certainly true that you likely won't drive 30 minutes to play a course of equal merit, and equal green fees....because you already have that next door. That being said, there are exceptions like, if your buddies all want to travel the 30 minutes to play that course, then maybe you go along with them so you can play with your buddies.
 
I too would rather play my favorites, and thankfully all of my local favorites are within 1/2 hour of where I live, so I don't have to make any "2 hour each way" kind of decisions.  The thing about living out west is, in general, once you leave a major city area, there is often nothing for hours away.  For example I live in Salt Lake City, and the closest big urban areas to here is either Boise or Vegas which are about a 5.5 hour drive away each.  Back east or in the UK, this might be different.
 
As for all time personal faves, they are organized without money or access in mind.  If I was to include those in my personal rankings, my list would certainly look different.  To this day, the best "value" course I have played or aka "best bang for my buck" has easily been Wine Valley.  A few years ago, I paid $90 to play 36 holes of golf, averaging out to $45 per round.  For a course that is easily a Doak 7 or 8 in my book, its was head and shoulders a terrific deal!