Greens versus Bunkers - which do you choose if you only can afford one?

[Joe Hancock]

  Yes. I would say greens at a private club stimping at less than 9 in the Philadelphia area would be considered very slow by most private club golfers in this area.

I fixed it for you…..

[Kyle Harris]

   Played White Manor today outside Philly.  The greens had plenty of grass, were smooth but very slow (probably less than 9 because of morning rain).  Many of the bunkers were a disgrace - dirt, mud and stones.  The round was pleasant if not memorable. Had the bunkers been good and the greens poor, I suspect we’d have walked off.

"Very slow" is less than 9 ?


Jesus.

Jim Coleman is never happy anywhere.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

There are 2 types of courses which I am speaking about. One is a private club which is owned by one of the companies that owns multiple courses around the US.  So far as I know the club has a large membership and I would imagine that is operating at a profit which to me means that they are probably saying that they don't need to spend the money so why do it.  I look at this as a bad business decision as I think we can all agree that the boom we are now seeing in golf isn't necessarily going to continue indefinitely and when they need to keep the current membership and at the same time replace those who leave the area or decide to cut back on their golf spending, they will be competing for members and the conditions will be a consideration for those looking to join.


The second club is what we call semi-private.  You can join and pay monthly dues or you can just pay as you go.  The course is one of my favorites in the area and part of the reason it doesn't get the recognition that it deserves is because of the conditioning of the course.  They are now going to address the greens but they don't have the money to deal with the bunkers.  The bunkers fit well into the design and are an integral part of the strategy of playing the course.  If you know that the bunkers are played as ground under repair then you have no reason to avoid them other than the obvious.  I understand that there will be quit a few new homes and businesses built in the area so I am hoping that the course will see greater revenue and the ability to renovate the bunkers.

In case 1, if the boom collapses and they lose members anyway, those members would leave wether the bunkers are done or not. Admittedly it may not make it more attractive to get new members, but that saved profit (assuming it is saved) could be needed in the future. It's catch 22, but they are probably thinking its safer to have money in the bank - or the owners just care about the bottom line and making profit, after all it is a business to them.




Case 2 - I would say thats the right decision, get the greens good, get more play and reinvest into the eye candy to attract more.

[Jerry Kluger]

Alan: I won't dispute that in some instances bunkers are no more than eye candy but they can be an integral part of the design of the course and when the player is given the option of dropping outside of the bunker without penalty then a large part of the strategy of the hole can be lost. 

[Jim_Coleman]

   Not sure what I said I was unhappy about. Had a pleasant round on a course with slow greens and bad bunkers. Trying to address the question raised in the thread.
   And thank you, Joe.

[Sean_A]

   It seems, Jerry, that you're looking for help in recommending that the bunkers be fixed first.  Not gonna get it here.

To me prioritizng bunkers over greens comes down to eye candy...which helps get bums in seats. There is a legit argument for this, but that's because golfers are idiots. Bunkers continue to be a main headliner in golf and its generally bad for the game.

Ciao

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Alan: I won't dispute that in some instances bunkers are no more than eye candy but they can be an integral part of the design of the course and when the player is given the option of dropping outside of the bunker without penalty then a large part of the strategy of the hole can be lost.

Jerry, I totally agree! There isn't a point in having one if you get a drop and therefore it's not a hazard. My point was based more towards bunkers that are not completely trashed  - ie ones that can still be raked, even if there are rocks in them, the sand isn't great etc - so they still somewhat work as a functioning hazard but just not with the eye candy of pure white perfect sand and frilly edges and perfect lies.

[Brian Marion]

We understand that the bunkers suck and that's what you want to be the answer. But it is not the answer.

Maybe it is the answer?


Greens are more important in the long term, no question.  But if the bunkers are the equivalent of open wounds, that is very likely making golfers unlikely to come back.  Grassing them in costs money, too, so either fixing them up or eliminating them must be somewhere fairly high on the priority list.


I kinda doubt anyone from GCA [other than Jerry] has paid to play this course recently.  A quick survey of people who actually play there would be more valuable than this community's input.

Greens all day as long as they are in good shape or can be brought into good condition. Bunkers would have to wait in that case.


But for those courses that have good greens, keep them. A high second for most golfers who feel they get value from the greens first, bunkers 2nd, the rest somewhere else.

[Jim_Coleman]

   One never wants any part of a golf course to be substandard, but I would rank the following in order of most to least important:
    Greens (by a lot)
    Fairways
    Rough
    Bunkers
    Tees