[Dustin Knight]

As a relative newcomer to the site i am extremely interested
to hear some thoughts of those more experienced in the
field of GCA.
I propose this question as i currently hold the position of
Golf Ops Supervisor at a faciity ranked in the top 30 in
Australia. A new owner has come on board recently and has
demanded changes to the golf course to make it "easier" for
the high handicapped player. Regular feedback from clients
suggest the course is brutal yet they still return to test their
games regularly.. My thoughts are that if they change holes
to suit the high markers it will destroy it's character and
the intended design which the original owner(still half owner) wished
to create. Our members have invested large sums of money
to join the club as it stands, does trying to keep the high end
pay for play guests happy warrant altering the original
design intended by the architect(Harrison/Norman)

[Mike Sweeney]

I squeezed in 9 holes yesterday at Navesink in New Jersey as I had to be in Princeton. http://www.somersetcountyparks.org/activities/golf/nvgc/golf/golf.htm

It is a very nice 27 hole facility that plays roughly 7100 yards from either mix of 9's. It could easily hold a US Open qualifier. I am a 9 index with average length but once in a while will catch one. I played with 3 golfers that were all fairly regular there and were good  players, but I was the best by a slight margin.

I was the only one that played the 6600 tees?

These guys go back to the 7100 yard tees where they play a 235 yard par 3 with a bunker carry. I play the 205 yard tee where the bunker is in play, but you can bounce one on to the left of the bunker and I did. The three others were no where close to the green??

On the 9th hole, I play from the 420 yard back tee with them. hole plays uphill. Hit a bad drive left. One guy is ahead of me with his drive. I shoot my standard 42 that could have been better with a short game and these guys probably did not break 50 under USGA rules. I am sure they thought I was strange as I also walked with my bag despite having a cart available. i did jump in occasionally.

These guys would clearly be you hard-core regulars who value a course mainly on toughness and conditions, especially the greens. If you told them they had to play up one set of tees, they seriously might leave your facility.

[Dustin Knight]

Mike,

I value your input and i totally agree with the point you make,
this is very much the point i tried to put forward...
 Yes revenue is important but when do you cross the line that
we end up losing our regular patrons for the sake of trying
to attract the other side of the scale by changing the
intended design. Is ths common in the states??

A new partner in the facility is an extremely successful
businessman from the US with a small golf background but
giant real estate and resort guru. Surely there must be
a way of preserving the original design(only opened 4yrs ago)
and keeping the majority satisfied? Is changing the
existing design considerably the answer?, any ideas how
to approach this touchy subject with him? I guess what
im really asking for are some american examples of where this
has happened therefore helping my case in his eyes with examples he may relate to. Any examples both successful or
unsuccessful would be greatly appreciated, am i barking up
the wrong tree even trying to state my case?

I just feel extremely passionate about the current design and
feel the changes will backfire long term. has anyone else had
a similar problem recently?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dustin,

Golf courses are a business, esp. to someone who has just paid a bundle to buy half interest. I imagine cash on the barrel head changes one's perspective.

I also know that its hard to apply one's own preferences universally to the golf market - whether yours, Mike's or mine, which is different.  (Whenever I go consult at a course, I am finding that in general, the old male ego seems to be subsiding overall, and more guys are moving up a tee, not back - I am 52 and play with similar age individuals mostly)

Industry studies show speed of play is a concern to most players.  In Mike's example, if players are so far back that it takes an extra shot on most holes to get to the green, you are adding up to 18 shots for three players, at a minute each, or almost an hour to a round.  In general, that is at least six foursomes worth of greens fees you don't get!

Industry studies also show that 57% of males prefer to play at 6300 yards and only 4% prefer over 7000 yards.  16% each prefer 5700 and 6700 yards (plus or minus)

As to difficulty rather than distance, how many times have we heard that modern courses are simply too difficult vs. golden age ones?  And how many GA courses had a lot of bunker removal.  For that matter, bunker removal from courses built less than ten years ago is a trend in the US (or at least in DFW) for the reasons your new investor has mentioned.  

I haven't heard that many folks care enough about the architecture for it to be a factor.  I have consulted on a few of my own designs, and naturally argue for the fewest bunkers removed as possible.  Usually, we arrive at a consensus that there are a few that really don't affect the design, and a few others are just too hard to maintain, so they are removed, or if key, modified.  The aesthetics usually take a small hit, but usually not the playability.  Reducing bunker size, particularly those that cross in front of the green and reduce run up area is an option.

The numbers and preferences might very be different at your course, depending on if difficulty is what gives it its reputation, but I bet they don't change more than a few % points.  Giving a discount coupon for taking a survey (at the shop or on the net later) may answer your questions better than a bunch of anonymous posters who don't know your individual situation.  

I think I would convince the owners to undertake such a survey to make a business decision on businesslike factors and info, rather than the passion for the golf course, unless he is a Mike Keiser type and committed to "dream golf".  There really is no one answer, as golfers are all over the map in what they like.  The trick is balance the courses stengths that make it unique in the market vs. some practicality vs golfers tastes.

Good luck!

[Mike Sweeney]

Any examples both successful or
unsuccessful would be greatly appreciated, am i barking up
the wrong tree even trying to state my case?

I just feel extremely passionate about the current design and
feel the changes will backfire long term. has anyone else had
a similar problem recently?

 

Stone Harbor is an example of a course that has been toned down here in New Jersey:

http://www.gapgolf.org/clubs.asp?cid=114

http://www.stoneharborgolf.com/

From what I hear, Dismal River has had to change a number of greens, and Doonbeg in Ireland by Norman has had some significant changes.

Without knowing your course, i still say maintenance would be the first thing to look at.  

[paul cowley]

Dustin....you said "Yes revenue is important but when do you cross the line that
we end up losing our regular patrons for the sake of trying
to attract the other side of the scale by changing the
intended design. Is this common in the states??"

If your regular patrons can foot the bill then you don't have a problem....but I'm guessing that's not the case.

In the States its become more and more apparent that if you don't have the revenues, you don't have the architecture......courses are closing all the time because they are either not profitable, or the profit they do return is not enough to justify the courses not being converted to a more profitable venture.

Hopefully your course can work out some compromises....the few you might lose at the top might be replaced by another skill set that finds its 'dumbing down' a relief.

BTW....expound if you don't mind on how the other levels of golfers find the courses's playability.

Is it a matter of losing too many balls, or too many bunkers, or too much aqua or what?

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread, Dustin, and good posts - thanks.

Paul C - you wrote "...Courses are closing all the time because they are either not profitable, or the profit they do return is not enough to justify the courses not being converted to a more profitable venture."  I assume you're absolutely right, and I've been meaning to ask this for quite some time:

If profitability is more and more being measured/judged not in terms of 'a reasonable and steady return on investment' but instead in relation to what a conversion might bring, how many courses can possibly be safe?

I can't do the math, but I'd guess that if intense or high-end housing is the potential end-use, almost NO golf course would be able to compete with the large and immediate profits involved there.

So - WHAT type of course is potentially most 'safe' in that environment? WHERE would the safe courses most likely be located? Any rules of thumb?
(The top-100 classic, private courses I assume are the safest. I'm asking mostly about new or recent courses.)

Thanks
Peter

Edit - Dustin, apologies: I don't mean to take this off-topic, and am hoping that it isn't.

[paul cowley]

Peter...I will get back to this [work duty calls], or start a new thread, as its becoming more common....in both good ways and bad.
Right now I am involved with one of those on the good side of the equation....and if Tom P sees this and wants to elaborate...great....but if not, then it will just have to wait.

Hasta luego.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Even most in a business oriented management company situation love golf and golf courses, so they have a bias towards keeping them open.   After all, that's what they do and they want to keep doing it.

If that company is publicly traded, then yes, they must meet some kind of base % of profit for most, if not all facilities, and need to send part of the revenue to support the corporate office.  

A mom and pop operation bascially can buy themselves a job - if the net in is equal to the take home pay the operators might make elsewhere, they will probably stay open, even if that is 1-2% profit.

On the flip side, when the locally owned course, presumably with no other back up resources, slips below minimum profitability, they are probably under the greatest pressure to sell quickly.  In any event, I think most coures go on the market for housing when unprofitable.  If there is any money to be made, the lure of the golf biz is still strong.

[James Bennett]

Dustin

It seems to me that the new owner is wanting to see a change in the 'Slope' of the course, particularly from the tees that the higher-handicapped players probably should use.

Slope is not a term that we in Australia are used to, but your new part-owner probably is.  So, the question is can the slope be reduced (ie make the course easier for the 18 handicapper perhaps from the middle tees) without affecting the course rating from the back tees?

Of course, the scenario that Mike Sweeney threw up will always be there, especially for the one-off player of the course.  A significant proportion of them will want to try and play 'the back tees' if they can.  Masochists!

Is there any info on how hard the course is for an 18 handicapper (ie Slope rating)? Perhaps if you invited Tom Huckaby down under, he would prepare Course and Slope ratings for all of your tees.

James B

[ed_getka]

Dustin,
   What is it that makes the course "brutal"? What is it about the design that you think is so good that you think it would be a mistake to tinker with it?
   If Harrison was involved I assume it has a decent set of greens. Is that the case?

[SB]

This is the best architecture/business question I've seen, particularly as it is a real world problem.  

I would say figure out where you are in the market.  Certain clubs succeed only on their reputation as difficult courses.  There is a certain segment of the market that is looking for that experience and is willing to pay.  If the club is not selling memberships as fast as it should, it could be for a variety of reasons, only one of which is the architecture.  That said, a lot of courses start out as difficult, only to find that there are only so many of those customers out there and need to soften up in order to fill the club.  I have seen a lot of courses softened, but few made easier.

[Dustin Knight]

Dustin....you said "Yes revenue is important but when do you cross the line that
we end up losing our regular patrons for the sake of trying
to attract the other side of the scale by changing the
intended design. Is this common in the states??"

If your regular patrons can foot the bill then you don't have a problem....but I'm guessing that's not the case.

In the States its become more and more apparent that if you don't have the revenues, you don't have the architecture......courses are closing all the time because they are either not profitable, or the profit they do return is not enough to justify the courses not being converted to a more profitable venture.

Hopefully your course can work out some compromises....the few you might lose at the top might be replaced by another skill set that finds its 'dumbing down' a relief.

BTW....expound if you don't mind on how the other levels of golfers find the courses's playability.

Is it a matter of losing too many balls, or too many bunkers, or too much aqua or what?

Paul,
It is my understanding that we are in a position where they
are looking to go to the next level as far as encouraging
first timers on a weekend at the hotel to be catered for,
No Norman/Harrison course is truly suitable for your first
ever round and I don't feel any amount of bunker remvoval
or vegetation management could achieve what they are
looking for, As a 1 marker myself i do find the course
difficult from the tips. The average 18-25 marker has
several sets of tees to choose from but i feel the contours
of the ground, deep bunkers and raised sloping greens
make it near impossible to "dumb down" enough for the
true first time golfer without destroying the experience
for our regular clientele. The average golfer is attracted
to our course for that reason.
I totally understand that the facility is a business and that
unless profitable will dissapear but to have no studies
investigated or architects consulted can surely be a problem
down the track... Just telling the greenstaff to replace this
and knock down that because they don't like it seems
crazy.


Ed,
Yes you are correct Ed, the greens are quite special.
I just feel that by tinkering with any part of the
course without professional consultation will do
damage that will be unable to be reversed.  

[Greg Murphy]

Dustin

Is Brookwater the course you speak of?

I played Brookwater once. Brutally difficult, yes, with tumbling and heaving fairways meandering through tall pines and elevated, often crowned greens, with steep fall offs and deep, deep bunkers all about. The whole round I couldn't help but recall a shot I a saw from Masters coverage on TV where Norman drew a towering one iron off a cart path between trees and landed it softly on the green some 220-240 yards away.

Like your regulars, I wouldn't mind at all returning to Brookwater for some repeat punishment. It really is a beautiful place to get beat up and (as a bonus) I think the course would be relatively quiet most times. When I was in Queensland, and asking golfers about courses, it became pretty clear that Brookwater had a reputation such that the typical double digit handicapper would likely avoid the place like the plague. With repeated play, and on those rare days when everything clicks, I think I could come away feeling tremendously rewarded. My one round began disastrously after clipping an overhanging branch on my first tee shot and on the front nine I had more than one "other" but I actually got things going on the back nine and carded a couple of birdies, lots of pars and nothing worse than a bogey.

But I don't know where one would start to make this style of course friendly to the double digit handicapper. Much like Augusta, the approach required into most greens is a high, soft shot and tee shots need to be shaped and bounced for the best result. Enlarging the greens I suppose would be the first place to start, although my recollection is that they were relatively generously sized to begin with, albeit visually hidden by elevation and bunkers.

I'm wondering, how could holes at this type of course be changed to suit the high markers?

Just as relevant, how much would members be wiling to fork out to be able to continue to play the course as it was originally designed? The bottom line is that if public high fee play is needed to support the operation, the operation needs to find some way to attract this revenue or else the members’ investment will be lost.

An interesting conundrum indeed.

Greg

[Tom_Doak]

It sounds as though the course was designed and built for one market and now the new owner wants to tailor it to a different market ... which will be nearly impossible given what he has to work with.

What that boils down to is that the new owner has paid more than he should for the course.  He should only have bought based on proven income from the first market.

[David Druzisky]

Have the original designers been asked about it.  I know if a client of mine came to me in a constructive manner saying how do we make the course more enjoyable/playable for the higher handicap players I would probably help and by creative could probably keep the existing character in tact.

[Pat Brockwell]

Maintenace is the first area to consider.  Thicker rough can provide containment or lower rough can be less penal. Hazards can be softened without making them a desirable bailout.  Bunkers that only affect the high handicapper can be grassed without dumbing down the design for the better player.  And if all you want is "easy" then you're probably on the sofa all day anyway (or snowboarding)..

[Bill_Yates]

Dustin,
It's great to have you pose a realtime issue for discussion.

With such an important issue at hand, I would suggest that before you take any actions, plan to personally invest about three days to observe play and thoroughly understand and diagnose the "problem" you have at hand.  The last thing you want to do is start making changes to a successful, well-respected course without having both personal insights and hard data to back up your position when it comes to proposing a solution.

What you have now is an owner who is anxious to write a prescripton based solely on the symptoms.  What you want to do is work with him to diagnose the underlying problems that are causing the symptoms.

I suggest that you literally study play on the course hole by hole, timing play and plotting shots, noting the tees that were used and the shots that resulted, etc.  Make sure that you observe the play of your members, as well as the play of the type of players you are trying to attract to your course.  Your data collection efforts should also include brief interviews with many of the players. After a few hours, you will be amazed at the insights you and your owner will gain just by sitting quietly and observing.  

In my experience, by investing this time, you will better identify the real "problem(s)" and my guess is that the solutions will come from fine tuning the daily course set-up (tee markers, length and location of heavy rough, etc.) and properly introducing new players to your course prior to their starting time.  Then from a daily operations point of view, you need to ensure that the course is properly loaded, that you actively monitor play, and that you provide timely assistance to those who need it to keep the experience level high for everyone.  I've used this technique at courses around the world and the results have always been great.

 

[David Lott]

Dustin--

Remember the golden rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

[paul cowley]

Dustin,
It's great to have you pose a realtime issue for discussion.

With such an important issue at hand, I would suggest that before you take any actions, plan to personally invest about three days to observe play and thoroughly understand and diagnose the "problem" you have at hand.  The last thing you want to do is start making changes to a successful, well-respected course without having both personal insights and hard data to back up your position when it comes to proposing a solution.

What you have now is an owner who is anxious to write a prescripton based solely on the symptoms.  What you want to do is work with him to diagnose the underlying problems that are causing the symptoms.

I suggest that you literally study play on the course hole by hole, timing play and plotting shots, noting the tees that were used and the shots that resulted, etc.  Make sure that you observe the play of your members, as well as the play of the type of players you are trying to attract to your course.  Your data collection efforts should also include brief interviews with many of the players. After a few hours, you will be amazed at the insights you and your owner will gain just by sitting quietly and observing.  

In my experience, by investing this time, you will better identify the real "problem(s)" and my guess is that the solutions will come from fine tuning the daily course set-up (tee markers, length and location of heavy rough, etc.) and properly introducing new players to your course prior to their starting time.  Then from a daily operations point of view, you need to ensure that the course is properly loaded, that you actively monitor play, and that you provide timely assistance to those who need it to keep the experience level high for everyone.  I've used this technique at courses around the world and the results have always been great.

 

Dustin.......Bill offers some very sound advice here, and I would take it.

Most courses could benefit from this type of analysis, my own included.

[Dustin Knight]

Gents,

Thankyou very much for the sound advice.

Bill,
Discussions are well underway and your initiatives are definately going to be put into practice before we proceed any further, all in all I believe the replies I have received from all of the GCA family here on this site have certainly helped me highlight how we may be able to better achieve the goals we are aiming for both financially and architecturally..

Thanks again gents!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()