[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Could you cite some statistics that show us the percentage of all US golfers that actually make it to Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Bandon and the other courses you listed?

I'm betting it's a small, select, fairly well to do demographic. Of course, you'd have to know what percentage of Wild Horse golfers are local, for example, to make your numbers relevant.

Also, the notoriety and debate of ratings are not always without the blemish of being a marketing related entity. To use that as a basis for widespread interest amongst all golfing demographics would be hard to prove. Magazine subscription numbers alone don't account for interest in ratings.

Pebble Beach has historical relevance as a golfing venue of many great(Professional tournaments) and popular(Bing's clambake, etc.) golfers over a lengthy period of time. It also is incredibly scenic. Mediocre and poorly designed golf courses may not have that same marketability to command the high green fees.

Lastly, there is a "notch in the bedpost" mentality when it comes to traveling to highly marketed, expensive golf courses/ resorts. That likely covers almost all golfing demographics(including GCA.com members!), because of human nature.

Joe

[Phil Benedict]

Gone are the days when a father could leave early Sat and Sun morning to play golf all day.

Why did men become such wimps?  The woman's movement?  Two-job families?  This is an under-explored phenomenon in our society.

[Carl Rogers]

I think there is a little bit wider cross section of the golfing public that has more design awareness than many of you think .... but I do think it is at very sub-concious level, ill defined level.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

Good way to describe it.  I still think its only the same 3500 people who buy golf architecture books that would probably go nuts to see a replica or inspiration dervied from Golden Age or other holes.

The general public will know, for example, that there is a difference between my Sand Creek Station and some of the other older munis around Wichita.  The features are bigger, bolder, etc.  Do they know the 16th green was modeled after the road hole? Well, yes, if they read the yardage books.  Do they care, other than its something they have never seen before?  Can't say, but probably not.

All players will generally understand the look, feel and scale of the golf course.    Most players will evaluate a course in how it affects their game - if there are too many lost balls, forced carries, etc. for the average player, they simply won't like it.  Better players might care about the strategies, but again, may not agree with classic risk/reward, instead favoring safe=reward.

[Mike Mosely]

I blame television first, greed second.

[JWinick]

Patrick,

When we are in need of an elitist point of view, you never fail to disappoint.  If I can follow your logic, mass appeal produces new golf courses, which will invariably be architecturally insignficant.  After an increase in golf course supply, the golfing public is turned off to the sport due to the quality of the architecture.   Henceforth, golf loses appeal.   So, we should make golf as scarce as possible and do little to expand its popularity.  Then, the masses on the sidelines will want in to our exclusive club.   I guess at that point, we would then build architecturally signficant golf courses.  Is that your contention?  I look forward to your strident response.

If anything, if your goal is to increase the number of golfers, cheap, architecturally-insignificant 9-hole courses are probably your best bet.   

We are an informed, yet hardly respresentative sample of the golfing community.   Sometimes, we get caught up in a topic that the general golfing public could care less about.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()