[Sean_A]

I agree with Andy.  Golf has long been headed in a direction toward perfect conditions which imo implies perfect aesthetics as well.  TV helped define what perfect is, but we were gonna get there anyway - its a by product of members' desires and supers' curiosity as to how far things can be pushed.  Not only that, but a movement toward perfect conditions plays into higher wages for supers because of the connection to a higher budget - its been in teh interests of supers working with that sort of budget/wage connection to shoot for perfect.  You could say its a match made in heaven.  The bottom line is once golf started moving toward a lifestyle commodity than there was only one direction it could go with the immense amount of wealth that has been generated since WWII.  While the concept didn't progress as far in GB&I as it did in the States (and I expect Brits and Irish watch tv!), the move toward perfection did gain a significant foothold during the 70s and 80s.  For the most part I think the movement stalled with escalating prices (and hence rapidly rising dues) in the late 90s and beyond, but I think the concept of perfection will never quite die out in GB&I so long as golfers travel and there are courses trying to capture this money.  While I can never understand (probably because I can get a golfing sun fix in the States every so often) leaving GB&I to take a golfing holiday in Spain, Portugal (and God forbid Turkey!), with prices rising in Europe the idea of this sort of holiday is losing its lustre even for the sun seekers who could care less about the golf.  In recent years I have heard criticism about not getting value on the Iberian Peninsula (I have heard the same about Myrtle Beach as well) and average conditions are certainly part of this.  So it would seem that GB&Iers at least are willing to pay some extra for conditioning/aesthetics (and sun), but they expect decent value which for many £60 green fees doesn't cut it.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Yes, television has had a big influence as you've suggested. However, I believe that the nature of the club, its membership, and the purpose of the club have the biggest influence. Member owned private clubs that are in reality social clubs with a golf course are the most likely to suffer from the membership's desire for excessively plush, green conditions. And that type of membership wants to smell the flowers along the way, so there better be plenty of them to smell. There's not as much of a golf culture or the understanding of same, so the playing conditions don't matter as much as the visual esthetics.

To the degree that they ignore aesthetics ?  ?  ?

To the degree that they minimize aesthetics ?  ?   ?

Clubs that are golf first are more likely to have memberships caring about playability and interesting, fast and firm conditions. And even if they aren't there yet, there's likely a group of members who do get it and are agitating for the course to be maintained in a leaner manner.

Would you consider Pine Valley, ANGC, Seminole, CPC, Winged Foot, Shinnecock and Merion and their peers as golf "first" clubs ?

I seem to recall seeing decorative flower beds and immaculately groomed conditions at those courses

Are these conditions a matter of imitation being the most sincere form of flatery, vis a vis TV, or a concession to the feminization of golf courses

[Tony Ristola]

costs to maintain a golf course.

Recently I had lunch with the President of a local club.

We were discussing almost everything about clubs, in the past and in today's environment.

Almost every club is desperate for members, desperate for revenue to match operating expenses which have grown, seemingly without restraint for the last few decades.

One of the topics that arose, dealt with attracting members and member expectations in terms of the golf course.

As the club's President, this fellow gets calls from members on almost every conceivable topic.

I've played this golf course this past summer on a number of occassions.

He indicated that the complaints rarely had to do with the height of the fairways, or the firmness  and speed of the greens and fairways, but rather, with aesthetics.

He went on to comment that some members complained about how the bunkers looked (unraked) even though they hadn't been in a bunker.

Or, how the grass around the bunker was too long, or how the tees weren't mowed low enough, or how the flags seemed faded.

Very rarely did a complaint center on "PLAYABILITY"

Has TV so changed the focus of the golfer that they consider "playability" a tangential issue over aesthetics ?

Is The Donald right, we need more waterfalls ?

Oh yes.
And more than that. TV courses set images in the mind of members of the board on many issue, not just maintenance.

I just had a discussion with one club board member about their course and he cited TV.  I told him it's too bad the tours don't play great classics... and it's too bad you folks don't get to see more of the heathland courses under summer stress. They should embrace those conditions and other aspects of such courses, for they have similar conditions and it would help separate themselves from the pack.

He was intrigued.

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()