[Phil McDade]

Maybe this issue is too regional/course specific to expand into a general discussion, but I'll forge ahead anyway.

A generally well-regarded upscale daily fee course in Madison, WI -- Hawks Landing -- is going private. According to a recent news report, the course -- opened five years ago as part of a high-end condo/single family housing development -- has decided that its members are frustrated with public-access play, and want to go private. Jerry Kelly, Wisconsin's PGA pro who maintains a residence in the area, has been known to play there while in town.

What stoked my interest was the following quote from the course's owner: "And quite honesly, this golf course is way too good to be public."

Can that ever be the case? Shouldn't courses be evaluated on their merits, regardless of whether they are public or private? Doesn't the very best of private GCA -- NGLA, Augusta, Cypress, Sand Hills, Oakmont, Merion -- have its counterpoints (and rough equivalents) with publics such as Pebble, Bethpage Black, Pinehurst 2, and Pacific Dunes?

[Lloyd_Cole]

That is awesome. I guess if you're a lawyer and you're good, you might have to consider of you're way too good to do pro bono work, or if you're a teacher, maybe you're way too good to work for the state.. I won't drag this out any more. It's this kind of rhetoric that gives golf a rotten name in certain circles.

[Phil McDade]

I rarely start a thread, and the first one in months gets its first reply from someone whose self-titled CD -- the one with the big X on the cover -- is one of my favorites in my collection.

Thanks, Lloyd.

P.S. Who's the Ice Cream Girl?

[Lloyd_Cole]

I rarely start a thread, and the first one in months gets its first reply from someone whose self-titled CD -- the one with the big X on the cover -- is one of my favorites in my collection.

Thanks, Lloyd.

P.S. Who's the Ice Cream Girl?

Blush
Re ICG - Imaginary, composite, thankfully.

[Phil McDade]

It's just that I once knew a girl in college like her...

[Lloyd_Cole]

It's just that I once knew a girl in college like her...

I'm sure we all did, to some extent, unfortunatlely.

[John_Conley]

Phil, I was not familiar with Lloyd's music until he was in Golf Digest for having a low handicap.  I really like a few songs I downloaded legally with my Yahoo! subscription.  (Thing is great as you don't have to go to the store.)

I'll look for the album with the X on the cover.  Any other song suggestions?

---

As for the comment, some areas of the country have a sharp divide between the quality of public and private courses.  I now live in Orlando where the privates are not superior to some of the most upscale daily-fee/resort courses.  In Madison, I suspect the public options aren't that good once you get past University Ridge.  (Don't know, never been there.)  I can see a course owner making the statement in certain markets and not have it be anything I'd object to.

[Michael Dugger]

The answer to the question asked in the subject of this thread is a big fat NO!

And that someone would even state as much really bothers me and surely alludes to his ignorance.  

How many ultra-private clubs out there have a membership full of mediocre golfers, not to mention how many top flite tracts are public?

Ridiculous

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Phil,

Would it be possible for you to reference exactly where he said this and it is quoted from?

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

My answer is NO, as well.  After playing my first round of golf on Medinah No. 3, with a neighbor/member and then being relegated to some poor publics everafter for a long, long time, I have spent a career trying to prove otherwise.  

America is getting less clubby all the time.  And, last I checked, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and our fellow countrymen.

No reason at all that public courses should be (well, at least some of them) as good as any private, and even at $160 bucks a round that a place like Cowboys Golf Club charges for that level of service and maintenance, if you do the math, its a better deal for the golfer who pays as he goes for a great experience than unending club dues, whether you use the club or not that month. (I use that as an example, because its in town, and not a destination resort like Bandon, which charges even more, and is still worth it for what you get)

John Conley,

Yeah, but how did you like the songs you downloaded illegally?

[Doug Ralston]

Michael Dugger;

I have played many great public courses, and only one stupendous private one [thanks again to my host!]. I am NOT a great golfer, far from it. But I love great courses, which is why I am here. I think both love of and appreciation for golf course quality is NOT dependant upon skill, though I acknowledge that those of you who are good likely can experience the subtleties of layouts more than those of us who thrill at the GIR.

Jeff;

Please bring your wonderful creative art to Kentucky. I have a very limited probability of getting to Minnesota [Giant's Ridge & Wilderness]. I am certain your course would be the most expensive public in KY, exceeding the 'upscale' Lassing Point pinnacle of $51  . Yep, that's right, $51 is the most expensive public in the State, and there a quite a few really sweet courses here. Many good ones under $35. Isn't that something? Cost of living? Yes, it is low, but I do not think that explains it all. I am certain if KY became a 'destination', costs would go up. YOU could make that happen [now, why would I want that?].

Here is your chance GCA architects. You have seen the pix of Olde Stone. It is a mere Art Hills. Surely you can top THAT! Then we can let supply and demand determine the value.

Of course I do not know any projects up for bid at the moment, but I can hope, can't I?

Meanwhile, keep those great publics accessible. Somehow, I will scrape a few buck together and get to some of them!

Doug the Eclectic

[John Kavanaugh]

It looks to me that Dismal River is too good to be public.  I love the idea that one time players think it is to severe and greens are unplayable.  I even remember a hit and runner thinking it was too hard to find the next hole.  Public courses are often dumbed and softened down to keep the one time player moving around the course, signs and rangers are a distraction to boot.  Multiple pin placements are necessary because of a larger number of rounds per year.  Simple fact...If Dismal River was public it would not be as good and thus good enough to be public.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

"And quite honesly, this golf course is way too good to be public."

I find this comment repulsive.  

First, it reveals the elitist bias of the speaker.  He thinks that only golfers who belong to private clubs should be able to play great courses, and further that public golfers should not.

Second, it hints that he's likely more concerned with status then with golf or golf courses.

It's people like this that made me boycott private clubs for years.  I didn't even join the club across the street from me for 5 years, for fear of meeting up with jackasses like this.  

Fortunately, since I dropped my objections (i.e., wife says, "let me get this straight; you're going to drive 1.5 hours to Plymouth to play golf, but you won't pay across the freaking street?"), I haven't met a single soul like this.

[John_Conley]

I find this comment repulsive.  

First, it reveals the elitist bias of the speaker.  He thinks that only golfers who belong to private clubs should be able to play great courses, and further that public golfers should not.

Second, it hints that he's likely more concerned with status then with golf or golf courses.

Martin & others:

Comments like this show how connotation and context affect how we interpret what we hear.

Suppose you own a golf course and think it is very good.  The clientele in that area is comprised of people like my father that won't pay any more than $30 to play golf - no matter where.  The $30 rate structure won't support your business plan.

The average revenue per round for area private clubs is more than twice what a daily-fee can fetch.  With that as a backdrop, what business-minded person wouldn't feel that his course is "too good to be public" (euphemism for "I have too much money tied up in this to make a go at 30 bucks a pop so I'm going to try a different business model")?

I'm for affordable access to stellar golf courses as much as the next guy, but I'll always side with the owner.  Why should he lose his arse without exploring the alternative?

Doug is describing a whole state where the most expensive course is 50 smacks.  Yeah, you bet I'd feel a course I had $10,000,000 tied up in was "too good to be public".  The landscape is littered with people that got too far out on the CCFAD fringe and can't make a go of it.  In the same state Wild Ridge at Mill Run busted the owners of a wildly successful course with a green fee in the teens because they wanted a companion course with a tariff of $80.

I never sensed his comment to be one where he was elitist or withholding play on his course to a select few.  I can't imagine his club will be exlusive.  You pay, you play.  

[Martin Del Vecchio]

John, I'm not begrudging the owner his right to do whatever he wants to with the course.  But he could have said a number of things that would have resulted in no GCA thread, such as:

-- "The golfing public won't support a greens fee high enough for us to continue operation as a public club."

-- "The membership would prefer it to be a private club."

-- "As a public course with a moderate greens fee, we require too many rounds per year to continue operation, and those rounds are detrimental to the conditioning of the course."

Etc.

I will admit that my bias is showing.  When I read that comment, I pictured a snarling version of this guy:


And in my original post, I noted that I finally joined a private club, and haven't met a single person who fit my stereotype.

But having said all that, and taken your comments into consideration, I still think that it's an elitist comment.  

Look at the words:  "too good to be public".  What else could those words mean except that the best courses should be private?

[ed_getka]

"...way too good to be public." Interesting comment, I don't seem to recall Hawk's Ridge being included in the discussion along with Pacific Dunes, Bethpage, Rustic, Wild Horse, et al. when great courses are mentioned.

For those who have had the privilege to play this course, what would you give it on the Doak scale? What are the primary attributes of the course?

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Wait, I found a better one:



Here's the entire cartoon:  http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/boll/2002/12/19/boll/index.html

[Brian_Sleeman]

Sort of off-topic, but what other good courses/clubs exist in the Madison area?  I know there are several good ones outside about an hour radius (Kohler, Lawsonia, Erin Hills, etc), but what else is close to town?

As for too good to be public, though I haven't played Hawk's Landing, I get the distinct impression from my time in Wisconsin that Lawsonia Links is probably head and shoulders above Hawk's Landing - and only charges about $30-$40 as a public facility.

[Jeff Doerr]

I'm thankful that the best in Oregon are public (but they do still have to pencil out). On the flip side, certain courses just would not make it or get built without being private - Sebonac, Ballyneal, etc.

I tend to agree with Martin on the verbage. My guess is Hawk's Landing (never played it) is not "too" good to be public, but just makes more sense as a private course.

In our area we had a semi-private course that could never make the membership goal to go private. Persimmon, which pretty average by GCA standards, sold the remaining memberships in less than a week due to the closing of another private club in the area. Persimmon was surely not on anyone's too good list, but the finances finally made sense for the market.

[RJ_Daley]

My home town is Madison, but I never played Hawks Landing, a John Harbottle III course.  I went there twice during construction, and just drove around it to look a few times.  I know folks that live there, but never took the time to go play it.  Probably because it looks like another parade of homes, good-not great course.  They have another similar in that area that Andy North did with associates called Bergermont, which got some placing in the best new category.  I similarly went to the construction site a few times, and have driven around it, and wasn't inspired enough to actually "want" to play it, when there are so many public courses of equal quality to play in WI.  

The comment is probably a bit out of context.  It also indicates to me that it is a continuation of an ongoing problem of the Madison area, where all the public and private courses are desparately trying to position themselves in that apparently "overbuilt market".   Brad Swanson or Phil sent me a link to a local newspaper story about the situation of some of the old and traditional clubs of the area loosing many of their long time generational members because they finally figured out that there are so many fair to good public offerings to play in the area, that dues and same old-same old course isn't worth the costs.  I suspect that is the same at many locales in the country with private VS public market considerations and overbuilt courses.

One thing I heard about Hawks Landing is that as a homesite development, it was a major success.  As I understand it, they had some 350 homesites platted out in the run-up.  They had so many inquirers about buying a lot, that they had a one-day bidding lottery of sorts.  I heard all the lots sold the first day.  So, as a homesite community, it was gangbusters.  I suppose the old conflicts have developed.  Too many public players competing for tee times with expectant homesite buyers wanting to play when they want.  They probably got to a critical mass where they knew they could get 200 members on board for a certain dues structure and figured that would be the best route to go.  

Lastly, in my mind the developer/owner saying the course is too good to be public is the same mentality as folks that buy skyboxes at sporting venues.  They think they are too important of team backers and wealthy to sit in the stands with the 'hoi polloi'.   I suspect the priveledged weathy folks that sit in the boxes looking down, know less about the particular sports they are attending than the level of knowledge and passion of those in the seats in the rain, snow, heat or cold - on average.  

[Glenn Spencer]

John, I'm not begrudging the owner his right to do whatever he wants to with the course.  But he could have said a number of things that would have resulted in no GCA thread, such as:

-- "The golfing public won't support a greens fee high enough for us to continue operation as a public club."

-- "The membership would prefer it to be a private club."

-- "As a public course with a moderate greens fee, we require too many rounds per year to continue operation, and those rounds are detrimental to the conditioning of the course."

Etc.

I will admit that my bias is showing.  When I read that comment, I pictured a snarling version of this guy:


And in my original post, I noted that I finally joined a private club, and haven't met a single person who fit my stereotype.

But having said all that, and taken your comments into consideration, I still think that it's an elitist comment.  

Look at the words:  "too good to be public".  What else could those words mean except that the best courses should be private?

Martin,

For 5 years, you drove 90 minutes to play golf when you can join across the street and you are jumping all over this guy for being elitist? If you say that you are not going to give someone a chance because of a bias, then that could be considered worse than what this guy said. I couldn't care less, because he could have been taken out of context and Conley is probably closer to what I think in his fine post.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Martin,

For 5 years, you drove 90 minutes to play golf when you can join across the street and you are jumping all over this guy for being elitist? If you say that you are not going to give someone a chance because of a bias, then that could be considered worse than what this guy said. I couldn't care less, because he could have been taken out of context and Conley is probably closer to what I think in his fine post.

I was freely admitting to my bias. Anti-snobbery and anti-elitism is just as bad as snobbery and elitism are.  And I am admitting that my bias turned out to be extremely misguided.

But having done so, I think I'm still entitled to believe that the words this guy is quoted as saying are obnoxious.  Maybe that's not what he said, and maybe that's not what he meant.  But the words are clear.

[Phil_the_Author]

One more time,

Phil, PLEASE, "Would it be possible for you to reference exactly where he said this and it is quoted from?"

At this juncture, this thread on which a man and his reputation are taking a bashing, is based upon HEARSAY ALONE!

That is wrong...

Thanks

[Phil McDade]

Philip:

Been away from a computer all day, and right now don't have the article with me. Will post with further details, hopefully later today (tonight). There are more details that hopefully will address your concerns, as well as RJ's comments and a review of Lloyd's CDs.

Phil

[Phil McDade]

Some additional details:

Hawks Landing opened in 2001 with 9 holes, and 18 holes in 2002. It's right next door -- literally a few hundred yards -- to University Ridge, the course built and run by UW-Madison. It covers some of the same terrain as URidge -- semi-unglaciated land, rolling hills, mature woods. It has, in my mind, a distinct disadvantage to URidge in that it weaves in and around the housing that is part of the development; URidge is free of any views of housing, for the most part (there are no lots neighboring the URidge course, altho you can see houses from elevated spots on the course). Up front disclosure -- I have not played Hawks Landing.

Most of the following comes from a 12/19/06 article in the Wisc. State Journal, the morning daily for Madison. Club owner feared lack of preferential tee times for public golfers, vs. Hawks Landing members, would eventually drive public golfers elsewhere. "Then we're not hitting the numbers we need to hit from an income standpoint. That's what was worrying me." Club plans to go private Jan. 1, with perhaps a one-hour daily slot for public play. Club will offer a reduced initiation fee of $1,00 through the rest of 2006, then it goes to $1,500 single, $2,250 couple, and $3,000 family. Yearly memberships go $3,609 single and $5,954 family. Rates include cart fees and the club has no food/beverage minimums. (As an aside, I don't know if these fees include use of other HLanding facilities; the club has a very nice swimming pool and a very active swim club.) The club currently has 135 members, and hopes to add 75-100 new members by next year.

From the WSJ article: "There has been widespread speculation that the Madison market is too saturated with golf courses, including private clubs." Hawks would be the 8th private club in the county, with five others in Madison or the immediate vicinity.

My own thoughts:

RJ is correct in that the housing component of the Hawks Landing development has been very successful. I don't have a dog in the "whether it goes private/public" aspect to the course, but I'm guessing the owners think they have enough folks who will utilize the course to make it pay off in the long run. Beyond just this development, the west side of Madison has been booming in recent years, and my guess is that the course hopes to capture some members who don't necessarily live in HLanding but want a private club nearby.

Ed:

I have not played it, but good friends of mine who have say it's similar to URidge -- a solid test over interesting terrain. But it's not anything remotely close to the Kohler/Haven courses, or some of the courses you'd find around Lake Geneva. I've peeked around it a bit, and it's a "big" course -- big greens, some bold contours, some big mounding, generous fairways, big sandtraps, obvious and large hazards.

Brian:

HLanding prices itself -- and from a golf perspective -- is probably in the upper tier of public daily fee courses in the immediate Madison area. It competes directly with URidge on the west side of town. Both the Oaks (east side of Madison) and the Andy North Bergamont (south, 15 miles) have garnered top-10 publics under $75 in recent GD rankings, and both probably have competed for golfers with HLanding (Bergamont is over-rated in my book, with a few good holes but not much else, plus garish housing; Oaks is more varied, but has an interstate to cotend with for noise on several holes.) The rest is a mix of muni's and mid-to-low end daily fees. Within an hour to 1 1/2 hours are a bunch of very good-to-excellent courses, including Lawsonia, Erin Hills, Kettle Moraine, Naga-Waukee, Old Hickory, North's Trappers Turn (a much better course than his Bergamont, probably because it's a much better site); heck even Brown Deer in Mlwkee.

Doug:

Is Kentucky golf really that good and that cheap? Your frequent posts have me nearly convinced....

John:

Well, as for Lloyd's catalogue, I'd start with the self-titled "Lloyd Cole," the CD of which has a pic of himself with a big silver X on it. The CD came out in 1990, and in my view, few things released that decade surpassed it. One gem after another, and it's a rare record with a sound that you really have to listen to for the entire record, as opposed to dropping in and lifting a few songs for the IPod. Matthew Sweet of "Girlfriend" fame plays the bass on it and sings some backup, but the entire CD is really a showcase of witty and literate lyrics, heart-breaking ballads and a few rockers, and musicianship and songwriting that's well beyond much of what passes for contemportary adult pop-rock. A somewhat cliched parlor game has folks discussing what CDs they'd take with them if stranded on an island; this would be in my top 10. It's that good. For others, the follow -- Don't get weird on me, babe -- has many good moments, if not the sustained brilliance of the self-titled one. His early work with the Commotions is also fun, if a bit hard to find.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()