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?

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?

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

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.

Phil,

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

Thanks

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

"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, 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?

Wait, I found a better one:



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

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.

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.

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

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.