[Jon Wiggett]

Therefore:  Difficult courses are more expensive because fewer people are playing and they need the extra revenue to pay the bills.

The cost of running them depends on why they are difficult. If a course is difficult because of narrow fairways, small greens, long carries, it will also require less hours to mow and less material to maintain. Also if there are less people playing it then there will be less repair issues. On this basis it should cost less to maintain although the cost per player may well be higher.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Therefore:  Difficult courses are more expensive because fewer people are playing and they need the extra revenue to pay the bills.

Jon- I think SBusch is right in what he is saying 'the majority of golfers want easy'. his research certainly marries with mine, we are doing 27,000 rds per year many around us do 40, we are a bit more expensive for green fee play but not for membership. I think this forum does represent the minority opinion on some issues, mainly because we are lovers of the pure form of the sport.
Difficult golf courses generally would be the better ones, you are not going to find many short courses in the worlds best 1000 and by beng good they will will have a mixture of hazards and problems which for some mean it will be too hard. The better courses can command a premium.

The cost of running them depends on why they are difficult. If a course is difficult because of narrow fairways, small greens, long carries, it will also require less hours to mow and less material to maintain. Also if there are less people playing it then there will be less repair issues. On this basis it should cost less to maintain although the cost per player may well be higher.

[ForkaB]

The only downside is if its "hardness" relates to a design which causes players to lose golf balls.  This adds needless time to the round, diminishes enjoyment and is a sign that the course was not designed thoughtfully.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian, I agree with what you say. I don't agree that difficult courses are generally the better ones but do agree that the better ones are generally difficult. I still stand by my early statement that difficult doesn't make it more expensive to maintain as most good difficult courses are so because of well placed, deep but usually not large bunkers, tighter playing areas, rough/water and length.

[John Kirk]

Also, there is significant variation in player mentality.  When discussing my home course with better players, the conversation usually drifts to the two extremely tough par 4s on the public side, the two hardest holes on the property.  Many better players savor a great challenge, regardless of architectural merit.  To them, difficult is exciting and good.  

[C. Squier]

Mark,

why should enjoyable cost more?

I would think supply and demand would enter the equation somewhere in pricing.

[Jon Wiggett]

Clint,

supply and demand as you put it is a reason but is it a good one? I am firm believer in golf being a game for anyone who wishes to play it. There is room for top end exclusive/expensive courses as well low basic/cheaper courses. I find the idea that interresting and/or enjoyable should make the course more expensive not only repugnant but also not in the interrest of the game as a whole nor in keeping with the traditions of the game.
Luckily there are still clubs in the UK that have interresting courses and down to earth prices.

[Mark_F]

I find the idea that interresting and/or enjoyable should make the course more expensive not only repugnant but also not in the interrest of the game as a whole nor in keeping with the traditions of the game.

Jon,

Sorry, you misunderstood me.

I was responding to the second part of that equation - "does a bad golfer ever join a private course for the golf".
 

[C. Squier]

Clint,

supply and demand as you put it is a reason but is it a good one? I am firm believer in golf being a game for anyone who wishes to play it. There is room for top end exclusive/expensive courses as well low basic/cheaper courses. I find the idea that interresting and/or enjoyable should make the course more expensive not only repugnant but also not in the interrest of the game as a whole nor in keeping with the traditions of the game.
Luckily there are still clubs in the UK that have interresting courses and down to earth prices.

I'm looking at it from a simpler point of view.....the more fun the course is to play, the more people will want to play it.  The course's management will respond to the increased demand and raise prices accordingly.  Simply a "looks good on paper" opinion.  Given the choice of 2 courses at the same price point, the one that is "more fun" (for whatever that means) will be played more often.  

CPS

[Tom_Doak]

SBusch:

I'm interested in your research because in my experience it has been just the opposite.  Resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry have a difficult time convincing anyone to play their "second" courses, even at a lower price.  Gleneagles was talked into their third Nicklaus course being long and difficult for that very reason.

Clint:

Absolutely, fun wins out, but fun for most players does not equal easy.

[wsmorrison]

The amount of money it costs to maintain a golf course under championship conditions on a daily basis is far greater than most imagine.  According to Matt Shaffer, the head of golf course operations at Merion GC, it is exponetially more expensive as you get closer and closer to the daily maintenance practices of a championship-conditioned course.  The cost to achieve the final 10% maintentance practice is astronomical.

So if part of the reason the golf course is hard is due to the maintenance practice of fast and firm fairways and firm and fast greens, it will be expensive to maintain and therefore to play.

I don't think that the added expense is on balance a downside.  However, it takes an outstanding course design to support the higher greenfees and a certain kind of membership that wants that kind of play and doesn't mind the added expense.  

Of course, another model is simply a supremely high entrance fee and dues structure to support the maintenance effort.  More often than  not the courses fail to meet the test of time and you tend to get a membership that is exclusive in terms of ability to pay the fees rather than a community of like minds that have additional commonalities than simply the ability to pay.  In such cases the equation usually tips towards being driven by manicured, green and lush rather than playability factors.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the answer to this question really depends on the golfer.

There are many who need to shoot a good score to have "fun" on the golf course.  So these types will likely enjoy an easier course more because they are putting up a great score.

Others enjoy the experience of a well designed course in a great setting.  And they enjoy the challenge of shooting a good score and the feeling of accomplishment.  I tend to be in this camp as I would much rather play courses such as found at the bandon dunes resort and shoot higher scores, than shoot a nice low round on my local flat, and mostly bunkerless muni.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,

I wasn't actually responding to your point.

Clint, it is a proven point that no one can argue with that popular courses can charge a higher fee and I have no problem with that if that is what the owners want but it is not a should, just a can. Maybe I am just being to picky about the wording.

Wayne,

one of the main reasons for the demise of fast and firm in britain during the 70's and 80's was due to the introduction of automatic irrigation. It is interresting to note that many of the courses with the best golfing turf and fast and firm conditions were those who chose not to or could not afford such systems. My experience is that as long as the ground and climate allow it fast and firm is more a choice of maintenance concept than a question of cost.

You are absolutely spot on when you say the cost of the last 10% maintaining a course in a top championship standard is very high.

[SB]

Tom,

Sorry to delay with a response, but I've been out of computer range for a while.

Admittedly, most of my work is not in resort type courses.  Also, I will say that in the case where a particular course in a multi-course facility has a lot of recognition, such as national ranking, that also skews the results.  However, when it is your basic local play course, particularly daily fee, the results seem to be similar.  The usual response I get from the head pro is something to the effect that "our older regulars don't like to get beat up, they just like to come out and have fun".  My most recent experience is as the CFO of a multi facility operation.  We had two 36 hole operations, and the easier of the two courses at both facilities got the heaviest play.  In these cases, they were easier primarily because they were shorter, so that may have had an effect.  

My sense in most cases, however, is that the more difficult course in a 36 hole facility will usually have more difficult green surrounds and more veritical bunkers.  Older folks can't get around these as well with bad knees and such and start to dislike them.  

[Tom_Doak]

S:
 
I understand.  Black Forest and the older course at Wilderness Valley in Michigan are much the same as what you describe.  Our newer course is much longer and more dramatic and more difficult, because the client specifically asked for that; he was tired of being told the old course was "too boring" or "too easy".  Yet it continues to do a lot of rounds, partly because it is shorter and more compact, and partly because it's less expensive.

[Mark_F]

One of the main reasons for the demise of fast and firm in britain during the 70's and 80's was due to the introduction of automatic irrigation.

It is interresting to note that many of the courses with the best golfing turf and fast and firm conditions were those who chose not to or could not afford such systems.

Jon,

How many of the better clubs have these types of systems?

Most of the courses I played alst trip to the UK were bone dry and rock hard because of the prolonged hot weather, and weren't watered at all.

With their generally smaller membership bases and reasonable subs, I would have thought the number was in the minority?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()