[Jonathan Cummings]

The regional magazine business must be on the rise....  JC

http://www.thewgm.com

[Brad Klein]

Jonathan, the relevant consulting expert on these matters is W.C. Fields, whose comment about the long line of suckers awaiting to tbe fleeced is apt.

Very few of these magazines makea penny - a few do. But too many are based upon the vanity appeal of "getting into the golf business" or simply providing the editorial/publishing staff with a bare bones income and access to a level of golf they could never otherwise afford. It usually makes for bad journalism and bad business, though there are the occasional exceptions.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I certainly know next to nothing about running a golf magazine.  But Wash Golf Monthly has been around for 10+ years, seem to have a good circulation base and seem to be viable as a business.  Enough so that they are expanding - must mean someone has convinced someone that it makes fiscal sense....

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

Just a quick question -- how much is WGM advertorial and really "cutting edge" editorial ?

Is there a distinct "voice" with the publication and if so what is it ?

Thanks ...

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - The editor, Jeff Thoreson, should be the one answering this.  My sense is that they are not cutting edge but target a niche market - area public golfers, and are pretty much driven by who advertises with them.  I doubt they would allow a review to be highly critical of a local course that does business with them.

On the other hand, they run a very successful yearly tournament - Annual Solstice, post helpful lists of area courses (phone numbers, directions, etc), run feature reviews written by excellent writers   ), have ventured forth into the rating game (already controversial) - and all free to the subscriber.

I can't dissect their business plan but something seems to be working.

JC  

[Mark Brown]

Publishing - been there, done that, very difficult, risky, and extremely costly -- worse than golf development. If I was Wash. Golf Monthly I'd stay right where they are. Probably 90% of new mags go under. I was just lucky.

[Craig Disher]

I've received Washington Golf Monthly (which apparently has morphed into GolfStyles; same editorial and publishing staff) on and off since it started. JC's comments are accurate. There's usually an article or two on an interesting facet of local golf and the magazine seems to be very friendly to courses and architects that are frequent advertisers. GolfStyles just ran a list of the best 50 courses in their distribution area. Here's the top 10:

1. Cascades
2. Congressional Blue
3. Pete Dye GC
4. Baltimore CC East Course
5. Caves Valley
6. Bulle Rock GC
7. Robert Trent Jones GC
8. Kinloch GC
9. Golden Horseshoe Gold Course
10. Four Streams

Other familiars:
12. Links at Lighthouse Sound (Art Hills)
14. Columbia CC
23. Belle Haven CC (Art Hills redo)
24. Lancaster CC
33. Beechtree
35. CC of VA (design credit to McMenamin/George, not Flynn)
36. Royal New Kent
43. Chevy Chase Club (Art Hills redo)
45. Bethesda CC

[Matt_Ward]

We've had this discussion before and the botton line is that many "golf" publications will bend over backwards to curry favor with advertisers. That's the barometer by which they judge success and loyalty to. Their manta is to colect ad revenue and avoid anything of a serious / controversial note that will jeopardize such a dynamic.

The reader is then force fed plenty of articles that only align with what the advertiser wants. All you get is this incessant parade of "lifestyle" golf magazines which are nothing more than page after page of a bunch of consumer products / destinations for the reader to purchase.

The days of truly "independent" golf journalism is slowly coming to an end. Howard Gill and Bill Davis -- where for art thou ?

[Andy Levett]

The days of truly "independent" golf journalism are slowly coming to an end.

With respect Matt, that's not true. One of the upsides of the modern world is anyone can publish on the net for nothing (though if what they wrote ever became REALLY popular they would have to pay a little for the bandwidth to allow all their acolytes to view) but really you can say what you want.
Back in the day if your face, or  ideas,  didn't fit that was that.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I dont doubt someone can use the Internet, but for real impact just look and see how the big world of communications / media is shaking out with endless consolidations and the general "sameness" approach that's followed.

The golf model is "lifestyle" pubs that are very much tilted towards the high-end consumer purchasing power.

I've been in the business for a number of years Andy and I know very well what Mark Brown speaks about.

No doubt there are always going to be some success stories but the model many follow is a simple one -- give the advertiser what they want and the advertiser returns the favor. Since regional pubs are dependent upon such a connection through locally driven advertising the ability to be truly independent is a tough one to achieve. The reader who thirsts for a "voice"  outside the box will find the sound of a mouse rather than a lion.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Basically Matt, I agree with you.  It's a little sad but from many of our points of view all golf magazines are driven by something other than critical review.  I can't see that changing.  

Until Ran gets off his ass and makes this wonderful forum a more formalized periodical, there won't be any other free voices in golf architectural critique that equal GCA.

JC  

[Mark Brown]

I think Golfweek ( inspired, of course, by Brad Klein) does a pretty good job of maintaining editorial integrity and taking a stand on important issues. Golfworld is good if you just want to read about professional golf, and Links offers some interesting topics and good photos -- all the resort/real estate advertorials are in the back. It's not as easy as you might think. If the content of GCA was published it wouldn't have many advertisers and would have to gain income by subs and newstands.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Mark - sorry if I sounded serious - I was joking about the CGA magazine.  Getting a periodical out from this bunch (although the information would be great) would be like herding cats....each with rabies!

Your examples are national magazines not regional.

JC    

[Jonathan Cummings]

I've been reading Gary Galyean's Golf Letter for some time now and usually find it to have pretty good critiques on feature golf courses.  Unlike many magazine, he doesn't seem to have any spin on his critiques one way or another.

JC  

[Lester George]

Craig Disher,

I have not seen the magazine but your note of the design credit is explainable.  I restored the James River Country Club in Newport News, Virginia in the 90's.  It was originally designed by James McMenimen and is often confused with the Country Club of Virginia's James River Course which I restored to much of Flynns original strategy last year.  Having not seen the article, I'm not sure which one they are talking about.  The James River Course (CCV) hosted the US Am in 1955 and 1975.  James River Country Club has hosted many state and regional events and is famous for have one of the great golf libraries and collections of memorbilia in the world.  

Hope this clears up the confusion.

Lester George

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I've been reading Gary Galyean's Golf Letter for some time now and usually find it to have pretty good critiques on feature golf courses.  Unlike many magazine, he doesn't seem to have any spin on his critiques one way or another.

JC  

Gary's newsletter is on the up-and-up since it doesn't have advertising in it and he pays his way anonymously when reviewing a property/course...

[Craig Disher]

Lester George,
Now I'm confused. I looked at the magazine again, thinking that it must have been referring to James River CC. But the course it refers to is "James River Course at the Country Club of Virginia" (built in 1931 and located in Richmond) which certainly must be the Flynn course which you restored last year. However, the magazine credits McMenamin and you with the design. I'm sure the course in their list is the CC of VA course, not the course in Newport News. They just made a mistake listing McMenamin as the architect.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Craig,

I'll find out the skinny.  I'm playing CCVA-James tomorrow morning with Richard Cromwell - the director of golf there.

JC

PS - Tommy N, it's suppose to be nearly 70 degrees tomorrow in Richmond!

[Lester George]

Craig,

You are correct, and I supect not as confused as I am.  CCV James River is Flynn.  Renovated before the 55 Am then renovated again in 93 by Rees Jones then restored by me in 2003.  I used a 1937 aerial photo that was previously unknown to the club as my rationale for restoration to Flynns strategy.  

JRCC in Newport News is McMenimen.  It was his only course, however his neice told me in the nineties that he had assisted in two other local club designs (can't remember which).  I restored it in 96.  

Hope that helps.

Lester

[ChasLawler]

You are correct, and I supect not as confused as I am.  CCV James River is Flynn.  Renovated before the 55 Am then renovated again in 93 by Rees Jones then restored by me in 2003.  I used a 1937 aerial photo that was previously unknown to the club as my rationale for restoration to Flynns strategy.  

Lester,
With all due respect, would you really call your work at CCV - James River a "restoration"? While your work is a vast improvement from what was done to it '93, green contours were softened considerably, and what in the world happened on the par-3 fourth hole?

Jonathan - I'd love to hear what you think of the course - especially #4.

[Dan Herrmann]

I canceled my free subscription to WGM's clone, Phily Golf Monthly due to three mislabled photos, an article about golf trips that included inappropriate (to me) tales of visits to strip clubs, and an overall sophmoric editorial policy.

I wrote to the editor who told me that their target demographic was 20-45 year old guys that like to drink, smoke cigars, and chase skirts.

I have no idea how that fits into golf, but to each their own    

[Jonathan Cummings]

Careful Dan, that editor posts here!

[Lester George]

Cabell,

It's restoration when you return the original strategy and Flynns intent (within a budget) back to the course.  Putting the fairway bunkers back in play, altering lines of play (2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15), rebuilding/relocating greens (18, 4,) and reconstruction of entire holes (6, 18).  

It sounds as though you do not like number four.  There was an opportunity to actually improve a hole while taking care of a huge drainage problem at the same time.  The club asked me to evaluate making the hole more intim,idating as it was generally considered as the weakest par 3 on the property.  I sketched a hole, they liked it, I built it, its as simple as that.  By the way, the small rocks in the creek banks are temporary.  They are there to show where the creek will scour.  This coming fall they are supposed to be removed and the edges grassed down.  The creek was built to recirculate water so the pond wouldn't stagnate.  

Any, with all due respect to you, many people consider number the best part of the project and have asked why we didn't do number 14 creek the same way(budget).  I am proud of it.  In my opinion, It is a vast improvement over the hole I started with.  

Lester  

[ChasLawler]

Lester,
Thanks for a thoughtful response. I suppose we just disagree on the definition of restoration, and the scope of the changes at the River.

And yes, you’re right – I’m not a big fan of the new #4. Losing the rocks along the faux creek will be a vast improvement, but still - I don’t feel as if the new hole fits the rest of the course very well. That’s just one man’s opinion though. On a different course, it would be a great par-3.

Thank goodness we ran out of money on #14.

Don’t get me wrong, I like what you’ve done there for the most part, I just have specific issues with #4 and calling the work there a restoration. I don’t know how you can totally dig up a hole, add a 3+/- acre lake (with a creek running uphill into it), design something with what appears to be little consideration to Flynn’s original design, and call that a restoration – regardless of the work you did on the rest of the course.

The fact that many people consider #4 to be the best part of the project speaks volumes about the club’s mentality.  And here I’d always thought the new aggregate cart paths were the best part of the project.

Looking forward to seeing your work at the Westhampton course.

[Lester George]

Cabell,

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree, and believe me, I'm not trying to oversell the fourth hole, but there are some things wrong with your assertions.  

The hole I inherited there was nothing like the original Flynn hole.  Most specifically, the green I started with was over 8,200 square feet and was vastly oversized in the previous renovation because the club insisted on making the hole play 200+ yards.  Flynns original green for that hole was more along the lines of 5,000 square feet.  I "restored" the green size to his original strategy, about 5,500 square feet.  

The creek that used to cut in front of 3 green (filled in buy the club, a mistake in my opinion, but thats a later discussion) also cut in fron of number 4 tees and meandered down the left, so it existed.  Buy "restoring" the influence of the creek, I believe we are justified in having it pour into (not uphill? as you state) the pond.  

The pond is only 20,000 square feet, less than half an acre, and six times smaller than you state.  It was necessary to filter runoff from the golf course to the original creek and was incorporated as a matter of permitting, not strictly aesthetics.  

One last point.  A great hole is a great hole, no matter where it sits.  Incorporating a great hole in the River Course where the opportunity presents itself is my job.  

I had opportunity to "restore" one of Flyns smaller green complexes (over the monster that was there which really did not fit), I had and opportunity to work with state and federal agencies with a water quality improvement (pond and recycling water), I had an opportunity to create something "different" (which is what the client wanted), and I had an opportunity to add a quality hole (a great hole according to you and others) to a golf course which, in my opinion needed improvement as the par threes at the River have evolved to much sameness from in-house changes by amateurs over the years.

Maybe we should get together one day and I'll show you the picture from which we derived our strategy, one the club had never seen before last year.  

Regards,

Lester

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()