News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
What is best for the game?
« on: February 25, 2005, 05:08:12 PM »
We have had this question come up in many other threads of different topics, but particularly when discussing muni(The only affordable golf option?) golf and "growing the game".

So....what really is best? Is it best that golf grew in the 70's, 80's and 90's to the place we are today, where cartball and beer are the norm?

Is it best to have as many people participating in the game?

Is it best for the game that golf should be wildly popular, so that it becomes a TV event week after week, perpetuating the over-maintained look?

These questions are rhetorical. What I'm hoping for is that whoever choses to respond does so with well thought out answers to the question of "what is best for the game of golf?"

I'll start with the party line answer of:

"Thought provoking, water conserving golf course design is good for the game" because it challenges the golfer both mentally and physically.....there, you guys can focus on the social issues, which is what I am struggling with.

Joe

EDIT: Think it terms of you being the golf czar. You decide what is best. You decide who participates...architects, developers...players. In other words, you have to decide what is the absolute best thing for the sport of golf in the future. This probably muddies up the question, but I hope you get the point.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2005, 05:18:05 PM by Joe Hancock »
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

A_Clay_Man

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2005, 06:14:57 PM »
Joe-

Yes, Yes and more yes.

Are the airlines trying to slow down travel times?

In the last hundred or so years, we've gone from seeing C.B MacDonald ridiculed, just for introducing the sport in Chicago, to; Overzealous bottomliners squeezing every last nano penny out of thier customers, probably in a feeble attempt to make some ridiculous balloon payment, based on some ego-fed pipedream of a proforma.

Now, those whose livelyhoods have been hoodwinked into the "industry", feel some contraction, they start to squeal. A squeal that manifests itself in that beautifully sounding refrain of "Un-fair".

Those who have made statements that elude to some fact that there are too many golfers, and question whether we should be open to more and more droves and droves of participants, clearly have failed to learn a large portion of this great sports lessons.

Freedom and golf have recently been discussed, this is at the core of those lessons. Freedom to do whatever you want to, within the rules and proper ettiquette.

Those golfers who've been shuffled through the cash register line, before properly learning those rules and behaviors, are the isssues that I see as needing real fixxing.

You did ask!



Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2005, 09:41:50 AM »
I'm selfishly pulling this one back to the top......

I'm genuinely curious on y'alls thoughts here. For the most part, this group has a pretty good handle on the sport.

Adam,

You never answered the question. You did answer my thought provokoing, rhetorical questions, but you didn't share your thoughts on what you truly believe is the best direction for this sport.

I know it's not an easy answer, and perhaps many here are like me....confused about whats best.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Steve Curry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2005, 09:52:31 AM »
Adam,

I believe the airline industry did slow times down in favor of fuel efficiency?

Joe,

A short answer, "diversity"…

Steve

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2005, 10:13:45 AM »
Joe,

First a business remark.  Maybe mine is a simplified answer, but there are many areas in this country where golf courses need to disappear.

Over zealous building has created a glut.  Just like most markets, golf will correct, but it will be at the expense of many in the business.  For all of us in the industry, whatever the capacity, there are three simple options:  get out of the business, deal with the current market and ride it out or move to where the glut isn't as bad and continue on.

On the social side, I'm not sure the national organizations are going in the right direction.  The USGA and PGA have taken the "politically correct" route by trying to introduce under privledged kids.  That's a very noble direction, but does it address the growing problem of the game's future.

Someone raised a good question in another thread about the First Tee Program.  What are the retention rates?  I'm sure there are kids who have been positively impacted.  The First Tee and other similar programs have been given a tremendous amount of money over the last five years.  How will the kids graduating from these programs afford to play golf?

Golf has been viewed as an "elitist" sport for many years, unfortunately beyond the economic reasons and more for the social issues involved.  One constant remains;  golf takes money to play regardless of how low the green fees are.  What would happen if the money awarded to programs like First Tee were instead invested in other programs?  How about a well thought out college introduction course covering not only how to play, but the rules and etiquette expected from players and using golf as a tool in business?  High school introduction classes providing something similar to the college course?  Make them in depth experiences, not just another gym class.

The Evans Scholarship is a great example of a program that has worked for years, but caddying is a dying activity.  Many learned the rules and etiquette from caddying.  What can be introduced to replace that experience?

Future growth of the game needs to be tailored to future players that will stay and support the game.  That may not be a polically correct path though.

Ken

A_Clay_Man

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2005, 10:17:23 AM »
Joe,

Your question is a loaded one. It implies golf needs something. I happen to believe my own b.s. about freedom and accepting of all, under the rules. SO, while I didn't say what to do, I did point out what needs to be fixed, to make everyones golf more golf-like.

The solutions are not strictly defined. IMO they do however require some effort to 1) educate and 2) enforcement.

Allowing bad behavior, just to kiss some customers ass, is not the way peer review works.

In business, one should think twice about deficating where one dines, but golf is different. Tattle telling, nit-picking and a general ratting-out, of even your life long best buddies deplorable behavior, only strengthens the bond of what golf mostly is, and should be. A sport that uses games to enhance competive challenges against both the competitor and the canvas.

 It only takes a few rotten unethical apples, to ruin what's suppose to be a fair test, under the rules of golf.


Gary_Mahanay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2005, 10:03:13 AM »
Joe,

What is the weekday/weekend green fee at your course?  How many people are on the maintenance crew?  Here in north Texas the game is just to expensive.  Like Barney said in another thread, Golf Digest's under $50 is not affordable golf.  I think we need more courses like yours, but unfortunately nobody wants to lend the money to build something like that unless you can put $50,000 quarter acre lots down both sides of the fairways.  Golf around here is no longer going out to be with nature.  It's just hit your ball down a corridor of over-priced houses, and have the course send out a maintenance crew of 15 to 20 guys every morning to make sure everything is just perfect.  What is best for the game? - an affordable fee and a small maintenance crew.

Gary

frank_D

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2005, 10:22:35 AM »
brother Joe Hancock

GOLF like DEMOCRACY is something so genetically pervasive to its followers that it is impossible to screw it up long term -however once in an era a joker or few will take control and temporarily muck things up

if you read haultaine or updike or wodehouse you will find avid commoners to the game have the same issues today as they did ages past

more than a few today would even risk execution to play - same as the king's archers or church parishoners did hundreds of years ago

as for the stupidity and irrelevance of the current affairs - this too shall pass

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2005, 10:27:39 AM »
Frank,

What will it take for this phase in golf history to pass?

Ken

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2005, 10:38:39 AM »
Gary,

Walking:

9 holes $12.50
18 holes $20.00

Riding

9 holes $19.50
18 holes $32.00

We have 3 full timers on grounds, not counting myself. We usually add 4 part timers during the summer.

I will attest, that at these rates it makes it tough to break even when all things are considered. By the way, we do 30k rounds per year on average. If we raise prices, they leave, simple as that.

However, this really isn't about my facility, or any particular facet of courses. Having said that, when I watch the average golfer on my property, I wonder what particular reason they are there, and whether they are adding to the sport. Does the sport benefit by more participation, regardless of behavior, and to a much lesser extent, ability?

Joe

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2005, 10:40:53 AM »
Gary,

D/FW is blessed in terms of affordable golf.  Just reference the Monrning News' "Texas Golf 2005".  The city of Dallas has an 8 round package at 4 of its courses for $88, and it includes the Tenison East (now Glen) of Lee Trevino fame.  With a buddy and a coupon, you can play and ride Brauer's highly enjoyable TangleRidge for $25.

Or if you're more of a private CC type, you can get 2 years free if you buy a 2 year membership for a package which includes Los Rios CC, The Shores CC, and Oakridge CC.  I don't know what the price is, but these clubs have always been a relative bargain.

Now for what is best for the game?

Good weather, a growing economy, adults who take their parental responsibilities seriously, and a tournament ball.  Add to this the departure of large owner/management companies from the business, as well as government from the mid to upscale segments.

 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2005, 10:41:18 AM by Lou_Duran »

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2005, 10:45:07 AM »
I'll tell you what's best for the game:  walking.  

Walking solves a lot of the problems of the game.  First, walking eliminates drunken cartball.  Second, walking promotes caddy programs.  And it promotes caddie programs with kids (not grown men trying to feed a family and pay a mortgage) as caddies.  Walking also fosters tighter routings and stems the tide of "8000 yards or bust".  

The primary benefit, though, is caddies.  The game grows through caddies.  Is it a coincidence that the game is stalled now and caddie programs are near extinction in a lot of places?  I don't think so.  I think it's perfectly clear that the game is suffering because not enough kids were caddying, starting about 10-15 years ago or so.  Thus, there aren't enough new "real golfers".  Sure, you have occasional people who come out and play around.  But kids who caddy today become golf's core constituency tomorrow.  

One of the immutable laws of nature is that carts don't grow up to become golfers!We skipped a generation and we're paying for it now.  I don't see the tide turning until enough kids get out to caddy and turn into golfers tomorrow.

How are you going to get more kids out?  Perhaps the answer is to DROP the caddy rate and jack up the cart rate.  A lot of guys I know would take caddies all the time if they cost what a cart cost, or somethign reasonably close.  However, at most places I know, a caddy costs $50-60 and 1/2 a cart costs $22 or whatever.  Switch those around and you've got something!  

What if a club set up their charges so that 1/2 a cart cost $35 and caddies cost $25, with a portion of the $13 extra cart charge subsidizing the caddie's rate, maybe $5-10 or so, so the caddy earned $30-35 (that's still a decent wage for a 13 year old kid to earn tax-free!!)?   And add 2 more rules -- no caddies over the age of 23 and no doubles.  And add to the caddy-day perks -- give all kids who have caddied for two full years a couple of hours during the week here and there at off times the end of the day so they can get out and play!      

What you'd probably see is lots more people taking caddies and fewer people taking carts.  





Great post Shivas.
Walking is at the core of the game and encouraging it should be a priority.

-Ted

frank_D

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2005, 10:53:10 AM »
What will it take for this phase in golf history to pass?

brother Ken Fry

a meteor about the size of an SUV to land in far hills NJ and there would be much rejoicing !

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2005, 12:11:30 PM »
Several have made excellent points, all of which relate back to routing and design:

Add to this the departure of large owner/management companies from the business.  Lou Duran

The large management companies in most respects could care less about the quality of the design.  Their main focus seems to be to suck all creativity and strategy out of the course so no one has to think, therefore they can move quickly through the turn stiles.  Despite encouraging junior golf at a prominent winter golf gathering by one CEO of a management company, this company initially opposed my introduction of a junior set of tees that made a 2,800 yard course within a 7,000 yard course at a municipal facility.  Furthermore, it was proposed that the local high school golf team be allowed access to the course for free during the week, to which the management company voiced opposition as well.  The golf team consists of 8 players, 2 tee times.


I'll tell you what's best for the game:  walking. Shivas

Great point Shivas.

Those golfers who've been shuffled through the cash register line, before properly learning those rules and behaviors, are the isssues that I see as needing real fixxing.  Adam Clayman

Adam, I always have believed that having grown up in the game I was an ideal customer at a course because I know how to play the game with proper etiquette, and in a timely manner.  Therefore, I would expect that the younger kids who learn the game become better customers in the future.  I have always disliked playing with some who came into the game later, and believe among other things that you always ride and you always drink while playing golf, two things I never learned in my formative years at the game.

an affordable fee and a small maintenance crew. Gary Mahaney

The prospect for being able to provide affordable fees and affordable maintenance start with the routing plan and the design.  By the way Gary, do you have a  twin brother, grew up in Midland, and played golf at Midland High or Lee.  I remember twins that played for a Midland golf team, I think 2 years below me, when I played at Permian, in Odessa.  I noticed you mentioned you are in North Texas.

Some other thoughts related to design and affordability.  The main point being that I think for too long creative design has not been pursued or allowed at the moderate to low end golf facilities, and that creative, strategic design can be an integral part of the course without increasing maintenance costs, or slowing play.  I am currently engaged in a book that is more oriented to landscape plants, however I think its focus on design as it relates to the site is very important concept for designing golf courses that are affordable from a construction and maintenance standpoint.  Some interesting quotes are as follows:

“Waugh strongly advocated field observation of natural landscapes as a basis for landscape design…”

“Furthermore, in many cases Waugh was a proponent of “intelligently letting alone a natural landscape””

“They provide a way of looking at our natural environment and suggesting an attitude of humility be adopted as we manipulate that environment.”

“..a more keener appreciation of the relationship inherent between native vegetation and the landscape.  It is this inherent relationship that many a landscape architect (golf course architect?) seems to forget in his eagerness to organize land and landscape for human use and to show his creative ability as an artist”

“The various components of the landscape industry have been quite effective at marketing not only their products but also an aesthetic standard for developed landscapes as they replace the previously existing forests, fields, prairies, and wetlands that once surrounded our cities and towns.”

“…Jensen espoused the use of native plants in designed landscapes and the study of naturally evolving landscapes as sources of inspiration for design.”

“Furthermore, by utilizing patterns and processes that are intrinsic to naturally evolved landscapes, we can create designed and managed landscapes that are clearly of the place and that approach the ideal of sustainability.”

“Simonds used local landforms, and native vegetation to express regional character.”

“Hopefully wth the distribution of this new edition, respect and admiration for indigenous plants and naturalistic settings will be heightened, along with efforts to restore them to designed and managed landscapes as well as to preserve them in areas where they already exist.”

I am sure many of you will interpret these snippets in different ways, but I think in basic the idea of more focused attention on the land and its characteristics and having that understanding infused into the design or redesign of golf courses can be most meaningful in putting the game on a sure footing on a lot of different levels.  

Furthermore, reread all of the above quotes, and contrast each one with what Fazio said in the Dallas Morning News article:

"Fazio also is astonished by some of the changes in the golf design industry. Gone are the days when architects could only design holes with what they had on the land. Now, he said, as long as you have investors willing to spend the money, you can make flat land around Dallas into a hilly course that looks like another part of the country. "

In which direction is golf course design going?  Clearly Fazio is on top of the game and is driving the design business in the direction that most writers and golfers seem to agree with leaving the rest of us to ponder where we went wrong. Does that direction have an impact on what is best for the game?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2005, 12:17:25 PM by Kelly Blake Moran »

frank_D

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2005, 09:33:31 AM »
So....what really is best?

brother Joe Hancock

for the time to complete a round NOT to exceed three hours

the number ONE factor in why AVID golfers quit is TIME to play

my solution would be to play twelve holes as a complete round

my other solution would be to have each player start with ONE sleeve of THREE balls - lose them and you MUST leave the course - three strikes and your OUT !

however original thinking ahead of its time is not accepable and i don't see either solution happening anytime soon

Brent Hutto

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2005, 09:47:32 AM »
So....what really is best?

brother Joe Hancock

for the time to complete a round NOT to exceed three hours

the number ONE factor in why AVID golfers quit is TIME to play

my solution would be to play twelve holes as a complete round

my other solution would be to have each player start with ONE sleeve of THREE balls - lose them and you MUST leave the course - three strikes and your OUT !

however original thinking ahead of its time is not accepable and i don't see either solution happening anytime soon

Ummm, have you ever seen a hacker who's down to his last golf ball? He does not play fast. He's scared spitless of losing that ball and if he does lose it he isn't giving up looking after a measly five minutes.

frank_D

Re:What is best for the game?
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2005, 01:51:40 PM »
brother Brent Hutto

someone i would gladly wait it out on - i could hasten the eventual outcome by betting that they would NOT finish the round with that last ball - even if it came to putting that last ball around the entire course to finish

to be reduced to embarasment by peer pressure is only one solution to highlight an idiots' inconsiderate behavior in need of modification