"Executive" golf courses

[ForkaB]

Is anybody else on here old enough to remember this phenomenon that was briefly the rage in the 50's and 60's?  4000 yard par-60 courses that could be shoehorned into a small parcel and played in a couple of hours?  I have visions of a number of them in the Eastern US, but I can't remember any names.  Gleneagles used to have one called the Princes, before it was cannibalized to create the Nicklaus monstrosity that we will all get to see in the 2014(?) Ryder Cup.  It was huge amounts of fun........

My questions:

1.  How many of these courses still exist (if any!)?
2.  Are any of them of any architectural or playing interest?
3.  Any chance for such courses to make a comeback, even with new technology?

Just remember, as Tim Weiman often reminds us, the "average" golfer cannot hit the ball anywhere near 200 yards, even on his or her best day, and even excellent golfers like Tom Huckaby and John Bernhardt can be completely frustrated by a cunningly designed 360 yards golf hole such as #16 at Bandcn.Dunes.......

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm old enough but don't know of too many. In Chi town they just had nine holer's, which if it were raining you could have an enjoyable death march free round. Otherwise they are the home of the average golfer. Sometimes 5 hr. nines  

There was one in Mequon Wi. "missing Links" I think they self-effaciatingly call it. We found it on the way home from BWR the first time. I had one of my super-natural natural experiences on the missing links. It was 90 degree day a little muggy but not too bad. We played BWR and stopped for a quick nine in Mequon. The holes are series of par 3's and the last is a par 4. Well when we hit the southwest corner of this course the temp dropped to the 60's without any atmospheric disturbance(micro-burst) or change in anything but our location, maybe a slight elevation change but not enough to figure out where the hell this natural AC was coming from. We were about a mile or so from the Lake and I can only figure some river of cool air came from there. But to this day have no idea How or why.

[Stephen Brown]

Rich-

I know of one rather busy executive  courseoutside of Orlando in Casselberry, FL.  The course is aptly named Casselbery Golf Course.    

It has been several years since playing it and can't recall much about the course from an architectural standpoint.
(I did get a chance to watch Moe Norman give an impromptu clinic on the practice range for about ten folks, when he had stopped in to see the teaching pro Gene Jones)  

Technological advances aside, I hope that we see a rebirth of the inexpensive executive course which will provide the oppurtunity for more people to get a chance to play the game. (First Tee Foundation, etc.)

Stephen Brown

[THuckaby2]

Rich:  My daughter is "old enough" to know executive courses - there are still quite a few in the greater Bay Area and throughout the state.  A new one recently went up in Fremont, and a sort of "hybrid" exists as the new San Jose municipal course - it's a par 68 at 5000 yards - so halfway between executive and "full-sized."  In any case I get your question, and I'm proud to say I personally don't remember executive courses being any "rage"... in my golf lifetime they've kind of always been there, and I have played MANY.

To answer your questions though, from my perspective:

1.  How many of these courses still exist (if any!)?
Lots
2.  Are any of them of any architectural or playing interest?
Not many, not that I've seen.  Gib likes Deep Cliff here in the Bay Area, and I guess it is good fun and has some of each type of interest, but conditions are so bad there as to ruin it (a la Harding pre-renovation).
3.  Any chance for such courses to make a comeback, even with new technology?
I'd say so... as land gets harder and harder to find / more expensive to buy / rules get tighter and tighter re restrictions, developers do what they must, a la the new San Jose muni and a new 9-hole exec in Fremont, just to use Bay Area examples.

TH

[ForkaB]

Thanks Adma, Stephen and Tom

You know I really didn't have this in mind when I started this thread, but on contemplation I remember that I fairly recently played a very intriguing "executive" course.........Painswick!

[A.G._Crockett]

I started playing golf on such a track in Durham, NC back in the mid-70's; the course is long since gone, covered up by a Toys-R-Us, etc., in a strip mall.

Here in Atlanta, three reportedly very good executive courses have been built in recent years on the north end of the metro area.  All are thriving, well-conditioned layouts.  As to any architectural significance, I haven't heard anyone make that claim for them.

Names BTW are Legacy, Fox Creek, and The Hooch (after the Chattahoochee River)

[THuckaby2]

Painswick - heck yeah!

Question though... while I'd be surprised if the term "executive course" is bandied about in the UK, wouldn't they have MORE courses than us at less than 70 "par"?  Maybe they don't have the 4000 yard, par 60 courses we'd call "executive" here... but isn't it more common to have courses like Painswick that just do what the land allows?

I am just asking... somehow I get that impression, which could be totally wrong....

TH

[D. Kilfara]

Rich, as I'm sure you well know, Britain and Ireland have loads of Executive Courses; they just aren't marketed as such. Here in my neck of the woods, Dunaverty (down the road from Machrihanish) is as neat a course as you could ever wish to play, and its measurements from the back tees are 4,799 yards, par 66. Stonehaven, up near Aberdeen, is another good one of this type. Painswick fits the mold, of course. I'm sure others can think of many more.

I'm sure that there would be a market for this type of course in America *if* you could convince the "average" golfer that it was worth playing. For some reason, many American golfers would rather take six hours to shoot 120 on a 6,500-yard course than three-and-a-half hours to shoot 90 on a 4,500-yard course. There's a perception that if a course isn't tough enough to challenge a low-handicapper, it isn't worth playing. In a similar vein, I'm a huge fan of the pitch-and-putt concept, and one would think that a huge market would exist for pitch-and-putt courses, not just as a sort of transition zone for beginners between miniature golf and "real" golf but also as a cheap and quick alternative to a 4+ hour round. Alas, very few "real" golfers seem to want to go back and enjoy a round of pitch-and-putt. It's as though once you've graduated from pitch-and-putt (or executive courses) to the "real thing", you aren't supposed to go back to high school (pitch-and-putt) or college (executive course), even if you had a lot of fun there.

Tom did point out one real problem with executive courses (and pitch-and-putts) - because the golfers playing them are almost exclusively beginners, they aren't likely to have much of a sense of etiquette for the game. So you aren't going to have many divots replaced or ball marks fixed, which means conditions are likely to deteriorate much more quickly than they might at a "real" course. The perception of poor maintenance is something that executive courses are always likely to struggle against, I'd have thought...

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff Darren - you answered my question re the UK for sure, and that's a great point re maintenance suffering... Unfortunately you're right, that's never going to go away... not until someone builds a "championship executive course" anyway - that is, one that's geared toward experienced players, giving them smaller versions of great golf holes - and not how it is now for the most part - courses geared toward beginners, like my daughter (who's only 7 and has only made one foray to date on to such course - we stick to the driving range and a local pitch and putt par 3 course for the most part!).

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom and Darren

Really good points.  As Darren says, the nomenclature "executive" golf is unkown in the UK--they just call it "Golf."  Silly, eh?

As I've said before on this DG, one of my clubs, Aberdour, used to be a brilliant par 63, 5000 yard course that produced a string of highly accomplished golfers in the 60's and 70's.  They got some land and stretched it to 5500 yards par 67 in the 70's and most cognoscenti think that was a mistake.  No brilliant golfers have emerged since the extension........

When we talk about golfing "revolutions" I'd far prefer to see us think about spending our time, energy and dollars on bringing back and building "executive" and pitch and putt courses--for all the reasons that Darren articulates--rather than trying to restore every bunker that Ross peed on while routing some hidden gem in East Podunk.

[THuckaby2]

With ya 100% on all of this, Rich.  Well said.  And re the nomenclature, we can chalk this up to the many, many ways outside of handicapping systems that UK golf is superior to US golf!  

TH

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Rich, Tom, D.K.,

D. just answered Tom's questions about the British Isles have courses less than the typical measurements here.  Doak gave a presentation at Archipalooza and it seemed every course he depicted in slides was par in the 60's and shortish I guess, but they looked magnificent.  The specifics about par and length should be dictated by the land, however, I find a problem with delivering a plan to a developer with a par 68, 6000 yards, and assuring him he can market the course at his projected levels here in the States.  That is something I need to do more homework on.  I mean, the guy hires you, you get squeezed by all the regulations and developer demands and you end up in this situation.  Where is the documentation I can present to him that he can make a good business out of a small course.  The quality of the holes can be ever bit as good as the very finest private courses in the area, particulary if it is well routed to the site's natural features, but will good golfers come, will beginners pay a decent fee to make the course a good business?  I do not know.  I believe in my heart you can.  I mean look at the crap advertising all the market experts do for courses.  Look at the ads in the magazines and the billboards.  They do absolutely nothing to educate the golfer about the fine strategic qualities of their course, possibly the historical ties to previous great architects, you know something that goes beyond, the rolling fairways, and beautiful white sand bunkers by the great pro Jim Furyk??? Who???  Why can't you have a 6000 yard course par 60 that has a marketng campaign that educates th golfer about the design qualities of their course, a campaign that treats the consumer with respect, and gives them a real education about the fine points of golf course architecture.  Boy, if I were an owner I would demand that.  It just seems developors follow the herd, no one is willing to believe passionately in what they have, and then be bold about promoting it, be an educator about architecture.  Anyway, I have forgotten what your post was about.  Designing such a course would be great.  I mean what is the real intent of an architect.  Get the trophy jobs?  maybe.  Design great holes.  Always.  That is the one thing people do not believe in, that it matters little what the size of the course is, if you believe in the game, and you let the land show you were its golf holes are you can make great holes, whether it is low, mid, or high budget.  Great holes can be found at any level.  

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Cougar Point here on Kiawah Island was originally a 6,200 yard par 71 course and was called Marsh Point.  It was changed in 1996 by Player into a par 72 at 6,875 yards.  

There's a P.O.S. exectutive course in West Palm Beach called Lone Pine.  Don't waste your time...

[ForkaB]

Kelly

Great post.  It gets to the heart of one of my concerns, i.e. perceptions of what the market will bear.  I see all this "Gee, I can't 'sell' this course unless it is 7200 yards and has some big name designer/pro associated with it" crap as just that--crap.  Sounds like the executives at GM, Ford and Chrysler 40 years ago who said "No real Murcan will buy an itty-bitty Japanese or German car."

I really think it is an issue of of "build it and they will come"--if it is designed with skill (ie. challenge for the good player, playability for the novice), you can get around in 3 hours or so, and it is affordable (which it should be given lower land acquisition, construction and maintenance costs).

So, which developer is going to be the first to bite the bullet (and possibly reap some significant rewards--as has another pioneer, Keiser, done at Bandon)?

[Stephen Brown]

Pardon my ignorance, How can I find out more about Painswick ?  

Are there pictures posted ?  Which particular books  have photos ?

This leads to to another question, what are the best courses with a par of <70 ? I also remember seeing photos of a little Par 3 course somewhere in CA, that was interesting enough to warrant discussion on GCA ? Any help ?

Thanks,


Steve

[THuckaby2]

Fantastic stuff here one and all.

More questions:

Isn't such a course more likely to happen in a metropolitan area than off the beaten track?  I just can't see any "executive" course working as a destination in and of itself... It could work very well as an add-on to an existing great resort (a la Bandon) and in fact in that case would be one hell of a great addition...

But standing alone, I can really see this working in the urban sense.  Doesn't downtown Chicago have something like this now?

There was a huge vacant lot right next to the glorious Clorox headquarters here in Oakland for which I had visions like this for many years... alas and alack, visions are all I have, and now there's a sad-looking, 70% unoccupied huge offiice building on this site.  Maybe I'm naive to think it can happen in extreme urban settings like this... But wouldn't it be more San Jose and less Bandon, to put it in an odd way?

TH

[THuckaby2]

S_Brown - do an archive search on Painswick - it's been discussed many times here.  Rich played it and his prose was fantastic... Paul Turner posted some incredible pictures.. there is a LOT in here on the subject - Painswick has become kind of a gca cult course!

TH

Pardon my ignorance, How can I find out more about Painswick ?  

Are there pictures posted ?  Which particular books  have photos ?

This leads to to another question, what are the best courses with a par of <70 ? I also remember seeing photos of a little Par 3 course somewhere in CA, that was interesting enough to warrant discussion on GCA ? Any help ?

Thanks,


Steve

[Lou Duran]

Brian Leggett, the founder of Beacon Hall north of Toronto, built a nine hole "executive" course in the Muskoka Lakes region (couple hours north of Toronto).  Along with his lovely wife, Julie, he operates "The Diamond 'in the Ruff'" seasonally (mostly from June 1 - early September), catering to the lake cottage owners, guests, and other tourists.  The course is around 2,750 yards from the tips (2,462 from the second set)with a par of 34, and a rating of 33.4.  It has three par threes (161, 217, 148) and one par 5 (512).  The longest par 4 is 385 yards.  What is particularly good about this course is that it looks like a major championship course with beautiful bunkers, defined rough lines, sloping greens, etc., while being some 20%+ shorter.  The place is hopping from early morning to dusk.  Many of the players are seniors, kids, women, and people who otherwise would struggle on full size courses.  The clubhouse, though small. is quaint, and the kitchen would make many name clubs green with envy.  Brian's operating model is for people to enjoy a great nine holes of golf and a fantastic lunch or dinner in about 2.5 hours for around $50 Canadian.  It is my understanding that Bryan has added a second nine, though I haven't talked to him for a couple of years.  There are a number of fantastic courses in the Muskoka area, but when I get back there again, I'll be sure to make time for the "Diamond".  Highly recommended!!!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Lou gives an excellent example.  However I would like to hear that such a course is designed in a way that it attracts good players as well, which it may do but I didn't gather that from his post.

Tom, to make it work it has to be on land bought at an inexpensive price, maybe connected to something more prominent as you noted, and financing must be low, and it must be marketed in a way that educates the golfer about the quality of its design, it must get to the real meat of architecture, and educate the golfer.

[THuckaby2]

KBM  - that makes perfect sense to me, which is surprising because I'm typically pretty clueless about how this works...

But if this is the formula, a "top-quality" executive course wouldn't seem to work anywhere in the state of CA, outside of being connected to an existing resort.  That's an overstatement obviously but in general is that a fair assessment?

TH

[Mike_Sweeney]

Myself and a good portion of Philadelphia golfers learned to play at Walnut Lane, which is one of Ran's reviews. I tried to get there over Thanksgiving with my son, but the weather did not coorperate.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/walnutlane1.html

[Dan Kelly]

I think that shortish courses (not necessarily so short as 4,000 yards; I'm thinking 5,500 as a benchmark) are EXACTLY what golf needs. They're what kids need. They're what most women need. They're what most Seniors (and there are going to be a helluva lot of golf-playing Seniors as the Boomers get "old") need.
    
I agree with Rich -- as hereby amended: Build it WELL (and maintain it WELL), and they will come.

I'd go so far as to say: Shorter courses could be the principal aspect of the REVOLUTION in golf design kicked about at such length in that other thread. And here's why: They could make golf FUN for many people who really can't be having much fun trying to play courses designed to make sure Tiger Woods is properly challenged if he ever happens by for a game. They could be more affordable. They could be played more quickly. They could open the eyes of many golfers to the charms of good design and, by eschewing length, expose those golfers to this most fundamental truth about the game: Length is good, but accuracy is better.

What's not to like?

Would one of you architects PLEASE talk one of your clients into building such a course? Seems to me that resorts -- where such courses would be add-ons to the Championship courses already there -- would be the perfect setting ... and the perfect laboratory for the evolution of short-course design.

Jeff Brauer: How about a short course at Giants Ridge? The Legend and The Quarry are going to offer plenty of challenge for anyone (and more than plenty of challenge for many).

I haven't yet made it to Bandon Dunes, but it sounds as though a shortish course there could round out the palette -- and be most palatable, besides!

Fields of dreams, indeed.

[THuckaby2]

DK:

Is this what you have in mind?

http://www.playloslagos.com/

This is a 10 minute drive max from my house, and is the new San Jose muni I mentioned above.  It's generally packed, people love it... I have a fundamental problem with the routing in that they make you cross a long bridge twice when they really don't have to, making the walk way more difficult then it needs to be, but outside of that it's in great condition, it doesn't suffer from onlsaught and lack of care from beginners as it's too much course for them, and there are some damn well done golf holes there...

Maybe there is something good to say about public golf in the San Jose area.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Ah yes, the infamous Peter Jans... a classic if ever there was one.  This is on my list of places to see, for sure.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

DK:

Is this what you have in mind?

http://www.playloslagos.com/

Yeah, that's getting there.

After looking at the scorecard: My ideal short course would have a BUNCH of short par-4s -- more than Los Lagos has. (Fewer par-3s on my ideal short course.) I'd probably have no hole longer than about 475 (a short par-5 for big hitters, a long one for kids, women and seniors).