OLd Macdonald's greens the largest in the world

[Adam Clayman]

With each added course, isn't there an economy of scale at work which lowers costs?

[Brent Hutto]

With each added course, isn't there an economy of scale at work which lowers costs?

Not for walk-mowing greens, not if all umpteen holes open an hour after first light 365 days a year.

[Ian Larson]

I wouldn't say there is a "Costco" or "Sams Club" effect on golf course maintenance. At the very best all of the courses could MAYBE share a few pieces of equipment. But after working at a 4 course resort myself, it makes it to be very difficult to schedule and hold people accountable when equipment is shared by all. Man hours, chemicals, sand etc. will always remain the same no matter how many courses they build.

[Eric Johnson]

Greens will always be maintained more intensely than green surrounds. I'm sure all supers on here would agree to that and would have a weak arguement otherwise.

6 acres of greens on a resort course that has play starting early in the morning is either going to take double the man hours or double the man power to have them mowed ahead of play as compared to typical 3 acres. Walk mowing is costly as it is on 3 acres. And I'm sure they're being walk mowed and not triplexed at Bandon.

3 Acres of greens

4 men = 3 hours to mow 18


6 Acres of greens

4 men = 6 hours to mow 18

or.....

8 men = 3 hours to mow 18


Average wage per man  = say $11.00 / hr.

3 Acres mowed 365 days year = $48,000

6 Acres mowed 365 days year = $96,000


Then you can just double aerifying costs, topdressing costs, spraying costs, rolling costs etc.

And the golfers don't care if it's 3 or 6 acres. They will be teeing off at the same time no matter what. So in order to mow, roll, topdress or spray....you not only double the manpower to get it done ahead of play, you double the equipment needed to do it....

Roller = $15k

Sprayer = $50 - $75k

Greens mowers = $15k


Granted, fescue may not require the same fertilizer amount as bentgrass....but do we not think fescue is susceptible to major disease in the pacific northwest? The fungicide budget alone would trump any 3 acre bentgrass green fert budget.


Having over 6 acres of greens and needing them to be maintained ahead of play will cost more than double to maintain 3 acres of bentgrass. The only thing "green" about that is the money being spent....

 

[Ian Larson]

Well please feel free to correct any wrong assumptions....

[Eric Johnson]

p

[Ian Larson]

If I assumed wrong and you want to call me on it that's your cue to take the stage and support why you say I've assumed wrong....

[Eric Johnson]

If I assumed wrong and you want to call me on it that's your cue to take the stage and support why you say I've assumed wrong....

Well, if one were to follow your OWN advice, you would call the Superintendent instead of SPECULATING re: the Agronomy program and maintenance strategies.

Again, check your PM inbox.....you know, click "messages" on the upper right of this page.

[Jud_T]

As for the Doak/Bandon/fescue juice, I'll have a double.  We're not making connections to Bandon Oregon to play just another cookie cutter course guys.  And if the greens fees are 20 bucks more to cover these costs so be it.

[Ben Sims]

I might add that there must be alot of Bandon / Doak / OM juice going around. If Greg Norman, Tom Fazio or some other architect used over 6 acres of green space they would be getting trashed left and right on here for the direction they're going....

Until Doak/Keiser/OM/Bandon give me a reason to not drink, then I'll enjoy my kool-aid.  As will a lot of others on this site as well.  Name an undisputedly better golf experience for the public in the US.  Don't worry, I'll wait.  If Fazio or Norman or Palmer built 6 acres of greens on a new project that was "unproven", then yes, we would all be going beserk.   Mainly because none of those designers have shown the willingness or need to adopt a "links" ethos.  Renaissance has proven itself in that realm, and have repeatedly proven that they can put new ideas into the ground in a traditional and appealing way.  Furthermore, it's not like Bandon is an unproven business venture. 

ESPN talks about Tim Tebow all the time because he is a good kid, a great player, and he wins.  Sure I am tired of hearing about him, but it doesn't take away from the quality of his play or his character.

Greens will always be maintained more intensely than green surrounds. I'm sure all supers on here would agree to that and would have a weak arguement otherwise.

6 acres of greens on a resort course that has play starting early in the morning is either going to take double the man hours or double the man power to have them mowed ahead of play as compared to typical 3 acres. Walk mowing is costly as it is on 3 acres. And I'm sure they're being walk mowed and not triplexed at Bandon.

3 Acres of greens

4 men = 3 hours to mow 18


6 Acres of greens

4 men = 6 hours to mow 18

or.....

8 men = 3 hours to mow 18


Average wage per man  = say $11.00 / hr.

3 Acres mowed 365 days year = $48,000

6 Acres mowed 365 days year = $96,000


Then you can just double aerifying costs, topdressing costs, spraying costs, rolling costs etc.

And the golfers don't care if it's 3 or 6 acres. They will be teeing off at the same time no matter what. So in order to mow, roll, topdress or spray....you not only double the manpower to get it done ahead of play, you double the equipment needed to do it....

Roller = $15k

Sprayer = $50 - $75k

Greens mowers = $15k


Granted, fescue may not require the same fertilizer amount as bentgrass....but do we not think fescue is susceptible to major disease in the pacific northwest? The fungicide budget alone would trump any 3 acre bentgrass green fert budget.


Having over 6 acres of greens and needing them to be maintained ahead of play will cost more than double to maintain 3 acres of bentgrass. The only thing "green" about that is the money being spent....

 

So Keiser opens a golf course that requires more maintenance in an economic downturn, creates a few more jobs for a rural area, and folks are talking about maintainability and efficiency?  I am all for more a more affordable and more efficient future for GCA and golf course operations.  In fact it is something I am very passionate about.   But questioning the business practices of a guy that has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the conventional golf model and been successful is a bit precocious don't you think?

[JC Jones]

Kool-aid so tasty.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I might add that there must be alot of Bandon / Doak / OM juice going around. If Greg Norman, Tom Fazio or some other architect used over 6 acres of green space they would be getting trashed left and right on here for the direction they're going....

Until Doak/Keiser/OM/Bandon give me a reason to not drink, then I'll enjoy my kool-aid.  As will a lot of others on this site as well.  Name an undisputedly better golf experience for the public in the US.  Don't worry, I'll wait.  If Fazio or Norman or Palmer built 6 acres of greens on a new project that was "unproven", then yes, we would all be going beserk.   Mainly because none of those designers have shown the willingness or need to adopt a "links" ethos.  Renaissance has proven itself in that realm, and have repeatedly proven that they can put new ideas into the ground in a traditional and appealing way.  Furthermore, it's not like Bandon is an unproven business venture. 

ESPN talks about Tim Tebow all the time because he is a good kid, a great player, and he wins.  Sure I am tired of hearing about him, but it doesn't take away from the quality of his play or his character.

Greens will always be maintained more intensely than green surrounds. I'm sure all supers on here would agree to that and would have a weak arguement otherwise.

6 acres of greens on a resort course that has play starting early in the morning is either going to take double the man hours or double the man power to have them mowed ahead of play as compared to typical 3 acres. Walk mowing is costly as it is on 3 acres. And I'm sure they're being walk mowed and not triplexed at Bandon.

3 Acres of greens

4 men = 3 hours to mow 18


6 Acres of greens

4 men = 6 hours to mow 18

or.....

8 men = 3 hours to mow 18


Average wage per man  = say $11.00 / hr.

3 Acres mowed 365 days year = $48,000

6 Acres mowed 365 days year = $96,000


Then you can just double aerifying costs, topdressing costs, spraying costs, rolling costs etc.

And the golfers don't care if it's 3 or 6 acres. They will be teeing off at the same time no matter what. So in order to mow, roll, topdress or spray....you not only double the manpower to get it done ahead of play, you double the equipment needed to do it....

Roller = $15k

Sprayer = $50 - $75k

Greens mowers = $15k


Granted, fescue may not require the same fertilizer amount as bentgrass....but do we not think fescue is susceptible to major disease in the pacific northwest? The fungicide budget alone would trump any 3 acre bentgrass green fert budget.


Having over 6 acres of greens and needing them to be maintained ahead of play will cost more than double to maintain 3 acres of bentgrass. The only thing "green" about that is the money being spent....

 

So Keiser opens a golf course that requires more maintenance in an economic downturn, creates a few more jobs for a rural area, and folks are talking about maintainability and efficiency?  I am all for more a more affordable and more efficient future for GCA and golf course operations.  In fact it is something I am very passionate about.   But questioning the business practices of a guy that has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the conventional golf model and been successful is a bit precocious don't you think?

Ian,
  I got a feeling that regardless what you and I say about maintenance costs, there are too many on this site that will defend and come up with any type of reason to defend Bandon/Doak/Keiser..... At the end of the day, it's wasted turf, man hours, chemicals, time, etc.....

[JC Jones]

I agree with you Tony, prior or past successes does not make a current decision good when it would otherwise be bad.  Trust me, there is no bigger Doak/Bandon kool-aid drinker than me.

I'm curious to hear Tom D's response (if he has the chance to write one or sees this thread) because I think you bring up some legitimate points re cost and impact of maintenance. 

[Rob Rigg]

Most of the courses at Bandon have been built for a fraction of what many of these Faz/Nicklaus/Norman courses have cost so Keiser is probably several million dollars ahead of the game which will buy him several years of "free" maintenance versus the where these other places are starting out.

The construction of each course has also moved minimal amounts of dirt during creation which has a less significant impact on the environment (and remember that Oregon has some pretty stringent environmental regulations).

Furthermore, there are no cart paths to maintain, waterfalls to power, or fake streams to run.

I do not see how OM is any more uneconomical than hundreds of courses that have been built over the last 30 years.

6.5 acres of greens, plus a $10M Faz type budget, yeah - that would be maintenance and environmental Frankenstein movie.

[Ian Larson]

That's the way it goes here on GCA Tony


Whoa....wait one stinking minute. Who on here said ANYTHING about Bandon's business model and it's success? Who said anything about the quality of Tom's work? I sure as hell didn't. I threw out some very crude, very basic golf course management mathematics. This is how threads go south, when guys just start shooting comments from the hip.

I know just as all of you do that Bandon is the bee's knee's and Tom Doak creates masterpieces of golf courses. That's not the issue or the point that was attempted to be made. Of course Bandon can and will afford to maintain anything it decides to build, and be very successful.

But I think Tony had a great point without criticizing anyone negatively. Would OM be just as awesome if it were designed with half the acreage of greens? Of course it would, Tom builds 3 acres of greens all the time and they're fantastic!

The fact is that double the green playing playing surface is roughly going to cost double. There's really no curve to the cost graph as the area increases. If 1 sq ft of green costs x dollars....2 sq ft of green will cost 2x dollars.

Bandon can do what they want and Tom will have designed an awesome course and Keiser will be filthy rich. That's not the point. The point is that should GCA learn anything from OM with doubling green acreage and doubling maintenance costs which will be passed on to the consumer. Especially in this day and age where golf course superintendents are trying to make the golf course more sustainable to provide more affordable golf.

Should GCA learn from OM? Probably not.

[Steve Lang]

  Hell, Ballyneal easily has 10 acres of "effective green"

[Ben Sims]

I threw out some very crude, very basic golf course management mathematics. This is how threads go south, when guys just start shooting comments from the hip.

So the supporters of the vast green spaces are shooting from the hip when it is you that are "throwing out very crude, very basic...mathematics"?  Ian, I have nothing against you or Tony, really!  But it's ludicrous to say that OM would be just as good with half the green space.  In my abbreviated experience there, it was the greens that made the largest impact on me.  It is--quite simply--the one piece of ground that made me want to start studying this whole GCA thing much deeper.  And I did just that the same day I returned from my trip to Bandon.  After a great year of playing great courses, it still sticks in my mind. 

Is standing rib roast efficient?  Is a $200 bottle of Cabernet from Stags Leap logical?  No.  But they taste really good.  Six acres of greens at "So-in-so" Municipal or "Plain Jane Oaks" upscale daily fee (I hate that term) would be vastly wasteful.  But the six acres at this joint is inspiring.  You need to see it.

Should GCA learn from OM? Probably not.

I just can't see how you think this is a true statement.  Again, you really need to see it.

[Ian Larson]

Ok here we go again....doing some basic golf course management mathematics is not shooting from the hip like other posters bringing up Tom Doaks talent as an architect or Keisers successful business model at Bandon. I crunched numbers, others quoted me and used Tom and Keiser as something I was critiquing. That wasn't the case at all, I was crunching basic numbers for christs sake.

I haven't been to Bandon and will be next spring. I'm sure I'll be blown away, I'm sure I'll be inspired. I will love it! But Ben you're confusing being inspired by the greens with trends in GCA. I'm sure those greens are amazing, but should GCA trends follow green space like this? I'm sure the Faz and the Donald could also design some huge greens with character. If they did they would be fiercly attacked on here because they're not guys that are respected on here. But with it being Bandon....who cares! Make em bigger!


What I really don't understand is that if the surrounds seemlessly tie into the green surfaces so well that it's hard to see a true delineation between green surround and green, AND the turf is fescue that is playing lean, mean, fast and firm for the ground game.....why is it necessary to maintain 6.5 acres with a fine turf green maintenance regime? If the approaches and surrounds are not drastically different than the green surface, can the acreage maintained as green be cut back and still maintain amazing greens for much less labor and money? This question may be specific to Bandon but it's really about the big picture with GCA, should more designs use larger greens? And I disagree that having large greens at publics and munis are more of a waste than what they are at OM.

[Ben Sims]

Ian,

I'm digging your take on the matter.  And I understand that by being both a strong supporter of simpler, more affordable and yet interesting golf courses and a strong supporter of the gigantic greens at Old Mac; I am being hypocritical.  But trust me when I say that at this particular course--and based partly on who owns it--it works.  The Biarrtitz #8 is rumored to take over an hour to mow! That's nuts.  But oh that Biarritz.

I disagree that the trend leaves nothing to learn for the future of GCA.  In fact--maintenance practices notwithstanding--Old Mac should be studied for how well the surrounding contour ties into the green space.  You simply cannot make an approach to any green--no matter how big--without first contemplating what is in front, behind, and to the sides of said green.  

I don't think that any new course in their right mind should have greens that big.  But what the greater world of GCA could take from Old Mac is learning that there is playability beyond just greens, bunkers, and rough.  Having grass around the green that allows for the contours to be used adds a dimension of playability that many new courses could strive to emulate.   

You're going to love it.  Yes they're huge greens, but it just works.

[Jim Nugent]

  Nobody has the right to be wasteful, not even "The Donald..."

Tony Nysse
Pine Tree GC
Boynton Beach, FL

So it's wasteful, as determined by you.  And you have also determined that no one has the right to be wasteful.

This is a good example of why maintenance/fulfillment guys should not be given the power to make strategic decisions. 

[Sean_A]

Rob is right, on keen sites with wind, landing areas need to be larger, but they don't necessarily need to be green just like the landing area for drives doesn't necessarily need to be all fairway - short rough works as well.  While I don't mind big greens because of the potential putting challenges, I am curious about the need for huge greens.  Looking at many links (and this applies only to links - not parkland, not heathland) I know often times the surrounds are kept green-like (meaning they can be putted quite easily) without the extra maintenance.  All this aside, I would worry that the golfer would face many similar shots with a putter in his hand, an aspect of TOC on a windy day I don't care for, but I do think it makes the course play easier than other championship courses.  Guys may three putt, but they aren't knocking shots back and forth like on some championship courses such as Pinehurst - its oh so painful and boring to watch after the the first few incidents.  All of this said, I absolutely hate it when greens are built up and large sections of the surface area are not green.  I don't think it plays much different other than saving balls rolling off edges, but the look is dreadful with the seam so much in your face.

Tom has stated that the greens have grown larger than anticipated, perhaps they will shrink in the future.  I hope Tom chimes in here on what the thinking was behind large greens. 

I am not sure if folks realize it, but TOC has a huge maintenance budget for UK standards and much of that has to be because of the size of the greens.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Well, I played an 18-hole King of the Hill match with Mr. Keiser and Mr. Urbina today, and I won a golf shirt, and I still think Old Macdonald is pretty cool.

Anthony N. has always looked to criticize my work on some grounds or another, so he can bite me.

But as for Ian, and all of the rest who ask if 6.5 acres of greens is good business or sustainable, I would just tell you the truth.

It was never my intention to build greens as big as what we've built at Old Macdonald.  Mr. Urbina and Mr. Bahto and Mr. Klein were the ones who advised taking "big and bold" to the extreme.  And the golf holes we have been building are pretty cool, so I didn't argue too much.

As for setting an example for the rest of the world ... well, Common Ground is an example for the rest of the world.  Old Macdonald is different.  The course has to compete with three of the top 100 courses in America right adjacent to it, and at the start of the project, most people would have said it was the fourth best piece of property on the site.  If we had NOT done something pretty extreme, it might well have been a failure, and the cost of failure would have been much higher than the cost of hand-mowing six acres of greens.  The entire construction budget would have been a waste of money, if the course wasn't pronounced just as good as the others.

Are 6.5 acres of greens sustainable, long-term?  I don't know about that.  The whole course is 100% fescue, and Ken Nice is in charge, so even with 6.5 acres of greens, I'm betting it's more sustainable than wherever Tony is currently working.  But I am confident that they could take the greens down to 4.5 acres if they really wanted to, and the course would only lose a handful of interesting hole locations.  For now, we'll see whether the bigger greens really add to the experience.  Judging by the reactions of the forty guys who played 18 holes today, I'm guessing they are worth it, and Mr. Keiser certainly seemed to think so ... and it IS his call.

To me, the only real question is whether the size of the greens adds to the course or not.  I think it's 100% b.s. to say that Donald Trump or Tom Fazio would be ridiculed for building the same thing we've built in Bandon.  If they did it, and pulled it off, I'd be the first to say so.  But they didn't, so drop it already.

[Rob Rigg]

Tom,

Can you speak at all to the course budget?

Golf course economics are not isolated variables, they must be inter-related.

If a course costs $3M versus $5m or even $10M to build, then you are drastically ahead of the game, especially if you can count on a steady cash flow from rounds played.

And even if the maintenance budget is higher at OM versus the other three courses at BDGR, Keiser is still spreading that budget over 4, soon to be 4 6/9 courses.

Tony and Ian,

Maybe other architects would not be given a chance by the treehouse - but I am not sure about that - if Fazio, Engh or Nicklaus had designed OM, I still believe that there would be a very positive response and that the guys would be commending the architect for throwing down some fun holes and bold greens. If someone had put another version of Sandpines on the site then that would be a different story.

I think the big question for OM is going to be whether the BDGR equivalent of "Joe Sixpack" digs the course and I think he will because there is a chance to score well if you play well and there are a lot of opportunities to have that "shot of the day" experience which is what golf is all about - and the course will get its revenge along the way because it is links golf and thats how it works.

[Sean_A]

Well, I played an 18-hole King of the Hill match with Mr. Keiser and Mr. Urbina today, and I won a golf shirt, and I still think Old Macdonald is pretty cool.

Anthony N. has always looked to criticize my work on some grounds or another, so he can bite me.

But as for Ian, and all of the rest who ask if 6.5 acres of greens is good business or sustainable, I would just tell you the truth.

It was never my intention to build greens as big as what we've built at Old Macdonald.  Mr. Urbina and Mr. Bahto and Mr. Klein were the ones who advised taking "big and bold" to the extreme.  And the golf holes we have been building are pretty cool, so I didn't argue too much.

As for setting an example for the rest of the world ... well, Common Ground is an example for the rest of the world.  Old Macdonald is different.  The course has to compete with three of the top 100 courses in America right adjacent to it, and at the start of the project, most people would have said it was the fourth best piece of property on the site.  If we had NOT done something pretty extreme, it might well have been a failure, and the cost of failure would have been much higher than the cost of hand-mowing six acres of greens.  The entire construction budget would have been a waste of money, if the course wasn't pronounced just as good as the others.

Are 6.5 acres of greens sustainable, long-term?  I don't know about that.  The whole course is 100% fescue, and Ken Nice is in charge, so even with 6.5 acres of greens, I'm betting it's more sustainable than wherever Tony is currently working.  But I am confident that they could take the greens down to 4.5 acres if they really wanted to, and the course would only lose a handful of interesting hole locations.  For now, we'll see whether the bigger greens really add to the experience.  Judging by the reactions of the forty guys who played 18 holes today, I'm guessing they are worth it, and Mr. Keiser certainly seemed to think so ... and it IS his call.

To me, the only real question is whether the size of the greens adds to the course or not.  I think it's 100% b.s. to say that Donald Trump or Tom Fazio would be ridiculed for building the same thing we've built in Bandon.  If they did it, and pulled it off, I'd be the first to say so.  But they didn't, so drop it already.

Tom

I figured the style of the course had to be a dramatic change of pace to the other courses of the resort, hence the idea of Old Mac.  Is the sacrifice a handful of good hole locations worth the money saved in maintenance for 2 acres of green?  Would the loss of 2 acres be at natural spots where there are rises which act as natural demarcation zones?  Would the idea of seamless transitions (something I admire greatly) be compromised?

Ciao  

[David Botimer]

This thread easily qualifies as one of, if not THE MOST ludicrous conversations posted on this great website, Mr. Nysse being the poster boy for ludicrosity!! (Hey, I can make up words too if he's going to use "your" in place of "you're")

Now I being a former bean counter can SERIOUSLY appreciate a detailed parsing of an income statements expense details, be it either the financial side OR the environmental side, but to sit in an office 3,000 miles away and critique a golf course because it has BIG GREENS!!!  Wow, you guys are really good!!!  In the words of the President, that level of thinking is "above my pay grade"!!

But please remember what Bandon really represents in the world of golf.  It is the brainchild of a man with a passion for golf who built a place, not for the income potential, but for his love of the game.  Name one other golf resort (read "Open to the public, for the public") which was built for love, not money in the last 100 years.......uhhhh, that would be ZERO.

Now I've spent a little time in the Coachella Valley, home of ridiculously expensive gated communities built around ridiculously expensive golf courses NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and humbly believe that a < $5M golf course built in the boonies for love (that would be Bandon, et al including OM) can stand up to reason against said private clubs built for $30-50M and for profit in spite of their puny 3-4 acres of greens.

So, what's the real beef?  Are the naysayers upset because this translates to excessive greens fees?  Is the meatloaf too expensive at Bandon?  Who really cares about the cost of maintaining a large set of greens if the owner's stated goals at his brainchild are too "break even" to pay for his dreams?  I am VERY comfortable none other of the premium resorts in America passes this smell test ahead of Bandon.  Let's see, 36 at Pebble / Spyglass?  $835.  36 at Bandon / Pacific?  $330 peak / $115 off peak.

I'm with Mr. Doak; bite me if you think this nonsense really matters.  Go walk the course, and if you walk off with your tongue IN your mouth (I didn't), and searching for your financial calculator (I definitely didn't) suit yourself.

PLEASE, pass the kool-aid...... And stop this insanity!!!!