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.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #75 on: January 24, 2010, 06:48:15 PM »
Sean...

I did notice some of those things in the pictures that you pointed out, but I was thinking that is really looks better and more natural.  I think Tom Doak said something like this today (or yesterday or somethings like that)...the American golfing public didn't realize they could have PGA Tour style conditions until Jack Nicklaus told them they could.  Maybe those types of conditions are good every once in awhile as a treat or something new and different...but demanding it all the time from every course? 

Melvyn points out The Standards, which are depicted in those pictures.  Heck they are maintained with a 3 man crew.  Damn...at my club we've got an army of people always working on the course.  And when I go to East Lake...WOW...maintenance is off the charts.  So off the charts it actually stuns me for a hole or two every time I am out there. 

But is it neccesary to have that type of maintenance to have an enjoyable round?  I am thinking no.  In fact, for my Scotland trip I am thinking of making the time to go to The Machrie and Askernish.  As I look at those courses along with The Old Course, they simply look like REAL golf courses to me.  Not that I am knocking any other course, but The Machrie...all I can say is the thought of being there makes me smile from ear to ear.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #76 on: January 24, 2010, 08:39:45 PM »
Mac:

You should have seen some of the slides I showed in our pre-construction meeting for Pacific Dunes.  I showed a bunch of UK and Irish courses circa 1982, many in really burnt-out conditions, until one of the Kemper guys [Jim Seeley] finally cried uncle.  But I think I got the point across well enough, and Pacific Dunes has always looked like some of those pictures.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2010, 12:21:28 AM »
Tom,

Why the sand capping at the site in Bend?

Just curious because the high desert, I thought, would have a decent base for a course - although there is a lot of rock.

I can't imagine that they sand capped Juniper which is just down the street or Brasada which is down the road the other direction (and an extremley sandy site).

Rob:

There is some sand on top at Wicked Pony, but in most places there's lava rock within a foot of the surface.  Occasionally it was 2-3 feet down.  We had to sand-cap.

And when you are incorporating the lava rock as features of the golf course, chances it is not 2-3 feet down. ;)

PS, Want to see my picture of the 15th hole? ;)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 12:24:30 AM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2010, 01:00:42 AM »
Tom,

How much did you sand cap on average on each hole?

Can you tell us how much that would cost over the course of 18 holes?

There is a ton of lava rock at Juniper - but there is no way they had the budget to sand cap, I wonder how they got around that?

Don't mean to thread jack!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2010, 02:03:59 AM »

Sean

Lower standard over here, do you mind, they are The Standards, others want more then fine let them pay for it – lower standards over here.

I’ve booked you ticket back to the USA and four men in black will be round to collect you soon – be ready as the FO have decided apparently that you are Persona non grata ;)

Melvyn

PS Persona non grata means I owe you a pint in broken Scottish (that’s English to you)


Melvyn

Standards are a sliding scale like many things in life.  Some folks want to be on the high end and are willing to pay for it.  It ain't wrong, or if its is, so is driving 4 litre Range Rover or 5 litre sports car.  Personally, I think it is incredibly wasteful and very short sighted, but then the guy who rides the bus may think the same about my choices.  Live and let live.

BTW I gladly accept your broken Scottish offer.

Mac

Do remember that many of the great courses over here, ironically, naturally need less maintenance if the right maintenance regime is followed.  I think clubs are starting to realize this and are making some effort to cut back on feeding and other things which make courses cheaper to maintain in the long run.  This of course means that golfers will be more in the lap of what nature throws at them - which in the UK - I think is a huge positive.

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2010, 11:28:07 AM »

Sean

Lower standard over here, do you mind, they are The Standards, others want more then fine let them pay for it – lower standards over here.

I’ve booked you ticket back to the USA and four men in black will be round to collect you soon – be ready as the FO have decided apparently that you are Persona non grata ;)

Melvyn

PS Persona non grata means I owe you a pint in broken Scottish (that’s English to you)



Melvyn,

Speaking as a “Yankee” (from New York even), can I use the return portion of Sean’s ticket to visit and play the course in those pictures?  :)

There are still plenty on this side of the pond who appreciate the “sport” and design before concerning ourselves with perfect conditioning. 


Mac –

I agree completely with your sentiments.  Sometimes conditioning “jumps the shark” and making nature “too perfect” comes off looking the opposite.  You can run the danger of “style over substance.” 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2010, 01:26:13 PM »

Kevin

Certainly, if there is any money left over after I have had to buy Sean a drink or two. I hear he drinks as he plays, does a lot of dribbling and spills some before getting to the cup. Have you noticed many of his photos are taken from the bunkers. He either loved sand as a child or has a serious drink problem which last through to the 19th. ;)

Melvyn

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2010, 04:22:40 AM »

Kevin

Certainly, if there is any money left over after I have had to buy Sean a drink or two. I hear he drinks as he plays, does a lot of dribbling and spills some before getting to the cup. Have you noticed many of his photos are taken from the bunkers. He either loved sand as a child or has a serious drink problem which last through to the 19th. ;)

Melvyn

Melvyn

Well now, that sounds a bit disturbing.  Assuming we are not in the realm of questioning my abilities in the sack, I can bring a bib.  I know it doesn't make your drinks any cheaper, but you did offer... 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2010, 09:46:27 AM »

Sean

It would be my pleasure to buy a drink or two if nothing else but to thank you for your great photo reports on our golf courses. As for what happens in the sack, sorry mate just too much information, although you want to listen to Alfie Ward, always had my wife in giggles. Now there is a man who should be posting more often, makes me look like a pussycat, but then he is into the old Hickory.

Melvyn   

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #84 on: January 27, 2010, 11:43:09 AM »
Damn...at my club we've got an army of people always working on the course.  And when I go to East Lake...WOW...maintenance is off the charts.  So off the charts it actually stuns me for a hole or two every time I am out there. 

But is it neccesary to have that type of maintenance to have an enjoyable round?  I am thinking no.

Mac, You need to come to my course.  At the moment we have a full-time staff of two--in Kansas--with three or four seasonal employees.  And in season it looks about like Golspie, except that we have dense American rough lining our fairways and surrounding our greens.

I think the total maintenance budget is ~$300,000, and there are courses around here with budgets of half that.

 
In fact, for my Scotland trip I am thinking of making the time to go to The Machrie and Askernish.  As I look at those courses along with The Old Course, they simply look like REAL golf courses to me.  Not that I am knocking any other course, but The Machrie...all I can say is the thought of being there makes me smile from ear to ear.

Then you HAVE to play Brora--being there did make me smile from ear to ear.

Ken Moum
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #85 on: January 27, 2010, 11:51:17 AM »
Do remember that many of the great courses over here, ironically, naturally need less maintenance if the right maintenance regime is followed.  I think clubs are starting to realize this and are making some effort to cut back on feeding and other things which make courses cheaper to maintain in the long run.  This of course means that golfers will be more in the lap of what nature throws at them - which in the UK - I think is a huge positive.

Ciao



Reminds me of what the Links Superintendent at St. Andews told Sue (the female half of the couple who accompanied my wife and me to Scotland in 2006).

She said, "It doesn't look like you put much fertilizer on the grass over here."

He replied with a grin, "Aye, we find that if we feed and water it, it just makes a lot of extra work."

There's nothing as glorious as looking down at golf ball sitting on turf that firm and tight.

Ken Moum
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #86 on: January 27, 2010, 12:15:54 PM »
I posted this before, but I recently visited two courses in Kansas with budgets over just over $1M and just under $600K.  On the day that I was there, the courses "presented" virtually the same, but the difference is the number of times the private club raked the bunkers (7 vs 4) per week, trimmed the bunker edges (3x per week vs 3X for the season) etc.

Basically the extra people are necessary for those clubs whose members want perfectly consistent conditions, either for themselves or their guests.  I guess it is pretty hard to impress a guest at the best club in town iif there are unraked bunkers, etc. and this club was simply willing to pay for not taking that chance.  But, $460K difference over 20-29,000 rounds at each course (plus or minus) results in a cost per round of about $15-20.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #87 on: January 27, 2010, 12:57:43 PM »

Reminds me of what the Links Superintendent at St. Andews told Sue (the female half of the couple who accompanied my wife and me to Scotland in 2006).

She said, "It doesn't look like you put much fertilizer on the grass over here."

He replied with a grin, "Aye, we find that if we feed and water it, it just makes a lot of extra work."

There's nothing as glorious as looking down at golf ball sitting on turf that firm and tight.

Ken Moum


I am reminded of that great comment by someone "Land Fit for Purpose" it's just so worth that little extra IMHO.

Melvyn

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #88 on: January 27, 2010, 07:00:16 PM »
Mac Plumart -

Re: the pictures of Golspie GC posted by Kyle Henderson

I have been a country (non-resident) member of Golspie since 2002 and have played a lot of golf there over the past 6 summers. At 200 pounds a year (with no joining fee), this is one of the great values in golf.

In point of fact, the full-time, paid greenskeeping staff at Golspie is 2 guys. The third person on the staff is a young fellow still in high school working part-time as an apprentice. Collectively, they have really upgraded the condition of the course over the past 2 & 1/2 summers.

In addition, a number of club members are generous with their time and help out sanding & seeding divots, driving a tractor about, trimming tree limbs, etc.

I would be happy to play with you there some day.

DT 




 


 

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2010, 07:22:00 PM »
Ken...

If possible I will look you up when I make my way to the mid-west.  Also, I will try to make it to Brora as well.   I will begin researching it and figure it all out over the next few months.  Thanks for the heads up!

David...

I'm telling you that blows me away.  2/3 professionals working on the course.  But the kicker is your saying the members contribute time to working on the course.  First off, that is awesome and what should happen...but I can't even imagine members of clubs in my area showing up to work on the course in their off time.  That is a HUGE difference in the games across the pond.  One seems like a community endeavor; the other doesn't.  If we can link up to play, I would love it.

Thanks!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2010, 01:47:51 AM »
Mac,

"That is a HUGE difference in the games across the pond.  One seems like a community endeavor; the other doesn't."

I think you have a very valid point here - and in terms of maintenance - I think that members of courses that I have been to in Ireland are much more respectful of their Greenskeeper and his (lean) staff.

Maybe part of it is a greater respect for agriculture and a better understanding of what it takes to manage a course from personal or family experience on the land, in gardens, etc. or maybe it is a cultural thing because the maintenance staff is probably from the town and may be related to the Greenskeeper or Members, as opposed to (often) clearly from another country as is often the case in the US. Or maybe we are just so spoiled in America that we expect immaculate conditions regardless of the cost.

Whatever it is - golfers on our side of the pond are paying too much and gaining little "real" golfing benefit.

David's story about Golspie and the work of the two (1/2) man staff there is amazing - just shows what an intimate knowledge of the land and a need to be selective in your actions can get you.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2010, 12:19:40 PM »
Rob...

Your post touches on some of the most interesting parts of this website to me.  And that is learning about (and taking in) other peoples ideas and cultural ideals about the game of golf.

As I've said MANY times, I've been playing for 2.5 years.  And the third round of my life came at East Lake.  And for the first year plus of my golfing experience it was almost exclusively at higher end private clubs or high end daily fee courses...East Lake, Atlanta Athletic, Cuscowilla, etc.  So everything I saw at places like these is what I thought golf was.

So hearing about walking a golf course was new to me.  The public nature/community feel of most of the GB&I courses that I am learning about is TOTALLY different than the exclusive private clubs in my area (and throughout the US).  Look at Augusta vs. St. Andrews Old.  Pine Valley vs. Muirfield.  NGLA vs. Dornoch.  It seems to me that it is an entirely different vibe between those sets of courses.

Anyway, I could go on and on about the interesting things I have learned about (and am still learning about) on this site, but I won't bore you.

However, I will say this...every night feels like I am sitting in the clubhouse after an 18 hole round with some of the most influential and interesting golf fanatics in the world.  Think about it (and this is for real no B.S)...Melvyn, Tom Paul, Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Matt Ward, Lester  George, Pat Mucci, Bob Huntley,etc, etc, etc...I could go on and on...buy you get the point.  How frickin' cool is that for someone who wants to learn about golf.  Totally unreall!!

Later!

Oh yeah...one more point on your post...you mentioned respect for the greenskeeper.  We got a new one at St. Ives (Kyle MacDonald).  He has made our greens totally awesome...really fun to putt on.  And one day I saw him in the clubhouse.  I went right up to him and said "Hey your Kyle MacDonald, right?".  He looked at me like I was insane and had the hesitating look like i was going to get mad at him for something on the course.  But when I told him "Man...I LOVE your greens"  He smiled and we went off on a great conversation about golf.  I don't think other members of the clubs I frequent do things like this very much.  I am sure some do...but not many I would guess.  But that is the guy taking Stewardship over the golf course that we play day in and day out...and I personally love.  Shouldn't we have a real relatoinship with him and learn what he thinks etc.

Anyway...this site in interesting and educatoinal in more ways than is readily apparent.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Matt Bosela

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #92 on: January 28, 2010, 12:47:19 PM »
Oh yeah...one more point on your post...you mentioned respect for the greenskeeper.  We got a new one at St. Ives (Kyle MacDonald).  He has made our greens totally awesome...really fun to putt on.  And one day I saw him in the clubhouse.  I went right up to him and said "Hey your Kyle MacDonald, right?".  He looked at me like I was insane and had the hesitating look like i was going to get mad at him for something on the course.  But when I told him "Man...I LOVE your greens"  He smiled and we went off on a great conversation about golf.  I don't think other members of the clubs I frequent do things like this very much.  I am sure some do...but not many I would guess.  But that is the guy taking Stewardship over the golf course that we play day in and day out...and I personally love.  Shouldn't we have a real relatoinship with him and learn what he thinks etc.

Anyway...this site in interesting and educatoinal in more ways than is readily apparent.

Mac,

I know that the members of this site make up only a minute percentage of the golf population but I'd venture a guess that most of us here have strong relationships with our home course superintendent, whether it's a personal relationship or something started by serving on the board or on a grounds committee.

I have lunch once a week with our assistant super and play golf often with him.  I also talk frequently with our head super and look forward to the day I have enough free time to sit on the grounds committee at our club - maybe when my little guy starts school in three years!

Ok, sorry to derail the thread! ;)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Architects vs. Production Houses
« Reply #93 on: January 28, 2010, 05:10:52 PM »

Matt

Just had a quick look at you own site, just a question H Cold at Portrush in 1888 should that not read 1929 if we are talking about the Dunluce course. Colt was still at Uni in that year and I thought that Hastings was one of his earliest and shared experiences at course designing, even then he did not seem to be the lead designer.

Melvyn