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.


Bill Boonn

Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« on: July 24, 2010, 12:32:24 AM »
From the WSJ:

"Mike Keiser, who commissions everything at the Bandon Dunes complex in Oregon as a golf purist's fantasy, is building a fifth course to add to his famous four.

It's something you don't hear about much anymore—a par-three. Construction on the 12-holer, tentatively called "The Bandon Preserve," starts in February.

"The baby boomers are getting older," Mr. Keiser said, "and the older they get, the less willing or maybe less able they are to play 36 holes in a day. But with a par-three course on the ocean as an afternoon activity or as an alternative to 18 holes—people say to me, hurry up and build it."

The golf industry is struggling, and many people in the game cite the same reasons: a round t akes too long; the game is hard; maintenance budgets are through the roof; there are no places for beginners to play while they learn."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575382941326891262.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#
Quote

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2010, 11:08:44 PM »
"Yet short courses have struggled in the marketplace recently. According to the National Golf Foundation, executive and par-three layouts make up 9% of the nation's courses but accounted for 22% of course closings in 2009. "

This was a disappointing quote.

I hope Mike Keiser makes it work in Bandon.   Even though they mentioned Olympic Clubs par 3 course, it hasn't been that great of a success due to poor planning.  Olympic's Cliffs course doesn't allow carts which has destroyed many of the senior players ability to play it.  These are the exact players they had hoped would play it in order to take the pressure off the big courses.

Pine Valley does allow carts but the two times I've played the short course, we were the only players so I'm not sure if they rate it a success.

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2010, 11:46:43 PM »
These are the exact players they had hoped would play it in order to take the pressure off the big courses.

That's not correct Joel.  The liberal guest privileges on the course for non golf privilege holders was intended to provide an outlet for more play on the course by non-privilege members (and reducing demand for space on the other courses).  The Ocean course with continuous cart paths is targeted at the older membership -- the cliffs course never was.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2010, 11:55:24 PM »
Surely short courses at private clubs are far less important for growing the game than those public ones.

I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska and we had 3 par 3/executive courses in the mid 90's.  One has since been turned into houses and another has been built.  I spent many hours at the city owned par 3 course, which is basically where I learned to play the game.

The problem with the course in Lincoln was that the conditioning was typically poor enough that once I was a better player, it was hard to feel that I was getting valuable practice in.  This seems like an easy (maybe expensive?) fix for some of these courses.

Ben

p.s. Bandon seems like the perfect place for a short course like this to get plenty of play.  A day of golf with one round on the short course and another on one of the big boys seems like a perfect day to me.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 08:11:02 AM »
Par 3 and short courses at private clubs and resorts are not what this country needs. There is a public 9holer near me that I'm going to play shortly just for the experience. $10 to walk 9 holes before 10am!!!


Worcester GC near Skippack,PA- Here it is:


http://www.tendollargolf.com/
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2010, 12:19:52 PM »
These are the exact players they had hoped would play it in order to take the pressure off the big courses.

That's not correct Joel.  The liberal guest privileges on the course for non golf privilege holders was intended to provide an outlet for more play on the course by non-privilege members (and reducing demand for space on the other courses).  The Ocean course with continuous cart paths is targeted at the older membership -- the cliffs course never was.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Kevin but I am correct and was part of the planning group.   I know you want to disagree with me just to disagree and impart your wisdom but you should get your facts correct and god forbid get involved in the club in some fashion other than just a bystander.

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2010, 08:40:47 PM »
I'm sorry to disagree with you Kevin but I am correct and was part of the planning group.   I know you want to disagree with me just to disagree and impart your wisdom but you should get your facts correct and god forbid get involved in the club in some fashion other than just a bystander.

Joel, you are reading too much into my post.  If you were part of the planning group, then I have to say the planning wasn't good, because there was nothing about the par 3 course that would appeal to the needs of the senior golf section.  They don't go out to the club to play for just 90 minutes, and a course with severe carries on many of the holes and brutal natural areas and rough (since softened) is not what the seniors want.  So somehow your planning went awry.  But a large percentage of the current play on the course comes from non-privilege holders and their guests, so if my recollection was correct then it was a success from that standpoint.  But at the time the course was developed I was more concerned with playing than planning so what do I know.

As for me and the club, that's my business.  I've been a member for almost 30 years and for the last several I haven't had a desire to use the club much, while in the first several I played in a fair share of tournaments and spent a lot of time out there, which you wouldn't be aware of since I don't think our tenures in the club overlapped much and you weren't a golf privilege holder playing in tournaments or guest days.

I'm (only) 45, so I have many years ahead to get as involved as I care to.  Club service is typically a one and done process over a block of years, and I'm reserving my service "block" for a time that is best for me.  As for now, I'm happy to host folks from out of town out there when asked (including many from this board), and give my opinion when I feel the need to.  I've got plenty of other fish to fry outside the club.

When I give an opinion, I usually don't preface it with an insult, and conclude it with an insult, and throw some insults in along the way, and that style seems to work...it is a concept that is borrowed from business, politics and any other part of life where you are trying to influence people (see Dale Carnegie). 

I have no animosity toward you aside from your alma mater.  You have consistently put forth a lot of good ideas, excluding the Biarritz green on old #8 :) , but I can't endorse your method of communication at all and I came to that conclusion based largely on your posts about the club on this board.  The meeting at the club where you got mad because I didn't stand in support for you...since your prepared remarks included insults of club employees and officers, well, see the above paragraph about how I feel about that.  And I don't believe a public board like this one is the place to air grievances and discuss the affairs of a private club where one is a member.

Sorry for the thread diversion.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Tom Jefferson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2010, 08:57:19 PM »
Apology accepted, Kevin.  Thanks.

Tom
the pres

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2010, 10:10:09 PM »
I'm sorry to disagree with you Kevin but I am correct and was part of the planning group.   I know you want to disagree with me just to disagree and impart your wisdom but you should get your facts correct and god forbid get involved in the club in some fashion other than just a bystander.

Kevin:  Well written.  It's BS but well written.

I'm (only) 45, so I have many years ahead to get as involved as I care to. 

Nice excuse.  Standing up and giving any opinion for 30 seconds, supporting or not, may have helped save the course from it's vandelism.

You have consistently put forth a lot of good ideas, excluding the Biarritz green on old #8 :)

This wasn't my idea.  It was Sam Whiting and Willie Watsons (the original architects) and should have been restored not bulldozed.

And I don't believe a public board like this one is the place to air grievances and discuss the affairs of a private club where one is a member.

Agreed.  Sadly rogue superintendents are not very good at listening and incorporating any ideas other than their own.


Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2010, 12:58:31 AM »
 Buenos Aries Golf is in the process of developing a hotel, convention center and villas or townhouses that will be branded and serviced by the hotel alongisde the current driving range. The total property size to be developed is about 32 acres and I was asked to evaluate, if golf should be incorporated and how. On September one we will begin constructing and designing a six holes par three course. Thought you might find interesting how I came to this recomendation. Here is part of the presentation letter to the board of the owning company not the members.
                                              Golf- To be or not to be!
•   Golf should be incorporated into the overall master plan scheme in order to produce the highest rate of return on the overall project and maximize price per square meter of land sales by creating water and golf views.
•   Golf will also add prestige to the branding hotel and create an indirect association with Buenos Aires Golf Club, currently ranked the number one golf course in Argentina and one of the most prestigious golf courses in Latin America, thus producing another form of branding.
In Brazil, 2-5% of actual buyers that purchase lots with a view to the golf course are golfers, in Chile about 15% and in the USA 25-30%. People purchase residential with golf views because of the prestige, the direct contact with the environment, the leisure life style and most importantly because world- wide, these properties have a greater appreciation rate than other properties with other amenities.
                                        In what form do we incorporate golf?
•   Nine holes regulation golf course – Not enough land, minimum land needed 20 ha.
•   Nine hole executive course – Still not enough land, would take up all the 13ha. and leave nothing for a residential project in conjunction.
•   Nine hole par three course – Ideally you would like to use all your irons on throughout the nine holes. For example, hole one-100, hole 2-120, 3-130, 4-140, 5-150, 6-165, 7-175, 8-185 and 9-200! This adds up to a course of 1370 yards. With an average width of playing area sixty or seventy yards leads to around nine or ten Ha. allocated land for golf.  Keep in mind that when we design our regulation holes within a residential project we leave corridors of 110 yards minimum for security or safety factors.

•   Compact par three course, with alternative routes of par fours- There are several of these courses around the world and are quite viable in my opinion. The drawbacks are:

a.   They are usually compacted into a small rectangular or square area and are ideal for golf academies where play will be limited, to more of a one on one teaching basis.
b.    I feel we need to spread out the course to enhance the value of each individual residential product and we cannot do this with this type of course. The value will be displaced in one particular product only.
c.   The moment you put a driver in the hands of players we need to insure our security in relation to landing areas and greens surroundings have a minimum one hundred and ten yard diameter. If we keep the holes to short and mid irons, we can decrease these security areas to seventy yards thus using less land for golf and leaving more land for Real Estate.

•   Six holes par three with various tees and two to three flags and cups per green.

a.   Allows for three rounds of six holes from different tee positions and to different flag positions to make a complete round of eighteen holes of varying lengths and angles.
b.   Allows to use every iron in normal golf play
c.   Minimum land requirements, less than fifty percent of overall land allocated.
d.   Can be played in forty five minutes. Normal golf rounds require five hours of time. Great course for beginners and will ensure the development of future players and members.
e.   Emphasize will be on a variety of recovery shots around greens.
f.   If designed properly you will encounter every type of shot normally encountered in a golf round with the exception of the drive and that can be done for twenty minutes at the driving range before or after your round. One´s handicap or capability in golf is directly related to the amount of time one has to delegate to the sport. Personally, it is difficult for me to find five hours of time to play and practice and as a result I play once a month, so I can only dream of becoming a low handicapper. However, if I had a par three course close to my home I could go to the driving range and play six holes at the par three course in one hour. I could find an hour three times a week and I could than realistically lower my handicap to a reality low handicap.
g.           Par threes are the most artistic holes in golf design, which will be appealing to the surrounding properties.

Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2010, 08:05:03 AM »
Randy,

This is fascinating!  Will the course be a true public access course or only available to townhouse owners and/or hotel guests?  I know courses of this type have been built before (Bandon), but has there ever been something similar that has been built anywhere else that was truly public access?

I would think this would be something that would be quite viable in big cities in the United States.  During the longest months in Houston, I was able to run out after work and get 9 holes in, but we were far enough south that this only lasted for a few months a year.  If there was a course like this, I probably could have played 9 months a year after work and would have been a very happy camper.

Ben

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2010, 09:11:44 AM »
Ben,
Unfortunately it will be for hotel guest, villa owners and members of BAGC. I think you will see more Par 3´s and executive courses in the future and maybe even ten, eleven and twelve hole golf courses varying in Pars. The problem wirh such a course for public is you can´t really put more than 24 players at a time, so it might be a tough go making it profitabe. Granted golf shouldn´t always be profitable and maybe in a muncipal situation it would work.

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2010, 09:20:34 AM »
I'm sorry to disagree with you Kevin but I am correct and was part of the planning group.   I know you want to disagree with me just to disagree and impart your wisdom but you should get your facts correct and god forbid get involved in the club in some fashion other than just a bystander.

If you were part of the planning group, then I have to say the planning wasn't good, because there was nothing about the par 3 course that would appeal to the needs of the senior golf section.  They don't go out to the club to play for just 90 minutes, and a course with severe carries on many of the holes and brutal natural areas and rough (since softened) is not what the seniors want.  So somehow your planning went awry.  But a large percentage of the current play on the course comes from non-privilege holders and their guests, so if my recollection was correct then it was a success from that standpoint. 
Not that I want to get involved in the whole Olympic Club broo-haha here, but I have to agree with you, Kevin at least on the planned use of the par 3 course.

Given the environmentally fragile nature of that piece of land, it was pretty much build it (or reconstruct) on what you have. The notion that simply because it's a par 3 course overcomes the slope of the ground and the weather conditions-which make it tough for anyone over 70 to play walking golf there–shows a lack of foresight (or perhaps empathy) with that group of members. When I was a youngish whippersnapper, I was always surprised at how challenging it was for the older members at NSW to navigate 5-7 and 13-15.

Walking hundreds of yards on ground with more than a 5% slope is no joke to this age group and it seems the people at Olympic who imagined that older members would flock to the Short course simply because it is short were both young and not very in touch with the needs of the older members.

Ironically enough Tom Weiskopf who worked on that course is now sidelined from senior golf because his own wheels have failed him...

arb:
Next!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2010, 09:28:50 AM »
I think we need to hear from Gib on the O-Club situation.

He's always got an opinion!

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2010, 10:11:23 AM »
The best par three courses I've played are Threetops in Michigan, the short course at Turning Stone in Verona, NY, and ... that's it.

My beef with par 3 courses is redundancy leading to disinterest.  Similar lengths on 3 holes, second similar lengths on 3 more and we really only have 4-5 types of holes.  We need nine unique holes on a par three course, assuming it is only 9 holes in duration.

If we consider 90, 110, 130, 150, 170, 190, 210, 230 and 250 as potential hole distances, we have nine different lengths.  There should be at least one half-swing/flip wedge hole on the course, just as there should be a half-shot hole (a 3.5).  The next consideration would be regulation greens...I've played too many weak par three courses where the greens are an after-thought.  That's not right thinking.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Michael Huber

Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2010, 12:21:57 PM »
Par 3 and short courses at private clubs and resorts are not what this country needs. There is a public 9holer near me that I'm going to play shortly just for the experience. $10 to walk 9 holes before 10am!!!


Worcester GC near Skippack,PA- Here it is:


http://www.tendollargolf.com/

Worcester is so unbelievably awesome on qutie a few levels and damnit if I still lived in Montgomery County I would play at lot of golf there.  There is certainly something to be said for a $10 round of golf where $60 gets you a 5 1/2 hour round at a ho hum course. 

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2010, 02:19:29 PM »
The par-3 course at Bandon will be a huge hit, because a substantial portion of the "demographic" that spends its discretionary income there would be much more inclined to play the par-3 course as an afternoon adventure, following 18 on on of the other courses.  I'm sure this will come at the "expense" of the revenues of the other courses, most significantly to Trails, but it will be a very customer friendly development, that's for sure.  For the same reason, I absolutely love Pinehurst #1, which is a terrific, but short, old-timey golf course that people never talk about when talking about the resort.  It's nothing but fun.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2010, 02:33:15 PM »
I'd be surprised if anyone could make a par 3 course work almost anywhere other than as a resort add-on or maybe a well-run private club's add-on.

Threetops is on my wish list, down there around number 13,000. Maybe lower - how many courses are out there?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2010, 02:35:17 PM »
Par 3 and short courses at private clubs and resorts are not what this country needs. There is a public 9holer near me that I'm going to play shortly just for the experience. $10 to walk 9 holes before 10am!!!


Worcester GC near Skippack,PA- Here it is:


http://www.tendollargolf.com/

Worcester is so unbelievably awesome on qutie a few levels and damnit if I still lived in Montgomery County I would play at lot of golf there.  There is certainly something to be said for a $10 round of golf where $60 gets you a 5 1/2 hour round at a ho hum course. 

Michael:

Really?  Curious what you think is so awesome about it besides the price and its beginner friendly set-up?

Michael Huber

Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2010, 03:01:02 PM »
In addition to being cheap Worcester was:

a.)  Rarely crowded and a tee time was not needed

b.)  15 minutes from my apartment

c.)  Easily Walkable

d.)   There is something to be said for a golf course devoid of pretentions, cart girls, bag drops, copious wetlands, etc.  How many golf courses in Philadelphia are there that you can say "Hot damn, i feel like hitting a golf ball, I dont care if it's nice or not, I just don't want to stand around waiting for the slow group to hit" ?

e.)  While we are at it, Rest in Peace, Woodys Golf Center.  Another par 3 bites the dust.

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2010, 03:24:48 PM »
Thanks Michael.

I agree.  It's simply a place to get out and hit some balls and do some putting.
I live in Worcester, 5 minutes from the course and 5 minutes from Woody's (new hospital soon.)  


As for this thread:  Every public par-3 course I've ever played took waaaay too long.  Lots of waiting on every tee.

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2010, 03:55:34 PM »
For all the Philly area guys, sadly we have lost Woody's Golf Center.  They are building a hospital on the site.  A lot of memories getting bulldozed away there.

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2010, 04:07:03 PM »
On the plus side for making a par 3 course financially work, maintenance costs are pretty low, as would be irrigation. Construction costs should be cheap, it can pretty much be run by say 2 or 3 people.
The Bandon 12 holer is a great idea for that second round. 36 in a day is tough, do it 2 days running and you need to be pretty fit.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2010, 04:17:21 PM »
I'd be surprised if anyone could make a par 3 course work almost anywhere other than as a resort add-on or maybe a well-run private club's add-on.

Threetops is on my wish list, down there around number 13,000. Maybe lower - how many courses are out there?

Why is that?  You have greens & tees to maintain, but it seems like much (really just run up areas).

Also I spend $50 for 4 hours.  Would people not want to spend $20 for 2 hours (not sure how long the average 18 hole par 3 takes).

I've never seen housing around a par 3.  Given that many new courses are layed out inside neighborhoods, does the difficulty of putting a par 3 course within a community make it more difficult to build / be economically viable?

We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why We Need More Par-Three Courses (WSJ)
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2010, 04:22:37 PM »
The big problem with any golf development, at least as I see it, is land acquisition costs vs. the other options for said land. It's no surprise to me that the courses that seem to be the most successful around here are the ones that are old and long ago paid for. If you're trying to buy acreage anywhere that's close to people, it'd be pretty tough to swing 40 acres or whatever versus what you're going to recoup through golf, particularly with the limited appeal of par 3 golf. The flip side is that the places where land is cheap and available don't tend to be near many golfers.

The more people post numbers on here, the more amazed I am that there are golf courses anywhere. It really says something about the game.

Of course, I'm no expert, didn't even stay in a H I Express recently, so what do I know? :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04