[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Hosting a US Public Links doesn't make a place a "real" public course if the fee situation is excessive.

For many people the idea of a triple digit green fee will likely preclude them from playing. The audience on this site
is not representative of the masses too.

Jim K:

Agreed -- resort based facilities are distant cousins in the overall public golf world. Yes, they do provide access but such access is a limited one depending upon the depth of one's wallet.

Frankly, I'd like to see more focus in the ratings with price being a far greater element of consideration.

I'm sure the masses would likely see the benefit in that too.

[Tom_Doak]

Why isn't this thread labeled OT?  It's got nothing to do with golf architecture.

Jim K, your pick and choose argument about local play is silly.  Wild Horse in Nebraska wouldn't make it, either, without some greens fee paying visitors off the Interstate.  Limiting the definition of "public course" by insisting on the local market will pare down the list, but not to any useful end other than to take out some courses you want to exclude.

Matt, apparently you have issues with the whole concept of pricing based on supply and demand.  Black Mesa wants to be a resort just like Bandon Dunes; in fact you have just finished telling us all how it would be just as good or better.  But then to insist it's public and Bandon isn't, based on the green fees they command, is ridiculous.

The three categories USED to be private, public/resort, and muni.  Part of the reason for this argument is the decline of municipal golf in America as it was replaced by for-profit public courses.  Perhaps "for-profit" should really be the distinction.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I would love to see a ranking which is essentially Quality/Dollar.  Then places like Wild Horse, Lawsonia and Black Mesa would get their proper due.  Places like Pac Dunes would still be highly rated as they're that good and still better value than the Pinehursts and Pebbles...You could even go so far as to adjust for regional cost discrepencies (i.e. a $75 round in metro NY is better than $50 in the middle of Arkansas).  

[Roger Tufts]

If we're going by an accessibility definition here, then can't we just look at Golf Magazine's Top 100 Courses You Can Play (of which all 4 Bandon Courses rank in the top 10....)?  

I understand the resort argument, but in a sense all RESORTS are public themselves... have you ever had an experience at any resort around the world, be it golf or not, where they have not allowed you to stay there for one reason or another (save for the drunken idiot kick-out)?

Resort Golf is still public golf. A fee is a fee, and whether something is public or not does not depend on the amount of clams you need to shell out to get there, as long as the accessibility factor is still there. Difficult to get on for most people? Sure, but not by any means impossible.

Now the obvious comparisons to private clubs that have charity tournaments ensue, but still, you can't just walk up to one of them on any given day of 365 and slap down your VISA (or Amex... as some here are particularly fond of) and say "I'll take a yardage book, and the 1:05pm time please."

[JC Jones]

Why isn't this thread labeled OT?  It's got nothing to do with golf architecture.

Tom,

The discussion group is for golf architecture RELATED matters. 

[Matt_Ward]

Roger:

Just providing "access" is not enough to call it really public. The issue is just how open the places really is. When you have price tags that start at triple digit green fees and then spike much higher with all the other requirements that are needed in order to play the tag "public" is stretched to the breaking point.

Pinehurst #2 is public -- they take anyone's $$$. However, when you add up the surcharges and all the rest it's essentially a semi-private place that only wants the deepest of the pockets playing there.

Jud:

The mags don't focus on them because usually they have a close connection to the higher-priced places through advertising and the like. Candidly, I don't see why the $99 and less threshold is applied. Provide info on where places like CG, WV, Wild Horse, Black Mesa, et al are located. Those that charge more will continue to cherry-pick who they want but golf as a whole would benefit from such a true and bonafide listing of real public course options.

Tom D:

Pricing is where the rubber meets the road. To have a category of "for profit" would be meaningless. There needs to be more distinction given the range of offerings that are available. Muni golf is not always low level stuff as can be seen with the likes of such pricier digs like Chambers Bay. And lumping places in the for profit category doesn't really distinguish between those at the Whistling Straits level and those that are first rate but far from that expensive.

CCFAD's are nothing more than playgrounds for the well-to-do. No doubt it's possible for Joe the Plumber to scratch up the wampum and play somewhere once or twice in a lifetime but the reality is that the mags would do a better service if the focus was on places where repeat play was possible for the greater percentage of the golfing population.

Let me point out that Black Mesa is not a resort -- it is a daily fee place. There is no lodging attached to the place or which is necessary to use as a condition to play there. Plenty of places can call themselves whatever they wish. The facts are what rules here --not how a place wishes to market itself.

Tom, let me point out another error in your comments -- Black Mesa has a wish list -- it would like to be in the Bandon category. It's not there yet -- it may never get there. Bandon has onsite lodging and they provide those who stay there with the higher priority. Black Mesa doesn't have such a connection and it's not needed in order to play there now. Big difference -- got it.

Green fees matter to the masses. For many it does matter and the mags would better serve the braoader range of their readers by paying more attention to it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom D,
Don't  forget, I'm not saying that Bandon or any other resort course isn't public, nor do they have to fit into my description..

As for Wild Horse, perhaps we'll know just how much of their revenue comes from passers-by after Nov. 8th. Maybe it will fit my 'silly' definition. 

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

Are you running for office now?  Please spare us Joe The Plumber.  The only comment anyone should make about affordability is where they would spend their own money to play.  But for someone who takes advantage of the "golf writer rate" at Bandon Dunes to turn around and lump it in as unaffordable is the height of GCA hypocrisy.

Economics is not just about price.  People who live on the coasts have a different idea of affordable than people in between, no matter what they do for a living.  And land costs are a huge factor in the green fee of any for profit golf course.  Your simplistic approach just eliminates entire swathes of the country from consideration as a worthwhile golf destination, and I don't understand the point of that.

Incidentally, I don't know if you've read Dream Golf, but Mike Keiser never really wanted to build a resort ... he really only wanted to build a couple of great golf courses.  But to do them where he did, he realized he HAD to build enough upscale lodging to attract enough customers to pay for it all.  That may have made every part of the operation more expensive, but it also allowed the project to succeed financially, and it's the reason we can thank Mike Keiser for eight golf courses instead of just two.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

My issue is not with Mike Keiser -- although I do appreciate the info you provided at the end of your comments.

But ...

You're the guy who inserted the "for profit" category. That is inane. There are wide variations involved and frankly if a set price point were created by the mags for rating purposes it would yield plenty of important info the masses. Places that are triple digits are going to attract their audience no matter what -- they need not hog the spotlight for even more attention. Mags can provide that value to their readers.

In regards to spending $$ I simply inquired about media availability to Bandon -- the same as others. If the facilty wishes to offer it -- or not offer it -- that is their call. Not mine. More than happy to pay whatever is charged and have done so more times than the other way around. I'm sure Tom you have been extended courtesies as an architect. Please feel free to include those situations as quick as you are to point out mine.

Mine is not a "simplistic approach" -- but a more realistic one as compared to your "for profit" one size fits all approach. That is silly and really doesn't include the many aspects that are involved. Go from $99 and less and you will include more info and more courses that fly under the radar now.

[JMEvensky]

Economics is not just about price.  People who live on the coasts have a different idea of affordable than people in between, no matter what they do for a living.  And land costs are a huge factor in the green fee of any for profit golf course.  Your simplistic approach just eliminates entire swathes of the country from consideration as a worthwhile golf destination, and I don't understand the point of that.

Amen.

"The cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing".

[Matt_Ward]

Let me point out that a $99 and less figure is not perfect by any means. Never claimed it would be -- but it does provide a starting point.

I have nothing against those that charge more than that -- I would just like to see the pubs focus a bit more attention on those facilities that provide a stellar product within the means of that many more people to play it.

Those in the LA market place will have a different take on such a number when compared to the heartland.

But it does provide some sort of benchmark. Otherwise, one would need to set a varying scale to account for such things.

I am well aware of different land costs associated with where golf is created. In many cases -- those locations in the coastal areas have gone back to the courses in existence and tried to improve them in substanial ways. The Knoll / West in the Parsippany NJ area is a great example of this. If such a course were to be built from scratch today the fees associated with it would be far higher than what is there now.

[JC Jones]

JC,

Bandon is $75 to play in the winter ($100 for non-resort guest) with a $40 replay rate.  Any hardcore golfer can afford that.  This dog won't hunt...And fyi-the kiss of death-I'm betting on State today....

Do I get half your winnings?

I can't wait to beat you in the 36 hole grudge match next summer.

[Jud_T]

Nothing like a little sweat....

[Jonathan Cummings]

The average duffer doesn't save his pennies to go play somewhere special.  He spends them on his golf cart once a week.

Easily one of the more depressing observations ever posted on gca.com

jaycee

[David_Tepper]

While we can debate issues like "affordability" and "value for money," I find the notion that the Bandon courses are not "public" to be rather silly, if not ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge, Bandon has no members and offers no memberships. Everyone who chooses to play there pays a daily green fee. People who play there are in no way obliged to stay in the lodgings that Bandon owns & operates. That ticks every box for public golf in my book.

Attempting to evaluate courses (public, resort & private) based on cost to play slides one down a very slippery slope. Green fees can vary dramatically on any given course, depending on who is paying the green fee, their age and what time of the year the course is being played. Many muni courses (i.e. Harding Park & Torrey Pines) these days offer green fee rates to residents that may be 1/2 to 2/3 less than what a non-resident might pay. A resident of St. Andrews can by a pass for 12 months of unlimited golf on all the courses in town for little more than the green fee a visitor might pay for one round on the Old Course. Residents of the Highlands can play Castle Stuart for 50 pounds, while foreign visitors pay 150 pounds.        

Attempting to paint members of private clubs with one broad brush is a big mistake as well. Some clubs have a joining fee of $5,000, while other clubs charge $500,000. There are likely some private clubs these days charging no joining fees at all.  

The members of some private clubs might find the green fees at Bandon to be much too dear, while others might consider green fees to be rather modest and good value for money.

If one decides to incorporate greens fees into the ranking of public golf courses, shouldn't one then be obliged to incorporate initiation fees and monthly dues into the rankings of private clubs?

Public (daily fee) courses should be rated on the quality of the course. If subsets of courses grouped by cost to play are created, that is fine. But let the consumer decide whether course A at $50 is a better value than course B at $200.

    

[Jud_T]

David,

Good points.  It all can get a bit arcane, but this is exactly how I keep my personal rankings for public and private courses.

[JohnV]

Back when Pumpkin Ridge opened the second course at Heron Lakes (Portland Muni) also opened.  The local alternative weekly, Willamette Week, offered a review.  At the time Heron Lakes was $20 and Ghost Creek was $50.  Their review was, the next time you want to play Heron Lakes, take the 20 and put it in a drawer.  Then the next time, take that 20 another 20 and borrow 10 more and go play Ghost Creek.

That is how some people go to Bandon Dunes.  They do skip a few rounds for that maybe once in a lifetime experience at Bandon, Pebble Beach or some other resort.  Just because they can't afford it every week, every year or even more than once, they still do it.

Great courses have a lot of demand.  They use price to control that demand.

Some other not so great courses do the same thing.  Olde Stonewall outside Pittsburgh charged a high price.  They didn't care that the course wasn't filled, they wanted to limit play to keep it in the best shape possible.  Of course, they have a deep pockets owner who really was building a toy.

But, if anyone can show up and plunk down their Visa card or cash and play, it is still public.  I don't care how else you want to classify it (resort or whatever).  It is open to the public.

[Matt_Ward]

The reality of the public debate is that vast differences do exist -- take Pinehurst #2 and what they charge and then compare that to others that are far less. That's a big range indeed.

The only issue I mentioned was to do more work in highlighting those facilities that are quality design and do so at a rate that is fairly modest -- anything under $100 I would consider within the broad range of most people. Is $95 a modest fee for someone consistently paying $35. Likely no. But it's more within their range than something that costs 7-8 times or even more than what they are paying now. I understand the argument that John VB and David T raised -- I just see the "public" arena in different terms.

When the key mags rate - rarely is price brought into the picture. I don't doubt the overall qualities of Bandon Dunes -- it is the mecca for any core player to visit. The issue is in giving more awareness to places that do provide high quality but not a rate that can only be embraced by those with the greatest means to do so in most instances.

[David_Tepper]

Matt W. -

I would have no problem if the ranking/listings of the "best" public courses included green fees. The more info the better as far as I am concerned. But, the green fees can vary quite appreciably even at any specific course. It sounds like Oregon residents can play the Bandon courses for much less than I can, yet I can play Harding Park for about 50% less than they can. It would be important that apples be compared to apples and oranges compared to oranges.

DT     

[Sven Nilsen]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42908.0/

Click link, scroll down to Oregon, question answered.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

I didn't mean to say that rankings / listings could not have a no dollar amount and therefore include all of the "public" courses. I just think it would be more meaningful for the masses to have such information. In regards to fees -- a course would be judged by the top rate it provides during high season -- that's how I would determine it. If Torrey is charging a guy from RI a fee that's double or even triple the base rate for a local SD resident then the top rate is the one that determines if it falls below a give threshold. In my example, that top rate would be no more than double digit -- $99 and less. Yes, I admit it's an arbitrary figure but the line has to be established somewhere.
 
No doubt others can have different threshole points and equally so those determined to play the top tier places like Bandon will do so when they have saved their dollars to do so.

[William_G]

This is like a bunch of geese squacking, LOL.

[Kalen Braley]

While we can debate issues like "affordability" and "value for money," I find the notion that the Bandon courses are not "public" to be rather silly, if not ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge, Bandon has no members and offers no memberships. Everyone who chooses to play there pays a daily green fee. People who play there are in no way obliged to stay in the lodgings that Bandon owns & operates. That ticks every box for public golf in my book.

Attempting to evaluate courses (public, resort & private) based on cost to play slides one down a very slippery slope. Green fees can vary dramatically on any given course, depending on who is paying the green fee, their age and what time of the year the course is being played. Many muni courses (i.e. Harding Park & Torrey Pines) these days offer green fee rates to residents that may be 1/2 to 2/3 less than what a non-resident might pay. A resident of St. Andrews can by a pass for 12 months of unlimited golf on all the courses in town for little more than the green fee a visitor might pay for one round on the Old Course. Residents of the Highlands can play Castle Stuart for 50 pounds, while foreign visitors pay 150 pounds.        

Attempting to paint members of private clubs with one broad brush is a big mistake as well. Some clubs have a joining fee of $5,000, while other clubs charge $500,000. There are likely some private clubs these days charging no joining fees at all.  

The members of some private clubs might find the green fees at Bandon to be much too dear, while others might consider green fees to be rather modest and good value for money.

If one decides to incorporate greens fees into the ranking of public golf courses, shouldn't one then be obliged to incorporate initiation fees and monthly dues into the rankings of private clubs?

Public (daily fee) courses should be rated on the quality of the course. If subsets of courses grouped by cost to play are created, that is fine. But let the consumer decide whether course A at $50 is a better value than course B at $200.

    

David,

Extremely well put and finely stated points.  If you would have chimed in on the 1st page this debate would have been over. 

Kalen

[Ulrich Mayring]

Then let me answer with an extremely well put and finely stated point of my own, but to the contrary ;-)

Let's say you were an Oregonian golfer, playing on the basic, run-down, but affordable muni nearby. As a regular Joe with a regular job that is all the golf you can afford. Then suddenly this posh new resort opens and scores of fancy, rich golfers come from all over the country to play there. Some locals find jobs at the resort, which is a good thing. You like the resort, because they even let you play next to all the rich guys and maybe once a year you treat yourself to a round at those wonderful courses.

Do you, Joe Schmoe from Oregon, associate the resort with public golf? Obviously, you're not dumb, you KNOW that anyone can play there. You played there yourself. But was it public golf when you did?

One ingredient is missing compared to the experience at your local muni. And that is the crowd. You don't go to the resort for a few quick holes after work and meet all your neighbors and friends in the bar. That experience, where golf ties into your daily life, is completely missing at the resort, which is an artificial world of its own. And as such resembles the posh, private club up the road much more closely than your local muni.

Yes, I am muddying the definitions of "public", "private" and "resort" golf by not concentrating on clear-cut issues such as how you pay your fee or what you have to do to get on. And I'm doing that because I think life is muddy and there is not just one reason why our Joe Schmoe has decided to play his golf where he does. I believe that a certain feeling of "fitting in with the crowd" is a key part of that decision.

Ulrich

[David_Tepper]

"Yes, I am muddying the definitions of "public", "private" and "resort" golf"

Ulrich -

You are muddying the definition of "public" golf by implying that all "public" golf is "muni" golf. You also imply that muni golf is "basic" and "run-down." 

The point I was trying to make is that labels and characterizations like these do not come close to covering the variety of golf available in the U.S. these days. There are muni golf courses as well maintained as the better CCFAD these days (and often priced accordingly for non-residents) and there are privately owned (and operated for profit) daily-fee courses that are rough around the edges and charge modest green fees.

The same could be said for private clubs. I don't know how you define a "rich guy," but my guess is, however you define one, there are plenty of guys who are not "rich guys" who belong to private clubs. I would also bet that a sizable portion of the play at Bandon comes from guys who are not "rich."

DT     



   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()