TV might be at the core of the problem, the problem with

[Patrick_Mucci]

costs to maintain a golf course.

Recently I had lunch with the President of a local club.

We were discussing almost everything about clubs, in the past and in today's environment.

Almost every club is desperate for members, desperate for revenue to match operating expenses which have grown, seemingly without restraint for the last few decades.

One of the topics that arose, dealt with attracting members and member expectations in terms of the golf course.

As the club's President, this fellow gets calls from members on almost every conceivable topic.

I've played this golf course this past summer on a number of occassions.

He indicated that the complaints rarely had to do with the height of the fairways, or the firmness  and speed of the greens and fairways, but rather, with aesthetics.

He went on to comment that some members complained about how the bunkers looked (unraked) even though they hadn't been in a bunker.

Or, how the grass around the bunker was too long, or how the tees weren't mowed low enough, or how the flags seemed faded.

Very rarely did a complaint center on "PLAYABILITY"

Has TV so changed the focus of the golfer that they consider "playability" a tangential issue over aesthetics ?

Is The Donald right, we need more waterfalls ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

If you are asking if TV (and by extension the money and pampering in professional golf) has fundamentally changed the way that the golfing public views the look of golf courses? Then surely we don't need to answer that one, Patrick?

The bigger question of whether the general golfing public care less about playability than aesthics these days (compared to 50 years ago)? I don't know the answer to that. But if they do, then you can be sure that TV has played its part and may indeed be at the core of the problem.

But first we need to know whether golfers actually care less about playability in the modern age than in the olden days.

[Mac Plumart]

I'll offer the problem with maintenance and all the other ills of the golfing world is leadership and knowing what you are.

One of the most interesting things about the game of golf is that each playing field (course) is totally unique.  If leaders of each and every course are good and truly understand what they are (in terms of their course and club) they can offer an appealing and intereting playing field that will offer a unique experience and/or challenge.

But that is just the problem.  Rather than leadership embracing what they are and highlighting their unique features and place in the golfing world, they try to copy other places.  This will only diminish their place in the golfing world and cause golfer to put a lesser value on playing there.  Why play the copy of place X, when you could play at place X instead.

Think of the great courses...I really don't think they try to copy other places.

The Golf Club in Ohio, Sand Hills, Pinehurst #2, Ballyneal...they are what they are...they don't try to copy anything else.

Think all the places that try to sell their "Championship" golf course.  18 signature holes, which, of course, need to be highly manufactured, probably cost a lot of money, and end up not embracing the natural features of the land the course is on and, therefore, doesn't embrace what the course is.

I fall back on lack of leadership is the issue with many golf courses.  Be what you are.  Highlight your strengths.  Embrace your gifts and offer a unique experience.  

EDIT...continuing on after a few more cups of coffee!!!   

We need to remove the stigma that a great "members" course is bad and/or a backhanded compliment.  Heck, Ballyneal is a great members course in my mind.  It won't host a US Open, the greens are "unique", it isn't stereotypical Championship golf.  It is unique, it highlights it unique features and it is a success (as far as I can tell). 

Back to my coffee!!   

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

"Playabilty" renovations are happening:

Here is an example of a private club- Talamore in suburban Philly- where "playability" is being addressed by an owner who is seeking to obtain new members by removing bunkers:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46508.0/

Here is an example of a public course- Aguila in Phoenix- doing the same thing to soften a relatively newer course in order to increase play and pace of play:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/golf/articles/2010/08/04/20100804aguila-golf-course-arizona-renovation.html
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/golf/articles/2010/11/02/20101102arizona-golf-notes-aguila.html
http://phoenix.gov/recreation/rec/facilities/golf/golfcourses/aguila/index.html

Brad Klein reported on the recent work at Wintonbury Hills in CT in removing 35 bunkers  to facilitate maintenance/paceofplay

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46633.msg1032866/topicseen/

Aesthetics are more of an issue at most private clubs IMO

[Tim Nugent]

Having just returned to the States from a 3 month stint in Finland, this is an issue that I had to struggle with.  Since work was not allowed on Sundays, my client and I would do "Research" (code for 'let's go play golf').  Joe Black (founder of Western Golf Properties) had a term that I found enlightened - Compression.  By this, he was referring to the amount of play in a day a course would get. In winter, in Phoenix, high demand is paired with short days (last tee time, 1pm?) Limited number of tee times couipled with high demand equals high dollar with less wear and tear - Low Compression.  While, Finland and Sweden offer just the opposite.  Long days mean 18 (or more) after work is the norm. And after a cold, dark winter - they want to be out as much as possible. High Compression.  With so much wear and tear, they are happy to just have grass or something (clover) to play off of rather than dirt.

Being conditioned to the high levels of maintenance here in the States, (a snob?), I tended to allow the course conditioning to take precidence over architectural merit in my "what do we have to do to beat this course" research.  Granted, our course will be like no other in the Country design-wise and luckily my client has given me a fairly free hand in the design and I will be on-site the whole time (a level of oversite experience not available to any other course developed there).  But, in the end, I feel that the aesthetics (by way of conditioning) will play a much larger role in the acceptance of the course and may even help overcome the trepidation of some due to uniqueness of a design and style that flies in the face of the status quo.

Hopefully, HDTV will show more of the blemishes that TV has, up to now, been able to filter out.

[Adam Clayman]

Depends on what type of member you want to attract, doesn't it?

I only ever complain about playability.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

As pointed out, you are asking about a narrow prism at very high end clubs, which may not be indicative.

BTW, I believe TV has made us all more visually oriented, and not just because of watching golf.

I have seen some high end clubs remodel for playability - mostly re-grassing greens for faster speeds and rebuilding bunkers for "perfect lies" although the desire for white sand usually comes in the same package.  They also tend to want to extend the good playing surfaces out further, often spending a million on irrigation to save water, but to use that savings to irrigate more green and well maintained turf.  One club complained about bad lies under trees more than 20 yards off the fairway, calling them "unfair."

At the mid range and lower end, bunkers are also being rebuilt for playability, but also to remove some, reduce the size of others and re-design all that are left to soften slopes, add drainage, etc. to reduce ongoing maintenance.

Obviously any project can elements of all three.

[Tim Nugent]

Depends on what type of member you want to attract, doesn't it?

I only ever complain about playability.

....and that player's frame of reference.

And let's not kid ourselves here, no one (except the OTT design) is taking out bunkers because of "Playability".  A majority are doing it just like they did in the Depression - to lower operational costs to stay viable.  But no one wants to come out and say "We reducing bunkers because we can't afford them, because we are on the brink of going under - but hey, come join!"  The marketing spin of "playability" is much more appealing and abstract.

DO the math and grassing over bunkers isnt the cost saving holy grail some would lead you to believe it is.  1st, there is the cost of the conversion, especially if you're smart enough to hire an architect to tell you which ones  , you have to dispose of the old sand, convert the old drainage to surface inlet (provided it didn't get ruined in the sand disposal operation and needs to be replaced).  Then topsoil needs to be hauled in (twice the amount of the sand) , then the whole work area needs to be raked, soil ammendments and fertilized and finally sodded and grown-in.  Afterwards, it still needs to be fertilized, watered and mowed, so the maintenance costs don't disappear, they are just lessened.  Now, ammoratize the intial costs (with interest) against the marginal savings in maintenance to determine how many years out it takes to break-even.  The interesting thing is unless you hand rake all your bunkers, you still need the equipment and rarely does one reduce a worker as part of the program, he just is re-allocated to other work, hence no savings at all but a possible increase in cost as you never recoup the upfront capital cost.

[Adam Clayman]

I wasn't thinking bunkers. I was thinking Tawny v. lush iridescent green. Bounce v. plop.

I don't see how the TV is responsible for people's sensitivities. Sure, it can control the weak second hander, who fails to think for themselves, but in all reality, are these the members a golf club wants for long term viability?

[Tim Nugent]

As long as they pay the staffs bills and there isn't a mile long waiting list, uh...yeah.  Kinda the definition of viable. But seriously, when the inmates are running the asylum, you will get what the sqeekiest wheel wants. As I opined earlier, hopefully HDTV will negate some of the filtering the Networks used to employ.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Who are the prospective members of these clubs - they are people interested in joining a country club and are expecting something better than what they get at a public course.  By that I mean they are expecting a membership that cares about the golf course so they fix ball marks, they rake bunkers, fill divots, etc. Their expectations go beyond the golf course - they expect good food and a nicely kept dining room so when they bring friends or clients they will not feel embarrassed.  Although I should point out that my experience has shown that members care most about the golf course and if there are to be any cutbacks they feel it should not be in course maintenance.

[jeffwarne]

I'll offer the problem with maintenance and all the other ills of the golfing world is leadership and knowing what you are.

One of the most interesting things about the game of golf is that each playing field (course) is totally unique.  If leaders of each and every course are good and truly understand what they are (in terms of their course and club) they can offer an appealing and intereting playing field that will offer a unique experience and/or challenge.

But that is just the problem.  Rather than leadership embracing what they are and highlighting their unique features and place in the golfing world, they try to copy other places.  This will only diminish their place in the golfing world and cause golfer to put a lesser value on playing there.  Why play the copy of place X, when you could play at place X instead.

Think of the great courses...I really don't think they try to copy other places.

The Golf Club in Ohio, Sand Hills, Pinehurst #2, Ballyneal...they are what they are...they don't try to copy anything else.

Think all the places that try to sell their "Championship" golf course.  18 signature holes, which, of course, need to be highly manufactured, probably cost a lot of money, and end up not embracing the natural features of the land the course is on and, therefore, doesn't embrace what the course is.

I fall back on lack of leadership is the issue with many golf courses.  Be what you are.  Highlight your strengths.  Embrace your gifts and offer a unique experience.  

EDIT...continuing on after a few more cups of coffee!!!   

We need to remove the stigma that a great "members" course is bad and/or a backhanded compliment.  Heck, Ballyneal is a great members course in my mind.  It won't host a US Open, the greens are "unique", it isn't stereotypical Championship golf.  It is unique, it highlights it unique features and it is a success (as far as I can tell). 

Back to my coffee!!   

Mac,
that's a great post.
Pinehurst went through its' share of growing pains in the 70's and 80's.

Sounds like you've found a great member's course at Rivermont (and I mean that as a compliment to the course-and you)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Depends on what type of member you want to attract, doesn't it?

Adam,

I think you have to remember, in today's financial environment, a member with a checkbook is a good member, irrespective of his preferences.

Survival FIRST

I only ever complain about playability.

[SL_Solow]

I think Pat is largely correct on this point and recent aberrations caused by economic problems do not diminish the long term problem.  For years we have bemoaned the "augusta syndrome" where every club expects its greenkeeper to maintain the course like Augusta National.  How do these members gain their impression of Augusta?  By watching it on TV during the season when the trees are blooming and when the course has been prepared for the tournament.  How do the members get their views on the "prper" preparation of bunkers?  From watching the Tour on TV where the pros insist on firm perfectly raked bunkers.  If you don't believe that members expect these types of conditions, spend a year as the greens chair at a club or talk to a sample of greens chairmen.  The comments from members will be enlightening.

[John Keenan]

I would venture to guess this is an issue for non public courses as well. They need to compete for players and if they are not up to "Augusta" standards lush green and such I bet they get complements and see a drop off in players.

TV and the overly prepared courses on the PGA have set the expectation level for even the casual player.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

This sounds like a marketing problem to me.  A course, like any other business, has to decide the market it is targeting.  Think about a restaurant.  If you had to name the ideal restaurant, it would have a good variety of terrific food, impeccable service, sublime ambiance, be reasonably priced, and never so full you couldn't walk in whenever you wanted without a reservation.  If you ever find such a place, don't tell anyone, because those things all won't be true at the same time for long!  Too often, they have the look down, but the food is bland and the servers surly...

It sounds like the members of this club have already chosen their market segment for them.  One could explain why the course is maintained in the way it is, but people who care about aesthetics and not playability are probably not going to listen to anything aside from "we'd have to raise your dues x% to bring things up to the standard you are asking for, why don't you ask this be brought up for a vote?"  I think that'll shut them up pretty quickly

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

This sounds like a marketing problem to me. 

Doug, I fear you're out of touch with the economy.
It's not a marketing problem, it's a location, demographic, competition and finance problem.

A course, like any other business, has to decide the market it is targeting.  Think about a restaurant.  If you had to name the ideal restaurant, it would have a good variety of terrific food, impeccable service, sublime ambiance, be reasonably priced, and never so full you couldn't walk in whenever you wanted without a reservation.

Could you identify just five (5) such establishments ?
If your ideal restaurant was never full, it couldn't be that good, could it ?

If you ever find such a place, don't tell anyone, because those things all won't be true at the same time for long! 
Too often, they have the look down, but the food is bland and the servers surly...

It sounds like the members of this club have already chosen their market segment for them. 

Not at all.  They didn't choose a thing.
The economy, location, demographic, competition and finances have chosen to descend upon them and their peer clubs

One could explain why the course is maintained in the way it is, but people who care about aesthetics and not playability are probably not going to listen to anything aside from "we'd have to raise your dues x% to bring things up to the standard you are asking for, why don't you ask this be brought up for a vote?"  I think that'll shut them up pretty quickly

Primarily, because you'd get 200 different opinions.

I don't think you understand the market and competition in that market, or how clubs are run

Do you belong to a club in a suburban, metropolitan area ?

[Andy Troeger]

First off, I won't deny that TV plays a role in this issue, however, I think TV acts as a channel to exacerbate a problem that would have manifested itself anyway.  I don't want to speak for the rest of the world, but in the US I feel that a large number of people have created expectations in society but really don't have a clue about the amount of resources and ability that it takes to achieve their expectations.

Golfers see courses every week on TV that are presented at their very best for a one-week event. Many members of private clubs also are likely to play golf at other private clubs or upscale establishments, many of which might be as nice or nicer than their own club.  Further, often these visits to other clubs are for member/guest events where presentation is key. I think both of those things create an expectation that their own course should be just as well maintained as those on TV or down the road, without the realization that one snapshot at another place is not a reasonable comparison to a 24/7/365 view of their own club.  I would guess most of our homes look nicer when we have guests than an average day.  Yet club members don't seem to realize how this affects their views of their home club.

Additionally, the desire of many clubs to be ranked on the various lists has an impact. When one course spends more money to improve maintenance, you have members at other clubs that feel the need to do the same, necessary or not, to keep pace. This goes for national and local competition between clubs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Is it expectation based on an unrealistic perception  (TV) ?

Or, is it a lack of true understanding with respect to the optimal preparation of the golf course in terms of playability ?

[Brian Marion]

Also realize that as the Tour moves from venue to venue, they overseed with rye and bluegrass anywhere they can as often as they can.

Most southern courses are bermuda fairways and rough but during tournament week, they are rye....and rye looks really good on tv!

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Is it expectation based on an unrealistic perception  (TV) ?

Or, is it a lack of true understanding with respect to the optimal preparation of the golf course in terms of playability ?

I think its a combination of the two, but the first wouldn't be that big of a deal if not for the second.

[Mac Plumart]

Patrick...

I think you ask a great question and Andy...I agree with your answer 100%.

What does today's golfer think they want from a golf course

A)




or

B)




I would bet that most golfers think they want B (which is obviously Shadow Creek), but the fast and firm conditions that Pinehurst had when I was out there was WAY more enjoyable golf...very fast and firm, which opened the door to shot making and creativity.  But I am unsure that they can accept the brown because they don't know how that affects the fun factor.

Patrick...

Could this Club President you mention take some key members of his club and greens committee on a tour of quality courses in an effort to educate them on different conditions?  Check out Yeamans Hall, Maidstone, and some other fast and firm courses and see how much fun they are. 

[Adam Clayman]

I don't watch the tour, on TV, very much, anymore. But, when I do, I don't always see wall to wall green. As a matter of fact, on most of the tour's crappy venues, the need to toughen up the course results in browned out conditions by Sunday afternoon. Not to mention all the blotchy turf they often also show.

Does the general public just ignore these conditions?

[Wade Whitehead]

Pat's excellent question highlights the gulf between those on this site and most who play the game.

The general golfing public, especially in America, doesn't value what many on this site espouse.

Most players I know notice aesthetics.  The ones I enjoy being around note playability.

The problem isn't television; it's color television!

WW

[David_Madison]

Patrick,

Yes, television has had a big influence as you've suggested. However, I believe that the nature of the club, its membership, and the purpose of the club have the biggest influence. Member owned private clubs that are in reality social clubs with a golf course are the most likely to suffer from the membership's desire for excessively plush, green conditions. And that type of membership wants to smell the flowers along the way, so there better be plenty of them to smell. There's not as much of a golf culture or the understanding of same, so the playing conditions don't matter as much as the visual esthetics.

Clubs that are golf first are more likely to have memberships caring about playability and interesting, fast and firm conditions. And even if they aren't there yet, there's likely a group of members who do get it and are agitating for the course to be maintained in a leaner manner.