What percentage of golfers are looking for great architecture?

[Tim Martin]

I am going to go the other way. A BIG PERCENTAGE are looking for great architecture. I think 75% care about the quality of the golf course or allude to wanting to play those courses if they can afford it. Of course often they just play the nearest course, with their buddys or want a cheap game.

I think of the 75% carers, they will be looking for what is great architecture in their opinions and that will include things we dont care for on here.... ie most people like water features.

I think in the UK if you polled the masses on the top courses in the country, you might see The Belfry very close to the top spot. Almost certainly it would be top 10, whilst it barely breaks the top 100 in the magazines and gets boohooed on here if it scrapes 99.

Adrian-I think 75% is overstated. I would say that I have a pretty good cross section of guys to get a game with that come from both the public and private side. While maybe 3 in 10 from the public side care about great architecture probably 7 in 10 from the private side care about it. If this is a realistic representation then what is the break down of public versus private players on a percentage basis?

[Ken Moum]

The folks I play with commonly say they are interested in GCA or great courses, but whenever they play courses with good GCA reputations, they mostly hate them.

Adnd trying to talk about strategic options or any other features, they go completely blank.

Around here, the course everyone says they love is one of such a dopey layout that about half the holes would be better if you reverse the tee and the green.

K

[Adrian_Stiff]

The folks I play with commonly say they are interested in GCA or great courses, but whenever they play courses with good GCA reputations, they mostly hate them.

Adnd trying to talk about strategic options or any other features, they go completely blank.

Ken - that does not suprise me. I think some on here overthink it all too and a lot of stuff has been done without those thoughts in the ODGs head. I know people have said things to me about stuff I have done and it wasnt intentional by me or I wasn't thinking of so in so or they say it reminds them of ABCgolf club (which I never saw or knew about).

[Tom Kelly]

There is a fairly high percentage of golfers out there looking for great architecture or at least who appreciate what is great architecture.

There is only a very small percentage of these golfers that actually realise they are looking for great architecture or know what makes it great.

[Steve Lang]

   Rational Answer:  (gca.com members + misc raters) / 27 million golfers

~ 100% x (1,500) / (27,000,000)  = 0.005556%

so more or less ~ 99.994444% don't give a hoot

[David Harshbarger]

There is a fairly high percentage of golfers out there looking for great architecture or at least who appreciate what is great architecture.

There is only a very small percentage of these golfers that actually realise they are looking for great architecture or know what makes it great.

Thomas, and Jim too, and others are correct that great architecture speaks to everyone in a way that doesn't require the listener to know the language of architecture.  And I would be shocked if most golfers aren't at a loss for words after experiencing a great course.  Instead they express the admiration in generalities of experience: cool, fun, awesome, big, etc.  Not exactly Scrabble champion material.

Ironically, the same paucity of vocabularly exists for the experience of purportedly great penal architecture: brutal, rough, tough, hard, merciless.  All golfers experience the architecture, but the lack of language about the golf architecture leaves the player unable to bridge the experience and the reputation in a coherent way.  That may be why the conflict can persist, or reinforce the concept that great=brutal.  Not so much because the player thinks brutal should be great, but because what is labeled a priori as "great" is experienced as "brutal" and with no tie in in language to bridge the conceptual discord.

[Chris DeNigris]

Go to Akron OH and find 100 average Joe golfers. Call them at 10pm on a Tuesday evening and tell them that they can play Pine Valley the next day at 3pm...no cost to play, they just have to get there. The number on the tee at 3 is about the right answer. You might not need a 2nd tee time.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Whether or not my home course counts as 'great' architecture I don't know, but it is certainly very good. Dr MacKenzie was still cutting his teeth at that stage in his career. Talk to almost any member in the bar and you will get an informed analysis of the subtleties of the architecture of the course, and their own strategy in getting round in one piece.

Equally, when discussion turns to other courses the architecture takes centre stage.

Good/great architecture is the main reason why people join our club over the dozens of other clubs within 20 miles. So my experience is that a high percentage of golfers are looking for great architecture.

Whether or not the membership of Reddish Vale is a true cross-section of golfers in general however, is another question entirely...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Go to Akron OH and find 100 average Joe golfers. Call them at 10pm on a Tuesday evening and tell them that they can play Pine Valley the next day at 3pm...no cost to play, they just have to get there. The number on the tee at 3 is about the right answer. You might not need a 2nd tee time.

Chris - I dont think thats a fair analogy because you have put an obstacle in the way (time-miles)
Duncan - I think people like what they see and play, its no different to listening to an album, you like or not like, you dont really need to understand the perfection in the drumming or the production values or the intricate guitar work, you merely like the tune. I merely likely the tune is what the big percentage would like/dislike. I am counting that analogy of liking a tune as looking for great architechure, if the question was 'understanding' then I can agree with 99% NO vote.

[James Boon]

Adrian, I like your analogy. I'll throw in another... When I first learnt to drive I was happy to drive any car and enjoyed the freedom. Now I prefer driving a decent car, enjoying the driving experience and aspire to occasionally/eventually drive a great car. As for what is going on under the bonnet, I haven't really got a clue, but I have a few amateur opinions about tyres maybe, or what paint finish looks best?

As for the Belfry, several years ago, I'd have agreed with you that most people outside of this site would think it great architecture, but I've come across so many people recently who don't like it, that I'm more with Sean on this one.

Cheers,

James

[Adrian_Stiff]

James - I can see where Sean is coming from re The Belfry and how people see it. To be totally honest I think it gets a tough rap on here, it does what it says on the tin, it serves the purpose of championship golf and clinically its pretty good. Nitpicking I dont think the tree planting was great, and by that I mean the tree selection, it in my opinon catered more for forcing tree growth upwards rather than the longer term think, that aside with a cull there may be some better stuff. You will get Belfry haters, you get TOC haters as well. I am really talking about Mr Smith 20 hcp. He will be delighted to win a qualifying tournament where the final is at The Belfry, I think more people would be delighted to win the trip to the Belfry than a trip to Prestwick. Sadly Mr Smith does not know too much about Prestwick. Thats why I say a 'punters' poll would distort to the favour of The Belfry.

[Tony Ristola]

  Aren't 99% just out to knock the ball around?

  Anthony

Yes, but given the choice, wouldn't anyone prefer great architecture? Especially if it didn't cost considerably more?

That begs the question, would people recognize it? In some instances no, and in others they would confuse maintenance for architecture, but that's where education comes in.