Do we really know what golfers want?

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - reading my own post again, I realized that what I meant to do was to ask/suggest a simple question: How do we measure what golfer's want? I understand and accept as true the experiences/insights that architects have shared on this thread, but I still wonder: Are we measuring what golfer's want by how many of them show up week in and week out to play at a given golf course? And if so, what is that number? How many golfers is enough? Is a full tee sheet month after month the proof we demand of any theory about what golfer's want? How about the bottom line route, i.e. isn't a course that actually turns a profit year in and year out proof that it is offering (enough) golfers what they like? I'd say so, but ah, there's the rub -- because turning a profit is more about a whole range of other things than it is about the quality/interest of the course.

Peter  

[Mike_Young]

How about the bottom line route, i.e. isn't a course that actually turns a profit year in and year out proof that it is offering (enough) golfers what they like? I'd say so, but ah, there's the rub -- because turning a profit is more about a whole range of other things than it is about the quality/interest of the course.

Peter  

Peter,
I don't know...seems like the free enterprise system works when it is allowed.  And it may be that there are other significant factors that make a golfer like a course other than the course quality/interest.  It can be the personality of the pro, the quaintness of the place, the people that play there and so many other things that went away with the CCFAD fad. 

[Ben Sims]

Don,

I didn't say I didn't like WP on my first play.  I said it beat me up pretty good and I didn't see the argument on how forgiving it was.  That's very different.  WP from the start has always been one of the three or four courses I love most.  I digress.

I only eat at mom 'n pop diners when someone recommends it, or I have lived in a place for awhile.  I eat fast food when I travel too much, but it's because it's predictable and easy.  I think golf is much the same.  Golfers want interest sure, but they want comfort too.  WP is a members course.  You said earlier that most of the great courses with more severe features are private.  Why has public golf--with a few exceptions obviously--traditionally had less interesting architecture than private golf?

I think it is the familiarity factor.  When a golfer is a member somewhere, they become very attune to the intricacies of the golf course.  But public golf is more generic.  Some folks will be familiar, but many will play it once a month or less.  When the contours and intricacies of a more severely featured golf course negatively affect a golfer, they remember it. 

My theory is proven wrong at a place like Common Ground though.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I don't disagree with you, but I'm asking -- as per Don's two threads -- how "we" pretend to know what golfers want when we can't even agree on how to measure this. If WP went public tomorrow, and if it did for example 15,000 rounds of year, would that mean that most golfers liked (or didn't like) the wild greens? How about if it did 25,000 rounds, or 10,000? What "number" would "we" need to prove/disprove our belief systems about what the average golfer wants? And, how about -- because of, say, the owner not having to carry any debt, and the maintenance practices (and irrigation system) being very simple and modest and efficient -- if 10,000 rounds a year were sufficient for a golf course to turn a profit, would that mean that it was serving the average golfer well?
I don't know....but I do know that foisting our decisions onto the back of the straw-man called the average golfer's wants seems lacking...

Peter
 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don,

I didn't say I didn't like WP on my first play.  I said it beat me up pretty good and I didn't see the argument on how forgiving it was.  That's very different.  WP from the start has always been one of the three or four courses I love most.  I digress.

I only eat at mom 'n pop diners when someone recommends it, or I have lived in a place for awhile.  I eat fast food when I travel too much, but it's because it's predictable and easy.  I think golf is much the same.  Golfers want interest sure, but they want comfort too.  WP is a members course.  You said earlier that most of the great courses with more severe features are private.  Why has public golf--with a few exceptions obviously--traditionally had less interesting architecture than private golf?

I think it is the familiarity factor.  When a golfer is a member somewhere, they become very attune to the intricacies of the golf course.  But public golf is more generic.  Some folks will be familiar, but many will play it once a month or less.  When the contours and intricacies of a more severely featured golf course negatively affect a golfer, they remember it.  

My theory is proven wrong at a place like Common Ground though.

Ben, leaving the CCFAD and high end resort player out of the equation, what eveidence do you use to come to the conclusion that the club member plays more then the muni player?

Based on my personal observations, that is another myth, but I'm interested in hearing from you and others on this.

[Ben Sims]

Ben, leaving the CCFAD and high end resort player out of the equation, what eveidence do you use to come to the conclusion that the club member plays more then the muni player?

Based on my personal observations, that is another myth, but I'm interested in hearing from you and others on this.

Don,

I have no evidence to support that assertion.  I am using the deductive reasoning, probably erroneously. 

I've said this before and I'll say it again.  You could build a course like Wolf Point for muni/public play.  It's certainly sustainable at a low price point based on the maintenance regime you have established.  And I think there are a lot of people that would like it.  But I don't think there is any argument that WP is very different from the norm.  And I don't think any of us have the ability to project whether enough people would like it more than the "norm" to make it successful. 

As we've established.  WP makes Mr. Stanger very happy.  And as you added, a geek like me is willing to get up at o'dark thirty and drive across Texas just to play 18 holes.  But I'd also argue that my views on golf are drastically different from the the majority.  I know because of the weird looks I get when I talk about architecture with anyone but you and other "online" friends. 

[Scott Stearns]

you cant measure what golfers want because they dont know.

theres a 24 handicapper at my club who is always asking for MORE fescue.  if we have it to him he's never finish.

most poor players have no idea what they want from a round.

most good players want more birdies--i.e. easier.

and Dye says that the harder the course, the longer the line to get in.  

Avg. players want to play fast (for them) and dont want to lose every ball in their bag.  but most will never tell you that--so LOOKS hard is important.  I think a course that is harder for good players than for 15 handicappers is another.

And interesting greens are the only reason i want to go back to a course any more.


stand on the tee at any public course on a saturday morning from 8-11 and do the same on a pvt course from 8-11--i'll bet the players u see play about the same amount of golf.

[Michael Blake]

Ben, leaving the CCFAD and high end resort player out of the equation, what eveidence do you use to come to the conclusion that the club member plays more then the muni player?

I'll bet Jeff B has a NGF statistic on this laying around somewhere.

[JMEvensky]

you cant measure what golfers want because they dont know.

I think this right.

It's not so much that golfers know what they like--I think it's more a case of them knowing what they don't like.Not many have a wide enough sampling to draw any conclusion about golf courses based on anything but the basics--price,location,conditioning,etc.

[Jim_Kennedy]

We know one thing they don't want, more private clubs. Their numbers (ca. 4,400) are roughly the same as they were in 1930.

p.s. the 'average' club member across the USA (all climes) plays 53 rounds per year. 

[Dave McCollum]

The one thing not mentioned enough in this thread is the number one reasons golfers play golf:  they play where their buddies play.  In my experience this is more important by a wide margin over any other explanation.  It dovetails in with the “fun” factor and is much more important than anything about the venue.

This observation is based on my experience running a ma & pa public course in a rural area in the arid West.  It was strongly reinforced this year when we had some conditioning issues.  Our long-time super died last fall.  The new guy had never worked on a sand based course, had to completely rebuild the irrigation control programs, and had various other problems adjusting to the challenges of this course and site.  It was a very mild winter and a very dry spring and summer.  At times we were very brown and very firm and fast.  We also lost some turf in spots.  A small group of golfers was very upset and unhappy.  They didn’t just leave and go to another course; they tried to convince their buddies to go with them.
 
 This works for and against a course retaining regular or avid golfers.  Folks tend to stay where they are comfortable and where their pals play.  If they are determined to leave and they are persuasive, they leave in groups.  These decisions are more emotional than logical and are based more on the passions of friendship than the course features and conditions.  If a bunch of guys (or gals) have been playing together for years, they know all the stories, all the politics, all the personal details of their playing partners, and, of course, the golf course they have played many times.  When they gather for a beer after a round, there isn’t much new to discuss except the weather, the course conditions, their match, and the news of the week.  Golf is their passion based on these experiences and friendships.  How do you measure that?  There may be some objective elements in their perceptions of the experience, but there are far more subjective things going on most of the time.

[Mark Chaplin]

At Royal Cinque Ports 15 holes HAD walks of 25 yards to the next tee and three holes walks of 50 yards. Now that is great for a quick round. Now to the back tees you walk back 75 yards on eight holes, 100 yards on one hole and 150 yards on another. It totals around 900 yards of round trip walking from green to tee. That's quickly adding 15-20 mins of time to a round. Fortunately with the exception of one hole the forward tee pretty much retain the old teeing platforms.

[Tom_Doak]

From a book I've been reading:

"I have heard the question asked:  What percentage of golfers really enjoy their golf, by which I mean, enjoy it in a care-free spirit, without anxiety, without fretting over one thing or another -- the fact that they are getting older and shorter, or that Smith has just beaten them for the medal, or that these confounded caddies always keep their eyes shut?  With some it is the weather or the direction of the wind, the additional waistcoat or the need for an umbrella.  If it is not one thing it is another.  Worry is bad for the blood-vessels; it wastes tissue and it often makes the social atmosphere insufferably hot.  ...  What we are considering is the happy position of the perfect duffer if he would only realize it.  He has no responsibilities, no reputation hanging like a millstone around his neck nor any remote possibility of incurring the censures of the Press.  He recognizes the folly of a character in one of Sinclair Lewis's books who exclaims, "Didn't even enjoy golf!  Golly, fellows worked hard at it!  Felt guilty as hell if they were one stroke over yesterday!"  That is making a caricature out of a privilege.  Why not enjoy the whole astonishing wonder of the links without cutting oneself down to precision and exactitude?  A few stokes mean nothing to him.  He can drink in the beauty of the scenery and the sound of the waves, revel in the sunshine and the brisk air.  His mind is not fixed on the narrow difficult path down which other people's ambitions pointthe way to the distant and unattainable goal.  He lives freely in the present, neither toiling nor spinning, but wasting his time to admirable advantage in a thoroughly broad-minded spirit."

This from the same writer who gives his thoughts on the chief virtues of the links:

"First, that they should be difficult;
secondly, that they should be pleasing to the eye;
thirdly, that they should be strictly economical in design;
and lastly, that to be truly admirable they will probably incur in the general opinion the accusation of being unfair."

[Steve Okula]

Tom,

What book is that?

No one has mentioned location. Proximity of the golf course is usually an important factor when golfers are deciding where to play, much more so than architectural merit.

[Ronald Montesano]

Updike or Wodehouse?

[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn Morrow?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Yes, the biggest distance issue in golf is the distance from your front door to the first tee.  As mentioned, who plays where you play is more important than how the course plays.  As to conditioning, I think everyone likes it, but sometimes the focus on the top 100 here distracts us from the fact that most golfers play in pretty average conditions for not a lot of money.  Granted, thanks to supers, the definition of average keeps going up, even at low and mid level courses.

As to golf enjoyment, nothing warms my heart more than going to a muni, seeing old guys walking and enjoying golf like seemingly no others, despite hitting it about half as far as they used to.  Obviously, I could be wrong, and don't see every golfer everywhere, but in general, those guys seem to enjoy golf undistracted as TD notes more than anyone.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

What book is that?

It's from The Perfect Golfer, written by H.N. Wethered in 1931.  He was the father of Roger and Joyce Wethered.  Friend of Bernard Darwin, and a really good writer.  It's available from THE CLASSICS OF GOLF, if anyone is interested in a great old-fashioned read.  I might give away a few of these for Christmas.

[Peter Pallotta]

"He lives freely in the present, neither toiling nor spinning..."

Tom - thanks much for the heads up. Charming writing indeed, and it points out why this question is so hard to answer, i.e. because what we all know in our heart of hearts is the ideal golfing attitude is the very same heaven we are always trying to grasp but seem rarely able to reach. Wethered is asking of us golfers the same thing that spiritual teachers have always asked of us in life: that we live in the moment, the eternal 'now', that we recognize that worry and strife won't add a cubit to our stature, and that we consider the lilies in the field -- they neither toil nor spin, but not even Solomon in all his slendour was as beautifully adorned.  

Maybe the best possible golf course, the most transcendent, is the one that allows golfers a glimmer, a taste, an opening to this state of grace, one in which we pause from our endless striving and simply be present, moment by moment, to the splendour of which we are part. Actually, skip the "maybe" part -- if I try to imagine "the best possible golf course", that is precisely the course I'd imagine, and I think many golfers might say the same. Maybe that is asking too much, expecting too much from something so earthy and grounded as a golf course -- but if we never ask, we'll never get...or, in keeping with Wethered's spirit, we should seek that which we hope to find.

(Man, I love when golf writing gets me thinking like this!!)

Peter

[Mike McGuire]

Tom,

What book is that?

It's from The Perfect Golfer, written by H.N. Wethered in 1931.  He was the father of Roger and Joyce Wethered.  Friend of Bernard Darwin, and a really good writer.  It's available from THE CLASSICS OF GOLF, if anyone is interested in a great old-fashioned read.  I might give away a few of these for Christmas.

Nice gift. Only one used available on Amazon and its $95

[Dan Kelly]

Maybe the best possible golf course, the most transcendent, is the one that allows golfers a glimmer, a taste, an opening to this state of grace, one in which we pause from our endless striving and simply be present, moment by moment, to the splendour of which we are part. Actually, skip the "maybe" part -- if I try to imagine "the best possible golf course", that is precisely the course I'd imagine. And I think many golfers might same the same.

Peter --

Seems to me that is possible on any course, anywhere -- even a Doak Zero -- if we would just suspend our "endless striving" for a transcendent course.

That particular endless striving is what we ought to transcend -- no?

The fault, dear Peter, is not in our courses, but in ourselves.

Dan

[Dan Kelly]

Tom,

What book is that?

It's from The Perfect Golfer, written by H.N. Wethered in 1931.  He was the father of Roger and Joyce Wethered.  Friend of Bernard Darwin, and a really good writer.  It's available from THE CLASSICS OF GOLF, if anyone is interested in a great old-fashioned read.  I might give away a few of these for Christmas.

Nice gift. Only one used available on Amazon and its $95

Available new for $35 at http://classicsofgolf.com.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Not really sure I agree, or at least, as a gca, I strive to create a place of splenor, recognizing that the average human needs a little help in decompressing and attaining a higher state through golf!

There are some courses that just say "splendor" right off the bat.  The first at Crystal Downs is one.  Many others.

In my experience, it is usually large scale that connotes splendor, although artistic arrangement of those well scaled elements is essential.  That said, how many smaller scaled Donald Ross courses really have splendor?  Mac and others were better.

[Ronald Montesano]

Has this thread degenerated into a Cosmo article yet?

50 ways to leave your golfer smiling...

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan - that's a good question/observation, and well worth pondering. (The fault does indeed lie with myself.) I think, though, that Jeff raises the right counter-point.  If golf is somehow to give us a brief respite from the strivings of life, or at least invite us to consider such a respite, wouldn't a course that encourages participation instead of testing more likely to provide such an invitation?

Peter