[Thomas Dai]

I was just re-reading Dave McCollums splendid photo-tour thread about Rosapenna's Sandy Hills course. I hope he doesn't mind me repeating it here as it's a lovely line.

In it he has a lovely sentence about Augusta National - namely, "Personally, I think of Augusta as a sort of Sistine Chapel. Wonderful, but we only need one. Definitely an approach we don’t need to franchise. "

To me this nicely sums up searching for great golf. How many Sistine Chapels do we need? What's wrong with 'good' golf?

atb

[Mike Hendren]

Thomas, to take you excellent analogy another step, evangelism is typically rooted in the local church - not the great cathedral.  Then again, the great cathedral is not televised as a rite of spring.

Bogey

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yes, I have been promoting the idea of designs you can play every day. Not sure it is getting anywhere.  Even here, everyone wants to talk the greatest, toughest courses, while still complaining about cost, speed of play, etc.

I have mentioned before, but our work at La Costa, in the Wilson style, was painful to watch those average players.  On every green, I saw examples of where had we moved bunkers to the side just another yard, one less player per foursome would be in the bunker.  The second course was purposely made much easier to give them choice, and we think it may end up being more popular.

BTW, if you want to remember how hard golf was at your beginning, try playing leftie for a few holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Read my post again...it specifically says "search for great golf"  it did not say "great golf".  That's where I confused TD also.  So much crap has been built in the time frame you mention and it has been labeled as "great" and then it's gone in a year it just goes off the radar...

Mike:

I have been thinking about this some more.

You are right that the "search for great golf" has infected the magazines, and has changed the focus of the developers and architects, away from good golf.

However, I'm not sure that the economics favor "good golf".  The first few courses I built, the developer had modest goals ... they just wanted courses that would be good golf and remain affordable for the local market.  There was no Best New award to win yet.

But, what I saw in northern Michigan and Myrtle Beach changed my outlook.  Aiming for the middle of the market was not a successful business plan.  Courses are either at the top of the market -- where they can set their own price -- or they are competing in the race to the bottom, with a bunch of older courses that don't have any construction costs to pay off.  Arcadia Bluffs and Forest Dunes [after many years of failure at the latter] are the only newer courses in northern Michigan that have made any money.  And in Myrtle Beach, the oversupply was so severe that people started using green fees as evidence of quality -- the courses that charged the most were attracting the MOST rounds.

So, I think the economics of development argue against "good enough" golf.  I'm happy to listen to evidence of the contrary, as it might restore my faith in humanity.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sadly, the economics of golf do argue for building the proverbial better mouse trap.

Assume your course is losing rounds and money.  You decide on a renovation, which cost $3M and maybe $300K in annual debt.  You play 30K rounds, so the breakeven point is $10 a round, or hopefully, a combo of a bit less than that and more rounds.  But, rounds are hard to come by, although you should get some more.

Hard to invest money and charge the same, so the trend it towards "up scaling" the golf course.  Its what golfers of means want anyway. Its the lower end courses that are going out of biz. Each individual course almost has to, unless there is a sugar daddy or more likely, city subsidy.

Lost in this is growth of the game, getting kids in, etc.

[JC Urbina]

Mike,

If I may repost from a previous thread.

Played City Park Nine yesterday in Fort Collins, Colorado with my son and another couple.  Great walk, affordable golf, packed with happy golfers of all ages and some of the most fun I have had on a golf course.  Care to have a “frank discussion” about this course? 

The game of golf has evolved so much from what it once was.  I keep trying to take it back to that.

 "Keep it Simple"

[Tom_Doak]

Meanwhile, for contrast, I just opened my email in box from GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE magazine and got this:
    
Schmidt-Curley breaks ground in Myanmar
The firm’s first project in the Asian nation, Mandalay Myotha Golf Club to feature 8,000-yard, par-72 championship golf course.

I'm sure that's just what all the aspiring pro golfers in Myanmar were looking for!

[Peter Pallotta]

I've said this before (and Tom's and Jeff's and JC's posts about the economics of the game reminded me). I hope I'm not being too unfair, but I think this site -- the very notion of gca.com, of what it values and of what it wants to engender -- is a double-edged sword.

It seems to want to promote good architecture in general, but in the specifics it always comes back to and swirls around either a) the greatest and most prestigious and historic examples of golf clubs or b) only the most shining and publicized modern examples of great courses. That's fine - but is it just me or does it seem that the inadvertent result is that, in the inevitable comparisons that follow, the merely good architecture that I believe continues to abound is either basically ignored (here and in the many magazine articles and writers that this site influences) or tossed a 'hidden gem' bone once in a while?

Let me put it another way: how many of the 1500 posters around here either live in or have travelled to Michigan to play golf? Probably a heck of a lot at one time or another. Okay - how many of those have chosen to play the good architecture and excellent value that is The Mines? Probably not a very big percentage at all. And why is that? Well, I guess many would answer with a question of their own, i.e.  "Why would I play good when I could play great?"

Exactly . Our value system around here, shaped by and shaping this site, is that if we "could" we would play nothing but the greats. Small sample size, granted, but (I think) a slowing growing and increasingly influential one. And if so, do we really have to wonder about the answer to Mike's intial question?

Quoting Godfather II is too easy, but I'll do it anyway: it often seems to me that "We're all part of the same hypocrisy".

[Jim_Kennedy]

PP,
'Good' golf is never going to attract players if they have to travel very long to get there. Who is going to make their way to Pinehurst for a week long golf trip so that they can play 'good'?  My guess - few, if any.

On the other hand, this site does a fair job of identifying some good architecture/good value/good fun golf by regions, but it could do better.  

[Jim Sherma]

Mike,

If I may repost from a previous thread.

Played City Park Nine yesterday in Fort Collins, Colorado with my son and another couple.  Great walk, affordable golf, packed with happy golfers of all ages and some of the most fun I have had on a golf course.  Care to have a “frank discussion” about this course? 

The game of golf has evolved so much from what it once was.  I keep trying to take it back to that.

 "Keep it Simple"

Wow, never thought I would see the City park 9 mentioned here. I lived in Fort Collins for a few months back in 1989 and always loved this place. Very fun course right in town. thanks for reviving some good memories.

[Dave McCollum]

Thomas Dai—

I don’t remember writing that about Augusta, but it rings true to my sensibilities and you’re welcome to use it.  As I said in my long-winded early contribution to this thread, it’s just golf.  Wedged in the middle of playing a bunch of great golf courses, we played Balboa Park in San Diego, a busy muni for public golfers.  We warmed up on the range, a vertigo inducing affair where the tee sits on the edge of a ravine and balls are hit into an upslope on the other side that is so steep that all shots seem to go the same distance regardless of the club used:  9 iron the same as driver.  The course is an old quirky lay-of-land track by Wm P. Bell that wouldn’t warrant the attention of the gca.com crowd.  The conditioning was muni-minimal although the greens were good.  It was a hoot to play.  We had as much fun playing there as we did anywhere.  We were certainly wowed by the upscale venues, but good golf is by-product of golfers enjoying themselves on their journey through the landscape and that can happen on the most mundane course.

I think Bill Murray said something like it takes miraculous effort to make a bad movie.  The same probably applies to golf courses.  Even a bad course is still a marvel to create and maintain.  In our endless discussions about great golf, we lose this perspective.  I appreciate the golfer who can say that life is too short to play bad courses.  I can also appreciate the golfer who says that any golf is better than no golf.  How do I join the Mike Young Society?  For me, he understands the game I love.

[Mike_Young]

Read my post again...it specifically says "search for great golf"  it did not say "great golf".  That's where I confused TD also.  So much crap has been built in the time frame you mention and it has been labeled as "great" and then it's gone in a year it just goes off the radar...

Mike:

I have been thinking about this some more.

You are right that the "search for great golf" has infected the magazines, and has changed the focus of the developers and architects, away from good golf.

However, I'm not sure that the economics favor "good golf".  The first few courses I built, the developer had modest goals ... they just wanted courses that would be good golf and remain affordable for the local market.  There was no Best New award to win yet.

But, what I saw in northern Michigan and Myrtle Beach changed my outlook.  Aiming for the middle of the market was not a successful business plan.  Courses are either at the top of the market -- where they can set their own price -- or they are competing in the race to the bottom, with a bunch of older courses that don't have any construction costs to pay off.  Arcadia Bluffs and Forest Dunes [after many years of failure at the latter] are the only newer courses in northern Michigan that have made any money.  And in Myrtle Beach, the oversupply was so severe that people started using green fees as evidence of quality -- the courses that charged the most were attracting the MOST rounds.

So, I think the economics of development argue against "good enough" golf.  I'm happy to listen to evidence of the contrary, as it might restore my faith in humanity.

TD,
Well....my argument( rebuttal) would start with the theory that there is a silent majority in golf.  For instance, a PGAleader informed me a few months ago that less than 6000 of the 16400 courses in the US have a Class A PGA pro and Myrtle Beach with approx 85 courses remaining has less than 35 class A pros in the area.  I think most "good" golf is family owned and operated.  The numbers will not allow a management company or a resort to operate as a family business can.  We all know of great small restaurants in small towns and yet none of us will usually stop at that restaurant the locals know as good unless we are local.  Golf works just like dining at an Olive Garden or Carrabas vs. a small family run Italian restaurant in the same town.  I can show you some family run "good" golf courses that do extremely well.  I think many businesses are the same.  I am even convinced that some of the regional or unknown archies end up with more profit over the years ( especially if they handle the build) than some of the signatures that needed 10 jobs to keep it going.  The entire issue comes down to marketing.  Small town golf courses are not known outside of their area.  The same goes for most of our homes.  There are excellent builders all over the country and they build good homes yet none of us have any clue who they are....but they do well because they don't have all the corporate layers.  Another example is a NYC lawyer vs a small town lawyer that attended the same schools.  Their knowledge may be the same and with modern technology their network may be the same but one charges $1000 per hour and the other charges $200.  How do we know which profits the most?  We don't.  Golf is no different.

Jeff,
I understand your thought process but I don't want to confuse "good" golf with "lower end".  IMHO once all of the "lower end" stuff is gone then "good" golf is home free.  It's like a bed and breakfast vs. a JW Marriott...

[Thomas Dai]

Dave,

You're spot on, you don't need to focus on 'great' courses when there is so much good quality and fun golf out there, although it's nice if you have the £$£$ to play a biggy occasionally to get a feel for it.

After returning from a splendid trip to the North of Scotland I set myself an academic golf test. Out of say 20 games how many would be played at Royal Dornoch, which I very much like, and how many would be played at Brora, Golspie or Tain (or even Portmahomack or Fortrose etc etc). Interestingly, the biggy, as much as I like it, didn't get the most plays in my academic test exercise.

As you're sentence is so good I shall now repeat it once more - "Personally, I think of Augusta as a sort of Sistine Chapel. Wonderful, but we only need one. Definitely an approach we don’t need to franchise. "

atb

[Sean_A]

I've said this before (and Tom's and Jeff's and JC's posts about the economics of the game reminded me). I hope I'm not being too unfair, but I think this site -- the very notion of gca.com, of what it values and of what it wants to engender -- is a double-edged sword.

It seems to want to promote good architecture in general, but in the specifics it always comes back to and swirls around either a) the greatest and most prestigious and historic examples of golf clubs or b) only the most shining and publicized modern examples of great courses. That's fine - but is it just me or does it seem that the inadvertent result is that, in the inevitable comparisons that follow, the merely good architecture that I believe continues to abound is either basically ignored (here and in the many magazine articles and writers that this site influences) or tossed a 'hidden gem' bone once in a while?

Let me put it another way: how many of the 1500 posters around here either live in or have travelled to Michigan to play golf? Probably a heck of a lot at one time or another. Okay - how many of those have chosen to play the good architecture and excellent value that is The Mines? Probably not a very big percentage at all. And why is that? Well, I guess many would answer with a question of their own, i.e.  "Why would I play good when I could play great?"

Exactly . Our value system around here, shaped by and shaping this site, is that if we "could" we would play nothing but the greats. Small sample size, granted, but (I think) a slowing growing and increasingly influential one. And if so, do we really have to wonder about the answer to Mike's intial question?

Quoting Godfather II is too easy, but I'll do it anyway: it often seems to me that "We're all part of the same hypocrisy".

Pietro

Too true.  We talk about the same courses over and over.  It reminds me of when my daughter went to school.  The cycle of new mothers with the same stories as the previous lot.  For those in the thick of it, the talk remains interesting for a while.  Even for them, they eventually tired of the same baby talk/women's plumbing issues.  We have the same thing on this site with those cycling around great courses.  Yet, its hard to veer away from the greats because those are what interest us all.  I have come to the point where my attention span for the course talk on this site is thinner with each passing month. 

I fear Tom is right.  The economics for a new $30 course is a tough sell.  Luckily, there are loads of existing cheap and cheerful courses, some are even quite good if we care to find out.  I think so many great and aspiring to be great courses focus our attention so much on visuals that perhaps many golfers have become seduced by eye candy.  I just saw a video by Bill Coore in Shack's site.  Part of the talk was about how important bunkers are for the visuals.  Its a shame we have come to this and I really do believe it is this sort of mindset which makes it very difficult for folks to make more time for lesser lights, but in a very real way, its the lesser lights which can offer some of the biggest surprises.  This is so much the case taht I wonder why I get surprised.  Anyway Pietro, you are singing a song I know quite well.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

TD,
Well....my argument( rebuttal) would start with the theory that there is a silent majority in golf.

Sorry dude, I stopped reading your post right there.  People who claim to represent the "silent majority" are not to be trusted.  You can do better.

[David_Elvins]

But, what I saw in northern Michigan and Myrtle Beach changed my outlook.  Aiming for the middle of the market was not a successful business plan.

Yes, I have been promoting the idea of designs you can play every day. Not sure it is getting anywhere. 

Is what we are really seeing just a saturated market?  Who needs a course that you can play every day if there are plenty of courses to choose from?

Can you have a race to the bottom in Myrtle Beach (or anywhere else) if you don't have over-supply?

[Tom_Doak]

But, what I saw in northern Michigan and Myrtle Beach changed my outlook.  Aiming for the middle of the market was not a successful business plan.

Yes, I have been promoting the idea of designs you can play every day. Not sure it is getting anywhere. 

Is what we are really seeing just a saturated market?  Who needs a course that you can play every day if there are plenty of courses to choose from?

Can you have a race to the bottom in Myrtle Beach (or anywhere else) if you don't have over-supply?

David:

Yes, it is exactly that, the result of a saturated market.  When there are already "too many courses", the only way you can possibly make money in development is to build something that is perceived as "better" than the rest so people are willing to pay more for it.  Otherwise, the market drags you down to its own level.

Ten years ago lots of people developed new courses on the premise that the market was not saturated ... but I've been seeing these effects as long as I've been in the business, so I think they were misinformed.

[Mike_Young]

TD,
Well....my argument( rebuttal) would start with the theory that there is a silent majority in golf.

Sorry dude, I stopped reading your post right there.  People who claim to represent the "silent majority" are not to be trusted.  You can do better.

Oh no....I've already told you I was not a wordsmith...so let me just say there are a lot of golfers out there that play all of their golf within just a few miles of their favorite local hangout and they rarely complain.  The most excitement they have is every four years when a new fleet of golf cars comes in.  
GolfNow tells us there are 480 million rounds played per year and if there are 16000 golf courses then that comes to 30,000 rounds average per course.  That's enough people to make a course work.  When I was selling for a Toro distributor we graded courses as A, B or C depending on their budgets and what we felt they could spend.  There are a lot of C courses out there but:  USGA could care less about them, vendors pay them no mind and media knows they do not advertise.  
This new movie that just came out called Noah is a good example.  Supposedly according to the polls most religions are decreasing in numbers across the country and yet this thing blows the box office away.    
The other part of my theory is sort of sacred when it comes to small town golf. It's the unknown.... Cash....not everyone has a cash register and if you are selling an inventory that can't be traced...well....think about it...    I remember when the Columbians purchased a couple of S Florida courses once and claimed they were doing like 45,000 rounds at $100 bucks when before they took them they were barely getting 15,000 rounds.  I think the ATF finally caught them by hiding meters on the golf cars to determine how much they were being used.  

[Tom_Doak]

This new movie that just came out called Noah is a good example.  Supposedly according to the polls most religions are decreasing in numbers across the country and yet this thing blows the box office away.

Yeah, I hear that is a low-budget, modest movie that you can go to for half of what other movies cost. 

I understand your general point, sorry to keep teasing you, but it's more fun than that other thread.  What I would say is that I doubt the 30,000 rounds per course average [considering there are a lot of places like where I live where it's only half that], and even if it's true, few courses are "booked" to the point that they can't take additional capacity.  As long as that's true the price war is still a race to the bottom. 

Most of the cheap courses have to be full, or at least agonizingly crowded, before people will pay much more to go elsewhere.  So I agree with your general point, that for most golfers it's all about price and location and NOT architecture.  But on the margin -- if you were trying to build a new course and knew you couldn't make it at the base price others are charging -- what would you pay extra for if not architecture?  Dukes of Hazzard golf carts?

[Mike_Young]

This new movie that just came out called Noah is a good example.  Supposedly according to the polls most religions are decreasing in numbers across the country and yet this thing blows the box office away.

Yeah, I hear that is a low-budget, modest movie that you can go to for half of what other movies cost.  

I understand your general point, sorry to keep teasing you, but it's more fun than that other thread.  What I would say is that I doubt the 30,000 rounds per course average [considering there are a lot of places like where I live where it's only half that], and even if it's true, few courses are "booked" to the point that they can't take additional capacity.  As long as that's true the price war is still a race to the bottom.  

Most of the cheap courses have to be full, or at least agonizingly crowded, before people will pay much more to go elsewhere.  So I agree with your general point, that for most golfers it's all about price and location and NOT architecture.  But on the margin -- if you were trying to build a new course and knew you couldn't make it at the base price others are charging -- what would you pay extra for if not architecture?  Dukes of Hazzard golf carts?

TD,
No problem with the teasing.  that's all I have been doing.  Of course one would pay extra for architecture today if he were building a new course.  And we agree on those points you make above.  
BUT
The 30,000 rounds is a more serious topic.  I agree with you.  When the NGF etc groups tell us 480,000,000 rounds and 24 million golfers...well I think it is less.  I think David Fay was probably loser with his estimates of around 17,000,000(I think).  AND...when did you see my golf cart? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

The NGF splits that 24M into serious and casual golfers, no?  Probably a third play more than 25 rounds a year.

[Adam Warren]

I would have a difficult time believing that 30,000 average.  Considering how many private courses there are and the number of rounds most of them do, coupled with the effect the economy has had on the industry (shown by bankruptcy's, course closings, condition deterioration, etc.), 30,000 rounds in the last 7-10 years seems a bit high.  I don't know if we have any courses in Kentucky that might hit 30,000 per year with the exception of the Louisville muni, Seneca.  I'm guessing there could be others, but based on numbers I hear from people, 30k seems high.  That would also probably mean there are a very good number of courses in the 40-50k rounds, because we know the great number of courses that are in the 10-20k range.  I think that would also lend credence to those that are saying that number is much less.

[Thomas Dai]

Further to Tom D's above comment about Dukes of Hazzard carts, I recall hearing a story about a driving range that wasn't doing to well £$£$ wise so they installed some old beat-up cars on the range that folk could hit balls at and their takings went up! Interesting. Not suggesting beat-up cars on courses though!

atb

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

The NGF splits that 24M into serious and casual golfers, no?  Probably a third play more than 25 rounds a year.

Jreff,
I think thats correct...and so I agree that some is askew....480,000,000 rounds is what has to be off...and they say we were down 5% again tis year....

Adam,
I am the one that said 30,000 was the average based on 16000 curses at 480 million rounds...and that would be true based on such but  I agree with you...I dont know of many...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()