How Long Does it Take for a Course to Lose its Reputation?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Obviously it varies, from munis with dead greens to Top 100 courses falling off the list, but what are some courses you know that have lost their reputations as a great course to play (perhaps Doak 6 or higher) over time, and how fast did that reputation go down?

[John Kavanaugh]

How long does it take to say Cog Hill?  What a sad unfortunate series of events.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, do you mean loss of reputation merely due to the fickle nature of the belt notcher crowd whereby there tends to be an element of one and done?  Or, do you mean a loss of reputation due to mismanagement and conditions goind downhill.?  Or, do you mean the course was probably overhyped to begin with and never really had the chops to sustain the buzz?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Funny, but I spoke with Rees Jones today on another topic, but he did mention that the basic reason Phil hated Cog Hill was that the frontal bunkers kept him from reaching the green from under the trees after a wild tee shot.  Is that valid?

However, it does show how fast a Tour Pros opinion can change things.  I always felt Medinah started dropping in the rankings after Nicklaus complained about the dogleg 13th (now 16 I think) and Palmer complained about the snap dogleg on 18.

RJ,

The gist of the post started with a presentation I did today, where a course had suffered a long decline in play due to mismanagement. Not really thinking as much about the high end, but open to any examples of courses that were once the crème de la crème in their markets, but now aren't.  Did it take one year of dead greens, ten years of assholes in the pro shop, or was it just changing tastes and/or other courses opening up that made it look sort of average?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I think for many of the ranked courses it has to do with marketing and ad budgets.  Take Sea Island or Reynolds Plantation as examples.  Wwhen they were buying spreads in GD rankings were high and reputations were exceeded....The resort and RE course's reputations are driven by ad dollars...
P.S.  Did you get me email last week?

Mike

[John McCarthy]

Jeff:  as a high hanicapper playing from the front tees,  cog hill is not playable.  Not every course needs to be playable.  I get that.  Especially for a poor player like me.  

However, repeatedly, there are bunkers pinching the landing zone which take all strategy .

To be fair the greens roll like a dream. 

[Pat Burke]

Gosh Jeff, there have been so many reasons for properties to fall out of favor.
Bad conditioning would probably be a swirling the bowl slowly drop.

Constant tinkering such as Riviera and BelAir that seem to move a course away from it's original vision.

A redesign that (earned or not) get poor reviews.

And the "new kid on the block" mentality that fades over time.

Cog Hill got hammered due to visibility, which would hasten a fall.

[cary lichtenstein]

What happened to Cog Hill? I loved that course

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I'd have to agree with Pat Burke.

I think falling out of favor isn't the result of one act or one set of circumstances.

And sometimes, it's got nothing to do with the course, rather trends and fads.

I've always been fascinated, not by how businesses are built, but how successful businesses fail.

The same applies to golf/country clubs.

I think it's an interesting study.

[Jason Topp]

In the case of poor course management, one bad experience can sour the course for that customer as well as the members of any group that customer might want to bring out in the future. 

I had one bad experience at the course I played in law school (story is too long to tell).  I played the remainder of the summer but experienced irritation every time at the memory.  We moved to a different course.

I have played there once in the intervening 22 years.  My group switched to a different course.  I would guess the course lost 160 rounds per year for the 13 years between that summer and when I joined a private club. 

[mike_beene]

It seems that golf real estate developments generally do not age well. Although I am struggling to think of an example, as the surroundings age is there not a change in the general perception of a place?

[John Kavanaugh]

It seems that golf real estate developments generally do not age well. Although I am struggling to think of an example, as the surroundings age is there not a change in the general perception of a place?

Muirfield Village is a perfect example. Nobody gives a damn about that place.  Yesterday's news.

[Tom_Doak]

It seems that golf real estate developments generally do not age well. Although I am struggling to think of an example, as the surroundings age is there not a change in the general perception of a place?

A bit part of that, as Mike Young noted earlier, is that when they open those courses have the dual benefit of beaucoup advertising dollars and a relatively pristine environment [the homes haven't been built out yet].  It's a lot different playing in Arizona once swimming pools start showing up on the edges of the fairways in place of the desert!  The build-out of the development and the decline in advertising dollars go hand in hand, so it's hard to say which has the greater significance on the decline of those courses' popularity.

John, if you think Muirfield Village has fallen out of favor, how about Troon or Desert Highlands?  Or Loxahatchee?

[John Kavanaugh]

I've never heard of Loxawhatever but Troon and Desert Highlands are long forgotten.  Red Lobster was just sold...Times change.  Red Lobster didn't get worse, we got better.

[Matthew Petersen]

Shadow Creek is an interesting case. It famously debuted to huge press and even a top 10 ranking. And it's been all downhill from there.

In this case, the decline is actually almost all correction for initial over exuberance. The course hasn't changed much; the handful of people I know who have played it multiple times seem to think it's better post renovation, so that's no issue. It's not quite as exclusive as it once was, and also in the last 25 years there have been a lot of courses improbably scratched out of the desert, so while it's still the first in a lot of ways, it's not the only.

[Sean_A]

This seems to in the main be an issue for new courses.  I would say for the pretenders, it takes as long to lose a rep as it took to buy the rep.  The cycles of mag ranking can be nasty business.   

The one course in England which has fallen out of favour is Westward Ho!  This may be connected with its slow slide off the top 100 lists which in turn was effected by the many new builds in the 80s and 90s.  I think we shall see the rep of some new builds slowly slide away, but often, they will be replaced by yet newer builds.  Anyway, I think the mag rankings had the effect of reinforcing American style design in the UK and thus pushing outlier courses out of favour.  In general, the rankings are becoming more homogenous leaving character courses in the dust.   

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

Sounds like some of these places were hyped up too much and started with a high ranking partly through groupthink of those who bought the hype, then fell as the illusion faded.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This seems to in the main be an issue for new courses.  I would say for the pretenders, it takes as long to lose a rep as it took to buy the rep.  The cycles of mag ranking can be nasty business.   

The one course in England which has fallen out of favour is Westward Ho!  This may be connected with its slow slide off the top 100 lists which in turn was effected by the many new builds in the 80s and 90s.  I think we shall see the rep of some new builds slowly slide away, but often, they will be replaced by yet newer builds.  Anyway, I think the mag rankings had the effect of reinforcing American style design in the UK and thus pushing outlier courses out of favour.  In general, the rankings are becoming more homogenous leaving character courses in the dust.   

Ciao

Quiz question:

When Golf World started its GB&I rankings in 1982, it nominated a list of 25 as the best (not numerically).

One of those courses is no longer in the Top 100. And another is no longer in the Top 50. The other 23 are still there or thereabouts.

Which two courses fell from favour?

[Jeff Johnston]

Interesting Ally. For one, I'll have a shy at The Belfry (though I wonder if it's high point came a bit later). Interested to hear the answer(s).

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff - Not The Belfry...

And not Westward Ho! either... although that might have been my first guess.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Was one St Mellion?

No - Strictly speaking, neither was a new course although only one could be considered golden age or before... One in England, one in Ireland.

[Mike Sweeney]

It seems that golf real estate developments generally do not age well. Although I am struggling to think of an example, as the surroundings age is there not a change in the general perception of a place?

A bit part of that, as Mike Young noted earlier, is that when they open those courses have the dual benefit of beaucoup advertising dollars and a relatively pristine environment [the homes haven't been built out yet].  It's a lot different playing in Arizona once swimming pools start showing up on the edges of the fairways in place of the desert!  The build-out of the development and the decline in advertising dollars go hand in hand, so it's hard to say which has the greater significance on the decline of those courses' popularity.

John, if you think Muirfield Village has fallen out of favor, how about Troon or Desert Highlands?  Or Loxahatchee?

Those were all built in the 80's, I think, so they are probably still some original homeowners around. The question is what happens when they go through two or three cycles?

Mountain Lake is probably on cycle three or four:

• Survived the Florida boom and bust of the 1920's
• Thrived in the Roaring 30's
• Survived the war
• Thrived in the post-war
• Facilities got dated
• Redid the Colony House
• Silva redo of the Raynor Golf Course
• Established National Memberships to fill and use the Colony House
• Redo of the pool and casual outdoor dining

The ranking of Mountain Lake have never been higher and now they are starting to figure out how to integrate with Streamsong players who fit into the Mountain Lake vibe. The balance sheet is strong. They also broke up some of the old houses and broke them into 2-4 units where maintenance could be split rather than carried by one family.

With all of those changes, it still keeps a unique vibe in the world of Florida golf. Great case study for housing communities to study.

[Mike_Young]

Mike S,
Interesting that you mention Mountain Lake.  I think what has been able to recycle a few times because it is not RE driven and operates as a resort type of property.  Look what happened to the model at Sea Island when they decided to stop operating as a resort model and became a RE driven model.  Exclusivity  is earned not purchased and that is what the RE developments don't want people to know. 

[Jeff Johnston]

Hmmmm Ally. If I can have one more try, I'll have a pop at Royal Dublin for the Irish one.

[John Kavanaugh]

Shadow Creek is an interesting case. It famously debuted to huge press and even a top 10 ranking. And it's been all downhill from there.

In this case, the decline is actually almost all correction for initial over exuberance. The course hasn't changed much; the handful of people I know who have played it multiple times seem to think it's better post renovation, so that's no issue. It's not quite as exclusive as it once was, and also in the last 25 years there have been a lot of courses improbably scratched out of the desert, so while it's still the first in a lot of ways, it's not the only.

I believe that when Shadow Creek first opened it was very exclusive. I doubt that you could pay to play. Now it is just an overpriced public course.