[Thomas Dai]

Very nice post Dave. Mainstream reality/expectations vrs desires and/or wishful thinking by a few, inc me. Sad though in some respects.
atb

[Paul Gray]

Reality bites.

But we are where we are and at least we've gone someway to establishing that the current state of things is a result of personal preference,  rather than a need to suddenly water the planet a lot more. This is ultimately a good thing as we can change perceptions but not the sky.

[Dave McCollum]

I know this thread has probably run its course, but I should add we have a lot of water.  So much, in fact, that we use it first to grow fish (tilapia) before pumping it on the course.  A lot of fish, 500,000 lbs. a year of healthy protein.  Its way more profitable than the golf (not).  We also generate electricity with the water, an amount about equal to what we consume including the irrigation pumps.  Even with these natural resources, it's still difficult to make money.  I'm very open to sensible, sustainable ideas and have spent many years putting my money where my mouth is.

We're also quite comfortable as a supplier of affordable golf for the average Joe and Jane.  Have a couple of hundred kids in our junior program.  When I called our golfers unsophisticated, I mean no disrespect.  It's the golf they know.  They don't travel for golf.  They have never seen nor considered the type of golf we talk about here.  Frankly, most of them could not afford to broaden their horizons and play the courses we admire.  That doesn't mean they don't love their golf as much as any other golfer.  They are great folks and keeping them happy isn't a bad thing.  We probably have over 100 golfers that play more golf than most on this site--100+ rounds a year.  It is not sad for them. 

I don't post much, so thanks for the nice remarks.  I'm just as much a dreamer and romantic as many of you.  I personally prefer firmer and faster golf, golf that makes me think to solve the puzzles, and I am very much in favor of a scruffier, less manicured, less expensive, version of the game.  I love links golf.  I'm a realist only because I have to be.  Even if I often rain on your parades, I'm as big a golf nutcase as anyone here.  Sorry.         

           

[Paul Gray]

Thanks Dave. Two outstanding posts and therein acknowledgement that you can't force people to look to the top courses of the world for inspiration but you can't blame the sky either. I've been saying for a long time that the argument which so many declare has already been won is only just beginning in the world of everyday golf and your posts point to that fact very well.

 

[Dave McCollum]

One can only hope you are correct that we’re at the beginning of shift in the mind set of everyday golfers.  My view is myopic and based on a very a very limited culture of rural American golfers that think we should be in the grass growing business, green is beautiful, etc.  Like I said, trying to be an evangelist for a more sensible and sustainable aesthetic is bad for business.  We don’t cave in completely to what the customers think they want—soft overwatered greens, for example—and have learned to accept that the course will change with the seasons and offer a variety of playing conditions.  However, we’ve also learned that when we back off the water during our hot summers, intentionally or by circumstance, the majority (or the vocal minority) of our customers interpret it as a poor conditioning practice.  It’s not logical and very frustrating for me.  More like some article of faith that can’t be debated reasonably.  Unfortunately, they vote with their wallets and we see the effect on the bottom line.  When one regular leaves, they lobby hard for their golf buddies to follow.     

We’re a public course and word of mouth about the condition of the course has a powerful influence on the business.  I’m not saying we’re some high end, meticulously maintained course.  We just an average golf course (with good bones) and in our market maintain the course to just an acceptable standard, which I’m certain is well below the norm everywhere else.  We are sand based and could set things up differently.  Instead, we’ve learned to play the hand we’re dealt.  As is evident from my remarks, this is a tender spot in my subjective view of golf and, for better or worse, know how much better we could be.  Paying for it is market-driven matter that I don't feel we can control as much as I might like.  I could go on forever about this topic.  As a matter of fact, I just have done so and will now shut up.   

[BCrosby]

Dave -

I can guess what your golfers thought about the US Open set-up at Pinehurst last summer.  Trying to get the retail guy to accept that golf can be more fun and less expensive if we can get past the lush green 24/7/365 thing was the USGA's goal. That means seeing 'brown' not as signaling a lack of money or incompetence, but rather as the intended maintenance outcome. 

I don't need to tell you that is an uphill fight. Many golfers will never come around.

When a player's first comment about a course is about its conditioning, I have often written him off as missing other, more interesting questions. But I'm beginning to think that conditioning IS the most important thing to many retail golfers; that they aren't missing anything; that a taste for firm and fast is one few golfers have the inclination to acquire; that the "walk in the park" aspect of golf is a big deal and we overlook it at our peril.   

Bob

   

[Brent Hutto]

Bob,

Conditioning is absolutely the most important element in my enjoyment of a golf course. The fact that my "conditioning" ideal is something other than lush, soft and wet doesn't change the fact that a mediocre or worse golf course in perfect "condition" is more fun than the greatest course in the world in unsuitable "condition".

Different golfers are looking for different types of "condition" but very, very few consider other elements of the course more important.

[Lou_Duran]

Bob,

Conditioning is absolutely the most important element in my enjoyment of a golf course. The fact that my "conditioning" ideal is something other than lush, soft and wet doesn't change the fact that a mediocre or worse golf course in perfect "condition" is more fun than the greatest course in the world in unsuitable "condition".

Different golfers are looking for different types of "condition" but very, very few consider other elements of the course more important.

Well, Brent, I guess that you just aren't a "proper" golfer.  But you redeem yourself a bit by being a walker, so you're not that other type, "the retail guy".  Of course, if you had a fat ass, rode a cart, kept a six-pack of beer iced in the cooler, and played at Alotian, you'd be among the worst of kinds, a "white, rich, cart-baller".  Mount a couple speakers on the dash and turn on some good country and western from your 5-hour long playlist and there is no hope for you.  You're just vermin. 

Me, I don't need the grass under my ball to be green and lush.  But I do prefer that it be on something resembling plant material as opposed to a dirt or sand-filled divot.  At some of the courses I play, these are the two choices.  Blessed are those who get to enjoy fine architecture and the maintenance meld to promote it.  A relative few they are.

[Paul Gray]

Bob,

Conditioning is absolutely the most important element in my enjoyment of a golf course. The fact that my "conditioning" ideal is something other than lush, soft and wet doesn't change the fact that a mediocre or worse golf course in perfect "condition" is more fun than the greatest course in the world in unsuitable "condition".

Different golfers are looking for different types of "condition" but very, very few consider other elements of the course more important.

Well, Brent, I guess that you just aren't a "proper" golfer.  But you redeem yourself a bit by being a walker, so you're not that other type, "the retail guy".  Of course, if you had a fat ass, rode a cart, kept a six-pack of beer iced in the cooler, and played at Alotian, you'd be among the worst of kinds, a "white, rich, cart-baller".  Mount a couple speakers on the dash and turn on some good country and western from your 5-hour long playlist and there is no hope for you.  You're just vermin. 

Me, I don't need the grass under my ball to be green and lush.  But I do prefer that it be on something resembling plant material as opposed to a dirt or sand-filled divot.  At some of the courses I play, these are the two choices.  Blessed are those who get to enjoy fine architecture and the maintenance meld to promote it.  A relative few they are.

On the contrary, Brent is welcome to join the apparently now elitist brigade that like, where possible, an unassuming golf course at £20 a pop. I had no idea until you skillfully pointed it out to me that some of us were doing a 'prince amongst the people' routine. How very noble of us. Mind you, I would have to draw the line at associating with the beer swiling white trash you referred to. 

[Paul Gray]

Dave,

Not that I'm questioning your business decisions because I'm pretty sure I'd do exactly the same as you if I were in your position but have you ever tried promoting it as a sign of quality or authenticity in some way? I don't know but something like the whole Scottish style thing that I believe often gets slung about or  maybe 'as seen at Pinehurst.' Just wondered.

[Thomas Dai]

Some fine thoughts have been posted by Dave above nicely explaining the dilemma herein.

It would be interesting, as an almost but not entirely acedemic exercise, to see what the reaction would be from the players-customers-clients, and the owner/operator too, if one 9 on an 18-hole course was watered heavily and was lush and green and the other-9 was prepared as firm and fast and brown.

Let's call them the 'green-9' and the 'brown-9'.

We can all prejudge from a distance, but I wonder which 9 would be preferred initially and then in the longrun by the majority of players-customers-clients and owner/operators?

Would it be the 'green-9' or would it be the 'brown-9'?

Would the majority preference change if the 'green-9' were more expensive to play and the 'brown-9' cheaper?

You could also of course have an 18-hole lush 'green' course and an 18-hole f&f 'brown' course if there are two similar standard courses at one location.

Just curious.

atb

[Paul Gray]

Some fine thoughts have been posted by Dave above nicely explaining the dilemma herein.

It would be interesting, as an almost but not entirely acedemic exercise, to see what the reaction would be from the players-customers-clients, and the owner/operator too, if one 9 on an 18-hole course was watered heavily and was lush and green and the other-9 was prepared as firm and fast and brown.

Let's call them the 'green-9' and the 'brown-9'.

We can all prejudge from a distance, but I wonder which 9 would be preferred initially and then in the longrun by the majority of players-customers-clients and owner/operators?

Would it be the 'green-9' or would it be the 'brown-9'?

Would the majority preference change if the 'green-9' were more expensive to play and the 'brown-9' cheaper?

You could also of course have an 18-hole lush 'green' course and an 18-hole f&f 'brown' course if there are two similar standard courses at one location.

Just curious.

atb

Thomas,

That would be interesting.

I suspect for any chance of brown being voted the winner you'd actually have to charge more for it because only then would people potentially question their concept of what was good.

[Jon Wiggett]

I have found that when I take the time to explain the concept of my course. Point out the consequences of the concept on the presentation/conditioning of the course and the green fee costs 99% get it. I even suspect several of my regulars have brought other players along so as to be able to enthuse about where they play explaining the concept in depth.

I have had the experience when talking to other golfers about courses doing ridiculous discounting that although they like the lower cost they then hold the club as struggling and the discount as a sign of desperation.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

I like what I might term your 'reverse logic' description Paul. A certain irony to it. And Jon's explanation position in most interesting too.

Not the same thing as discounting but money does talk with consumers-clients.

The price of playing this course as a 'green course' is X+Y.

The price of playing it as a 'brown course' is X.

atb

[BCrosby]

Brent says:

"Different golfers are looking for different types of "condition" but very, very few consider other elements of the course more important."

When most people say "conditioning" you can almost always safely assume it is meant as shorthand for "lush green conditions wall-to-wall at all times". Few golfers seek out firm and fast. You, me and others on this board are a distinct minority.

I agree that very few consider other elements of the course important. But isn't that a shame? The architecture of a golf course, the arrangement of its features, are meant to tell a story. With just a light dusting of knowledge about golf architecture, reading that story ought to be one of pleasures of playing the game. It rarely is, however. I'm not yet cynical enough to not find that puzzling.

Bob   

[Jon Wiggett]

Bob,

when people say conditioning most UK golfers mean the greens in my experience.

Jon

[JMEvensky]

Brent says:

"Different golfers are looking for different types of "condition" but very, very few consider other elements of the course more important."

When most people say "conditioning" you can almost always safely assume it is meant as shorthand for "lush green conditions wall-to-wall at all times". Few golfers seek out firm and fast. You, me and others on this board are a distinct minority.

I agree that very few consider other elements of the course important. But isn't that a shame? The architecture of a golf course, the arrangement of its features, are meant to tell a story. With just a light dusting of knowledge about golf architecture, reading that story ought to be one of pleasures of playing the game. It rarely is, however. I'm not yet cynical enough to not find that puzzling.

Bob   

I think it's even worse than this. For too many golfers,the golf course is judged solely on its aesthetics. You can preach playability,turfgrass health,water conservation,and/or anything else and it goes in one ear and out the other. The golf course must be lush emerald green or it's "poorly conditioned". It's as though the playing of the game is irrelevant.

Yes,I'm more cynical than you.

[Paul Gray]

Try saying:

"You know, it's only with wide open fairways, firm and fast turf and greens which don't act like sponges that you can fully experience the strategy of the game."

Just see if you even get to the end of the sentence before looking at the baffled expression on the face of whoever you're talking to and concluding that you might as well save your breath. 

[BCrosby]

JME -

I wasn't telling the truth about my level of cynicism.

Nonetheless, I do puzzle over what people experience when they play golf. If after a round their opinion of the course begins and ends with its conditioning (understood as the shorthand noted above), it suggests that their experience of the game differs from mine.

When playing, I (like many people here and elsewhere) tend to be consumed by figuring out how to get at a pin, negotiating hazards, dealing with bad lies, recovering from trouble and so forth. One of the reasons I play golf is because  dealing with such golfing issues really does consume me.  For several hours it takes me away from everyday worries about other, more real issues. (Which is a lot of fun.)  I think of the quality of a golf course as being to some extent a function of how well it creates that sort of engagement.  

Those are not, however, the kinds of things that seem to register with many golfers. Whether the grass is everywhere and is green tends to be their biggest concern. It is perhaps down to my lack of imagination that I don't get that.

Bob    

[JMEvensky]

It is perhaps down to my lack of imagination that I don't get that.

    

Now you're being too cynical. You're not the one with a lack of imagination--they are.

[Brent Hutto]

For millions of people golf is a walk in a lovely green parkland during which one attempts to hit a ball in the air from Point A to Point B, interspersed with rolling the ball across a perfectly manicured grass tabletop.

If the game depended only on people who viewed it as some insanely complex and subtle puzzle for indulging their intellectual and philosophical aspirations it would have been bankrupt long ago. Or never gotten off the ground to start with.

Sometimes green grass is just green grass and sometimes hitting a golf ball is just hitting a golf ball. There's no natural law saying it has to involve beard pulling, although that sort of thing is certainly allowed as well. As is riding aroiund in golf carts, fiddling around with cigars, drinking too much beer and many other non-essential elaborations of the game.

[Steve Okula]

For millions of people golf is a walk in a lovely green parkland during which one attempts to hit a ball in the air from Point A to Point B, interspersed with rolling the ball across a perfectly manicured grass tabletop.

If the game depended only on people who viewed it as some insanely complex and subtle puzzle for indulging their intellectual and philosophical aspirations it would have been bankrupt long ago. Or never gotten off the ground to start with.

Sometimes green grass is just green grass and sometimes hitting a golf ball is just hitting a golf ball. There's no natural law saying it has to involve beard pulling, although that sort of thing is certainly allowed as well. As is riding aroiund in golf carts, fiddling around with cigars, drinking too much beer and many other non-essential elaborations of the game.

Too true, Brent. You understand what drives the market.

[Joey Chase]

For millions of people golf is a walk in a lovely green parkland during which one attempts to hit a ball in the air from Point A to Point B, interspersed with rolling the ball across a perfectly manicured grass tabletop.

If the game depended only on people who viewed it as some insanely complex and subtle puzzle for indulging their intellectual and philosophical aspirations it would have been bankrupt long ago. Or never gotten off the ground to start with.

Sometimes green grass is just green grass and sometimes hitting a golf ball is just hitting a golf ball. There's no natural law saying it has to involve beard pulling, although that sort of thing is certainly allowed as well. As is riding aroiund in golf carts, fiddling around with cigars, drinking too much beer and many other non-essential elaborations of the game.

That is exactly what drives the market here, sadly, well said Brent

[Lou_Duran]

For millions of people golf is a walk in a lovely green parkland during which one attempts to hit a ball in the air from Point A to Point B, interspersed with rolling the ball across a perfectly manicured grass tabletop.

If the game depended only on people who viewed it as some insanely complex and subtle puzzle for indulging their intellectual and philosophical aspirations it would have been bankrupt long ago. Or never gotten off the ground to start with.

Sometimes green grass is just green grass and sometimes hitting a golf ball is just hitting a golf ball. There's no natural law saying it has to involve beard pulling, although that sort of thing is certainly allowed as well. As is riding aroiund in golf carts, fiddling around with cigars, drinking too much beer and many other non-essential elaborations of the game.

That is exactly what drives the market here, sadly, well said Brent

Why is that sad?  Why must golf be so pigeonholed, constrained?  What is wrong with someone enjoying green grass, white bunker sand, tree-lined fairways?  Golf is a "big world", or so says TE Paul.  I think he is right on.   That it can be enjoyed in so many ways is one of the things that makes the game charming and compelling.    Some folks like to study the game's history and architecture.  Others enjoy playing the back tees under the rules.  Any number roll the ball and don't keep a score.  Many like parkland courses.  Most prefer playing in warm, sunny weather with light winds.  A small number play sparingly, preferring instead to engage in "intelligent" conversation about courses they have never seen.  What's wrong with any of that?

[Brent Hutto]

Lou,

I agree it's not sad at all.

No more than it's "sad" that millions of people will be watching some mindless "reality" TV show tonight while I'm watching some obscure something or another that 99% of them wouldn't like at all.

I suppose it is sad if someone really, truly loves a style of golf course they never get to play. Heck I wish I could play off nice sand-based fescue grass 100 times a year instead of maybe six or eight. But living in the land of Bermuda grass does have its advantages, like the occasional round of shirtsleeve weather on New Years Day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()