[BCowan]

There are certain under served markets that have weak quality public Golf.  There are some courses I have thought about for a few years in my home town that are in good areas that would be 5's if given some money ($500k-1.2M) in renovation work.   

     Or option B, spending up to $4 million for a 5/6, new irrigation and grasses?  I find these courses to have more potential then realized.  Has anyone in your area polished and improved a course with potential (good land/decent routing)?  The routing can be tweaked as can the course.  I am not talking about Muni's.  Privately owned public's and semi privates (Non member owned)

Doak 3- About the level of the average golf course in the world.  (Since I don't go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better, and the best)

Doak 4- A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18m or at least some scenic interest and decent golf.  Also reserved for some very good courses that are much to short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished golfers.

Doak 5- Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale.  A good course to choose if you're in the vincinity and looking for a game, but don't spend another day away from home to see it, unless your home is in Alaska. 

Doak 6- A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see.  It shouldn't disappoint you. 

  The below course is Valleywood in Toledo, OH area.  I got confirmation from another GCAer that the course is currently about a Doak 3.  However I think the course doesn't come close to utilizing it's natural features.  The trees, the narrow fairways, and too basic green designs hold it back from a 5 or possible even a 6 with full out renovation of $3.5 Million.  This calls into question another thread, public's (non Muni's) going with a full blown out renovation to increase price from $30 to $40 (25%) for great presentation and increasing annual rounds by 30%.  One of my main focuses is increasing season passes/memberships to create a culture.  The more committed golfers at $1500 a year, the more I can raise weekend non member times while providing those with great playing conditions on a traditionally routed golf course while giving the committed golfer a great value and culture!
I'd remove 90% of the trees and have one cut 50-60 yard wide Bent fairways with fescue replacing (slight sand capping of area) the rough greatly reducing mowing and water usage (Diamond Springs inspired).  The range would be optional.



New proposed routing, strategic bunkers still not complete

[Mike Nuzzo]

Very hard to change a 3 to a 5 without changing some of the routing
The circumstances or client that led to the 3 are likely still there also making it difficult
It also depends on where the $ goes - If it is to rebuild greens or replace the irrigation that will be a large part of $1M if not all

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - I don't have any examples that answer your question directly, but it brought to mind a course I play 5 times a summer or so: the 100+ year old, 9-hole Guelph Country Club (architect unknown, but for a while the club thought it might have been Stanley Thompson's brother, Nicol; Stanley himself designed -- near the end of his career/life -- Guelph's private course, the Cutten Club).  I like the course, and I'm grateful for it and for its modest green fees. The course has a compact routing, and some fine/undulating topography -- with every other shot seemingly uphill or downhill; but it has no fairway bunkers, not a single one; only a few shallow and benign greenside bunkers; and aside from one or two exceptions fairly nondescript greens. It also has an abundance of trees: when the course was built in 1912, the farmer's field was treeless; then in 1935, 6700 trees were planted, and in 1943 another 9500 seedlings were added. All of which is to say: I don't know if it is a "3" that can become a "5", but every single time I play it I can't help wondering how much more interesting and enjoyable it could be with a) some contours added to 7 (out of 9) greens, b) the addition of a few cleverly placed fairway bunkers, and the deepening of the green side bunkers, and c) a tree-thinning programme.   
I don't know what that would cost, but it might be well within the price bracket you listed. I don't think it was ever a "hidden gem", even when it was first built....but there must be hundreds of old courses just like it across North America that, to your point, could be enhanced dramatically (and relatively inexpensively) by making the greens more interesting and the bunkers both more strategic and more penal. 

Peter 

[BCowan]

Mike,

    Thanks for posting.  I amended my OP, to include tweaking the routing.  Sorry for my laziness in not changing it sooner.  Yes, I understand Irrigation is going to be the biggie.  I'd rather focus on mowing lines and removing undesirable tree species.  Less weed whipping, more hand watering to make due.  You are right about the cost of rebuilding greens.  I think just initiating strategic bunkers and lines of play could do wonders.  adding or removing bunkers.  Man made strategical ditches, ect.  grass bunkers.  Also I have found great joy in a few under watered Ma and Pa I've have played this year, so Irrigation is less focus IMO. 

Peter,

    I agree completely.  Just imagine all the gems and removing removing all the over-planted trees to start and implementing a few strategic items along the way.  Maybe fix 2-3 greens a year.  Steady as she goes.  Possibly more season passes sold? The weed whipper employee would welcome this idea

[Peter Pallotta]

You're spot on, Ben - I hadn't thought of it in exactly that way before, but if they could change a couple of greens a year I think I would indeed join up as a member. (For 90 years or so it was a private club, right in the centre of town; now it is a semi private). In the years before significant earthmoving, the architect seemed to have taken good advantage of what the land gave him (though why the total lack of bunkers and why not more interest/challenge on the greens I don't know). Just a few examples, good and not-so-good:

No 1 - a 370+ yard Par 4 where a good drive will land on a slope leaving you a downhill and sidehill lie...and an approach to a green that is as flat as a pancake.
No 2 - a 500+ yard Par 5, with a blind tee-shot over a 20-30 foot rise where a good drive leaves a blind second shot as well, down over a 20-30 foot fall off...and then to a flat green that tilts just a little back to front
No 3 - a 350 yard Par 4 that goes 30+ feet uphill and leaves a semi blind 2nd ....to a green that is as flat as a pancake
No 4 - a 420 yard Par 4 that feels longer because, though it is downhill, the fairway rises up just around the 260 mark and stops the ball dead...with a second to a pretty cool punchbowl green
(Nos 5, 6, and 7 I can hardly remember, save for the pancake greens)
No 8 - a 330 yard sharp dogleg right (around a high and natural hill, covered in trees) where the fairway runs out at about 200 yards and then turns right to a very elevated green and your second shot (after a good iron/hybrid off the tee) is from an uphill lie....to a green that is basically flat
No 9 - a similar length dogleg, but this time down into a valley and then back up to a striking two-tired green that is also highly sloped from back to front (other than at Crystal Downs, I've personally never played a green that was as sloped or as scary....and if they mowed it closer and got the speed up, it would be impossible to keep any putt from the upper tier down to the lower one on the green).

A perfect candidate, as you suggest, for slow and steady changes to some greens and bunkering that would pay big dividends I think.  Maybe few in town are interested in gca or participate here, but I think most every golfer would appreciate/recognize the added fun and challenge that these changes provided, changes that would highlight for most golfers the strengths that are already present.

Peter     

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


I'll agree with Mike N. here.  Going from a 3 to a 5 is going to take more than a bunker makeover.


The course I grew up on, Sterling Farms in CT, is a typical 3 ... a municipal course owned by the city of Stamford, designed by Geoffrey Cornish back in 1970.  Some of the fairways are too tight together ... about half the players slice into the 9th fairway off the first tee, shying away from o.b. left.  The greens are all built out of fill, and the contours are none too exciting.  They've actually changed the style of bunkering from Mr. Cornish's amoeba-like shapes, but it didn't really make much difference to how it played.


I personally don't think fairway bunkers make as much difference to the quality of a course as most others do.  They are only REALLY interesting if they sit into the topography well and are ALSO in the right places strategically ... which requires a good routing.  And green side bunkers must work hand in hand with interesting green contours in order to shine.


I'm sure there are some 3's on land with more potential than others, and nearly all of them would benefit from the removal of some clutter.  But I didn't hand out many 3's to courses that had a good routing or an interesting set of greens ... those are the two things that make a course above average, in my opinion.

[Dave Doxey]

The benefit of spending $1M on improvements to a low level public course in today's golf economy seems questionable.  Most are struggling to break even and stay open.  $1M is more that many would sell for.  There would have to be the potential of quite a few more rounds or higher fees being derived from the investment.  Taking on debt is suicide for many places.


I'm sure that there are situations that are exceptions, but not many.


(Tom, I was a regular at Sterling Farms for a couple of years in the mid 70's.)

[Tom_Doak]

The benefit of spending $1M on improvements to a low level public course in today's golf economy seems questionable.  Most are struggling to break even and stay open.  $1M is more that many would sell for.  There would have to be the potential of quite a few more rounds or higher fees being derived from the investment.  Taking on debt is suicide for many places.

I'm sure that there are situations that are exceptions, but not many.

Dave:


Your post reminded me of an exception to the rule:  Common Ground in Denver.  There, we took an old AFB course that might have been a 3 [at best] and turned it into a 6, spending $4 million that the Colorado Golf Association had saved up over ten years [so no debt].  For $4 million, we were able to completely re-route the course, build all new greens and bunkers, and install a completely new irrigation system.  We even did tree work in trade, by letting a landscape company take some of the trees in return for moving others for us.


At the other end of the scale, you can often improve a golf course significantly just by doing tree work [which is not always that inexpensive] and fixing mowing lines.  That might take you from a 3 to a 4, without spending anything close to $1 million.

[Jim Franklin]

I understand Hampden CC in Springfield Mass was not much of a course. Brian Silva was hired to restore the  bunkering. The more work he did, the more changes the owner wanted and eventually changed the entire course. And changed the name too, GreatHorse. And the work done was really good. Job well done Mr Silva.

[Tim Pitner]

Having played the old Lowry course in the Denver area, I can attest to what an incredible transformation Tom Doak and company accomplished at Common Ground.  But, to quibble a bit, Common Ground is essentially a new course, not a renovation of Lowry.  And that's probably what's required to take a 3 to a 5 or beyond in most cases.

[Jud_T]

At the other end of the scale, you can often improve a golf course significantly just by doing tree work [which is not always that inexpensive] and fixing mowing lines.  That might take you from a 3 to a 4, without spending anything close to $1 million.

This is where the real focus should be IMO.  The majority of courses I've played from lowly munis to very exclusive privates would be more fun, visually exciting, strategically improved and have better turf if they lost trees and presented the course as originally intended.

[BCowan]

Having played the old Lowry course in the Denver area, I can attest to what an incredible transformation Tom Doak and company accomplished at Common Ground.  But, to quibble a bit, Common Ground is essentially a new course, not a renovation of Lowry.  And that's probably what's required to take a 3 to a 5 or beyond in most cases.

   Tim, I have not played Common Ground but I recall people saying the land wasn't that great.  There are many courses with good land that have been jacked up at some decade in the last century.  So being blessed with great land helps.  Full renovations are fine, but they require more $$$.  Which is fine if your market is under served.  There are many instances where re-routing 2-4 holes may get an extra point out of me with a rating.  Tree removal and lines changed, firm presentation is another point for me too.  The re-routing of 2-4 holes and moving irrigation lines for those purposes, I do Not know how costly that would be.  Also making deals with Tree companies where the owner plays golf helps! 

[Dave Doxey]

I agree that there is potential for great renovations.  My concern is if the money spent can be recovered by the course owner.


Assuming that a course can sell a greens fee at an average price (including weekday rates) of $50 (a high average price in many areas), it takes 20,000 additional rounds to recover the $1M investment, without figuring in the investment interest.  I don't see a renovation easily driving that high of an increase in play.


I don't know the answer, but a lot of courses need to find a way to maintain financial sustainability.  Financially effective renovation may be part of that answer.  It would be interesting to see data on the effect of renovations on revenues.  Sort of like solar power - no argument on potential, just a question of financial paybacks.


I've recently looked at financial operating models of some courses as investment opportunities and have come away very depressed.

[BCowan]

Dave,

   I'd advocate the owner having the money in pocket to do the investment.  Plus if you did a loan it would be over 10-15 years so one didn't go bankrupt.  If your area has nothing but 10 3's and a 4, why not differentiate yourself? 

   You and others are missing out on first 2 hours reserved for season pass holders at $1500 a year pop.  Those folks pay your maint and then you can charge public more money if you have enough season pass holders (committed golfers). 

   Lets not use shitty planned failed renovations that some could say from the get go was a disaster as a means to affect our outlook.  Dave, I think public courses are way more sustainable then privates who cater now to the social golfer that leaves the joint when the economy downturns. 
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Two words come to mind off Ben's post: debt and differentiate.

I'm convinced the golfers know/appreciate a good golf course, and one that is better than the one next door. A renovation doesn't have to make a 3 into a 5 or a 4 into a 6; if you manage to turn a 2 into a 3, that is a big difference,  and will mean more rounds (take away from the neighbouring course(s) that remain 2s).

My 'home course' is a semi private built inexpensively in 1970 by 3 brothers/owners, and now run by their children (one of whom is the super - and a very good one from what I can tell). I'm told by long time members that everything was paid for and going along swimmingly until the late 1980s, when - you guessed it -- a big new clubhouse was built.

It was financed at high interest rates and there was lots of debts and acrimony and buy-outs, and then higher prices for memberships and for food and beverages and some folks stopped being members and many others curtailed their eating/drinking/socializing at the club.

It is still a good and friendly place to play, walkable and well-condition, but oh -- if they would only have spent a fraction (50%? 25%?) on renovating some greens and some bunkers instead of spending twice or four-times as much on a clubhouse that hardly anyone uses, how much better off would they have been.

Small, steady, golf-focused steps with the implicit belief that golf architecture matters, and that golf-related differentiation combined with little/no debt is they key to a good (if still modest) bottom line in both the short and long term.

Good and engaging design matters to all golfers, I'm convinced of that -- even if they don't have the language to express it.     

[Thomas Dai]

At the other end of the scale, you can often improve a golf course significantly just by doing tree work [which is not always that inexpensive] and fixing mowing lines.  That might take you from a 3 to a 4, without spending anything close to $1 million.

This is where the real focus should be IMO.  The majority of courses I've played from lowly munis to very exclusive privates would be more fun, visually exciting, strategically improved and have better turf if they lost trees and presented the course as originally intended.

+1........and probably even more so if they looked closely at the bunkering and turned those bunkers no longer appropriately positioned into hollow-like grass bunkers.


Keep things simply, hire good maintenance staff and don't take out any loans to finance 'course improvements'.


Atb

[Alex Miller]

I think Todd Eckenrode's work (don't know the budget but likely in this range) at Brentwood CC in Los Angeles would qualify.


1 or two re done greensites, tree removal, some bunker work, and better maintained barranca's moved the course from a high 3 to a solid 5.

[Dave McCollum]

When these threads come up, I usually jump in because the discussion is about courses like ours, although our market is not underserved:  we probably have about 5 times the number of golf courses, on a per capita basis, than the North American average.  We won’t have an official Doak rating until this fall—unless Tom wants to give us a preview (please!).  My not unbiased guess would put it at a 4, primarily because of a spectacular setting.  The course is a privately owned public.  With work and investment, it could be much better.  We have good bones.  My primary reason for being a participant of this site is to learn a bit about architecture in order to explore possible improvements.  This began before 2008 rather enthusiastically and has been tempered significantly in the years since.  Dave D. is correct, the renovation we planned just doesn’t pencil out in our market and we don’t have a couple of million dollars laying around to do it right, however much fun it would be to make it a 6.  The dream survives, but not as something we could easily do without a lot of non-golf development of other resources (all with their own significant risks).   

I could write a boring book about my education.  However, perhaps the most significant thing I’ve learned about golfers is that relative quality of the golf course is not the most important reason for most golfers deciding where to play.  What most golfers think of architecture or design, I would call conditioning and a lot of other things, many involving social aspects of the game.  The most important is where do your friends play?

I’m not saying golfers don’t appreciate a good course.  Most love their home course and welcome improvement and better conditioning.  I’m saying that, after much study, the return on the investment is very difficult to achieve. 

[Tom_Doak]

We won’t have an official Doak rating until this fall—unless Tom wants to give us a preview (please!).  My not unbiased guess would put it at a 4, primarily because of a spectacular setting.

Dave:


I gave Canyon Springs a 5, and the course across the river a 6.  Maybe I was being generous?  There is still time to change it ... the book goes to press next week so that it will ship in early October.  Let me know if you want me to lower expectations until the renovation! 

[Dave McCollum]

Tom,

Of course not!  I'm not a rater.  My lower rating was just a precaution against homer bias within the context of this thread.  I'm thrilled.  I didn't want to spoil your experience by asking about what you were seeing when we were going around.  Play golf and enjoy it.  And later it was more important just to chat with a new friend than dwell on my own back yard.  I wasn't paying for professional advice and assumed that you get way too many requests for free consultations. 
 
I admit it's been killing me for the last year waiting for your review.  So, thanks for at least the number grades.  I still look forward to reading your thoughts.  Sadly, my friend Bill, who loved this canyon golf and played with us, passed away this spring.  He would have been thrilled, too, that you thought so highly of it.  I know you contributed a highlight to his last year by letting us tag along.  Thanks especially for that.  It meant a lot to him to meet one of his heroes.       

[Paul Gray]

I do wonder if there's a transatlantic difference here. I can think of any number of disappointing 3's here which could be transformed into 5's with fairly moderate work. Trees, fairway lines and some more intelligent bunkering would seem to be the areas generally lacking.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dave - you've been under-selling your course around here for almost a decade. I'm glad the truth has finally come out. Let me guess: you were an advertising executive who got burned out, and ever since then you've been into *anti-marketing* 

[Sean_A]

I really don't know the relative doak scores, but there is no doubt that better vegetation management, fairway widening and shorter grass around greens would do wonders for a huge percentage of courses of all qualities.


Ciao

[Dave McCollum]

Dave - you've been under-selling your course around here for almost a decade. I'm glad the truth has finally come out. Let me guess: you were an advertising executive who got burned out, and ever since then you've been into *anti-marketing* 

Peter,

We are just an affordable local course with our fair share of regional curb appeal because of the spectacular landscape.  We sit alongside a river at the bottom of 500 foot deep canyon with a highway bridge spanning the canyon rim to rim above us and various tourist overlooks for photographing an awesome work of nature.  Only 5 minutes from motels, food, and town, it offers golfers a blimp-view temptation to play in an unique environment.

Good guess, close, but no cigar.  In a former life, I was an photographer (doing mostly print advertising and commercials).  Also a producer for the same, so some marginal business sense.  Based in LA, we worked mostly on location, thus I was lucky enough to get out of town frequently and see a lot of spectacular places around the world.  If we could duplicate this landscape near a populated area, we would be obligated to make the golf as good as it can be and not fret about how to pay for it.  However, if it were near, say, LA instead of the middle of nowhere, it wouldn't be a golf course.  Somebody would turn it into Universal City.                 

[Sven Nilsen]

Dave:


Sometimes the middle of nowhere is just where you want to be.


Your post and Tom's response might be my favorite exchange of the year around here.


All the best,


Sven

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()