News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2017, 08:22:07 AM »
I just played Cape Arundel. All 5985 yards of it and par 69 to boot. Too bad it is not a GD candidate course as I loved it. And the course was packed. I saw older golfers walking, I saw big young guys riding in carts, and everyone was having fun. Really cool place. So Tom, I think you do what you think is best and people will come play it. And will keep returning if you work your magic.

Or you could do something like The Shattuck and make it really hard and have ZERO repeat business, but it is a par 72.
Mr Hurricane

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2017, 08:24:38 AM »
Tom wanted to know what raters think. By the time this course is finished Digest will have their $1,000 pay to play rater recruitment fully phased in. I doubt that the type of guy who purchases status cares where the back tees are located. It's all about nuance with these guys.

I love how you lump all Digest guys into one neat little box.
Mr Hurricane

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2017, 08:37:19 AM »
Jim,


Just the unqualified new guys paying $1,000 to get the membership. Digest should do like Am Ex and sell different level cards. Gold, Platimum, Black...etc.

BCowan

Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2017, 08:42:50 AM »
It's all about nuance with these guys.


Nuance is in?  I'm not a rag rater and I love nuances.  If they do love nuances, it doesn't reflect in their lists imo

James Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2017, 08:50:07 AM »
Peter:


In the end, of course, I'm going to recommend whatever I think is the best course.  Two of the ownership team have told me consistently from day one that's all they want:  what I think is the best possible course.  However, the real money guy behind the deal is not well versed in golf, and it's he who has asked tentatively about "top 100" and all that, which is why I asked the pointed question I did.


And it still amazes me how arbitrary some of the answers are, even in these last few posts.  The idea that bumping one of the holes up from 485 yards to 505 is really significant to the overall quality of the course?  That silly tees no one will play are important for appearances?  Or that Bandon might have failed if the first course was par 69?  It's apparent tons of people are still ready and waiting to make judgments based entirely on the scorecard.  It's almost enough to make me go par-69 just out of spite, but of course, I've got a client to consider.  ;)


Of course people are ready and waiting to make judgements just from the scorecard.  Millions of people buy wine solely on price.  Just the way it is. 

Martin Lehmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #55 on: August 11, 2017, 09:11:30 AM »
If it is going to be really exclusive, I would go for the old Swinley Forest concept: no par figures and no score card. Just scenic beauty and golf course architecture of the highest possible standard.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2017, 09:18:08 AM »
Can you be really exclusive new course without the high ranking? Do like Friars Head and have a guardian of the gate who only allows like minded raters to visit. Threads like this are one way to weed out the bad apples.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2017, 09:21:43 AM »

Golf needs more options and more variety ..... par 70 one day, different tees and par 68 the next day.
I do not see a problem.


I agree, but then why do so many courses move the pins back when tees are moved up?  Is playing to the advertised yardage that important in establishing a handicap?  Hole length probably doesn't affect putts and short game where is where most handicaps rise and fall.  I have even had members question that as in, "That hole is always driver, 6 iron, see no need to make me use different clubs each day!)


Back to TD's original post, as mentioned, most golfers think of yardage as if its a par 72, and I have had course pros tell me they lose business if listed at 6600 because golfers think its short, when in reality it plays 100 to 400 yards longer.  How you get to the lower par of 70 makes a difference.  If


If you have the 4-12-2 rotation and merely call the two shortest par 5 holes par 4, its a harder course to make par on.


If you get par 70 with 5-10-3, replacing one par 5 with one par 3, its effectively 250-350 yards longer.  I would recommend the informational tag lines convey that.


Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2017, 09:57:08 AM »
If it is going to be really exclusive, I would go for the old Swinley Forest concept: no par figures and no score card. Just scenic beauty and golf course architecture of the highest possible standard.
Reminds me of the film "Airplane" when they turned off the runway lights.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2017, 10:14:49 AM »

I don't think anyone here would say anything about having a minimum yardage or par if we could build a course for ourselves. The arbitrary answers come cause we know what the judgment would be like from the general public. Just like I wouldn't wear a shirt with the n word on it or play music aloud on a bus. There are some things that carry a stigma in this day and age. Par 69 carries prejudice...


You might want to re-word this post in terms of what it implies you'd be wearing if no one was looking ...


I understand your point, and this is the point that bothers me most of all.  Lots of posters have basically said the same thing:  it shouldn't matter, except for all the unenlightened slobs out there, and you can't take a chance of losing their business.  It is no wonder the golf business struggles, if we continue to define the customers in the worst possible light.


The only thing I've read here that scares me are the mentions of Rye, West Sussex, and Swinley Forest.  All great courses ... all of which struggle to make the top 100 lists.  What else could we attribute that to, except discomfort over the scorecard?


On the other hand, most of this project is so far out of the box already that par probably won't matter at all to the people who pay to stay there.  So it really does just boil down to the rankings.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2017, 10:42:55 AM »
As it pertains to Par 69, vs Par 70+, I think we can take a page out of the product marketer's playbook.


When you see those commercials on TV, there's a reason they're $19.99, instead of $20.00....because perception is that the latter is far more expensive than the former, even if it they are essentially equal.


Perhaps there are a few enlightened folks who know par 69 and par 70 are also the same, but the vast majority of golfing public would think something is up.


And its not limited to just 69 vs 70.  How interested would you be to play a par 75 course?  Would you think it to be a horrific, brutish slog?

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2017, 11:07:11 AM »

On the other hand, most of this project is so far out of the box already that par probably won't matter at all to the people who pay to stay there.  So it really does just boil down to the rankings.


Keep telling yourself that. ;)

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2017, 11:28:01 AM »
On this board we're fond of saying of blind shots/holes, "It's only blind the first time you play it." I would adopt the same attitude re: your par conundrum.

At first, you may not get business from some people with a silly prejudice about not playing par-69 courses. But if the setting and the course end up being as great as you seem to think they'll be, once the people who do take that leap and play it end up loving it and telling their friends, and once the course gets a surge of positive press in the usual publications, I think the rest takes care of itself. The iconoclastic par of the course will be a centerpiece of articles written about it. It's an instant point of differentiation from literally every other high-end course people know about. That can be a powerful marketing tool if it's embraced.

Projecting forward in time, would the success of this course not perhaps free you up to do another par-69 (or even -68) course on a future project where the land dictates? Might it not make other developers you work with less uneasy about the idea?

Furthermore, if this course has the power to help soften people's prejudices about the 70/69 par barrier, it could give other developers and architects confidence in going this route if necessary. Being that land and water are ever-scarcer resources, a dynamite par-69 course uses less of both than a standard, big par-72, no?

It seems to me like the stars are as aligned as could be expected to put 69 in play as a legitimate golf course par figure. Lots of upside, IMHO, and minimal downside, both for you and for your client (worst comes to worst, you take your longest par 4 and quietly change the par to 5 and bump the course par up to 70 before the second full season, I guess).


Final point: imagine a scenario in which the resort does not succeed. Of all the main factors that could contribute to such an eventuality, how likely is it that the main culprit is the par of the golf course? In the words of one of my college coaches, "Slim and none, and Slim just left town."
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 11:29:39 AM by Tim Gavrich »
Senior Writer, GolfPass

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #63 on: August 11, 2017, 11:53:42 AM »
Excited that a Renaissance Golf Design course may be built in the oak-dotted golden foothills of central California.  I saw the pictures on Instagram.  It's the landscape that registers as home to me.  I may have to break out the Creedence Clearwater catalog and listen to an old chestnut to take me back.

I think the opposite argument is just as valid.  If this resort will be as exclusive as you say, perhaps $2-5k per day to stay and play, it could have a negative subconscious effect on evaluators.  "How much does it cost to stay here?  Well, it's not that great."

As Mose Allison says in "Young Man Blues", the old man's got all the money (and a young man, ain't got nothin' in the world these days), so I think the clientele will be older and pleased with a 6500-6700 yard course.  Of course, at that modest full yardage, the yards need to be divided up so a good player hits a few long approach shots.

Yesterday, I played an enjoyable four ball match with a good friend and his son, who both played college golf.  The son just graduated from college, and now spends a couple hours a day lifting weights.  My partner was Dusty Schmidt, a well known former pro turned online poker legend.  Dusty was out of shape and a bit under the weather, but still shot 71.  However, Scott's son Nick shot 67, and they pulled away at the end.  I was proud of myself as I played well as the "D" player in the group, breaking 80 easily and playing about the same as Scott, who is the same age as me.  It was hot, and still smoky from fires in western Canada, and the ball was flying, which the old guys feel good about themselves.

Nick got hot in the middle of the round, making four straight birdies on a tough stretch of holes.  On the slightly downhill 560 yard 7th hole, he hit the second longest tee shot I've ever seen at Pumpkin Ridge, this time without the wind helping.  He launched a slightly faded, high rocket, leaving 199 to the center.  He followed that up with a 6-iron to about 15 feet to a short pin.  On the 9th hole, he nailed another cracker, about 310-320 into a slight breeze, then wedged to 2 feet to a tough pin, for another gimme birdie.

A memorable day for me.  When I was a kid, the fathers used to play basketball on Sunday mornings with the sons at the local elementary school, from the time the fathers were much better than the boys, until the boys started to catch and surpass their dads in ability.  This is an emotionally satisfying type of group for me to play in, again a connection to home, where the old guys are compelled through pride to keep up with the youngsters on the playing field, though handicapped by a 50-100 yard disadvantage off the tee.   

Peter Pallotta

Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #64 on: August 11, 2017, 12:46:05 PM »
Nice post, John.
As Sean pointed out, a Par 70 of about 6500 yards usually means there are two fewer Par 5s and at least a couple of long hard Par 4s - both of which are just fine by me: it means two fewer of the (usually) worst and least interesting holes in all of golf, ie Par 5s, and with that less of an advantage for the longer/better golfer over the shorter/average one (the former tending to play all Par 5s exponentially better than the latter); and two more of the best/most interesting/most defining holes in all of golf, i.e. the stout Par 4.
Which is to say, if Tom D can get over the first hurdle and have the money man agree to such a course, there won't ever be a *second* hurdle: i.e. no one, not the members or the raters, will find the course easy. For this media driven day and age, the brand new 6500 yard course is a perfect idea, i.e. "an instant classic".     

Tom Bacsanyi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #65 on: August 11, 2017, 01:21:14 PM »
No shortage of opinions here, but perhaps there NEEDS to be a course that endeavors to remove the "par 69 stigma."  Perhaps this is the place.  However, I think its a big risk.  If it was my money I'd demand par 70.  But if I was the client and was fabulously wealthy, I would probably roll the dice. 


As for the discussion on "who needs par 5s anyway?" I'd have to say that the go/no-go decision on a par 5 is my favorite part of the game.  Do you go for the green?  Do you try to "half go for it" and try to leave a short pitch or chip?  Do you just lay up to your favorite yardage?  How does where the pin is cut, the lie, the wind, the hazards, etc. factor in to this decision?  To me thats one of the richest parts of golf strategy, so the less par 5s there are, the less opportunities for these decisions.
Don't play too much golf. Two rounds a day are plenty.

--Harry Vardon

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #66 on: August 11, 2017, 01:22:51 PM »
Nice post, John.
As Sean pointed out, a Par 70 of about 6500 yards usually means there are two fewer Par 5s and at least a couple of long hard Par 4s - both of which are just fine by me: it means two fewer of the (usually) worst and least interesting holes in all of golf, ie Par 5s, and with that less of an advantage for the longer/better golfer over the shorter/average one (the former tending to play all Par 5s exponentially better than the latter); and two more of the best/most interesting/most defining holes in all of golf, i.e. the stout Par 4.
Which is to say, if Tom D can get over the first hurdle and have the money man agree to such a course, there won't ever be a *second* hurdle: i.e. no one, not the members or the raters, will find the course easy. For this media driven day and age, the brand new 6500 yard course is a perfect idea, i.e. "an instant classic".   


It's an instant classic at 6500 until a testosterone charged group of "Masters of the Universe" roll in with bags full of Titanium drivers and bonus money. Then it's not at least to them and sadly it is strictly a matter of card yardage. You can't please everybody.

Peter Pallotta

Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #67 on: August 11, 2017, 01:45:41 PM »
You might be right, Tim, but I'm struck by how *few* Masters of the Universe are actually out there. Over 20+ years I've been paired up with dozens of potential candidates: they look the part, dress the part, and talk the park -- and yet I can hardly remember more than one or two who could actually *play* the part! Certainly I can't remember a single long-hitting MOTU breaking par from the 6500 yard blue (ie back) tees at my local course. That's my experience at least. Maybe I simply don't run into real/genuine MOTU. Maybe they all live in Arizona or South Florida...

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #68 on: August 11, 2017, 02:36:15 PM »
Tom,


I think an important consideration when answering your original question has to do with the "resort" aspect of the project.  If this is truly a very high end resort with many activities beside golf drawing visitors, I do believe the top 100 rating will be harder to come by. This would be regardless of the yardage or par.  In other words, I think the type of development can make that hurdle higher.


First off raters will not be seeking it out as quickly as they would a new golf focused resort course or private destination. (think Streamsong Black, Sand Valley courses, Cape Wickham, Cabot Cliffs, Tara Iti, Gamble Sands and the list goes on)  There is less likely to be the buzz created in the small circle of golf that really drives the ratings if golf is just one of the amenities. Especially of a large complex that is billing itself as high end luxury.  You could imagine a scenario where the consensus view of the development becomes, "Wow, what an over the top 5 star luxury experience in such a beautiful place!" "Oh, and the golf course they have is surprisingly good".  Because of that, it might take more time for the golf world to discover it and embrace it. 


Secondly, it seems in the last decade or so when a good course enters the rankings, it usually doesn't move up much from that initial ranking.  There are a few examples to the contrary, but they have usually debuted at least top 25 or so.  Much more difficult to crack the top 100 if you start out of the gate at 110.  If the resort aspect effects that first rating, it would be tough to overcome. It would be a shame if you created something really good and it was not ranked as high as it should be, but I think the developer needs to realize that could be the case.


Now, if they were to drop all the other amenities, scale back to modest lodging, bill it as "Golf as it should have always been in Central CA". and market the heck out of the fact that Tom Doak designed the course, then it will be a different story.  ;D ;D

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #69 on: August 11, 2017, 02:40:30 PM »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #70 on: August 11, 2017, 02:58:02 PM »

As it pertains to Par 69, vs Par 70+, I think we can take a page out of the product marketer's playbook.



Yes, but, to paraphrase my favorite book:  Marketing is bullshit.  Have you ever found anything in your life that made you truly happy, via marketing?  No.  One finds the best things in life via word of mouth.  Marketing is for those things that don't have good enough word of mouth.


P.S. to Daryl:  Are you suggesting that raters are influenced by factors outside of golf -- especially the price and type of facility?  Say it ain't so!  However, the idea that the resort these guys are building is going to hold back the ranking of the golf course is amusing, knowing what they are aiming for.  A "large complex" is not what they are after; there will be fewer rooms than Streamsong or Bandon, and only one golf course, utilizing all the best spots for golf.  And it will be a lot easier to get to than any of the places you listed, except for Streamsong.  We may not control exactly who comes to see it, as some of these places like to do, but I don't think it's going to go unnoticed.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #71 on: August 11, 2017, 03:09:03 PM »
69 has a nice ring to it. Why don't you just make that par for the course?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Greg Clark

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #72 on: August 11, 2017, 03:21:34 PM »
My question is that if the course opens with a par of 69, what is the over/under on the number of years before the card says at least 70 on it?  Anything over 5, and give me the under.


As to the original question, a par of 70 at 6,600 - 6,700 yards isn't going to stop a truly great course from getting ranked IMO. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #73 on: August 11, 2017, 04:57:28 PM »
Tom,


I agree with you in concept that most of how Marketing is done, is in fact Bullshit.  But you have a website, you write books, you have business cards, you make appearances, etc....these are all forms of marketing.  And I don't think one of the fundamental underpinnings to marketing is deriving happiness, even if its oft used as an appeal to emotion in practice.


I view it more as one of those necessary evils kind of thing....like taxes, wives, or working for the man...

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?
« Reply #74 on: August 11, 2017, 06:07:09 PM »
Quote
Ulrich:  Your comment that the course is either "lacking in variety in the par-5 department, or has too many par-3's" is odd.  How else would you get to par 69?  There are two or three par-5's [if you call the third one a par-5 at 485 yards], and five par-3's as the plan sits today.
Tom, I may have produced a misunderstanding here. What I meant is that a par 69 either has less than four par 5s or more than four par 3s or (likely) both. So you end up with a more compressed range of lengths overall. This is a challenge for variety, because length is one of the most important factors differentiating two holes.

So, I am not saying that par 69s necessarily lack variety. I am saying that they are more likely to do so compared to higher pars. Obviously, there are many great par 69s, but not as many as there are par 72s - in absolute and I believe also in relative numbers.

That being said, if you find a great par 69 course there, then by all means go for it. But if you have the room, as you say, then why not build a couple additional holes to get that 7500 yard / par 78 course?

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)