[Mike_Young]

Is it responsible to convince a club or course they need a USGA green construction to keep bentgrass when a no-tlll bermuda may be a much cheaper way  or say spend $300,000 on a bunker system when they can replace the sand  as needed within a few problem areas for much much less?   

I’ve been reading a few of the other topics lately that refer to  “ The future?”,  “when did it change?”and few others.  All of this got serious back around 1949 and then when the boom hit in the late 80’s the tail began to wag the dog and has continued.  The industry and the national associations do their best to control the entire game for all courses .  But simply put they are irresponsible.   They have taken the old saying “ great is the enemy of good”  and used it to their advantage throughout.   Take the proV1x…how many people could actually play a ball half the price and not know the difference?  Most could.  Yet we all have to buy the ball.  And when it comes to construction they have gone into the private clubs where cost is looked at as what it cost the individual member.  (Example:  a million dollar redo divided by 500 members is a $2000 cost)  and convinced them there is only one way.  While they thrive it has broken many a club.  It’s wrong to sell a $300,000 bunker redo or a $700,000 green redo to a club or course knowing it could break the place.   

We are seeing a different product now because people have figured out there is nothing wrong with design/build instead of separating out the design and the build.  That is the biggest single thing to change the modern product. 

Who cares if Merion spends $15 million.  They can.  Industry loves it.  The industry knows  two things about selling to golfers and especially private clubs.  1.  The board doesn't know what it doesn't know until it knows what it didn't know.  2.  The supt at the nicer private clubs wants the best.  It keeps him moving forward.  As it does the architect who does such projects.    All of this is not a problem for the few top clubs in each state  but it becomes a huge problem when the boards at other clubs are convinced by their buddies on the boards of these elite clubs  that the way they did it is the only way.   Seems we continue to just come up with things to make it cost more...oh well...

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

or say spend $300,000 on a bunker system when they can replace the sand  as needed within a few problem areas for much much less?   

You can, but even you know that's a band aid.
What you do, depends on how long do you want the work to last?
I don't plan to go back.


And yes, it also depends on what the club can afford to do.
I will council a club to defer work or do less ... or not do anything.

[Thomas Dai]

Out of curiosity, at private members clubs in N America where does the money come from for the kind of projects, upgrades etc mentioned above?
Bank loans? Out of members pockets? Other sources?
Atb

[Ken Moum]

Out of curiosity, at private members clubs in N America where does the money come from for the kind of projects, upgrades etc mentioned above?
Bank loans? Out of members pockets? Other sources?
Atb

Out of member's pockets ultimately. But most of the clubs I've looked at are carrying some kind of loan.


At the club I was most recently a member of, it was a $1.1 million loan made in 1988 that finally broke the club in about 2010.  After all those years, the club's mortgage was still over $950,00 and the banks finally said, Enough.


At my mother's club, the  board wanted to build a new clubhouse, but the ageing membership voted it down, because they didn't want to pay a $10,000 assessment.


So they "remodeled" it.  After demo there was about 20 feet of wall left standing on a concrete slab.  Two years later the new clubhouse was up, and the members had a choice of paying up, or "financing" it  with the club over something like 18 years.


Because of the  trouble we had, I looked at the tax returns of a lot of the famous clubs in the U.S.  (They are public information because most are non-profits, file a  990 form.)


I was astonished at the debt some of them were carrying.


K

[Terry Lavin]

Fiscal responsibility is anathema to the “successful” or “thriving” US private club. Spendthrift sailors in pursuit of every expensive trend available. It drives me crazy.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

or say spend $300,000 on a bunker system when they can replace the sand  as needed within a few problem areas for much much less?   

You can, but even you know that's a band aid.
What you do, depends on how long do you want the work to last?
I don't plan to go back.


And yes, it also depends on what the club can afford to do.
I will council a club to defer work or do less ... or not do anything.

Ian,

You explain in a different way what I'm trying to say.  Except I don't call it a band-aid.  I call it a practical solution for many places.  Sure if a club can afford such then fine but it's really no dfferent than putting a slate roof on a $250,000 house for some of these places.   
A bunker is the most expensive shot to maintain in golf if you let it be.  Look at it like this:  a 95 shooter has 18 tee shots, 41putts, 30 approach shots of some kind 4 bunker shots and 2 penalty strokes.  Before we came up with all the modern bunker solutions people just made it work and all it had to be was good.  Now so many think if they don't make it great instead then they have done something wrong.  They haven't. 

Hope all is well there in Canada.

[Mike Sweeney]

Who cares if Merion spends $15 million.  They can.  Industry loves it. 

I care.


I know they (Merion) can, and probably can spend even more.


The "Industry" can stick it


Put me in charge and I make a deal with Gil Hanse, the USGA, and the City of Philadelphia:


Gil: You get the Merion job, but you have to to do the Cobbs Creek job gratis.


USGA: You put up $1 million, we (Merion) will put up $2 million for a Cobbs Creek renovation, and USGA you commit to 1) A contract to hold the US Women's Open at Merion, 2) A real look for a US Open at Merion post-renovation, and 3) A Public Links (maybe Mid-Am) at the new Cobbs Creek.


Philly: You kick in the balance for the Cobbs Creek renovation with the promise that the hotels and events for the USGA tournaments will be 80% held/hosted in Philly with the tax revenues to support the taxpayers.


Mike: I will get the Merion renovation done for $10 million.


Now that is all fancy talk from a GCA poster, but Merion HAS the clout to pull something like this off. They could make a real difference for golf in Philly and create a real public-private partnership that would serve golf well in this next generation of golf. But instead they go for the cliche faster flatter greens in the hope that the USGA will throw a tournament their way post-renovation.

[Mike_Young]

Who cares if Merion spends $15 million.  They can.  Industry loves it. 

I care.


I know they (Merion) can, and probably can spend even more.


The "Industry" can stick it


Put me in charge and I make a deal with Gil Hanse, the USGA, and the City of Philadelphia:


Gil: You get the Merion job, but you have to to do the Cobbs Creek job gratis.


USGA: You put up $1 million, we (Merion) will put up $2 million for a Cobbs Creek renovation, and USGA you commit to 1) A contract to hold the US Women's Open at Merion, 2) A real look for a US Open at Merion post-renovation, and 3) A Public Links (maybe Mid-Am) at the new Cobbs Creek.


Philly: You kick in the balance for the Cobbs Creek renovation with the promise that the hotels and events for the USGA tournaments will be 80% held/hosted in Philly with the tax revenues to support the taxpayers.


Mike: I will get the Merion renovation done for $10 million.


Now that is all fancy talk from a GCA poster, but Merion HAS the clout to pull something like this off. They could make a real difference for golf in Philly and create a real public-private partnership that would serve golf well in this next generation of golf. But instead they go for the cliche faster flatter greens in the hope that the USGA will throw a tournament their way post-renovation.

I know you care but with those types of clubs it all comes down to weiner measuring.    You will not change that.  Think about this.  Once they start there will be another...this isn't their last...

[Mike Sweeney]

I know you care but with those types of clubs it all comes down to weiner measuring.    You will not change that.  Think about this.  Once they start there will be another...this isn't their last...

"It’s time to wake up.

I believe in Americans. We’re capable of better. I’ve seen it. We’re hopeful, compassionate people. And we still have leaders who will uphold the values that made America great, and a beacon to the oppressed."

_________________________
Perhaps I was inspired by watching John McCain's speech at The Naval Academy from Monday night


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R76xXnNhfYE


I do know many Merion members (and some Cobbs Creek afficionados) want to do the right thing in the golfing world. Maybe that means it happens in other ways than outlined above. I told a friend last night about a different topic: "I am cool being The Village Idiot"


My next trip to Philly will be with 4400 Midshipmen in December, so I am not worried about a bunch of Philly golf dudes taking me out!!

[Sean_A]

Mike

All the whingeing in the world is not going to stop "keeping up with the Joneses".  I would think a company which leaves a trail of busted clubs for work which is unaffordable will be caught out...eventually.  I take your point though, I am constantly amazed when I see bunker work being done instead of greens being better drained or trees removed to allow better for better turf.  Bunkers should be near the bottom of the list to spend real money on.

Ciao 

[Thomas Dai]

In some parts of the world I'd be rather worried if a club I was a member of wanted to take out a big long term load to spend loads of £$ on an extensive "big spray" irrigation system. Spending £$ on a water capturing, usage saving or re-using system or modifications to the course such that less water is needed might inspire different thoughts.
And, for example, a rolled-back ball would mean a smaller overall playing surface so less area to be watered.
atb

[archie_struthers]

 




Mike Young and Thomas Dai definitely get it .  If we spent more time making sure our members enjoy the experience when they are at the club we would be so much better off. 


Get more members at a good price, keep it fun . Let them play 5 if they play fast . With more members you get better employees as they make more money .  Don't forget these employees , communicate with them , explain that while they might not have the highest paying job they are important.  People appreciate their efforts . Teach them why little things are important .  Know your clientele , try to anticipate their needs !


Keep the middle,of the steak at a perfect temperature , cut the rest short and keep,it neat and clean . Spend money on greens and surrounds , they are the key to good conditions overall.


Keep it firm and fast . Invest in a superintendent who understands this and communicate with him /her.  Get to know his staff and thank them for their hard work . Teach them what is important to golfers.  Make sure no one walks past a styrofoam cup or piece of trash on the course. Keep it neat and clean !!!


I played with a good friend the other day , excellent player. . Short hitter with special skills around the green .  He hit an awful shot (unusual for him ) way right and long on a short par four , our 14 th hole. Heard him grumbling about no grass where he hit it . It was way out of play 20 yards long and 20 right of the green. He's infected as many of us get . I have had it lately because of my lack of skill the last few years, and not appreciating how hard the game is, even though I've been educated .


Have fun , keep the course playable , and really eschew the big projects for more cost effective amenities . Mike Young makes a great point here that we should embrace.


p.s.


I'm not saying Sweeney's idea is bad at all , but if the USGA built a shrine to sustainability and responsible maintenance practices at Cobb's Creek it would be a good lesson learned

[Mike_Young]

Mike

All the whingeing in the world is not going to stop "keeping up with the Joneses".  I would think a company which leaves a trail of busted clubs for work which is unaffordable will be caught out...eventually. 

Ciao

Sean,

You are putting words in my mouth.   I'm not condemning companies who perform the various overly expensive construction methods usually backing the improvement with claims of how much it will save in labor etc.  They have a niche.  But don't go and convince an entire unknowing base that any other way is wrong.  We saw it with USGA greens for years...not so much lately.   Another way of putting this would be to ask you if you thought Scotty Cameron or Karsten Solheim was the better putter designer.  The putter industry has been screwing golf for a few years now while people smile and pay it.  Karsten came up with a design in the Anser putter and Cameron just took it and put it on a CNC machine with some nice painting, milled face and some weights and took it to $350.  Same thing happens in design and construction.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original Anser putter.  But people will buy the Cameron.  It doesn't make them putt better.  I go back to great being the enemy of good.  It's killing this game....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I don't disagree with your basic premise, but also would never apply any blanket program for golf courses.  And, IF the associations are trying to prescribe one expensive way as the only way to things, then a pox on their houses.  However, I think your opinion is mostly assumption.  And, I think apply what is happening to the 1% clubs to the rest of the golf industry is largely overplayed, at least for your and my typical client.


When I make presentations to superintendents, yes, I put up the USGA/ASGCA life cycle chart, but quickly explain that in my experience, only high end clubs replace things that often, and most are in the same position as you are, ...."make do, use it up, wear it out, then we will spend capital dollars."


As with most architects, my master plans and studies are now an exercise in cost value options.  If an improvement (say bunker liner) cost $60K a year in short term debt, but saves $80K in washout raking (as I found in one study) its certainly not irresponsible to specify or recommend that more expensive option.


In another recent study on an old course with topsoil greens, we costed and estimated lifespan of XGD drainage, California Greens and USGA greens, estimating (which can skew numbers) that XGC would last 10 years, and then require replacement at some point, CA would last 20, and USGA would last 25 (following the chart, supplemented by inspection and soil testing, for lack of a true crystal ball.)  Given the assumption that the XGD greens would eventually be replaced sooner, California Greens came out the financial winner in that race when considering the long term costs.  It may turn out that the super goes USGA greens when rebuilding time comes, or funding falls through and they rely on XGD until they can't anymore, but we certainly laid out true long term costs in a responsible way.


I have to believe most of the industry does the same and are conscientious about spending money wisely, with a few (always highly publicized) exceptions.  Calling more expensive solutions "overly expensive" without knowing the particulars isn't a good idea in my experience.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


As to putters, the true revolution was whoever put grooves, bumps or other non-smooth surface on putter blades.  I visited "The Kingdom" when working at LaCosta, and got on the putting monitor.  The rough faced putter surfaces increased smooth roll, topspin, and reduce skittering significantly.


It might be an even more significant game improvement advancement than big drivers or Pro V 1, if only chicks dug the long putt as much as they dig the long ball......


And speaking of Pro V 1, I saw the consumer reports study on golf balls showing the Nike Power Soft was within 1% performance of the big name balls and have played that ever sense.  Pay half the price to get 99% of distance, feel, etc? I know value when I see it.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


 if only chicks dug the long putt as much as they dig the long ball......

Harvey tells me chicks like anything long..

[Ben Sims]

No need to raise taxes. Just tell rich white dudes that their club's greens are underperforming and their bunkers aren't draining. Best wealth redistribution plan out there.

[Dave McCollum]

I’m in a bit of culture shock over this thread.  At our course, we rake our bunkers only if they are really bad, which isn’t very often.  Also, all of the bunkers are original, some over 40 years old.  Yes, we put sand in when needed, do some maintenance, and are in area where the annual rainfall is less than 10 inches.  Why rebuild?  We’ve never had a golfer complain about bunkers not being raked.  They’re hazards, don’t hit it there.  They get it.

Maybe we just realize we can’t do more than we can afford.  We’re an OK course—Doak gave it a 5—but this isn’t rocket science:  look at your numbers and provide the golf you can.   Maybe it’s different at a private club, but surely there must be some folks with business sense in the membership.

[Joe Hancock]

....but surely there must be some folks with business sense in the membership.

And you were being so sensible up to this point.....

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, at the high end, much of this is driven by rankings.  Three new courses in the top 50 means your great old course just fell three places in the rankings ... and if it actually fell five spots because of an additional rounding error, that's like the sky is falling at a course that used to be in the top 50.


I've generally tried my best to talk my consulting clients out of things they don't need to do.  Seems like I'm an outlier in that regard.

[Rick Lane]

Unfortunately, at the high end, much of this is driven by rankings.  Three new courses in the top 50 means your great old course just fell three places in the rankings ... and if it actually fell five spots because of an additional rounding error, that's like the sky is falling at a course that used to be in the top 50.


I've generally tried my best to talk my consulting clients out of things they don't need to do.  Seems like I'm an outlier in that regard.

Boy is that right.  At my club, there is a current obsession with rankings in the state if not the region.  Their rationale is that we need to compete for members in these lean times.   I have no idea whether the next potential member cares about that, though, it seems too simplistic? 

[Dave McCollum]

Although no longer a member, I'm somewhat familiar with the our nearby private club.  They may not have enough rich people, so the board members are just largely successful business people.  One of my best friends, a banker, who was on the board and president, knows how to read financial statements.  I'll take your word for the lack of such elsewhere.

[BCowan]

....but surely there must be some folks with business sense in the membership.

And you were being so sensible up to this point.....

 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I don't know about you but most of the courses I get to work on are not trying to be recognized as the best course in the country or in the state or even in the county.  Most are often just trying to survive and give their golfers/members a product that they enjoy and want to keep coming back to play.  While most are private they are still on tight budgets and chip away in small increments as money becomes available at recommendations in a master plan.  We might add some forward tees, rebuild some troublesome bunkers, expand shrinking greens, tweak grassing lines, manage trees, ...   It is all done in a controlled and financially responsible way (at least that is my recommendation if I have any say).  I like to think we've helped a lot of clubs make smart decisions with their course  "improvements" and spending.  I've been lucky to work on some premier clubs as well but even here the premise is to do the right thing for the club and for the golf course.  Money is almost always a concern.

[Thomas Dai]

Committees/Boards have a tendency, often ego or vanity driven, to be pretty good at spending other peoples money, ie the members money, sometimes even without referral to the members.
A private members club really ought to have a clause in their constitution specifying a reasonable financial or the like threshold above which projects cannot be committed without the approval of the members.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()