[A_Clay_Man]

Kelly- Glad to hear you aren't involved in a lawsuit. I can see how turning down work is all but impossible. But if the numbers do support the nafariousness of housing courses, maybe they simply should not be built. The principle who pushes for the project, to line his pockets, especially in the face of adverse circumstance, is then the one who should be found liable. Not the guy he hired.

pat- Please name these "great courses" that have been on the cutting edge of architectural innovation for the last 30 years? Because I see alot of them as being a root cause for the lack of creativity, I get to express, while on the golf course. Which has directly led to a downturn in what is essentially an easy game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

How's Jupiter Hills for a quick start ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Don't know it Pat. But one uptick does not a bull market make.

Ill site the other side of the coin; Sand Hills, not a structure(other than the porch) visiable anyewhere. Wild Horse, while there will someday be houses on a very few holes the course will never resemble the "norm" for housing community courses.

I have no doubt there can be creative solutions to the problem of having a course suffer from its inclusion in a bigger overall package. Maybe this Jupiter hills is one of them. What did they do different? Was it along the lines of "the preserve" where homesites restricted the area where the house can be built so that it is not visible from the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

I could offer Old Marsh, LobLolly Pines, Pine Tree and others as examples of great golf courses within, or tied to residential communities.

Sand Hills and Wild Horse are such bad examples.
They are in the middle of nowhere, and serve no significant population base.

Who would build industrial or commercial developments there ?
And, if there is no "business" who would live there ?
And, If noone lives there, who is the golf course supposed to serve ?

Of course there are no adjancent homes, buildings or commercial structures, it's in the wilderness.

Their land costs are minimal and I would imagine that environmental and permiting issues were minimal.
Hence it was a quick, cheap and easy build.

Let's talk about golf courses near and accessable to population centers.

You do want to cater to golfers who can afford the commute don't you ?

Is Maidstone now to be denegrated because of all of the homes visible as one plays the golf course ?

Winged Foot ?
Quaker Ridge ?
GCGC ?
Baltusrol ?
Pine Valley ?
Merion ?
Westhampton ?
Pebble Beach
Riviera ?

Conversely,

Should Shadow Creek, once in the middle of nowhere, receive more credit for screening out encroaching developments through its massive perimeter containment mounding and artificially planted trees ?

[JBStansell]

Folks, what about the idea for a competition ball?  If the PGA Tour adopted it, then regular folks (particularly the better players) might start using it (to be like Tiger), the sole down side being the impact it would have on their handicap.  The USGA could mitigate this, however, by giving every course two ratings - one for play using a competition ball, and another for play using a non-competition ball.

[A_Clay_Man]

Sand Hills and Wild Horse are such bad examples.
They are in the middle of nowhere, and serve no significant population base.

Who would build industrial or commercial developments there ?
And, if there is no "business" who would live there ?
And, If noone lives there, who is the golf course supposed to serve ?

Of course there are no adjancent homes, buildings or commercial structures, it's in the wilderness.



Let's talk about golf courses near and accessable to population centers.



Is Maidstone now to be denegrated because of all of the homes visible as one plays the golf course ?

Pebble Beach


Conversely,

Should Shadow Creek, once in the middle of nowhere, receive more credit for screening out encroaching developments through its massive perimeter containment mounding and artificially planted trees ?

Pat- I thought we were looking forward to the future. So, focusing in on population centers, perpetuates a current 'market' mentality, which I choose to view as poor justification for a Golf course project. Take the city of La Quintas basterdization of the noble concept of providing golf for it's residents. Next thing you know the eyeballs and dollar signs start a flash'in and it's a 17 million $ project. JOKE.

As for your other points, I can only comment on Pebble but the homes invade the golf very little and I assume the same is true of the other courses you list.

To Shadow Creek... Is that why it was close to 50m? They had to "artificially" plant those trees?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

What's the difference in the cost of the project, if the total cost to play the golf course is the same.

Airfare, car rental, and miscellaneous costs make getting to Mullen or Bandon as expensive as a round at Shadow Creek.

Also consider the cost of time lost.

I think Mike Keiser has a brilliant idea, in a climate that will support year round play, with variations in peak versus non-peak seasons.  He is going to provide the traveling golfer with four (4) unique golfing experiences, at a spectacular site, a bluff, sitting high above the Pacific Ocean.  It will be a multi-day golf destination.  For those that seek more then golf, my guess is that the Casino 20 minutes north of Bandon will more then satisfy their needs, but, most of what you need at Bandon is self contained, lodging, food and fabulous golf.

I'm not sure that Mullen could provide the same attraction, irrespective of the quality of multiple courses, due to the difficulty and time required in getting there, and lack of nighttime activities.

Golf courses are only useful to the population if they can get to them in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.

Golf courses, built as satellites, outside of population centers, seem to be fairing well in my neck of the woods.  The average golfer isn't going to Fly and drive half way over the country for A round of golf.

[Dan Herrmann]

Seriously - if you want to "bring back" the older courses:
1.  Set up the greens to stimp 8-9 just like the old days.

2.  Don't over manicure the courses - let them be a little ratty (see the original SWWOG on the Golf Channel to see what I mean)

3.  Narrow the fairways.

4.  Make the bunkers real hazards - make the sand fluffy, mudlike, or hard.

5.  Lastly, play off rye/bluegrass fairways, and cut them short and leave the soil firm.  (increases the chances for a fat shot resulting in a skull).

[Tony Ristola]

Kelly,

I am not one for the use of lawyers, but your idea of suing ball mfg.'s is interesting except they are following the rules created by the USGA/R&A.  

If anyone would seek a party to sue in this case it should be the USGA.  A portion of their responsibility is to look out for the best interests of the game and make rules.  Now that would put the USGA in a corner.  They would be damned one way or the other.

Perhaps the USGA would align themselves with the ball mfg.'s ... having them assume the legal costs for such suits

You are right about assembling a group of architects...ASGCA or not.  Why wait.  Anyone want to lead this?  As a solo operator I'm up to my eyeballs right now but would love to assist in any manner possible.


Joe:  I believe the Comp. Ball is a cop-out.  As the architect discussion above states...the handicaps of the average guys hasn't budged...they don't hit it consistently enough to gain great benefits from technology and their short games have not improved.  But a Comp. Ball just may be a necessary first step...using the Democratic tactic of creeping towards the ultimate goal millimeter by millimeter.

[Doug Siebert]

Hitting driver-wedge is only an issue if you care all that much about the concept of the number "par".

Wrong, it is an issue because the game is much less interesting when you play most of the holes with a wedge in your hand.  It is much harder to design an interesting green that challenges a wedge shot than one that challenges a mid or long iron.  You can defend par by surrounding a 15 yard wide fairway with deep rough, but that'd be even less interesting than watching them shoot 65s in a duel of wedge play skill.

[A_Clay_Man]

Doug- I'm glad you disagree with my opinion. ( for discussion purposes)

IS the green the only variable in the equation? NO. There's slope, lie, wind (weather) and then there's execution. For me watching these guys act human and missing on occasion, is also entertainment.

Ask Hank Keuhne about how hard it is to hit wedges close, after you've outdriven everyone in the group by 50 yards. (or is he winning and I'm missing it?)

I can site Oakmont as having greens defendable to an onslaught of wedge play. And even at Pebble Beach the need for accuracy is paramount. So, if "these guys" were that good, How come the older course stood up better to par than the modern courses the tour played this year?

Setup?

[Doug Siebert]

Its hard for Kuehne to hit his wedges close because he's hitting them from the trees, wrong fairways, parking lots, etc. much of the time.  Only Ballesteros was ever able to win playing like that.

I wasn't implying that lie, wind, etc. aren't factors as well, but its still easier to play from wedge distance than mid iron distance under any conditions (though you may not play a wedge from wedge distance under high winds of course)

I like seeing the pros are human as well, but watching them botch 1 in 20 wedges and missing the green still isn't very entertaining.  I love watching them work a tough course under harsh conditions and grind out pars.  Yeah, that sounds like I am advocating the USGA's position of "defending par" and maybe I am but can't bring myself to admit it, but I find that much more interesting than watching them hit it in birdie range on every hole and give the trophy to the guy who has the hot putter that week.

Maybe that's why the only tournaments I really watch are the Masters and the British Open.  Once in a while the US Open if it is played on a nifty course like Shinnecock, but most of the US Open courses look like regular PGA tour venues with another few inches of water per week added to the rough to grow it greener and thicker than normal PGA stops.

[A_Clay_Man]

Doug- I think they give the trophy to the guy with the hot putter every week. I too have noticed the "look" of these tour venues and I think I like what Arnie has done with Bay Hill. I wouldn't want to be any of those guys, but from a viewers perspective, having those greens rock hard, sure changes the definition of what a good shot looks like.

To me, it's the number. I want to see a guy throw everything in and if he walks off with a 53, why should I care 'how' he did it. For those advocating the Cball, its tat amount to putting down "how" on the scorecard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()