[Steve_ Shaffer]

Breaking news from Joe Logan: New management, possible course changes...

http://www.myphillygolf.com/detail.asp?id=10615

[JNC Lyon]

WHAT. THE. HELL.

I'm not really sure what the Township was thinking here.  Inniscrone was as well run a public course as I've seen anywhere, and I really enjoyed my day out there.  Why would they put the Van Sickles' contract out for bid?  It's really a shame to see something like this happen--a town gets rid of two very well-regarded locals and replaces them with a management company.

And making the course more playable?  Well, I know this has been discussed in the past for this golf course.  Two things that make it a stupid idea: 1) the course is pretty playable as it is. 2) the only way to make it more playable in any significant way would be to bulldoze some of the wetlands areas (which, of course, can't be done).

Man, it seems like Inniscrone has been cursed from the start.  Which is too bad, because I absolutely love the golf course.

[Joe Bausch]

This is not something that I'm happy to hear.

[Mark McKeever]

This is bad news.  I hope they dont screw the course up too much.

Mark

[David Kelly]

Make sure to read the USGA's Turf Advisory Service Report,  Tom Jackson's proposal for work to be done, someone's characterization of Gil Hanse's reaction to Jackson's proposal and Hanse's actual notes.  All of it is linked in the article.

The good news is that there is apparently only going to be about $300K available for the work on the golf course which doesn't leave much for Jackson's proposals (5 tee boxes on each hole!).

As Gil notes the course was designed to be a private club and a lot of design choices were made on that assumption.  The USGA report and Jackson's proposals call for a lot of changes to make the course easier for all levels of golfer and to be easier to maintain. 

[jeffwarne]

Make sure to read the USGA's Turf Advisory Service Report,  Tom Jackson's proposal for work to be done, someone's characterization of Gil Hanse's reaction to Jackson's proposal and Hanse's actual notes.  All of it is linked in the article.

The good news is that there is apparently only going to be about $300K available for the work on the golf course which doesn't leave much for Jackson's proposals (5 tee boxes on each hole!).

As Gil notes the course was designed to be a private club and a lot of design choices were made on that assumption.  The USGA report and Jackson's proposals call for a lot of changes to make the course easier for all levels of golfer and to be easier to maintain. 

Put the $300,000 that's left in a 2 year CD and reevaluate where those funds might be needed most then.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Do they still have that split fairway?? There are some nice holes on this course, i just think that fairway was too tricked up. You could easily spend 50k fixing that area.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Do they still have that split fairway?? There are some nice holes on this course, i just think that fairway was too tricked up. You could easily spend 50k fixing that area.

Ed,  do you really think it's all that bad or hard?  You're a low marker, I think--I'm a 13, why can't people just hit to the lower fairway, have a pitching wedge or something to the green, 2 putt, and move on?  It worked for me. 
I don't think it was tricked up at all; I can't remember if it was maybe a little narrow. 

I don't ever recall thinking the higher fairway was a good option. 

17, the same thing-maybe players can't reach the green in regulation, so play smart, get around the green, and try to get up and down.  And hope to hell your opponent can't. 

I can't see why so many dump on the course-it's not as horrible as many make it out to be, it's just a haul to get out there.  From the western burbs, not so bad-JB and I played about 4 years ago, and I would go back.  It's just that it's out of the way for me, a few miles west of Atlantic City. 

[John Shimony]

The USGA, among other recommendations, suggests work to make the bunkers cheaper to maintain.  That sounds reasonable to me.  But their description of the center bunker on 15 as "obnoxious" is wrong.  If I recall that fairway is very wide.  The course is tough because of forced carries and because many greens have sharp fall-offs on one side or another and they do not lend themselves to much softening.  The USGA recommends removing the bunker or bunkers on the right side of hole three's green which will make that side a bailout option but there really isn't much they can do about the fall offs on 3, 4, 5, 9, 16, and 17.  It will always be a tough course.  Softening may help with revenue though I'm sure less play has more to do with the economy and a change in golfer's spending habits than the difficulty of the course.

[Jim_Coleman]

It wouldn't be an Inniscrone thread if I didn't chime on with my usual. "I told you so.  Capitalism usually gets it right.".

[JNC Lyon]

It wouldn't be an Inniscrone thread if I didn't chime on with my usual. "I told you so.  Capitalism usually gets it right.".

I agree that capitalism often gets it right.  However, I think government ownership is pretty contrary to capitalism and the free market.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Jim_Coleman]

Govt. ownership only occurred after capitalism worked it's magic.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jim,

Capitalism worked its magic when Inniscrone went under as a private club. It was built in an area in between 2 other new privates-  Hartfeld and Fieldstone- and was underfunded and couldn't compete.

As a public course, it was originally priced too high but when the Van Sickles came in they turned a profit during their first year:

"In 2009, said Connors, Inniscrone turned a profit of $106,000.  In 2010, however, the course lost $60,000. The losses for 2011 were going to be worse."

The Township had an out after 3 years so they exercised it. Perhaps new management can save it. Give them a chance. I'd play there more often but I'm more than an hour away.

[Cory Lewis]

Inniscrone was always doomed to fail because it's just too darn hard.  It's actually pretty simple when you think about it.  The town brings in the Van Sickle's, they have energy and new ideas to get rounds and they use their skills to bring new people in to play the course and the club has a good year in year one of their operation.  Losing money year 2 is almost certain because you can't retain golfers because of the difficulty of the golf course, and there just aren't that many new people to bring in, especially in that area.

A good portion of those new players will not come back because their are too many other options that don't frustrate them as much as Inniscrone.  When I worked at DuPont the overwhelming comment i heard about Inniscrone was "I will never go back there, It's too hard"
I would bet the new company will have a decent year in year one, and then struggle in year 2 just like the previous management team did.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Cory,

Is Inniscrone "harder" than Fieldstone? Hartefeld?

Can it be made more "playable" as the new company and the Twp. Advisory Board has suggested?

[Cory Lewis]

Is Inniscrone "harder" than Fieldstone? Hartefeld?

Can it be made more "playable" as the new company and the Twp. Advisory Board has suggested?

It doesn't matter if it's harder than those too, the general public can't access Fieldstone or Hartefeld.  Me personally, I would say that Fieldstone is harder but not Hartefeld.  I do think it can be made more playable.  I thought I remember a plan many years ago to build a 19th hole and close one hole at a time to make the course more playable?  I don't believe that ever happened, I think I recall they had retained Hurzdan/Fry to do the work, but I could be wrong.

[mike_malone]

 I wonder if the development of Inniscrone was the "canary in the coal mine" of the real estate boom. Back then it seemed that EVERYONE was going to move out that way. It took a few more years before the market hit a wall.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I wonder if the development of Inniscrone was the "canary in the coal mine" of the real estate boom. Back then it seemed that EVERYONE was going to move out that way. It took a few more years before the market hit a wall.

Mike,  on a recent aerial, I saw many houses built in the previously wooded areas on some of the holes on the second nine.  Are these fully occupied?

[George Pazin]

Capitalism works, but rarely does the quality of a golf course correlate to its financial success, imho. There are too many other factors at play. But we have this argument every single time Inniscrone is mentioned. It seems to be a course where no one changes anyone's mind; the opinions are set and anything that happens is always read through the prism of one's own personal views.

Of all the changes someone could suggest to Inniscrone, screwing with that fairway bunker on 15 is one of the last that would come to mind. That someone would even think that greatly concerns me; that person should never ever be allowed to touch any golf course, anywhere. To me, that's like someone suggesting they remove the Road Hole bunker, as it makes the Road Hole too hard...

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Is Inniscrone "harder" than Fieldstone? Hartefeld?

Can it be made more "playable" as the new company and the Twp. Advisory Board has suggested?

It doesn't matter if it's harder than those too, the general public can't access Fieldstone or Hartefeld.  Me personally, I would say that Fieldstone is harder but not Hartefeld.  I do think it can be made more playable.  I thought I remember a plan many years ago to build a 19th hole and close one hole at a time to make the course more playable?  I don't believe that ever happened, I think I recall they had retained Hurzdan/Fry to do the work, but I could be wrong.

Cory,

  I think Steve was framing his question in the context of Inniscrone being private initially, and targeting the same general populace as those who may join Hartefeld, Fieldstone, or Inniscrone.  As a public course, no doubt.  How do you really feel about it, as a good player?  I've never thought it was all that bad, and you've seen me at both ends of the spectrum as far as quality of golf.  I think Bausch could vouch for me too, I didn't play all that badly our afternoon there.  Maybe if I got chewed up, for example, like both times at French Creek--I've never played even marginally passable there--I may have a different opinion.

[Cory Lewis]

How do you really feel about it, as a good player?

I thought the course was severe and unfair, and my opinion didn't change the 2nd or 3rd time I played it.  When I participated in discussions about Inniscrone with members at Dupont, it was always the same thing:  Too severe, lost too many balls, not fun to play, will not go back.  This was not just one or two members, but several.

[David Federman]

I played Inniscrone for the second time this past fall after the rains of August. It was a "crazy Thrusday" or something like that. For $35. we got a cart; greens fees; sleeve of quality balls; and free hot dog, sode and chips! The course was  soggy. I played with two buddies (one a 5, the other a 14 like me). After the round, the consensus was that they would never come back. First, from the western suburbs of Philly, it is still geographically in no man's land. There is no easy way to get there, traffic is ridiculous, the trip is interminable.
As for the course, I liked it better than my playing partners who basically hated it. The 4th, 5th, 10th, 16th, 17th, and 18th were unanimously disliked. The 4th green had a back pin position and with the large bunker fronting the left side of the green, it was virtually impossible to hold what started out as good second shots, only to have the balls run off the back into garbage. Chipping back to the green was nearly impossible as well. The short 5th was surrounded by an apron of thick, tall rough, resulting in a 3 if you could hit the green, or a 5 or worse if you were close to the green. If you tee ball was not a near miss, you were better off. The 10th was just silly- very little margin for error on the drive which if it went a yard too far, left you with a sharp downhill stance for a second shot slightly uphill over a 100 yard wide waste area to the green.  The complaints about 16 and 17 are well-documented on this site; 18 required basically a blind drive over a wide environmental  area that was difficult to see over unless you are an NBA player. If you made it over the environmental area, you were left with a simple short iron to the green.
So, despite the incredible deal, the combination of the 75-90 minute drive and the goofiness of the golf course, makes it a very unattractive golfing destination.

[Kyle Harris]

Having watched John Lyon hit an ugly, duck hooked ball with Driver off the tenth tee that ended up being in an a-ok position (The ball landed behind the water plant as viewed from the tee)...

...I can't help but wonder if Inniscrone is simply in a lot of people's heads.

P.S. He was also an inch away from acing the fifth.

Oddly, I think the most difficult shot on the course is the tee shot from the back tee on four. Everything else is manageable if you just close your eyes.

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle, I agree on two things:

1) Any hole where that tee shot could be okay is very forgiving.

2) The golf course really isn't that difficult.  What are the forced carries? 4 (which you can avoid by playing the forward tees), 8 (a par three with multiple sets of tees.  10 (far from ideal, the least interesting hole on the course), 13 (not a big carry) 15 (same as 13), 17 (there is wetland area, but there is plenty of room and no manmade hazards), and 18 (again, multiple sets of tees).  Of those, only 10 and 17 really strike me as questionable.  There are is so much width on that golf course, with plenty of room to play for all golfers. 

I think what trips people is the quirk: the blind tee shot on 2, the steep runaway green on 3, the drop shot 5th, the centerline bunkers, and the split fairway on 16.  For most people, these features pose a mental challenge because they don't appear on your average public course, but they aren't physically imposing.  It's this type of complaining that drives me up a freakin' wall.  Expand your mind a little bit!  Not everything in golf has to be fair.  Inniscrone certainly isn't "fair" in the traditional, vomit-inducing sense of the word, but it is a blast to play.

Bottom line: forget your traditional "business model" nonsense for a second.  North Berwick has twice as much quirk as Inniscrone, and it has lasted over 100 years in basically the same state.  Maybe if Inniscrone had management or ownership that lasted more than two years, it could become a sustainable business, maybe even a "cult classic" of sorts.  Until this musical chairs of management strategies stops, we can't really judge how Inniscrone stacks up as a public course model.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I still can't see the issue with 3.  It's 85 yards, a 3/4 sand wedge for most of us. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()