News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Crump Cup 9/22/2024
« Last post by Daryl David on Today at 08:00:48 PM »
Eight of us arrive on the Tuesday after the Crump Cup for three days to celebrate my 60th.


I’d like to see an ID. The Mark Chaplin I know can’t be 60!   :)
2
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Every club should do this!
« Last post by David_Tepper on Today at 07:12:58 PM »
Just as a reminder and to offer some perspective (and not to hijack this thread too much :) ), be aware that in Germany a golfer needs to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency to obtain a license to play a golf course.

https://internationalpga.com/you-need-a-license-to-play-golf-in-germany/     

Note that I am not endorsing this, but it would certainly be interesting to know how this impacts the growth of the game there.
3
Many happy rounds here in my youth whilst on holiday, before the architecture bug struck. I do recall some wonderful views in good weather and always enjoyed the "hike" element. The greens were tiny & a real defence, looks like that hasn't changed - good to see!

Hey Andrew, has the routing changed since you were a kid?

Ciao
4
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Dallas Help Needed
« Last post by Doug Bolls on Today at 07:00:05 PM »
So, where did you play?
How was it?
5
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Every club should do this!
« Last post by Matt Schoolfield on Today at 05:38:49 PM »
In your hometown of San Francisco, is there support for additional facilities like you describe?

As a point of order, I consider my "hometown" to be Austin, TX, even if I currently live in SF.

In San Francisco:

Most people here are familiar with the Jay Blasi update of Golden Gate Park Golf Course. I played there the day before it closed, and the day it opened back up. I wrote a extensive piece on the changes: https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/a-preview-of-the-next-era-at-golden. I specifically go into detail about how I think Blasi's design is good explicitly because it keeps the course as beginners-first course, and only then as a fun afternoon for advanced players. My favorite changes are the fact that the forward tees are clearly designed to make each hole extremely forgiving, and my favorite hole change was the needlessly challenging, and entirely poorly thought out 9th hole (now the 5th), which has been shortened to make the land relevant. This facility is a god-sent for beginners.

Where I would like to see improvement: the redundant driving range at Harding may be able to be converted into a 9-hole chipping course, though, I honestly doubt the PGA would have any interest in doing that. There is a wasted area at Lincoln that could be converted into a small chipping course or putting course. I have even suggested reducing Gleneagles SF to a par 70 in order to open up enough space for an architecturally interesting chipping course on this section of the course.

Before people lose their minds about the costs involved with putting courses, aside from the benefits of sod farms on site, I honestly don't think most beginners need a putting course to be mowed below fairway height.

Austin has some exceptional versions of what I'm getting at:

The Joe Balander Short Course is a 4 hole short course that cost $5 to play (more info here: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/joe-balander-short-course). This is a type of facilitiy that lets beginners actually play golf as they learn.

The step up from there is everyone's favorite, Butler Pitch & Putt: https://butlerpitchandputt.com/. I played my first rounds of golf here, as did many Austinites.

After mastery at Butler, new players can graduate to the historic Hancock  GC: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/hancock-course, which is probably the oldest course in Texas, and is effectively maintained as a short beginners course.

With such quality onramping like this, it's no wonder that Austin, against all political expectations, is a massively pro-golf city able to hang onto historic facilities in spite of the housing shortage and strong pushes for changes in land use:

https://hancockgolfcourseconservancy.org

https://themunyconservancy.com

My concerns about the disconnect between private and municipal golf facilities, which is related to golf onramping, is discussed here: https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/why-i-am-still-concerned-about-municipal
6
Bel Air is ridiculously fast due to the hills and slopes.  The superintendent keeps it dry and firm but in certain cases the ball can move 20 to 50 yards with just a slight miss. They softened it up for the Womens US Amateur last year.
7
I played both Pehquenakonck CC and Vails Grove GC today and agree with the sentiments already expressed. Again the par three 4th hole is a one off and Vin’s nickname of “Kilimanjaro” is perfect for what might be the most terrifying 115 yards in golf. The par three 5th at Vail’s Grove is a 170 yard Dell hole with the green sited in a hollow and the par four 6th playing 290 yards up a hill blind off the tee with a directional flag sited on a knob. If four hardwood trees were taken out behind you would have a terrific skyline green. The people couldn’t have been nicer and I was done at both places including the ride between courses in less than three hours. Red Rooster Drive-In is a winner on the back end. Thanks to Stuart for the great photos.





8
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Every club should do this!
« Last post by Tim_Weiman on Today at 04:31:17 PM »
Matt,


Not to hijack the thread, but I’m trying to understand why you appear to criticize the “practice-first-and-play-later” paradigm.


At Blackwolf Run I was once fixed up to play with a couple that had never played golf before. When I asked them why they decided to play  Blackwolf Run, they answered by saying “they heard it was a good course”.


Playing with them was torture. Don’t know how I made it two holes, before politely telling them I was going on by myself, but I couldn’t help all the groups behind them.

I have written about this at length here: https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/golf-for-non-golfers-getting-from

I criticize the practice-first-play-later paradigm exactly because we don't provide beginner facilities for playing golf... only for practicing golf. Most people want to learn by doing, in refusing to provide any beginner facilities we get a world where, as in your example, beginners trying to have fun are going to ruin everyone's day.

I fully recognize most people don't actually care about getting others into golf, but providing architecturally interesting putting and chipping courses would do a lot to help the game in the greater cultural space. So many people in America hate golf because it' so deeply difficult to understand the nuance. That's so difficult because we literally ask people to go to a range for months and months before showing them how fun it is to use the land to make a ball go where you want it to.

If we provide a series of facilities that get people addicted to golf, we have more people playing, and we have the opportunity to build more and better facilities for everyone.


Matt,


In your hometown of San Francisco, is there support for additional facilities like you describe?


Tim
9
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Pinehurst No 10 - New Tom Doak design
« Last post by Thomas Dai on Today at 04:00:33 PM »
This video piece has recently been released - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3tMbecACpQ
All the better for less than usual talking head chat.
Atb
10
A larger size and lighter weight ball would sit up better in 1” grass than the current 1.68”, 1.62 oz ball.
Atb
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10