[Peter Pallotta]

Permit me to think out loud, as I develop this:
 
I am a bit saddened to see that the language of the marketplace has become a dominant part of our thinking (conscious or not) when it comes to golf, i.e. when it comes to our desire to experience golf at what we've come to think of as "its best".   
 
In the financial/economic development sector, we've long been used to ideas/elements such as unfettered trade and the global marketplace and international supply chains and the efficient movement of capital and goods and out-sourcing and low-cost foreign service providers and the global commodities market. We get shirts made in Bangladesh and have our computer questions answered in New Delhi and (in the winter months) get seasonal fruits from thousands of miles from our homes.   
 
Please: I have no interest in debating the pros and cons/political underpinnings of any of this, except as it relates to golf. And on that point, I'd ask: what has happened to the golfing-version of "Buying Local"?
 
If 30-50% of the threads on this board are somehow related to rankings and ratings, I'd say almost as many are related to our search for an ideal golfing experience, i.e. our willingness and tendency to travel (sometimes great distance) to play golf in some new/better location than the one we have nearby, at courses that are vastly superior -- we believe -- to the ones we have easy access to and thus that make the time and travel and expense more than worth it.
 
It seems that most of us have become (or one day wish to become) "citizens of the golfing world" -- tied to no one location or to a single home club, and seemingly unconcerned about the local courses that are struggling or closing nearby because we no longer expect or want to limit the majority of our golf to these local communities. We know what's great and we know where to get it, and off we go. It's in Scotland, this golfing experience we so want and deserve; or it's near the Black Sea; and if you're in Australia it's on the American west coast, and if you're in Canada it's in Florida, and if you're in England it's in New Jersey.
 
And it seems that no one even questions this anymore, i.e. the value and sustainability and (dare I say) "ethics" of this. Indeed, it seems that we now praise and prize this tendency to travel -- this status as a citizen of the golfing world -- above all else; it says that we are men and women who can "appreciate" great golf, and that we "won't settle for second best", and that we are able to check off the items on our bucket lists and thus be fulfilled.
 
In short, we have embraced and value highly the golfing equivalent of unfettered trade and of the global marketplace and of international supply chains (so that we can "get more" or "pay less", or both), and meanwhile the golfing equivalents of manufacturing plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania keep closing and putting people out of work.  We have more, while many of our neighbours have less.
 
Again, please, I beg you: don't make this a political/left/right/Obama/Bush thread. If anyone is interested in the thread as it relates solely to golf (and as I re-read this, I think probably few will be), I'd like to hear your thoughts. 
 
Peter
 

[Carl Rogers]

How does this relate to some heated discussions in the not to distant past to the Golf Now threads?
Race to the bottom vs race to the top??
Human nature:
-Is the grass always greener on the other side of the world?
-You want what you do not have (at least once)?
-Aren't we all a bit curious by nature?

[Phil McDade]

Peter:


Interesting observations.


I think if you read through many of Patrick Mucci's threads, for instance, you can detect a concern for the waning of the golf club culture, where longtime members socialized, played cards, ate dinners and played golf -- together -- and that that led to a community of folks who nurtured their club golf course and (hopefully) its better architectural assets. I'm guessing Patrick would argue many of our great courses (most of them private) became and have remained great because of that culture of community, and perhaps that's unsustainable down the road. Or sustainable for fewer and fewer clubs, for the reasons you cite.


If I can toot my own horn, I've greeted with some skepticism the latest Keiser venture that's quite literally in my backyard (relative to the rest of the GCA crowd) here in Wisconsin, that relates to some of what you write. There is a fine line, it seems to me, of creating things that we really didn't realize we wanted until we had them available (essentially, what Steven Jobs did with Apple and its products), and creating so many of those things that the market then becomes over-saturated and unsustainable. I'd argue the long-term, big-picture, macro socio-economic trends of our country are toward less golf, not more, and I suspect we may see a significant retrenchment sometime in the (far?) future, and perhaps a return to staying closer to our (golfing) roots.

[Jeff Taylor]

The libertarian in me says "so what". Is there a duty to keep people working at the local golf course? No more than their duty to provide the kind of experience that I am willing to pay for (relative to other options).
I just made arrangements to play at a course that is 6 hours from my home. This October trip will incorporate photography of the surrounding mountains as well as the golf course. I refuse to let your post make me feel bad about it. 

[Adam Clayman]

I'll jump in the stream of conscience-nous.

 I'm now living where the one local course is doing the opposite of everything the best courses in the world are doing. i.e. Planting more and more trees. (to make it worse, in rows) over watering, and, joy of joys, has flattish greens. They are even going so far as to actually re-consider an old idea of turning an off center line bunker, on a par 5, into a pond. The end result is a complete loss of this courses sense of place. It's called Ridgeview, but  more accurately should be re-named to Treedview. I'm so far gone, I won't even begin to bother to think about how to educate the committee that runs this money making course. Yup, $22 green fees and it makes money every year. They ain't gonna listen.

There's only one person who shirks the bottom line for the love of the game that continues to bring proper golf to all more and more locales and that's Mike Keiser. Overlap with Phil.

 

[Ulrich Mayring]

I say they're not making money. Why bother with all those trees and expensive improvements, when they are making money as it is? For a $22 greenfee you have to make sure you'll get as many players as possible over your course. Which means you have to limit ball searching and keep play moving along. No one in their right mind is going to plant trees or do other things that make the course harder.

So I assume they're not getting enough play and wonder how to make their course more attractive and/or justify raising the greenfee.

Ulrich

[JESII]

Peter,


This thread hit me two ways:


First, you're repeating what John Kavanaugh has said here for years so there's a good chance I agree with you. He certainly says it with less theory and more offense, with his pretty consistent attack on the "hit-and-runners" and lashing out at people for spending $5,000 a year to travel for golf but never investing in golf by joining the local club for $2,500.


Second is that I think you're wrong. I think deriving an opinion/theory from the actions, or statements, of a couple hundred golf architecture geeks is a fools errand. Then again...maybe you're right. Mike Keiser sure is investing in golf...and not necessarily local for.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I think you are lumping a bunch of reasons together.  The reason that Canadians go to play golf in Florida is not because they think that courses in Florida are better.  It is because they want a golf fix in the winter and that is the easiest place to go and/or they have a winter home in Florida to escape the cold and they have nothing better to do with their time then play golf several times per week.  And Western Canadians are more likely to go to AZ or Palm Springs than Florida since that is closer - and the golf is better.

Personally some of the more exotic top 100 courses that I have played are at times when golf was NOT the primary reason to travel.  I have played in New Zealand and Bali - these weren't golf vacations but while I was in the neighbourhood why shouldn't I play Cape Kidnappers or Nirwana?  In those instances playing a world class golf course was a nice addition to a trip in such an exotic locale.

And I think it is also a case of Ricardian Comparative Advantage.  In places where it is too expensive to build and maintain a golf course you will have golfers travelling elsewhere - like the Japanese going to Hawaii.  And/or it is more expensive to build and maintain a 'links style' course in an area that does not support this type of a course compared to going to experience the real deal in Scotland or Bandon or Cabot.  This may happen more frequently in the future due to water restrictions. 

And I don't agree with you that this has to be to the detriment of local golf courses.  I see no reason why both types of golf can't thrive - the local courses that offer the bulk of the golfers their weekly fix, and the world class resort that makes a nice getaway once every few years.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, I think travel is a great think to open up your mind to new experiences and new ways of doing this.  Sure it has a bit of an impact on the environment but it can also greatly stimulate the local economy and help pull people out of poverty.  But one of the great things about golf is that you can travel to many different parts of the world and enjoy the local flora, fauna, etc. and enjoy a great pastime. 

[BHoover]

For me, it's a question of quantity. I can play more golf by joining a local club than I can by traveling to play golf at some destination course or region. I'd rather play more golf at a local course that I enjoy than play less golf at more courses that probably are even better than my home course.

For many of us, family and work commitments limit the amount of time and resources we can devote to a hobby. Personally, I know that it's a lot easier to get my wife to go along with the idea of me playing close to home than with the idea of traveling to play golf far from home. Part of it is also that she comes from a tennis background and just sees no point in traveling to play a course other than my home course (makes sense--tennis courts don't really differ from place-to-place, apart from the occasional different surface). Would I like to be able to hit the road more often to see courses that I haven't played? Hell yes I would. But I also know that if I do that, it will mean playing less golf at home and probably will mean we don't join a local club. For me, that's the choice.

[cary lichtenstein]

Please rephrase your question in simpler terms

[Jud_T]

Peter,


A very broad topic. 


1- If I lived in a town that wasn't flat, primarily clay soil, a crap climate with very expensive clubs I'd be much more inclined to support my local club.  Frankly, the club I can walk to probably wouldn't have me even if I was interested in joining.


2- I go out of my way to support mom and pop courses that provide interesting golf at reasonable prices, including this coming weekend.


3- How's your corner bar doing?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,
 
As it pertains to golf, I see it in the same vein as "Variety is the Spice of Life" kinda creedo.
 
Here in the Salt Lake City area, I'll rarely play the same course twice in a year....its fun to go play other courses and enjoy all that is out there.  I still have my favorites but why limit oneself to the same course over and over....unless it genuinely is a world class course, but that's a different animal.
 
P.S.  As a hypothetical even if I was a member at Cypress Point, I wouldn't exclusively play there if I lived in the area....I would take in the other greats as well....even if most of my rounds were at CPC.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - good posts all.  (I've just seen several more posts as I was typing this reply - thanks gents).
 
Phil - I hadn't thought of it, but of course you're right about Patrick. And after decades of supporting his clubs in many ways, someone like Patrick has certainly earned the right to travel and play wherever golf he likes; but, with fewer and fewer "young Patricks" now doing what he used to, and with the culture of community being replaced by the global marketplace, I wonder how long these great, and local, courses will continue to thrive. It occurs to me another example: Tom D and Mike Devries both love and have played Crystal Downs for many, many years; but I imagine that one of the reasons Crystal Downs is still Crystal Downs is because for decades its members played the majority of their golf at Crystal Downs.
 
Jeff- I certainly don't want you to feel bad; in truth, I'm trying to make myself feel bad (not for travelling to play golf, but for wishing I could).
 
Jim - perceptive, as always. I hadn't realized the similarity to JK's views, but it is there. You might be right about me being wrong, i.e. too small a sample size.  On Mr K:  I don't know him at all, and he may be a very good fellow in all sorts of ways, but from the outside, and believing that a bit of criticism from me can't/won't hurt him, I'll say that I've already grown tired of his near deification around here. What I see is simply this: a very wealthy businessman who has become an even wealthier businessman by financing golf courses and then promoting (and pricing) them in a way that celebrates their far-flung exclusivity. That we all tend to love those "his" courses doesn't change the fact that, in many other ways, he is basically Donald Trump with better hair. He certainly hasn't done a golfer like me any favours with Bandon or Cabot, i.e. fostering a culture of golfing travels and of $200+ green fees does me about as much good as the Donald spending millions on new marble statues and a few course modifcations and then raising initiation fees at his private clubs to $100,000.
 
(I'd like to think, however, that I'm not so self absorbed or selfish that I can't recognize and appreciate the fact that the architects Mr K has hired have built truly wonderful courses, ones that I'm very glad exisit and glad that others can enjoy.) 
 
Peter

[Wayne_Kozun]

On Mr K:  I don't know him at all, and he may be a very good fellow in all sorts of ways, but from the outside, and believing that a bit of criticism from me can't/won't hurt him, I'll say that I've already grown tired of his near deification around here. What I see is simply this: a very wealthy businessman who has become an even wealthier businessman by financing golf courses and then promoting (and pricing) them in a way that celebrates their far-flung exclusivity. That we all tend to love those "his" courses doesn't change the fact that, in many other ways, he is basically Donald Trump with better hair. He certainly hasn't done a golfer like me any favours with Bandon or Cabot, i.e. fostering a culture of golfing travels and of $200+ green fees does me about as much good as the Donald spending millions on new marble statues and a few course modifcations and then raising initiation fees at his private clubs to $100,000.
 

You are also missing the way that the resorts are rejuvenating the communities.  I visited Inverness, NS in 2008 just as Rod Whitman was going to begin clearing the land to build Cabot Links.  The town was dying a slow death and had been for fifty years.  Now, Inverness is a much more dynamic place given all of the direct and indirect jobs created by the resort.  And there are ways that locals can play the course for a reasonable fee - like $60.  And there are now two golf courses in an area where there were none, so local kids will get some exposure to the game.  For them there is now a local golf course to learn the game.  And, more importantly, there is a job for them in their local town rather than having to move away to the city.  Is this any different than Seve and other Spaniards learning to play the game at courses that was built to lure British tourists?

[Mark Pavy]

Please: I have no interest in debating the pros and cons/political underpinnings of any of this, except as it relates to golf. And on that point, I'd ask: what has happened to the golfing-version of "Buying Local"?
 
Peter

The World got smaller, local got bigger and nobody holidays in the town where they live.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne, others - valid points, but I'm trying to explore an attitudinal bias/value system, one that I can sense I've adopted myself to some degree even though it hasn't yet manifested itself, and one that I think is shaped by the culture of globalism. I think it raises specific questions/issues:
 
Say I have some $5000 for a one time investment in golf. Now, I would very much like to meet some gca friends and play the bandon courses, but on the other hand: there is a Stanley Thompson course (and private club) a 5 minute walk from my home that is actively accepting members; and there is a perennial top 20 in Canada and absolutely lovely Stanley Thompson course about a 20 minute drive from my home, also actively accepting members.
 
What someone like me chooses in a case like that does make a difference (and will make a difference to the golfing landscape in decades to come), and does reflect a profoundly shifting value system -- one that appreciates/celebrates/reaches out for greatness (or a great deal) wherever it is found in the world as oppossed to one that celebrates the (literally) more "homely" charms and virtues of the local course in the local community.
 
Yes, there are some (maybe more than I realize) who can afford both the commitment to the home club and extensive travel; but I think there are many others who need to choose. I'm simply trying to bring to light an attitude that I think may be shaping that choice.
 
Peter   

[Jud_T]

As discussed here ad nauseam, the downfall of local clubs has a lot more to do with the time and cost demands that don't fit in well with today's younger generation's demand curve than with the advent of some better quality CCFAD's and high end resorts, not to mention the ongoing detritus of the financial crisis.  Sure there are some guys who'd rather do a few big trips a year to a destination club/resort, but there are a hell of a lot more who have too many family and work commitments to get the value out of a club.  Additionally the full service country club model only continues to work in some fancy suburbs and is otherwise a bit of an anachronism.  Frankly I don't see how having the ability to have a real links experience without having to endure jet lag, customs and warm beer is anything but a positive.  And if the average Joe goes on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Bandon and comes home and starts to look at his home course in a glass is half-empty architecturally kind of way, that's also frankly a positive.

[Jeff Taylor]

" I'm trying to explore an attitudinal bias/value system, one that I can sense I've adopted myself to some degree even though it hasn't yet manifested itself, and one that I think is shaped by the culture of globalism."

After reading your posts several times, I get the feeling that you are projecting a sadness due to limited resources and looking to globalization as a rationale for that sadness. It would be so much easier if those choices weren't there. Globalism represents choice and that makes it harder to commit to a local club. Is that right? I ask sincerely.

Let's get back to first principles. What is wrong with playing the golf that you want to play, where you want to play it, and playing it as much as makes financial sense? Consumerism as activism makes for less than satisfactory customer experiences. I lived the club life. Couldn't have been more immersed. Left the club when I had enough and now live by the "less quantity and more quality" mantra. A trip to the driving range gives plenty of satisfaction between rounds. And, I am keeping those kids employed every time I buy a bucket of balls.

[Adam Clayman]

I say they're not making money. Why bother with all those trees and expensive improvements, when they are making money as it is? For a $22 greenfee you have to make sure you'll get as many players as possible over your course. Which means you have to limit ball searching and keep play moving along. No one in their right mind is going to plant trees or do other things that make the course harder.

So I assume they're not getting enough play and wonder how to make their course more attractive and/or justify raising the greenfee.

Ulrich

Ulrich, I scratch my head about the costs to plant too. But, I feel You've made too many assumptions here. The first most glaring is that planting trees makes the course more difficult.  The forests they're growing only make it less fun and more dangerous.
 They make money because they're the only game in town and the next closest course is 22 miles. That, and Nebraskans drink a hell of a lot of beer. And, their budget is probably really low. I'd be shocked if there's more than three people on the crew. It's only nine holes, but the $22 is for 18.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Say I have some $5000 for a one time investment in golf. Now, I would very much like to meet some gca friends and play the bandon courses, but on the other hand: there is a Stanley Thompson course (and private club) a 5 minute walk from my home that is actively accepting members; and there is a perennial top 20 in Canada and absolutely lovely Stanley Thompson course about a 20 minute drive from my home, also actively accepting members.
 
What someone like me chooses in a case like that does make a difference (and will make a difference to the golfing landscape in decades to come), and does reflect a profoundly shifting value system -- one that appreciates/celebrates/reaches out for greatness (or a great deal) wherever it is found in the world as oppossed to one that celebrates the (literally) more "homely" charms and virtues of the local course in the local community.

I think there can be a place for both and the market can price these two clubs to make that work.  The top 20 course will likely have a higher initiation and higher annual dues.  The other local club can be cheaper and more family oriented and much more reasonably priced with somewhat more modest conditioning.

I can think of one perfect example like this in Pt Stanley, Ontario.  It is home to two great golf courses - Redtail and St. Thomas G&CC.  St Thomas is an excellent Stanley Thompson course that is a "local" club outside a small city that is struggling since the local car plant closed down.  Some here will even argue that is the superior of the two courses. When you go to their web site you see that they have a restricted membership class where you can pay $2300 for 30 rounds of golf.  Their initiation is going up to $1500 in a couple of months.

Redtail is a "world class" course that draws members from all over the world and has hosted dignitaries like HRH ER II, Sean Connery, Nick Price, etc.  I don't know the current details but I am guessing that you will be paying way more than St Thomas - more like 5 figures per year.  They can both co-exist in the same town and serve different markets.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thankfully, 80% of a golf course's customer's still come from within a 20 mile radius. The trekkers who make a few week long pilgrimages to their favorite courses-du-jour still have to play somewhere local when they aren't on tour, no?


The number of golf-ers who have the wherewithal to move about the continents in the pursuit of playing a game most likely mimics the rest of society as a whole, i.e. 1%.





 

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Jud - I am grateful that I can play quite a bit of golf these days, and, while I wish sometimes that I was in a position to splurge on a wonderful trip to a great course, it doesn't make me sad that I can't right now or that I have to choose (and choose not to right now). But my situation, and a few recent posts, and some societal trends that I seem to observe brought to mind the notion that a significant shift is occurring in golf, and that the sociological situation that Jud describes well (limited time, children etc) seems to be playing out differently now than it did even a decade ago -- with more of those who can choose and can splurge on golf choosing to self-identify as a  "citizen of the golfing world" instead of as a "loyal local club member". There is nothing inherently wrong with that choice (though I think it will indeed have long term consequences), and folks make that choice -- as you did -- for a whole variety of reasons. I am simply suggesting that this choice seems to be reflective of/influenced by the value systems of the global marketplace.
Wayne - thanks, those are interesting numbers; but I hadn't made myself clear. As I noted for Jeff above, I was thinking of the choice not in terms of one club vs another, but in terms of taking that 5 grand and instead of joining either local club putting it aside for a trip to Bandon and a trip to Streamsong.
Jim - you may be right/have the right perspective, but the numbers aren't as key to me as the bigger trend. But also, there must be a heck of a lot of golfers in that 1%, as from what I've read they seem able to keep the tee sheets at Bandon's 4 courses pretty much full for pretty much the entire year. 
Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,


No one goes to Bandon Resort for one play. It's been reported that they had 140k rounds in 2014. I would guess they came from something shy of 40k different players. That's a tiny percentage of the total number of players in the US, and who knows how many of those rounds came from non residents. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of the players at BR also belong to private clubs. I suspect that number would not be insignificant.   


   

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I reckon you are speaking to and of me as much as anyone.  I am a vagabond golfer with no desire to join a local club...not because I can always find something better further away, but because there is nothing on my doorstep other than Cleeve Cloud that I would consider joining.  No other course in the area holds my attention...so I travel.  Maybe my opinion is down to higher standards than is reasonable, but it is what it is.  I tried the local club route and got bored. 


Ciao

[Jud_T]

PP,

While I agree that it is largely the influence of men doing their fair share of the child rearing, which now includes spending most weekends driving little Muffie and/or Biff all over creation for travel sports, private lessons, ACT tutors, shrinks, trainers etc., there's another possible influence:  Information. Sites like this.  If you actually care about the game, and the terrain, soil, design, climate and conditioning that bring out all its variety and joy, then you realize that playing 500 rounds of golf on the same mediocre track over the next decade or two isn't all it's cracked up to be.  Before the Internet, all you had was the early rags' lists and TV golf.  Only nerds like us sought out rare Architecture books and obscure articles on microfiche.  Now folks with a middling interest can find sites like this in a few clicks while lounging in their boxers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()