[John Kirk]

Business considerations provide the entire context for architecture.  I do not think you can meaningfully think about architecture without considering why the course was built in the first place and the financial pressures that impact whether the course survives or thrives.

I can meaningfully play a golf course, and evaluate its architecture, without once considering any financial pressures that course may be having.  Why would I have to consider "why the course was built in the first place"?  Why should I care?

Damned near fell out of my chair.  I never hoped to reach John Kirk- he exists in a totally different dimension- but it looks like someone I hadn't expected might be taking notice.  Right on!  As much as some would like, you can't separate any capital intensive endeavor from business, economics and finance.  Blow up free enterprise in pursuit of an egalitarian utopia and the fate of golf will be sealed.


I see nothing untoward about this thread.  My bet is that the owner of Wolf Point would be delighted to entertain a serious offer from this august group.


As to discussion on this site being the kiss of death for clubs on the margin, I've worked on many distressed properties in my real estate career and keeping it hush-hush was never a strategy.  In most cases, providing maximum exposure is helpful in finding the needle-in-a-haystack buyer.  I would like to see WP survive and thrive.  This would likely require a very large national membership made up of golf architecture aficionados and sportsmen.  Are we it?     

Here I was thinking that the reason for this site is frank commentary of golf architecture.  I didn't realize we were a loosely affiliated business group with an interest in acquiring golf courses.


Sure, the discussion of architecture includes the costs to build and maintain a golf course.  We should be discussing (or in my case, reading the experts discussing) how to design golf courses efficiently and inexpensively.  That's a key aspect of the overall discussion.


Still, as a player/evaluator, why should I care about that?  No matter the cost, the course is either good to play, or it is not.  My understanding of the phrase frank commentary on golf course architecture suggests that we be open and honest in our opinions about whether or not some feature of a golf course is desirable, and why.  And make no mistake about it — golf course evaluation ultimately resides with the consumer (player), and not the developer.  They make 'em and we decide whether they are good or not. 


Tom Doak says in reply #39:
 "The problem that arises is that there are many struggling clubs in America, but nominating one here might imply its finances are iffy, which could be the kiss of death for a place.  (Or even drive down the sale price, like spreading false rumors on Wall Street in an insider trading scam.)  That was always a subtext of the Ballyneal v Dismal River discussions years ago, and one reason they were so nasty."

Is Tom suggesting that we should refrain from frank commentary on golf course architecture, because financially challenged clubs may be affected by influential or persuasive analysis?

Negative commentary about a club's finances, poor service, low membership, or any other business problems facing a club should be avoided.  For one thing, they are not "frank commentary on golf course architecture".

I have more to say about this subject.  It might make a worthwhile thread.  The days of "frank commentary of golf architecture" are over, as business interests work to stifle the practice.  GCA is no longer the young upstart espousing traditional golf course values against a tide of wasteful and illogical design practices.  The architects that GCA champions comprise the core group that builds a majority of high-profile courses worldwide.  GCA is now part of the industry, and inseparable from the business interests around it.  Negative commentary about golf architecture should be restricted to general arguments, and not directed at individual projects.  Positive thoughts of favored golf courses should be shared liberally.


Lou, your political comments are unnecessary.  That last "liberally" was for you.

[Sean_A]

John


When evaluating courses it can be important why a course was built so the design can seen in the intended context. For instance, there is little point in ticking Pine Valley for being penal when that was the design intent.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Golf architecture=Land based art form.
The artist doesn't care about money. Only the owners.
Finance is a long way down the ladder of motivation for an artist.

Jeff:


Finance is a long way down the ladder of motivation for a TRUE artist.  Of course, many golf course architects are trying to make ends meet in the present day, so finance(s), both personal and professional, do matter to many or most.


Aside from that, if the client asks me to care about money and what the course costs to build or to maintain, then it's my job to care about that. 


I learned this years ago a client changed my thinking on that subject, by scolding me for bringing it up when he had not ASKED ME to care.  He said that I had a limited perspective on the cost and value of the total project - I was only thinking of the actual golf course - but more importantly, by bringing up the money it sounded like I might not be advocating for the best possible solution, and that's what he was paying to hear.  And he pointed out that a lot of designers cost themselves commissions by bringing up the money in the interview process, and causing clients to fear they may be compromising the quality of the design.

[Edward Glidewell]

Finance is a long way down the ladder of motivation for a TRUE artist.  Of course, many golf course architects are trying to make ends meet in the present day, so finance(s), both personal and professional, do matter to many or most.

I think it's very difficult to separate art and finance throughout history. Most of the people who are widely considered great artists were mainly creating art via commission, because it was how they made a living. Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling because Pope Julius II paid him to, and Leonardo painted the Last Supper because the Duke of Milan paid him to. Bach composed the Brandenburg Concertos in an attempt to get paid work from the Margrave of Brandenburg.


That certainly doesn't take anything away from the art or music because the result is what matters. But it's typically been an important factor.

[Jeff Loh]

Tom
Agreed.
Golf course architecture is obviously a hybrid of art and commerce.
I hope most of us care more about the former than the latter.
I was thinking of an interview with Bill Coore where he said he had no idea what he would be doing if he hadn't found his calling. Springsteen (and many others) come to mind as well. He claims he never did an honest days work in his life. Most golf course architects unfortunately don't have that luxury.

[Tom_Doak]

I was thinking of an interview with Bill Coore where he said he had no idea what he would be doing if he hadn't found his calling. Springsteen (and many others) come to mind as well. He claims he never did an honest days work in his life. Most golf course architects unfortunately don't have that luxury.

Jeff:


I'm with Bill and The Boss.  I've never done anything else, haven't wanted to do anything else since I gave up on the astronaut idea at age 11 or 12.  Which turned out to be a really good career decision, in hindsight! 


But I will disagree with you, in that I think everyone has the luxury of exercising their choice to be an artist, if they want to.  It may mean they're a starving artist, but they'll be an artist.  There is way too much rationalizing nowadays that people can't afford to do the right thing because they've got to eat, or whatever.


I was lucky to get my start when I didn't have a family to support.  Having five kids and five grandkids [not to mention five employees and all of their families] does change the equation, but not to the point where I wouldn't stay true to my beliefs.  Thankfully, they all understand that's how I got to the point of being able to support them.


You know all those stories you hear about people compromising their way to great success?  No, of course you don't.  That only works for politicians, sometimes, and even when it works out for them, it rarely works out for their constituents!

[Philip Hensley]

Golf architecture=Land based art form.
The artist doesn't care about money. Only the owners.
Finance is a long way down the ladder of motivation for an artist.

Jeff:


Finance is a long way down the ladder of motivation for a TRUE artist.  Of course, many golf course architects are trying to make ends meet in the present day, so finance(s), both personal and professional, do matter to many or most.


Aside from that, if the client asks me to care about money and what the course costs to build or to maintain, then it's my job to care about that. 


I learned this years ago a client changed my thinking on that subject, by scolding me for bringing it up when he had not ASKED ME to care.  He said that I had a limited perspective on the cost and value of the total project - I was only thinking of the actual golf course - but more importantly, by bringing up the money it sounded like I might not be advocating for the best possible solution, and that's what he was paying to hear.  And he pointed out that a lot of designers cost themselves commissions by bringing up the money in the interview process, and causing clients to fear they may be compromising the quality of the design.

Do you have a feeling of how many golf course architects truly consider themselves artists? Or how many even think of it in such terms?


Could having too much money available for a project hurt the art? Wouldn’t most architects just do whatever they were going to do anyways, but faster because any obstacles that delay a normal project could be overcome with money?

[Tom_Doak]

Do you have a feeling of how many golf course architects truly consider themselves artists? Or how many even think of it in such terms?

Could having too much money available for a project hurt the art? Wouldn’t most architects just do whatever they were going to do anyways, but faster because any obstacles that delay a normal project could be overcome with money?

Well, I should not speak for others.


I think Mike Strantz considered himself an artist. 


I don't think Bill Coore does, because he would consider that a poor look and too indicative of ego; Bill is very modest.  But he certainly makes decisions about his business based on his feelings and not on his bank account. 


I'm not sure Pete Dye wanted the label of "artist", either, but that is absolutely how he worked in his prime - one project at a time, ready to walk away at a moment's notice, and he drilled that into me when I was twenty and had really never thought about it at all.  That's a big reason I feel the way I do.


I can think of a couple of others who deliberately postured as artists because they thought it would appeal to clients, which I would declare a very non-artist thing to do.  I will take the Fifth on naming them here.


Most just pose as golf experts.  I was never a good enough golfer to stick to that.

[Jeff Loh]

Phil
Interesting point. Maybe "artist" is the wrong way to describe it.
But there is a boat load of TALENT involved when some architect makes you think "is that the hand of man or nature."? It's an unoriginal thought that I stole from Hunter but it gets to the heart of why I play the game.


Tom
Yup...see the current music industry. "Artists" worried more about money than art.
Who's gonna write the new "OHIO"?

[Mike_Young]

Do you have a feeling of how many golf course architects truly consider themselves artists? Or how many even think of it in such terms?

Could having too much money available for a project hurt the art? Wouldn’t most architects just do whatever they were going to do anyways, but faster because any obstacles that delay a normal project could be overcome with money?

Well, I should not speak for others.


I think Mike Strantz considered himself an artist. 


I don't think Bill Coore does, because he would consider that a poor look and too indicative of ego; Bill is very modest.  But he certainly makes decisions about his business based on his feelings and not on his bank account. 


I'm not sure Pete Dye wanted the label of "artist", either, but that is absolutely how he worked in his prime - one project at a time, ready to walk away at a moment's notice, and he drilled that into me when I was twenty and had really never thought about it at all.  That's a big reason I feel the way I do.


I can think of a couple of others who deliberately postured as artists because they thought it would appeal to clients, which I would declare a very non-artist thing to do.  I will take the Fifth on naming them here.


Most just pose as golf experts.  I was never a good enough golfer to stick to that.

TD,I try to be a hybrid

[Lou_Duran]

Lou, your political comments are unnecessary.  That last "liberally" was for you.

As I said mostly in jest, you exist in a different dimension.  I have no idea what the last sentence means, but I really don't need to.


Your comments preceding what I quote above drip with politics.  I am only stating what should be obvious to any student of golf, its architecture and its history.  Without profit there is no capital and no golf.  If to acknowledge reality is political and unnecessary while denigrating business and commerce is not, then "frank commentary" of any type is impossible.   










   

[John Kirk]

Lou, your political comments are unnecessary.  That last "liberally" was for you.

As I said mostly in jest, you exist in a different dimension.  I have no idea what the last sentence means, but I really don't need to.


Your comments preceding what I quote above drip with politics.  I am only stating what should be obvious to any student of golf, its architecture and its history.  Without profit there is no capital and no golf.  If to acknowledge reality is political and unnecessary while denigrating business and commerce is not, then "frank commentary" of any type is impossible.   

I play golf, a game with a stick and ball.  I do not need to know anything about the creation of the golf course, or the capital and profit involved, to determine whether the golf course is enjoyable to play or not.  It doesn't matter.  What matters are the contours, the hazards, the walk, things like that.

Sending you an IM.

[Mike_Young]

  I am only stating what should be obvious to any student of golf, its architecture and its history.  Without profit there is no capital and no golf. 

Lou,That should be obvious but that is the major problem in golf for most places.  The average public golf course cannot charge what is needed. And yet it is that course who supports most of the vendors of machinery, fertilizer, balls , carts etc.  A million dollar renovation at a club with 500 members is in "reality" a $2000 renovation and yet to the average public course it is a million dollar realit ythat must come from green fees and not assessment.  Doesn't work. The same guy that will spend 7 dollars for some craft beer will shop public golf looking for a $25 buck round.  That round is less that 6 buck per hour. 
The numbers no longer work unless subsidized either by private club membership or munis...Real estate plays are not golf...

[John Kirk]

John


When evaluating courses it can be important why a course was built so the design can seen in the intended context. For instance, there is little point in ticking Pine Valley for being penal when that was the design intent.

Ciao

Hi Sean,
I'll have to think about that.  OK, I've thought about it.

I must play golf in a bubble.  Why should I care what their intent is?  I don't feel my evaluation of a golf course should be bound by anybody's intent.  I show up and play, and watch other people play, and I might even imagine what it would be like for other people to play.
It's unreasonable to say that Pine Valley is the best course in the United States because we understand what the intended context is.  It's either the best (or most admired, or most enjoyable) course in the country, or it is not, regardless of intent.
Sorry, I've got the blockhead blinders on regarding this subject.
 

[archie_struthers]

 


Mike Young summed up the difficulties for public golf operators so succinctly , and I quote


" the same guy that will spend $7 for some craft beer will shop public golf for a $25 dollar round"  puts it in perspective






[size=78%]P.S.     gimme the $3 draft and a better venue[/size]

[Jeff Loh]

People do not read Robert Parker to understand the "economics" of the wine business.
They want to know if the wine is any good.
If knowing the wine was aged in French Oak vs American enhances your appreciation of it that's great.
But it's not a necessary component in evaluating said wine.

[John Kavanaugh]

Stop it. You are preaching to a group who thinks they can evaluate value while playing for free.

[Kalen Braley]

I think John K's comments are spot on so far.  Evaluating the course for what it is and at least trying to block out the other stuff is likely the most objective way to analyze one...outside of not being able to do a scientific double blind study.

As for value and name brand association, I worked with a guy years ago who owned a restaurant in Europe for over a decade, before he came stateside.  We got to talking about wines and he said the expensive name brand wines was a bunch of BS. He went on to say for 99.9% of people, there is no reason to spend more than $20 on a bottle of wine.  We went to the wine store a few days later and he picked out the most amazing wines, all for under $20, brand names I had never heard of.

If there was a "blind" way to evaluate courses, not knowing the designer or location, I suspect some of the top lists might look a little different.

[John Kavanaugh]

The thing about John Kirk that is different than most is that he joins courses that he likes. The guy ponies up.

[Tim Martin]

Stop it. You are preaching to a group who thinks they can evaluate value while playing for free.

 

[Lou_Duran]

  I am only stating what should be obvious to any student of golf, its architecture and its history.  Without profit there is no capital and no golf. 

Lou,That should be obvious but that is the major problem in golf for most places.  The average public golf course cannot charge what is needed. And yet it is that course who supports most of the vendors of machinery, fertilizer, balls , carts etc.  A million dollar renovation at a club with 500 members is in "reality" a $2000 renovation and yet to the average public course it is a million dollar realit ythat must come from green fees and not assessment.  Doesn't work. The same guy that will spend 7 dollars for some craft beer will shop public golf looking for a $25 buck round.  That round is less that 6 buck per hour. 
The numbers no longer work unless subsidized either by private club membership or munis...Real estate plays are not golf...

We've rehashed this a few times over the years.  One aspect of golf that is very real estate related is the Location³ adage.  I don't disagree with anything you say other than to note that golf is doing pretty well in some markets, D/FW being one of them.


Having said this, with the City of Frisco paying $160k/acre for parkland, there is absolutely no way that a private developer can build an upscale course not to say anything about an affordable muni without major subsidies.  There is a course east of Dallas under construction as part of a residential real estate development, but that is a rarity.


Ron Whitten wrote an article some 10-15 years ago comparing daily-fee golf to the pizza business.  Essentially, he argued that pizza and golf both competed on price as commodities, with consumers unwilling to pay for better quality (the article was based on Tierra Verde GC, a CCFAD built by the City of Arlington- home of the Texas Rangers and Dallas Cowboys- on a very large budget).  Subsidized courses could ride the storm.  Privately-owned courses could fight for awhile as long as green fees covered variable expenses and debt service, and made a contribution toward fixed costs.  But in the long run, as things wear out and have to be replaced, the business goes kaput.


No doubt that it is a supply and demand problem to varying degrees in most areas, and it will be resolved eventually after enough courses close.  A strategic principle of a company I used to work for was to be the low-cost producer in the industry.  This allowed it to weather difficult conditions and take market share from less successful competitors during these times.  I suspect that this strategy works for smart golf operators who watch costs carefully while not allowing the asset to deteriorate badly.


Me, when I play golf, I am very aware of what it took to build and maintain the course.  I am not the type of golfer Whitten described- I won't play courses that have little architectural merit or are badly maintained- but I do enjoy those who stretch the dollar and still provide a good experience.  The Fields, Aiken GC, Wild Horse, Rustic Canyon are but a few that come to mind.

[Sean_A]

John

When evaluating courses it can be important why a course was built so the design can seen in the intended context. For instance, there is little point in ticking Pine Valley for being penal when that was the design intent.

Ciao

Hi Sean,
I'll have to think about that.  OK, I've thought about it.

I must play golf in a bubble.  Why should I care what their intent is?  I don't feel my evaluation of a golf course should be bound by anybody's intent.  I show up and play, and watch other people play, and I might even imagine what it would be like for other people to play.
It's unreasonable to say that Pine Valley is the best course in the United States because we understand what the intended context is.  It's either the best (or most admired, or most enjoyable) course in the country, or it is not, regardless of intent.
Sorry, I've got the blockhead blinders on regarding this subject.
 

I think trying to understand the intent requires one to look at what is in the ground rather than looking at a course against a checklist and/or looking for features etc.  For me at least, its easier to set aside my preferences and experience what actually is if get the intent. A high profile example for me is Trump Aberdeen.  I am not keen on much of what was done, but when I put the course in context of it being designed for touring professionals and to move crowds around the course, I am much more sympathetic to the design.  I am very comfortable believing the course delivers, but isn't my bag.  If I didn't know the goals of the design my evaluation would be not be so lenient.  The same could be said at the other end of the spectrum with very short courses which really are designed to get lots of people of all abilities around. That course may seem to easy, short etc, but when viewed against the goals of the design, it may be spot on. 

Ciao

[Sean_A]

People do not read Robert Parker to understand the "economics" of the wine business.
They want to know if the wine is any good.
If knowing the wine was aged in French Oak vs American enhances your appreciation of it that's great.
But it's not a necessary component in evaluating said wine.

But knowing about wines makes it far easier to select wines one will like. Who wants to walk into a wine shop time and again and makes blind guesses or rely on a stranger for recommendations?   


Ciao

[Jay Mickle]

Sean,
I often see courses from your perspective. Thinking of the best par 3 course I would be inclined to say the Sand Box at Sand Valley, however, for suitability for market and meeting the goals of the resort I would say The Cradle at Pinehurst. So which one is Better??
For me North Berwick is more fun than the Old Course, Mid Pines is more fun than #2, Which is better? Criteria is the critical factor.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I often see courses from your perspective. Thinking of the best par 3 course I would be inclined to say the Sand Box at Sand Valley, however, for suitability for market and meeting the goals of the resort I would say The Cradle at Pinehurst. So which one is Better??
For me North Berwick is more fun than the Old Course, Mid Pines is more fun than #2, Which is better? Criteria is the critical factor.

Jay Shades

Which course is better isn't a question which at its core interests me except in how it drives discussion and recognition.  I will say that one of the most impressive aspects of #2 is its challenge and playability across levels of abilities...and making the course easily walkable for the vast majaority while doing it.  It is only those who want to step way back that will have their walk mucked up. 

For sure criteria limits the possibilities of rankings, not only in terms of what are deemed the important elements and aspects of courses, but also which courses are placed on lists for consideration.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()