Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on September 01, 2015, 12:22:55 AM
-
about a course that I feel is a terrific golf course.
The course held a charity outing for a charity that I'm involved with.
It was the first time that this charity was hosted by this course.
I couldn't play, but attended the cocktail reception and dinner.
At the cocktail reception a number of us were talking about the course and a fellow said to me.
"I was shocked at how poorly conditioned this course is"
So, I said, "What do you mean ?"
He said, "Well the greens were hard and your ball rolled when it hit the green, and the fairways were also hard and your ball rolled after it landed."
He went on to say that the course looked "ratty" that there was greenish/yellowish/brownish colors in the fairway and rough.
I sat there, not stunned, but somewhat surprised about this fellows idea of what constitutes ideal playing surfaces.
Is this what we're up against.
The green, green grass of TV ?
I tried to explain the benefit of ideal playing surfaces, roll and firm and fast.
Some he appeared to agree with (read more distance), but, I felt that his idea of ideal playing surfaces were lush, deep green, soft conditions.
How can playing surfaces be improved if TV continues to show lush green conditions every week ?
-
Pat, one man's trash..... I guess it holds for gca as well.
-
I played a member/guest this weekend at a drought induced very firm course. After three days of hitting off concrete my elbow is shot. After three days of a cart ride through the baja my back is broken. Playing golf as a contact sport is fun for a day but can wear an old man out over time.
-
. . . How can playing surfaces be improved if TV continues to show lush green conditions every week ?
Can't be . . . but then different strokes for different folks. Us f and f'ers need to give it up.
-
The courses on TV are both green and firm and fast. It's possible to have both at great expense. To give credit where credit is due...our new Super at Victoria National gets it done day after day. He has proven that it can be done just like on TV.
Note: I only played one day this year when the green side fans were in use. I love this guy. The moral of the story is that the problem lays more in the talent of the Super than the ignorance of the member.
-
At the cocktail reception a number of us were talking about the course and a fellow said to me.
"I was shocked at how poorly conditioned this course is"
So, I said, "What do you mean ?"
He said, "Well the greens were hard and your ball rolled when it hit the green, and the fairways were also hard and your ball rolled after it landed."
It sounds like his primary issue wasn't that the course didn't look like one from TV, but that he instead didn't care for the way the course played. I know a lot of guys who want their ball to stay in the fairway when they hit one of its edges and who want their greens to be "receptive" to even the most thinly-struck of approach shots. Whether you're talking about politics or golf, there are an awful lot of people who want to benefit themselves first and foremost even if it means dumbing things down for everyone else.
-
It's possible to have both at great expense.
..........
The moral of the story is that the problem lays more in the talent of the Super than the ignorance of the member.
And an unlimited budget...
-
"He went on to say that the course looked "ratty" that there was greenish/yellowish/brownish colors in the fairway and rough."
That fairway description sounds like dead poa. That's a big problem at our club. Too much thatch and the roots haven't gone deep. They look like crap and they are far from firm and fast.......Our new Super is going to hit them hard with verticutting and plugging this fall. Seems like a very knowledgeable guy. He was an assistant at Westchester CC last year.
Your point is well taken, It's hard for people to understand that some brown is not a bad thing.
-
How can playing surfaces be improved if TV continues to show lush green conditions every week ?
In my opinion, people need to experience it fairly frequently and they'll realize all of the benefits.
It is, no doubt, a difficult cycle. We've had an incredibly dry 4 or 6 weeks here in Philadelphia and I can just about guarantee that a great percentage of clubs touting firm and fast are green and soft today.
Not many ever really get green and firm because the point of putting water down is to keep the grass alive, so why underestimate the perfect amount.
I'm always amazed and impressed when I watch a Tour event and one of the guys hits a drive on a par five that rolls about 65 yards then their five iron from 215 splatters all over the green.
The PGA Tour is a show...the sooner each decision making body within a club realizes that, the better.
-
Pat -
Your conversation was much like many I had after the USO at P2 in 2014. People were shocked at the course's "terrible" conditioning and "ugly" look. Trying to explain to them the reasons for the set-up seemed to make little difference. Reactions were generally NIMBY.
There is a long way to go.
Bob
-
"2014 US Open: Donald Trump rips Pinehurst's 'horrible look'" ;)
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24589308/us-open-donald-trump-rips-pinehursts-horrible-look (http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24589308/us-open-donald-trump-rips-pinehursts-horrible-look)
"That is not what golf is about."
-
I have yet to meet all these stupid golfers you guys seem to know. As a matter of fact the problem lies in the fact that people in charge of maintenance believe, like most of you, that golfers are stupid. Once you believe that golfers are stupid you believe that they will only accept one thing....green. Pour on the water, crank up the fans and build new drainage to support your irrigation. It's a perfect formula to keep your job until the next higher paying gig makes an offer. No one gets hurt cause the members are too stupid to know better.
No one provides an exciting product when they assume the customer is stupid.
-
Pat, yes, that is what we're up against.
But I do think it is improving. Without taking a scientific poll, I believe there is an increasing number of golfers who get it--especially here in California, where the drought is critical.
This attitude is why I defend the USGA's decision to hold the Open at Chambers Bay. They tried to showcase what golf going forward is going to look like. Yes, they made several mistakes at the Open, but the USGA gets it that water is the biggest issue facing US golf. And it's great that an increasing number of golfers like us actually prefer the firm, fast, yellow-brown look.
-
Jim -
It's not just water, it's also over-use of fertilizer and crazy maintenance budgets. All of which are pushing up the price of golf, with long term consequences which - if not checked - will not be pretty.
On a website devoted to golf architecture, it is worth repeating that the best ideas about how to deal with such things on new courses come from old courses.
Bob
-
Good posts, from various perspectives.
I think that what's needed is to meet people where they are, and not to preach to them from on high or from a position of presumed enlightenment. (It reminds me of the old rabbi who was asked why so few people experienced God: "Because so few people are willing to stoop that low").
Peter
-
I've learned a lot over the years, and one of the best learning opportunities I had was being a superintendent at a semi-private club in NC that had zero fairway irrigation fixtures...none. The grass lived, and was very playable. I was there 6 seasons, and never had grass die.
The UK does it all the time. Nothing new under the sun except for amounts of money and technology and egos.
-
JakaB,
Let's not forget that the superintendent is an employee of the club, and as such, he gets his marching orders from the President/Board/Green Chairman.
Rarely does a superintendent act independent of all three.
I've been present when a green chairman instructed a superintendent that he wanted the course to be, "very lush with a deep green color"
I've also had superintendents call me to tell me that their green chairman had directed them to get the greens to 11+, despite summer heat.
The issue transcends the superintendent, but, he's often a significant player.
My advice to superintendents is as follows:
"I've seen the head professional, manager, chef, superintendent and other employees dismissed from the club.
I've yet to see a President, Board Member or Green Chairman dismissed from the club.
Be advised accordingly"
-
I have yet to meet all these stupid golfers you guys seem to know. As a matter of fact the problem lies in the fact that people in charge of maintenance believe, like most of you, that golfers are stupid. Once you believe that golfers are stupid you believe that they will only accept one thing....green. Pour on the water, crank up the fans and build new drainage to support your irrigation. It's a perfect formula to keep your job until the next higher paying gig makes an offer. No one gets hurt cause the members are too stupid to know better.
No one provides an exciting product when they assume the customer is stupid.
I do have to say you are the luckiest member of the site. Not only have you avoided all stupid golfers, but you also are fortunate enough to often have a recent anecdotal experience that allows you to express a contrarian view to most of the threads posted.
-
At my age it's more the nature of natural selection than luck that my golfing friends aren't stupid. I am however very lucky that Victoria National is in the best condition since its inception.
-
It's the ANGC syndrome. The Masters has established an unrealistic, expensive and unsustainable benchmark. Golden age courses which play firm and fast and allow the ground game work great for players of all abilities. Sadly, most modern designs require golf to be played through the air favoring the accomplished player.
-
It's not the TV's fault. It's the game mind of the players.
-
Adam,
How do you think the players acquired that "game mind" ?
The influence of TV ?
It's not the TV's fault. It's the game mind of the players.
-
Jeff,
I don't see the disconnect between Golden Age designs and Modern designs in terms of the aerial and ground game.
I think the difference is at the maintenance end and not the design end.
-
The masses just are not educated. My wife and played a 1920's country club (turned public) near Dayton, Ohio this weekend. With the exception of MOST of the fairways and the greens, the course was pretty brown, which considering the amount of rain Ohio had this summer was cool. It will take a TON of education to make people understand about conditioning. I'll take the drier fairways, I need all the ROLL I can get!
-
I have played golf now for 47 years and have never heard a fellow member say that he expects the course where we are playing to look like ANGC. The Augusta syndrome is a myth.
-
Probably the general golfing public knows that Augusta-like conditions are out of reach, but I would bet that almost all American members of this site had golfing acquaintances mention that they did not like the look of Pinehurst, when it held both Opens. Green is still the expected standard.
-
The simple truth in all of these posts is that it comes down to personal preference. For example, I was handwatering the putting green of one of my first clubs and had two consecutive groups of golfers come off of the course the first saying to me speed the greens up and the second saying slow them down. The greens were rolling 13 that morning. Golfers in general tend to lack ownership of their bad shots and the blame tends to go on course conditions not the fact that they aren't as young as they used to be or don't play as much as they would like causing higher scores. Golf course superintendents are charged with creating the playing conditions their memberships/general public desire. The task of creating healthy and firm playing conditions is different from course to course. So be careful when comparing your club to the club down the road. Concepts typically lost on golfers like turf type and soil conditions will largely determine if even the most talented superintendent can create playing conditions that some how please all levels of golfers. Soft firm whatever in the end its a game and it sure beats a day of work have fun.
-
13!?! Really. I once purchased my own stimp meter because I didn't believe what I was being told. Fact is, Supers either don't know how to stimp a green or think lying to members will gain them favor. Oh, or maybe they just think we are stupid.
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oqfxpj.jpg)13!?! Really. I once purchased my own stimp meter because I didn't believe what I was being told. Fact is, Supers either don't know how to stimp a green or think lying to members will gain them favor. Oh, or maybe they just think we are stupid.
-
Stimp reading is the second biggest exaggeration in golf. Beaten only by descriptions of wind speed.
Ours are stimping at 11 today (8.5) and the wind is blowing 15-20mph (8-10)....
-
Adam,
How do you think the players acquired that "game mind" ?
The influence of TV ?
It's not the TV's fault. It's the game mind of the players.
Pat, Max Behr observed the game minders long before television was invented. You'll need to watch a little closer. For the last 15 years the average tour stop has browned out their turf for the pro's tourneys. The general public ignores that. Why do they brown out their courses? To defend against the onslaught of 350 yard drives. The grass on a typical Sunday looks so terrible on TV, but, this hasn't swayed the public's uneducated desire to have the sport made easier for them with consistently soft turf. It also doesn't help that the majority of superintendents, like Nathan above, want to give the golfer what they think they want. I'd be surprised if 1/10th of the supers out there have even played enough golf to know what constitutes a perfect playing surface. Perfect to them is agronomic related, not sporting related.
Nathan, I'm not picking on u, I just don't think it boils down to personal preference. If the customer is only out there to stroke their own ego, it should be the job of the super to repeatedly teach these selfish bastards humility. And if, after it rains, then their 7 wood from 140 yards can stop within inches of it's return to earth.
What's so wrong with a cycle? Day to day asking the golfer to use their experience to adapt to differing conditions? The reality is that the majority of customers are retirees who can't reach medium length holes in regulation due to the viscosity. On the days the turf is firm, they reach. So, why do supers assume the majority wants it lush and receptive everyday? They don't, only the low markers want that.
-
As a good friend of mine, who is a Head Green Keeper in England told me a few weeks ago, the Stimp meter is one of the worst thing that happened to golf course maintenance for greens staff.
His point being that it was designed purely for the staff to know that their greens were somewhat consistent - not to announce to the members/golf public to brag about how fast their greens are running.
I know that most days last year at the club where I play, and they now have a board with the green speeds recorded everyday, that the 'stimp' reading had 2 or 3 feet added to it everyday to impress the members. If we had a true reading then most other clubs in town were running daily at 16!!!!! Not happening :)
-
Putting aside JK's usual defence of the status quo, how is this news? Surely Pat has been experiencing this all of his life, or at least in the last 40 years or so. Golfing masses, unless they decide to learn a little more, will automatically associate the England country garden with fine golf. Peter P covered this in an excellent thread not so long ago but most people ignored it.
-
I'm not defending the status quo, I'm tired of thread after thread stating how much smarter the members of this site are smarter than the general golfing public. I have yet to meet a golfer who shows up at an overwatered course and celebrates mud on their ball. Even the nationally ranked amateurs I occasionally play with love a firm course. Nothing strokes their fragile egos like more than one eagle putt a round. One one hand you guys bemoan the long ball while on the other claiming the average golfer doesn't love roll out.
People who bitch about everything aren't always stupid, sometimes thar just bitches.
-
I call this the "Augusta factor", I think most golfers in this country view Augusta as their perfect image of a golf course and expect top courses to look like that. Even Maidstone decided to add a sprinkler system, as much as they say this has to do recent droughts I truly believe its mostly the members desire for that "beautiful lush green look" that TV has told them a good golf course should have.
When I talk to friends who are raters everyone tells me that Yale in better condition would easily be in the top half of the GD100, but today its not even on the list.
-
JakaB,
There's a distinct difference between green, lush conditions and conditions where your ball has mud on it.
Extremes are rarely good.
The fellow I was speaking with objected to the lack of a monochromatic color throughout the golf course.
To him, consistent green defined the quality of the playing conditions, rather than the surfaces themselves.
Having played a fair amount of golf over the years and having played this same course a week or so earlier, I found the playing conditions to be superb.
He, on the other hand prefered soft conditions, conditions where your ball stayed where it landed on the green.
The greens at this course were F&F, hence, only well struck shots were likely to remain close to the point of impact.
To address the general golfing IQ of participants on this site, I'd say it was well above average. That's not an elitist position, it's a function of knowledge, of golfers who want to learn more about golf, design and maintenance.
As to the stimpmeter, many years ago, I too purchased several stimps because I was being told that the speed of the greens was high, when in truth, it wasn't.
The value of a stimp is not in the speed of the greens, rather it's in the consistency of the greens.
-
Same names, same anti-Super rhetoric. We all take our orders from someone
-
I had a similar experience at this years State Open of Virginia which is in its second year at Ballyhack Golf Club, known for being firm and fast. I ask a professional how he played and he said he played well, then he "the course is in much better condition this year". I knew that not to be true and asked, "in what way". He said it was "softer". He went on to say it played much like other tournament courses "not much roll, and not much bounce".
We had an inch and a half or rain three days prior (which made it greener) But the greens were the same speed as last year.
I found that annoyingly interesting.
Lester
-
I continue to be involved with the Greens committee at my club and to co-chair the Chicago District's agronomy efforts. Pat's observations are in no ways unique. Many players prefer courses that are green even at the cost of firmness. Even more in our area cherish trees regardless of whether they hurt turf quality or inhibit strategy. That is an observable fact in my experience. Of course it is a matter of taste. But the art of criticism is based on the assumption that not all opinions (or tastes) have equal value. If one is evaluating a golf course for its intended purpose, as a place to play the game, there can be little argument that firm and fast conditions make for a better game regardless of one's skill level. If one is out for a pleasant walk in a garden, the issue is much more debatable. So while I concur that it is a matter of taste, I reject the notion that those who don't understand the interaction between conditioning and the game should be given the same respect as those who do. However, I also recognize that members and owners run golf facilities and ultimately their superintendents answer to them . So sometimes there is little they can do. Over the past several years we have come a long way in educating our members to appreciate the benefits of firmer surfaces. There remain a significant group of holdouts on the tree issue and it gets a little dicey when things start to brown out (no issue this year with all the rain). But its a continuing process and some will never learn.
-
I just finished up a three day member/guest on a course that this site would say needs tree removal to expose the architecture. Upon review, each of my top ten most exciting moments involved either hitting around, under, or through a tree. Funny enough, the main concerns involving the trees was the lack of pristine grass underneath. I don't get the problem. Trees are fun as hell.
-
Probably the general golfing public knows that Augusta-like conditions are out of reach, but I would bet that almost all American members of this site had golfing acquaintances mention that they did not like the look of Pinehurst, when it held both Opens. Green is still the expected standard.
Let's start with your boy, Trump.
-
Jeff,
It's not just about the look, it's about how that look impacts play.
It's about the inherent quality of the playing surfaces brought about by the look, and the objection to firm and fast conditions because the course isn't solid green.
-
This is a really interesting thread. The bottom line is that most american golfers dislike the firm fast conditions we extoll as ideal on this site. I loved the look of pinehurst in the open and liked the look of Chambers Bay even more. My father a senior 15 handicap country club member who plays 3 times a week and watches golf on TV constantly hated the look of both of them. I really think he is an accurate representation of the average american golfer. To him, 1. It looks bad and he did mention Augusta and even the nice green grass of his own club. 2. The average golfer does not need or want a course to be more difficult and firm and fast is definitely more difficult. 3. Firm fast conditions lead to ground game kicks and bounces and this is "unfair" in the minds of both the average player and the tour pro and both complained a lot about Chambers Bay if I remember correctly.
-
It also doesn't help that the majority of superintendents, like Nathan above, want to give the golfer what they think they want. I'd be surprised if 1/10th of the supers out there have even played enough golf to know what constitutes a perfect playing surface. Perfect to them is agronomic related, not sporting related.[/size]Nathan, I'm not picking on u, I just don't think it boils down to personal preference. If the customer is only out there to stroke their own ego, it should be the job of the super to repeatedly teach these selfish bastards humility. And if, after it rains, then their 7 wood from 140 yards can stop within inches of it's return to earth.
Adam,
Superintendents or golf course employees that set out to teach the members a "lesson" of any kind will be looking for a job shortly. I personally have tried for years to educate my members on the value of brown and tight conditions where their ball rolls out. I took this to the course last year with occasional dry spots in fairways low heights of cut every where and firm fast greens. I even had the USGA write a report about the topic. My approval rating went from 97% to 93% and the turf was just as healthy and solid as it was prior.I am a 5 handicap I like tight and fast conditions but not everyone does. [/color]
-
Here is another interesting thing concerning this topic. In China this is even worse. Here people pay big money, usually over $100 US to play golf anywhere and the expectation is that everything will be perfectly green and the greens will big very green and very fast. Many also like thick nasty rough. I played the Dunes at Shenzou Peninsula in Hainan and it was an all sand course right on the Ocean with dunes and wildly undulating fairways. It was so green and well watered that the ball stopped within a few feet of landing in the fairway and the greens held approaches even with long irons. It robbed the course of all the links character of the intended design. Then I played a more inland RTJ Junior course that had faster fairways with slight brown patches that still provided perfect lies in the highest parts of the fairways. The round we much more interesting and fun. Upon returning to the clubhouse I was charged less than the quoted price (in China you pay before leaving) because the fairways were " not in good condition." What is interesting is that the Dunes would have been the best course I have played in China had the conditions been firm and fast. Instead, the conditions made the lesser of the courses from a design standpoint more fun to play.
-
I wonder the extent to which, at least at the private club level, the prevailing culture is one where the members regard the club as a status symbol more than just a place to relax and have a good time with friends and family.
The members who have the gumption to get on a Superintendent's case because the otherwise perfect greens are running at 11 on the Stimpmeter rather than 13 are probably the same ones who tell non-members at cocktail parties, "Yeah, the greens at [my home club] are like glass right now. Just perfect. Thirteen-plus!" whether it's true or not.
My sense is that there are certain clubs whose steering committees are more full of these kinds of dudes than others. And to arc back to Peter P.'s thesis, which Paul mentioned, they are also the kind of dudes who think their ideal is of a great golf experience when it's really more about a country garden walk than a round of golf.
Pat, it seems like the guy complaining about the course to you is a member of one of those ego-first-golf-second clubs, and that the host of the outing is of the reverse sort.
-
I'm not defending the status quo, I'm tired of thread after thread stating how much smarter the members of this site are smarter than the general golfing public. I have yet to meet a golfer who shows up at an overwatered course and celebrates mud on their ball. Even the nationally ranked amateurs I occasionally play with love a firm course. Nothing strokes their fragile egos like more than one eagle putt a round. One one hand you guys bemoan the long ball while on the other claiming the average golfer doesn't love roll out.
People who bitch about everything aren't always stupid, sometimes thar just bitches.
John,
I'm afraid all you ever do is defend the status quo. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your self image but endlessly reiterating your support for what the vast majority of country club members recognise as quality isn't exactly the behaviour of a radical individual.
-
Paul - There's a shabby-chic quality to it, though, don't you think?
I like reading the many posts from people who know better than me (e.g. from the superintendent side, or Shelly from the committee side, or Pat from the good player's side). But it does seem that there is an 'evangelist' element to some of our discussions here - a kind of "why are they so blind?!" Well, I'd suggest that "they" are not blind. In fact, they see things very clearly, and what they see is this: that for many many golfers, it is simply harder to play the game off tight turf, and golf is simply more challenging (and dare I say, less fun) in fast and firm conditions, when the ball rolls and rolls and they feel they have even less control of it than usual. And for most of these folks, they don't want to make the game any harder than it already is, which is why their drivers are the size of toasters and their putters the length of brooms. Now, yes, I tend to believe - with Adam and Max Behr -- that there is this "game mind" of man -- but saying so seems to have done little good for "them" or "us" or the "game". Folks have been talking in one way or another about "the carnal mind" of man for thousands of years too, but that carnal mind hasn't lessened its hold one bit. All of which is to say, as I did earlier, maybe it is best to meet people where they are, without judgement and without superiority. "They" don't want the extra challenge, "we" do -- so let's see how we can have a real conversation about it with our agendas and beliefs and needs out in the open and try to find something that works for all.
-
In fact, they see things very clearly, and what they see is this: that for many many golfers, it is simply harder to play the game off tight turf, and golf is simply more challenging (and dare I say, less fun) in fast and firm conditions, when the ball rolls and rolls and they feel they have even less control of it than usual. And for most of these folks, they don't want to make the game any harder than it already is,
This is exactly what I was getting at when I described how my Dad feels. Most people want a chance to shoot a good score and do not play well enough to shoot anywhere near their handicap on a firm, fast course with tight lies. They want to have a good time not get beat up. I however am a glutton for punishment and I like the creativity that firm fast and tight provides. I may hit more shots but they are also more memorable and I don't get my worth from my handicap anymore. The days of +2 went the way of the dodo after I got my first real job.
-
Peter, Rick et al,
Since we're doing dad comparisons, I thought I'd introduce my old man to the discussion.......
My dad is a 69 year old man with a dodgy knee, a knackered shoulder, a golf 'swipe' which would leave you none too impressed and an inability to remove any golf ball from any amount of sand. He plays the game about six times a year. He's a working class lad with no education and wouldn't himself claim to be an intellectual. You get the picture.
What has always impressed me though, despite all these apparent shortcomings in his capacity to 'get it,' is just how much he actually does like traditional golf courses. I am my father's son, clearly. For him, and this can be similarly evidenced any day you choose to pay a visit to my own club when conditions are firm and the female octagenarians are out in force , the quick fairways are anything but a problem. When you can only duff the ball 100 yards all that roll is a god send, as is the luxury of taking the putter out from 60 yards short of the dance floor.
But I got to asking myself why he's so appreciative of a links or dry heathland. Certainly he can't really articulate it. Is it really as simple as being able to hit the ball further because it's dry? And then it struck me.....and then I reconsidered and wondered if perhaps I'd created a narrative which suited me. I asked him about it and concluded that I hadn't crafted a story to fit my world view, although I can't honestly claim to have applied a scientific control to my investigation. Anyway, it occurred to me that my dad, a man for whom 'working class lad does good and demonstrates his aspirational social climbing by joining a water fountain park,' should be part of the programme, a man for whom voting for Margaret Thatcher was more a social statement than a political conviction, didn't get the memo telling him that lush and green was all part of the good life. No one told him that 'American style golf course in the heart of Hampshire' was meant for him, to be worn as a badge of honour to mark his rise up the social order. For him a pond doesn't mean classy, it means danger. And my dad doesn't feel the urge to demonstrate his ability to thin the ball into every hazard he sees, nor does he feel the need to demonstrate that he can miss ever 20 yard wide fairway he walks across before searching through thick rough for a golf ball he's never going to find. And he's a man more immune than most to advertising anyway. It has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with apathy and stubborness. So it seems to me that this neanderthal of golf course architecture is better placed than any of us here to form an unbiased opinion. And what he likes, much as was true of golfers one hundred years ago before anyone told them what to think, is a dry course which he can basically run the ball across and have fun with contours. Show me a golfer who claims to dislike mini-golf and I'll introduce you to a liar. Windmills or no windmills, in the end, it's all really just about the ladies putting course at TOC.
It's true that the desire to massage an ego on a golf course which appears far harder than it actually is is a function of carnal man. We are hunters and we need to feel a sense of defeating the natural world. What isn't true however is that this drive is so innately strong that we can't ever distance ourselves from it when involved in a recreational pursuit. We are nurture as much as nature. That isn't to say that we should look down on anyone who sees the golf course as an entity to be conquered; congratulating oneself for taming the 7,000 yard green beast is a matter for the individual. The fact that I couldn't care less is neither here nor there. It does however follow that we can only truly have a broad perspective on the subject of golf course architecture if we stop viewing the course as prey.
-
I wonder the extent to which, at least at the private club level, the prevailing culture is one where the members regard the club as a status symbol more than just a place to relax and have a good time with friends and family.
Tim,
In my limited experience of 60+ years, very, very few members whom I've come in contact with, regard membership at their. Club as a status symbol.
Where did you get that notion from ?
The members who have the gumption to get on a Superintendent's case because the otherwise perfect greens are running at 11 on the Stimpmeter rather than 13 are probably the same ones who tell non-members at cocktail parties, "Yeah, the greens at [my home club] are like glass right now. Just perfect. Thirteen-plus!" whether it's true or not.
Again, what facts do you have that support the above claim ?
My sense is that there are certain clubs whose steering committees are more full of these kinds of dudes than others. And to arc back to Peter P.'s thesis, which Paul mentioned, they are also the kind of dudes who think their ideal is of a great golf experience when it's really more about a country garden walk than a round of golf.
Tim, I think most green committees are composed of concerned members of limited knowledge. They mean well, but are misguided.
Pat, it seems like the guy complaining about the course to you is a member of one of those ego-first-golf-second clubs, and that the host of the outing is of the reverse sort.
Not at all.
He's just misguided.
He's been indoctrinated, brainwashed into thinking that ideal playing conditions are represented by a lush, monochromatic, green golf course.
He had no idea of the comparative playing benefits of F&F vs lush, green conditions.
I don't know of a golfer who doesn't want to hit it longer.
20 extra yards is more easielly gained by converting to F&F than iby taking more lessons.
When explaining the playing benefits you have to overcome decades of the closure to lush green on TV
And you gave to explain that golf isn't dart throwing, it requires thought and execution.
Given the time you can provide information that can convert the individual golfer to the benefits of F&F, but, extending the counter message to the masses is a far more difficult process.
Especially when so many watch the PGA Tour every week
.
-
this what we're up against.
The green, green grass?
I heard a local radio advertisement for Mid-Pines & Pine Needles this week, touting "two Emerald green Donald Ross" gems. ::)
-
is it the Augusta syndrome or an extension of their lawn?
-
Pat--
If they don't have to do with materiality or the seeking of possession of a status symbol, what are the main factors/values that separate a club membership that wants a lush, green, soft golf course from one that wants an ideally maintained course?
Why do some memberships want a course that has a more conventionally "beautiful" aesthetic presentation while others prioritize the playability and enjoyment of the course?
How do these differences shake out at country clubs vs. pure golf clubs?
Doesn't it stand to reason that the desire for superficial beauty rather than actual fun says something about the values of the people making the decisions, and the way they view their club?
I don't think it's radical or very avant-garde to suggest that the possession of status symbols is connected to an emphasis on aesthetics. A $250,000 Bentley probably drives about as well as (and certainly not 2.5 times better than) a $100,000 BMW 5-series, but people buy Bentleys in part because that "B" on the front of the car says something to passersby that the BMW logo doesn't. Their rarity and aesthetics makes Bentleys very "beautiful" to many onlookers. The row of them parked amongst the public buildings in London are a sight, certainly. It's not unreasonable to assert that a golf or country club membership can have a similar social function, and that that reality has an effect on the sub-optimal presentation of the golf courses at many clubs.
-
Tim,
Great post. Spot on.
-
Pat--
If they don't have to do with materiality or the seeking of possession of a status symbol, what are the main factors/values that separate a club membership that wants a lush, green, soft golf course from one that wants an ideally maintained course?
Tim,
The culture of the club in terms of historical context.
The composition of the membership of the club in terms of "golfers"
Why do some memberships want a course that has a more conventionally "beautiful" aesthetic presentation while others prioritize the playability and enjoyment of the course?
See the above response
How do these differences shake out at country clubs vs. pure golf clubs?
I don't understand the use of the term "shake out".
What does that mean ?
Doesn't it stand to reason that the desire for superficial beauty rather than actual fun says something about the values of the people making the decisions, and the way they view their club?
You're using qualifiers to frame your question.
I've had plenty of fun on courses where roll is restricted.
I would have had more fun had roll not been restricted.
I've been on plenty of beautiful courses.
As to whether the beauty is superficial or not is in the eye of the beholder.
If the beholder/s watch the PGA Tour every week, lush, green conditions are the norm, the standard by which they judge the condition of a course, because that's what they see the best golfers in the world playing.
The only thing it tells you about the membership is that they've chosen to emulate that which they see on TV every week.
I don't think it's radical or very avant-garde to suggest that the possession of status symbols is connected to an emphasis on aesthetics. A $250,000 Bentley probably drives about as well as (and certainly not 2.5 times better than) a $100,000 BMW 5-series, but people buy Bentleys in part because that "B" on the front of the car says something to passersby that the BMW logo doesn't. Their rarity and aesthetics makes Bentleys very "beautiful" to many onlookers. The row of them parked amongst the public buildings in London are a sight, certainly.
It's not unreasonable to assert that a golf or country club membership can have a similar social function, and that that reality has an effect on the sub-optimal presentation of the golf courses at many clubs.
I don't know any members of private clubs that walk around waving their membership certificate.
I do however, see the drivers behind the wheel of luxury cars, so, they're easy to identify.
As to your premise, just the opposite is true.
The members of some iconic clubs like Pine Valley, Seminole, Winged Foot, CPC, NGLA, Shinnecock and others, prefer optimal playing conditions to soft, lush, green conditions.
Hence, like lush, green fairways, your premise is all wet.