21

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Has Oakmont Tree Removal Begun a Good or Bad Trend?

« Last post by Jim_Coleman on Yesterday at 04:45:19 PM »

   Having experienced major tree removal with no architect input, all I can say is - hire an architect you trust and trust him. Proper tree removal requires architectural expertise.

22

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT - 'Billionaires' playgrounds': the $1mn fees upending Florida's golf clubs

« Last post by Rob Marshall on Yesterday at 04:28:32 PM »

Nothing wrong with a private club charging extreme fees if that's what the market will pay. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a person preferring the model that is most prevalent in Ireland and Scotland, where most of the best courses are open to public play.

Unfortunately, in preferring the Scottish/Irish model (count me in), we'd have to change our tax code in America to even allow it. To change the 501c7 structure to allow for visitors in addition to guests, we would need a strong cultural/political shift in American golf. Stories like this make me a bit depressed that we're going in the opposite direction. We need more Mike Keisers and fewer DJ Kalids (apparently) if we want to change the way golf clubs operate in America.

Keisers courses are cheap to play?

23

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT - 'Billionaires' playgrounds': the $1mn fees upending Florida's golf clubs

« Last post by Michael Morandi on Yesterday at 03:16:54 PM »

My club, located in one of the richest parts of the world, has so far resisted charging what the market will pay for a number of reasons,  not least that we want good people/players who fit our culture and because we want to avoid the boom/ bust cycle that creates the high member turnover that can ruin our golf focused culture.

By chance might this club be located two-stops from the end of the Hempstead Branch? 

Not even close

24

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT - 'Billionaires' playgrounds': the $1mn fees upending Florida's golf clubs

« Last post by Matt Schoolfield on Yesterday at 02:29:16 PM »

Nothing wrong with a private club charging extreme fees if that's what the market will pay. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a person preferring the model that is most prevalent in Ireland and Scotland, where most of the best courses are open to public play.

Unfortunately, in preferring the Scottish/Irish model (count me in), we'd have to change our tax code in America to even allow it. To change the 501c7 structure to allow for visitors in addition to guests, we would need a strong cultural/political shift in American golf. Stories like this make me a bit depressed that we're going in the opposite direction. We need more Mike Keisers and fewer DJ Kalids (apparently) if we want to change the way golf clubs operate in America.

25

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Delamere Forest course tour

« Last post by David Kelly on Yesterday at 02:16:01 PM »

One of the features he talked about was the landing area on the 18th where there is a big bulge in the fairway that long hitters just blast over but it is something that deflects balls into the rough to the right or stops balls from rolling out.
Also discussed was shaving the ridge on 10 so that the second shot isn't blind (the best part of the holes, actually).
Typical of the mindset that says, look at the great architect who built this club, now here is what we should change.

26

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT - 'Billionaires' playgrounds': the $1mn fees upending Florida's golf clubs

« Last post by Chris Hughes on Yesterday at 02:14:01 PM »

My club, located in one of the richest parts of the world, has so far resisted charging what the market will pay for a number of reasons,  not least that we want good people/players who fit our culture and because we want to avoid the boom/ bust cycle that creates the high member turnover that can ruin our golf focused culture.

By chance might this club be located two-stops from the end of the Hempstead Branch?  [size=78%] [/size]

27

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Winter Tour 2023-24: Galloping Round GATEHOUSE GC

« Last post by Thomas Dai on Yesterday at 01:33:32 PM »

Courses like this are the essence of golf. Long may they continue to exist.
Atb

28

Golf Course Architecture / Re: I love and hate firm and fast.

« Last post by Thomas Dai on Yesterday at 01:31:46 PM »

Worth a read - https://www.golfaustralia.com.au/feature/clayton-brown-is-good-514859
Atb

29

Golf Course Architecture / Re: I love and hate firm and fast.

« Last post by jeffwarne on Yesterday at 01:26:32 PM »

F&F actually helps long duffed shots get near/on the green but they also create tight lies making it near impossible to clip a wedge (or bump a 7i) consistently.

That may be how firm and fast typically gets manifested in this day and age, but it isn't a requirement of firm and fast. It is possible to raise the height of cut, dry out the turf and give us firmer, faster, bouncier conditions while leaving a good cushion under the ball. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be fashionable at the moment.

A cushion under the ball-what a concept-definitely not  fashionable at the moment.


Billions are spent(mostly) in this country at high end clubs to produce firm and fast.
they always get the FAST, and only occasionally the firm.
And the golf suffers as chipping and pitching go away for all but the best wedge players, due to the impossibility of pitching with no cushion, compounded by the often wet conditions to keep the scalped/rolled turf alive.


Yet, at the mostly country courses I played for a month in New Zealand they got FIRM every-single-day, despite the constant negativity I heard from the tree police about how over treed their courses were.
The secret was as George points out, they weren't going overboard with the attempts at FAST, with a reasonable HOC on the fairways and greens allowing healthy, bouncy firm turf-usually with one greenkeeper on $9-20 course.


Oh and here's the ironic part-they don't have to "renovate' their greens every few years out of the sheer genius of maintaining them at a height that works with the original slopes/tilts.
Not that they could anyway...
I pretty much throw up in my mouth whenever I hear an "expert" tell me about a  course with with well contoured tilt/slop(not tiers) being renovated to accommodate "modern speeds" like they are an unavoidable disease like hoof in mouth...
as if the problem was the greens..

30

Golf Course Architecture / Re: I love and hate firm and fast.

« Last post by Brett Meyer on Yesterday at 01:24:12 PM »

Average golfers (I’m one) are in no-mans land because they can’t hit greens with any club or ball in regulation. 


F&F actually helps long duffed shots get near/on the green but they also create tight lies making it near impossible to clip a wedge (or bump a 7i) consistently.

F&F is a great equalizer. The firmest and fastest course I've played in the US (maybe anywhere) is The Loop and I (usually shoots mid-70s) played it with my dad (struggles to break 100) last summer. We probably had our lowest-ever score differential; I shot 85 and he shot his best round of the year (96 or 97) as his drives and bad shots rolled out 50 yards further than usual, his bump-and-run game worked, and I struggled to hit greens and to figure out what are some very unusual demands on the short game (for an American course).

And he did equally well the second day when we played it in reverse. The key--which you mention Matt--is that weaker players get so much more out of their bad shots. It wouldn't be true for someone who's a bad golfer because they're really inaccurate, but it works great for someone who putters along, not hitting the ball too far and duffing it occasionally, but also not going too far offline.