News:

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


THuckaby2

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2002, 12:23:06 PM »
DK:  our little Los Lagos is far from perfect - I'd agree that "getting there" is a fair assessment!  I'm with you 100% -if you look at the routing, a huge amount of the course's distance is taken up by four side-by-side par 5's - #9,1,10,18 looking left to right.  That's a weakness of the course most definitely... #1 and #10 are almost identical, and whist 9 and 18 are both great holes... it would seem to me the land would have allowed for exactly what you say - more short par 4's, less par 3's, shorter (and less) par 5's.

Of course what keeps the avid golfer from pooh-poohing the course, and keeps him coming back, are the "real" par 5's, or so I hear.  So this isn't as easy a decision as it seems....

NINE par threes
FIVE par fives
FOUR par fours

This is a very strange course, huh?

That being said, it is great fun....

TH

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

D. Kilfara

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2002, 12:25:03 PM »
Dan, pipe dreams are all well and good, but do you really think that "short courses" are really marketable? If you were in Bandon, how much time would you spend on an executive course, no matter how well done it was? You might play it once, but at the back of your mind you'd probably be thinking that the time you were spending their could have been spent on one of the "big courses".

How much play do "short courses" at established clubs get relative to their big brothers? Atlanta Athletic Club has a really neat short course - all par 3s between 60-120 yards, some neat green complexes, really well done. You can go out there on a perfect day, and all 36 holes on the big courses will be full; you might find a handful of golfers on the short course, if that. Same thing at the Olympic Club - it's nine-hole par-3 course, on the ocean side of Skyline Boulevard, is as gorgeous as anything you could ever play. Gib could vouch for the exact details, but on my one trip out to see the small course, my friend and I had it virtually to ourselves, even though the big courses were full. Go down to World Woods - same thing. Great par-29 course, challenging and enjoyable, seemingly a perfect complement to the 36 full-sized holes; whether or not the $25 greens fee was a put-off, I don't know, but again, it was virtually empty when I went out to play it. The Grand Cypress resort had a neat pitch-and-putt course on its grounds; I raced around it, playing three balls at a time, because nobody else seemed inclined to bother. Look and see how busy the Peter Hay par-3 course is at Pebble Beach, next time you're in the area. I could go on and on (oh, wait, I already did). :)

And this is the problem. I myself will seek out a good short course like this, because I really, really enjoy playing them. I can go around 27 holes on a pitch-and-putt and have three closely fought matches with a buddy in the same time that I can play about 11-12 holes on a normal course. The attraction, to me, is obvious. But how do you convince the average American golfer? I'm not sure you can. He's never seen Tiger Woods play an executive course - and if he did, he'd probably be convinced (after seeing Tiger shoot 52) that executive courses were for babies. This, even though such courses are exactly what he probably needs to experience to get more fun and enjoyment out of the game. The average golfer can be just as snobbish in his own way as the average GCA.com participant can in his.

What I do know is that if pitch-and-putts or executive courses are likely to work anywhere, they're likely to work in an urban or suburban environment where demand for golf greatly exceeds supply (so much so that you can't get a tee time on a big course for love or money), and at resorts like the one Lou describes (where people go on vacation for reasons other than golf, and happen to get golf thrown in). I've been up to the Thousand Islands region of upstate New York a number of times, on the St.  Lawrence River, and there are a couple of short courses in the area which do a roaring trade. Where short courses won't work is at destination resorts, where golfers come to play a particular big course or set of courses - their tee-times and patterns of play will be arranged independent of the short course's existence.

All of this is my £.02, of course. Here's a good question, though: who here would be willing to come all the way to visit Machrihanish and spend even half a day away from that acknowledged good course to experience the 4,577 yards of Dunaverty, from the members' tees? Even if I promised that you wouldn't be disappointed? You'd probably have to think hard about it, wouldn't you?

Cheers,
Darren
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2002, 12:57:08 PM »
Rich,
The NGF defines a par-3 course as being less than 4,000 yds for 18 holes, with all of the holes being par-3s. An exec course is under 5,200 yds with a par less than 67.
There are more than 230 courses that fit these definitions in the state of Florida alone and cover a range of development types, such as free-standing, resort, housing development, learning centers, munis, privates, etc..


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2002, 01:27:03 PM »
Darren --

Guilty as charged.

I'm a pipe dreamer.

So was Dick Youngscap.

So was Mike Keiser.

I don't mean to compare myself with either of those guys, because I don't have any business comparing myself to them; I bring them into the discussion purely to make this point: It takes some pipe dreaming to change things -- no matter what business you're in.

You may be right: The golf-destination resort might not be the place to try this short-course idea of mine. I don't know. I don't own a resort. I don't own a golf course. I don't know squat about the economics of either venture.

Maybe this is an urban/suburban model. I don't know. I'd be very happy to have some really well-designed short courses here in the Twin Cities. The par-3 courses are all so damned busy, it's hard to get a tee-time! I know I'd play good, short 18-holers with my daughters, and I'd play them with my friends when we get older and even shorter than we are!

But (and first having noted that I am NOT talking about the types of courses you describe as being undersubscribed; I'm NOT talking about some par-3 or par-29 course or some pitch-and-putt course, but about a full, albeit short, 18 holes of varying lengths and types) you may, by contrast, not be right.

A golf resort might be EXACTLY the place to feature such a course, along with its traditional destination courses, if the resort's objective is to expand its own market to include golfers (and "golfers") who would be unlikely to enjoy themselves adequately on the resort's traditional, 7000-yard courses -- and who, therefore, now stay away!

Speaking for myself, about a resort near me (222 miles from my driveway): I would be MUCH more likely to go to Giants Ridge, and to stay a few days, if my wife and both of my daughters wanted to go there, too. And they would be much more likely to want to go there, too, if there were a third, short course where my daughters could play and enjoy themselves. And I would play with them (before and/or after my rounds at The Legends and The Quarry) -- happily, if the course were designed with the care that went into those courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Lou Duran

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2002, 02:02:05 PM »
KBM,

I don't think that building an executive course for the better players would be financially viable in most places.  The Sticks generally look down on anything under 7,000 yards, and a short course which would challenge their game would necessarily be tight and "gamy" around the greens, which would discourage the average golfer.

Having said this, The Diamond was challenging for me, not that I am a very good golfer.  After shooting in the upper 80s at Beacon Hall from the back tees in the morning, playing in an evening open league and shooting 36 (+2) at the Diamond was great fun.  The steak dinner, adult beverages, and socializing with the locals, all part of the evening's program, only added to the golf experience.

I have looked at the model, and it can work elsewhere, so long as land and development costs are tightly controlled.  The market of beginners, women, and the elderly has not been overbuilt like the CCFAD.  With the aging of the population and all the retirement communities, this concept should have some merit.  On the other hand, I remember my days as a starter at the Scarlet & Grey Club at Ohio State, and all the difficulty I had steering the high handicapers to the shorter and friendlier Grey course.        
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2002, 02:29:14 PM »
"Executive" golf courses were obviously just one of those things that never really caught on and lasted here in the States.

HOWEVER, an architect today who really has his ear to the ground should definitely crank the concept back up and start to perfect it, as there's a HUGE, HUGE market coming again for the "executive" course.

I saw someone on this thread say they were normally somewhere around 4000 yds but in the near future they should probably be pared down to not much more than around 1000 yds to fit them and their clever routings into all the prison yards of all the minimum security prisons in the US for when all the corporate executives start arriving!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2002, 06:26:11 PM »
I am surprised that there are not more "Executive" courses, especially in the retirement states of Arizona and Florida.

We have seen courses and clubs change the names of their tees, away from Men's and Women's (probably in advance of a Martha Burk phone call) to "forward" , etc.  So a set of forward tees played by seniors is really a longish Executive course (4,000 - 5,000 yards).

The Lawerence Welk Resort (and a one, and a two ...) in Escondido has an 18-hole course that is in the 4,000 yard range and a perfect fit for their customer demographics.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jim_Bick

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2002, 09:04:04 PM »
The Moorings Club in Vero Beach, Florida is a Pete Dye design from the mid-70's. I have played it since the late 70's since my mother in law is a member. It is a fascinating and frustrating course architecturally. It gives the amateur player a lot of the challenge of a Harbortown, proportional to his length. For example, #2, 270 par 4 with hazard down the left, play safer to the right and hit into a 7 yard wide green, with bunkers left and right.

The club has become quite successful, with a predominantly older membership. However, and relevant to the question, my sense from the 80's and early 90's was that "serious " golfers felt the need to belong to a "full length" club in addition.  

Since I would feel the same way, I think this is the challenge for the executive course. The occasional golfer is likely to prefer the full length course and the regular is also. The executive niche, therefore, would be were there is enough play looking for an interesting alternative, like the Moorings, where the architectural challenge works off of the shot values of a traditional length, as opposed to a pitch and putt.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2002, 11:24:12 AM »
I agree with those who believe executive courses would have a difficult time but can think of one possibility where it could work.  Near major airports.  Such a course would afford travellers the opportunity for nine or 18 quick holes and could fulfill its other functions (intro to golf/learning center).  It would need top-line rentals, nice lounge, decent restaurant, baggage storage (to discourage thieves from believing the parking lot was a shopping center), nice shower facilities, and business traveller amenities.  Because the terrain around airports is generally flat, it would allow the course to be flood-lit, extending hours of operation.  If the design is interesting I could see the place attract good players...the skins game/wolf crowd...carry-overs would be dramatic and with all the jet traffic...the whooping and hollering sometimes associated could be tolerated.

Darren K.  I've been to World Woods twice and had the same experience...the short course was empty...it's a maintenance expenditure.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2002, 05:16:07 PM »
Bay Area guys, I remember a short course on the hilly slopes of South San Francisco, in an area where the surrounding acres were flowers and graves.  That little course was always busy, played quickly and was fun.  We used to play nine holes after work in 90 minutes.  Is it still there?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2002, 10:16:14 PM »
The course in San Francisco is still there. It is now called Gleneagles, a 9-holer with a par of, I'm guessing, 32 or 33.

I side with Ron Whitten, who tried to change the term from "Executive Course" to "Precision Course". The term "Executive" was coined by the late Wm. Mitchell, a golf course architect. 'Precision" sounds better and takes us away, for a moment, from the stigma.

From my golf course dictionary, "On Course";

Executive-length Course  -- Courses with an 18-hole par between 55 and 68; derived from the expectation that "executives" would be able to enjoy a round of golf within the business day and still meet their commitments; coined by the late William Mitchell, golf course architect, who reasoned that "such courses could be quickly and enjoyably played by business executives at the tail end of a hectic workday."

While the NGF may define a certain yardage, I disagree. Par is more an accurate way of defining such layouts.

Two very worthwhile layouts:

1. Mountain Shadows in Phoenix (actually Paradise Valley). Par-56. Designed by Arthur Jack Snyder (my mentor). Quite pleasant and a very tough trek. Unfortunately the lengthened the tees over the years and have created an awful experience from the blue tees that is totally uncalled for.

2. Vista Valencia in Valencia, CA. Designed by Terry Van Gorder. Who is he? I have no clue. This layout is hilly and fun. A combination of holes that, as I remember, were challenging, playable, and interesting.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2002, 12:17:09 AM »
Forrest,

"Little V" is pretty fun, given the blindness of some of the holes as well as their quirkiness.

There is however an actual "Little Monster" of an executive course here in the Southland called "The Colony" in Murrieta. For a Executive or "Precision" length course, it holds no peer that I know of.

This housing development course plays to a par 65, rated at 67.6 / 119 slope rating. It is only 4,649 yards long!

It was designed by David Rainville and features all sorts of blind shots, short hooking drives and wavy greens.  Pretty surprizing that Rainville designed it, really.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2002, 06:20:23 AM »
I don't know why you're surprised! David is a very thoughtful man of great ability. Give me more specifics on where this course is located so I can visit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

M. Benham

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2002, 09:42:13 AM »
Gleneagles in San Francisco is still alive.  It is a par 36, can stretch to 6,400 yards that has two sets of tees on each holes so that if you played the 9 twice, would be 18 holes of different lengths.  Designed by Jack Fleming

The greens used to be in fabulous condition but some of the local scene was only for the strong of heart.  The lower side of the course backs up to "the projects" and could be dangerous at various times ...

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2002, 09:51:24 AM »
Yes, dangerous is an understatement. I played there just before Christmas a few years back and we skipped the hold along the projects because the night before the residents torn down the chainlink fence and stretched it across the fairway. They then roasted a pig in the fairway bunker and completely tore up the fairway with bottles, trash and residual marks from lawn chairs. None-the-less, the scotch was good in the clubhouse. I was certain the course when I played it was less than par-35 -- has this changed recently?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

M. Benham

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2002, 10:00:42 AM »
Nope, it is still a par-36 in the shadows of the Sunnydale Projects and Palace de Bovine (Cow Palace).

I used to do many a "business-man special" during the summer a few years ago ... a mid-week Giants game at the 'Stick followed by 9-holes at Gleneagles.

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2002, 10:48:14 AM »
  Cullen, on the Moray coast W of Banff. 4610/63. Ten 3s, four over 200, 1 5, only one 4 over 350. Scenic to boot. Will play it this summer.
   Oregon has three executive courses near Portland, King City, Summerville and Charbonneau. All oriented to senior oriented real estate development. Eagle Crest, a central oregon resort, built a par 63 "mid-iron" course three years ago so they're not dead.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag_Bandoon

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2002, 12:27:35 PM »
Pete,  Cullen is fun, you'll love it but consider wearing a hard hat.  I think there are 7 crossover holes. Simple designs of greens and fairways but some dramatic rock formations to play through and one soaring cliff shot. Don't forget to order the Cullen Skink in the clubhouse.  It's a cool little quiet town.  

  I read a little article about the Mid-iron course at Eagle Crest in Redmond, Oregon and they said they opted for a shorter course because they thought it would make a better course than a full sized layout.  I've got to appreciate that gamble.  They say it is very popular.  I'd like to go there next year.    Road trip!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill_Overdorf

Re: "Executive" golf courses
« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2002, 02:03:44 PM »
;D We did a nine hole executive track in Lynden, Washington back in 1983 called Raspberry Ridge. Built on a 42 acre site with a totally minimal budget, the course plays to a par of 34 and enjoys a near-religious following. Greens are overly large with interesting contours that have gained healthy respect in those who frequent the site. Seven par fours up to 390 yards, two par threes of 165 and 210 yards and a practice green of about 12,000 square feet. Formerly a raspberry farm, the land is sand/sandy gravel and drains very well. Total development cost? Something under $250,000. Work was completed in 54 calendar days with all shaping done and the greens seeded but the onset of fall weather prevented us from finishing fairway seeding. It has been a tremendous success for the owners.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back