News:

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


Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Average Golfer
« on: July 26, 2010, 12:05:33 PM »
I have been getting back into golf over the past few weeks after taking a yearlong break for some traveling.  I have been trying to get back into golf and GCA in particular with a vengence, but my time away and my recent experiences getting back into things have got me thinking...

I have not been involved in many architecture circles, other than a bit with this one, but wonder how good architecture mixes with the average golfer.  When I refer to average, I don't mean playing ability, but the typical golfer in terms of interest in architecture, what they want from a round, what attracts them to a course, etc.  I just played a round today with my wife's cousin in Hua Hin, Thailand at Black Mountain.  I noticed it in a few rankings and was hoping to find an interesting golf course.  Instead, it seems to be the typical, boring resort course with water in front of half the greens and perfectly natural looking waterfalls careening from the side of a few. My companion's comment at the end of the round was that he thought it was a "good design".

It seems from my point of view that the number of golfers that don't particularly care about strategic design must be quite high, say 70% (the golfers that I have personally met are probably more like 90%).  So...

  • If the average golfer cares more about water, waterfalls, service, "championship" courses, difficulty and the like in some combination, how is this weighed against creating good or great golf courses?
  • Is it more important to create a great course or a course people want to play?
  • I know there is a market for great architecture but is the "good golf" a portion of the industry that might have a harder time growing during tough financial times?
  • Or is the opposite true in that the truly passionate golfers are going to keep playing while the less serious group are skimmed off by the recession?

I find all of this quite interesting and am curious to know what those in the industry think about these issues.

I was hoping to convince the other half of my two-ball to play at Royal Hua Hin tomorrow as it sounds like the most interesting in the area, but since it lacks the conditioning of the other courses around here, we are on our way to Banyan.  Wish me luck!

Ben

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2010, 12:10:19 PM »
Ben,

I actually think the "good golfer" market segment has been over served and will have a tough time growing.  All the Sand Hills type courses are going after the same limited members.  All the national resorts (PB, BD and others) will slow down in favor or regional resorts that are more economical and good, but maybe just short of "once in a lifetime" experiences.

I also think its important to create a golf course people want to play than necessarily a great golf course, aimed at tournaments that will never be played there or the top 0.1% of golfers who want a great test.

The idea of building a course that is enjoyable every day has gotten the shaft the last 25 years as every new cousre seems to pursue rankings as their main design goal, and we get US Open venues like Chambers Bay that otherwise bankrupt cities and piss off golfers on a daily basis as being too hard to play.  Not that there isn't room for a Chambers Bay, but there isn't much more room for them.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Carl Rogers

Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2010, 12:26:33 PM »
Let me ask this question on the following scenario:
- a youngster takes up the game with help of family and friends at let's say age 9 ... finds a good starter course ... easy to get on in off hours ... likes the game ... has fun with it ... and starts to get better by age 12 or 13 ... and then needs a course to expand their abilities.

How many courses out there can accomodate this golfer?  Very few??  From what I have seen on this web site (admittingly limited perspective), Common Ground can fit that type of course but they are few and far between.

Lambert's Point in Norfolk, VA is a heck of a good neighborhood nine holer.

Are there others?  The courses I have known in my life can not fit that bill.

Isn't this the type of course for the 'average golfer and family'?

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2010, 12:37:13 PM »
 8)
 .. needs a good muni course to hone his skills on.. and enjoy an inexpensive walk/play in the park..  

.. doesn't need to  buy a country club for a day.. thats for the businsss/retail golfer
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2010, 12:45:26 PM »
Jeff,

I find your points very interesting.  When I refer to good golf, I am more interested in a strategically interesting course that COULD be played every day.  Places like Rustic Canyon come to mind, which was inexpensive, well manicured and presented options galore.  From the typical golfers I have been around, most seem to prefer holes that are simply challenging, with little strategic interest necessary.  Many times, their favorite holes, or holes they may remember, involve water near or around the greens in some form or fashion, regardless of how that hazard may be used.  A place like Rustic Canyon may not be that interesting to them, or certainly not more interesting than some generic public course in Los Angeles.  This is obviously a gross generalization, but I don't think this type of golfer is that atypical.  What does that mean for good, strategic golf courses, if the majority of the golfing public simply aren't that interested?

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2010, 12:56:16 PM »
Let me ask this question on the following scenario:
- a youngster takes up the game with help of family and friends at let's say age 9 ... finds a good starter course ... easy to get on in off hours ... likes the game ... has fun with it ... and starts to get better by age 12 or 13 ... and then needs a course to expand their abilities.

How many courses out there can accomodate this golfer?  Very few??  From what I have seen on this web site (admittingly limited perspective), Common Ground can fit that type of course but they are few and far between.

Lambert's Point in Norfolk, VA is a heck of a good neighborhood nine holer.

Are there others?  The courses I have known in my life can not fit that bill.

Isn't this the type of course for the 'average golfer and family'?
One of the joys of so many of the "lesser" courses in the UK is that they satisfy both criteria.  I defy any golfer not to enjoyElie, for instance but a 12 year old of average ability can enjoy it too.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2010, 01:02:30 PM »
Jeff, the slope at Chambers Bay is 122 from whites. That is about the lowest slope in Puget Sound area for daily upscale courses. I don't think that is too difficult for average golfers.

Average golfers are out there to enjoy hanging outside with their friends (and a good excuse to get away from the wife/family for an afternoon). Which is why they like carts (don't have to work too hard and you can drink beer), GPS (don't have to think too hard), and waterfalls/ponds/trees (feel like they are enjoying the great outdoors). Golf is just an excuse, a setting. Which is why true golf course architecture does not matter to them much.

Steve Strasheim

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2010, 01:40:00 PM »
For the purposes of this discussion, I think the group "average golfer" is too general. There are really many levels of "average" golfers. As an example, I have a picture of a golf green with bunkers and nice landscaping over the water hanging in my living room. Many visitors that golf have seen that picture over the years. The picture is looking back across the water at an earlier par 3 from one of the closing holes. Only one person ever has correctly assessed the picture angle as not being correct. He is an advanced average golfer. He looked at the image and instead of the beauty he saw the golf hole and it didn't look like a par three to him. Others have said, "what a cool golf hole".

At the same time, he would probably pick a golf destination other than Bandon since he likes to ride and drink beer.


JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2010, 01:58:11 PM »
Jeff, the slope at Chambers Bay is 122 from whites. That is about the lowest slope in Puget Sound area for daily upscale courses. I don't think that is too difficult for average golfers.

Average golfers are out there to enjoy hanging outside with their friends (and a good excuse to get away from the wife/family for an afternoon). Which is why they like carts (don't have to work too hard and you can drink beer), GPS (don't have to think too hard), and waterfalls/ponds/trees (feel like they are enjoying the great outdoors). Golf is just an excuse, a setting. Which is why true golf course architecture does not matter to them much.


Richard - we agree 100% on this topic.

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2010, 02:05:04 PM »
Ben - if the statistics on average handicap and average number of rounds played are right, then I'm an average golfer who plays the vast majority of his golf with other average golfers. I'd like one day to play Garden City, Walton Heath, Plainfield, and Pennard -- but am hard pressed to see my way to doing so, for financial, access, and time-management reasons. I guess I'm not that committed to doing so. (I think that makes me pretty average). Maybe other average golfers want to play Bandon, Cabo, and Myrtle Beach - but for financial and time-management reasons will only get to Myrtle Beach.  (I think that makes them pretty average too.).  I know that many of my average golfers-playing partners often choose local courses with some of the highest slope ratings, and if they find them too hard or unpleasant, they aren't saying so -- unless the 'conditioning' is not what they expected for their dollars. And I think that is pretty average. I can't make heads or tails of this....

Peter

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2010, 03:03:52 PM »
Ah, a topic at which I am actually an expert: selling carts, beer, balls, more beer, and affordable golf.  Did I mention beer?  The comments are fairly accurate.  I know thousands of golfers, a couple of hundred that I might consider golfing buddies.  Out of all, I know only one that might qualify as being interested in architecture on some meaningful level.  Most golfers think of conditioning as architecture.  They think bunkers are there to “frame” a shot or hole, or, even worse, to save one from a more severe penalty.  Every year I get suggestions on course improvements like “we ought to put in a bunker on that steep bank between the green the pond (short par 3).”  Yet, when I talk about ways to improve a hole, I can see their eyes glass over with boredom or get excited because I am talking about changing their favorite hole.  I now avoid these conversations.

So, why does the average golfer choose one course over another?  It’s not about the venue; it’s all about where their buddies play golf.  Men, women, couples, kids, old and young—that’s the most common deciding element with the setting coming in second a long way back.

I think the way most average golfers would define a good strategic course is did the golf provide enough interest during a four hour round that I didn’t think about my overdue taxes, my impending divorce, the pink slip in my last paycheck, my daughter’s new tattoo, etc. etc.?  In other words, just about any course would qualify for someone.

These comments hold true for golfers of all skill levels, not just the high cappers.  Some of the dumbest ideas come from our best golfers, amateurs and pros.

In my experience, the golfers we find here in this DG are very rare creatures.  To most we are nerds, whack-jobs, freaks, weirdoes, or worse.  To each his own.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2010, 03:40:15 PM »
...he would probably pick a golf destination other than Bandon since he likes to ride and drink beer.



Ahhhh, so that 'splains why I've never been to Bandon...   ;)

Didn't you just do dis-service to the name Shivas?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2010, 04:01:55 PM »
Walton Heath

The average golfer thinks Walton Heath is John Boy's little brother -  last name first/first name last...

Ha! True enough I suppose, Shivas - but just my way of suggesting that the 'average golfer' may be as hard to conceptualize and pin down as the average family with 1.6 children...

P

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2010, 04:03:54 PM »
...he would probably pick a golf destination other than Bandon since he likes to ride and drink beer.



Ahhhh, so that 'splains why I've never been to Bandon...   ;)

Didn't you just do dis-service to the name Shivas?




No! He just did a service to the name Chivas.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2010, 04:15:06 PM »
Is it the case that the interested market for such a place as Sand Hills, Ballyneal and St Andrews Beach etc is not growing? Or is there indeed a huge market for the kind of golf courses we talk about on here, provided "average golfers" can actually play them?

"Average golfers" I know of, hear about and see posting on non GCA golf sites in the US, UK and Australia go crazy for the likes of Barnbougle, Bandon, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart etc. The influx of foreigners and locals alike to the GB&I links courses each summer tells me "average golfers" want to play great golf courses.

There is an Australian golf forum at which one of the page banners features a pic of a "dumb blonde" golf hole and the label "WTF IS ARKITEKCHA?" where a heap of the members have made one or multiple trips to Barnbougle and love it to death (they will be heading back en masse a couple of weeks after the Boomerang).

To me, accessibility seems to be the issue rather than the concept of an insufficient market for the development of "our type of golf courses" to be viable in the modern day.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2010, 04:20:47 PM »
...he would probably pick a golf destination other than Bandon since he likes to ride and drink beer.



Ahhhh, so that 'splains why I've never been to Bandon...   ;)

Didn't you just do dis-service to the name Shivas?




No! He just did a service to the name Chivas.

Ahhhhhh... now I understand! He's a poor speller. Representing Chivas and Jans National make sense. Dis'n Bandon as Shivas doesn't.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2010, 05:15:36 PM »
We have a fair share of 'average' players noticing the architecture of our course. I think it's mainly due to its quality (v. good) and the price (also v.good) we charge to play it.

I'm a firm believer in the concept that an 'average' player will notice the architecture more when the price is affordable. As soon as that number gets a little uncomfortable the gears change and the amenities come to the fore.



   
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2010, 06:24:14 PM »
Ben Voelker:


I think your Post #5 is probably very realistic---very accurate and representative. As to your question on that thread, I would think what it means is even in the very best case, a golf course like Rustic Canyon, as good as some, some on here and elsewhere, including myself, think it is, will never get the attention or interest of more than about 15-20% of the Average Golfer (whatever that is).

I have always felt this way and it was one of the reasons I came to my "Big World" Theory about golf and golf course architecture.

Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2010, 08:36:08 PM »

I have always felt this way and it was one of the reasons I came to my "Big World" Theory about golf and golf course architecture.

While I am sure its been discussed on here before, would you be able to give an ignorant fellow a quick description of your "big world" theory? ;D

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2010, 08:59:30 PM »
Ah, a topic at which I am actually an expert: selling carts, beer, balls, more beer, and affordable golf.  Did I mention beer?  The comments are fairly accurate.  I know thousands of golfers, a couple of hundred that I might consider golfing buddies.  Out of all, I know only one that might qualify as being interested in architecture on some meaningful level.  Most golfers think of conditioning as architecture.  They think bunkers are there to “frame” a shot or hole, or, even worse, to save one from a more severe penalty.  Every year I get suggestions on course improvements like “we ought to put in a bunker on that steep bank between the green the pond (short par 3).”  Yet, when I talk about ways to improve a hole, I can see their eyes glass over with boredom or get excited because I am talking about changing their favorite hole.  I now avoid these conversations.

So, why does the average golfer choose one course over another?  It’s not about the venue; it’s all about where their buddies play golf.  Men, women, couples, kids, old and young—that’s the most common deciding element with the setting coming in second a long way back.

I think the way most average golfers would define a good strategic course is did the golf provide enough interest during a four hour round that I didn’t think about my overdue taxes, my impending divorce, the pink slip in my last paycheck, my daughter’s new tattoo, etc. etc.?  In other words, just about any course would qualify for someone.

These comments hold true for golfers of all skill levels, not just the high cappers.  Some of the dumbest ideas come from our best golfers, amateurs and pros.

In my experience, the golfers we find here in this DG are very rare creatures.  To most we are nerds, whack-jobs, freaks, weirdoes, or worse.  To each his own.


To me, the problem doesn't come from "average golfers", but rather the crap that is presented by many name architects .
Average golfers crow about waterfalls and such nonsense because that's what they're presented with
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

TEPaul

Re: The Average Golfer
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2010, 09:04:53 PM »
While I am sure its been discussed on here before, would you be able to give an ignorant fellow a quick description of your "big world" theory?  ;D"


Sure Ben:

I think the idea of what I call the "Big World" theory developed about ten years ago and pretty much as a result of an interesting yet semi-inscrutable conversation I had with Bill Coore at Bandon Dunes. He got there a day before me at the opening of Pacific Dunes and when I saw him I asked him what he thought of it. He said he thought it was just so different. I asked him what he meant by that and all he said is it was so different. I said, I hear you but what do you mean by that and he just kept saying it was so different.

I realize one sort of has to know Bill to understand this story but in my opinion it seems like there just comes a time when you have to let it go with him and not just continue to ask him all kinds of questions if it doesn't seem like he wants to answer them, or can answer them, at the time, for some reason.

So that was one of a number of things that just sat in my mind----eg what did he really mean by that?

At some point later we went to a course under construction and he didn't seem to want to get out of the car because it seemed like he may not have appreciated all the shaping that was going on.

So some time later I asked him if what he meant by "difference" had something to do with his overall perspective of and belief in the spectrum of the art form of golf course architecture. He said of course it did, and that he felt that with an art form like golf course architecture the spectrum of type and style should probably necessarily be very wide and very broad.

Even that conversation didn't reach any final conclusion and I guess within the last year I called him up and asked him if by that he meant if even a large slice of golf architecture did not meet with his personal approval that it should exist anyway. My recollection from that last conversation is that he or we agreed it should exist because there is little question that golfers have all kinds of different tastes and opinons and with an art form like golf course architecture there should be something for all the different and various tastes out there even if that meant a whole lot of people would always disagree with one another about what was right or what they liked.

THAT, is how and why I came up with what I call the "Big World" theory, Ben.

I believe it and I also believe it makes people like a Bill Coore a most thoughtful and intelligent and also a very fair man.

But I would also encourage anyone to go to the "Fun Factor" thread and read Tom Doak's Post #18. I think it essentially says much of the same thing and pretty much says it all. It was not lost on me that so many on that thread hardly even noticed or commented on what Doak said on that Post #18.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back