News:

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


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #75 on: November 23, 2017, 11:44:57 AM »
TD,

One of the golf car companies located here in Ga told me just a couple of years ago that there were less than 2500 501c7 golf courses in the US. This company rated the courses in the US as A's, B's or C's when it came to budgets.  I argued as you are here.  I didn't think it could be.  But then I looked at Georgia.  We have 400 courses with probably 30 clubs that are 501c7's and top tier clubs.  We might have another 20 resort type places and out of all of these we probably have less than 40 clubs run my management companies.  And so I thought more and thought about places like Tennessee or Virginia and felt that they may be right or closer to right than I thought at first.  While I don't know about Michigan, I am thinking many of the western states and midwestern would fit the same percentages.   If 50 states had 50 top tier clubs then we would have 2500.  That's a lot.   So I don't know, I do know when I ask myself if I could give a list of my top 1000 it would be difficult. 
So here are my questions for you:
How many of the 12,500 course are 9 hole courses?
How many are par 3 courses?
My biggest question is of my beloved NGF...if we really had 460,000,000 rounds, that would be 30,667 rounds per course across the country.  Which means golf would have no problems...and I would call BS on it except for this number from Titleist:
Titleist is 70% of the US ball market.
If the average guy uses 2 balls per round and there are 460 million rounds then 920 million balls are used in the US each year.
Let's assume 25% of the balls used are lake balls or other forms of secondary mrket balls and not new, out of the box.  That leaves us with 690 million new balls sold each year.
If Titleist sells 70% of that they would sell 40,250,000 dozen balls sold.  And that close to what they sell in the US

So I don't know but I think I'm close....
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 11:47:34 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2017, 01:46:13 PM »
Well, there have got to be more than 30 courses in the Atlanta area that would consider themselves "top tier", but maybe not so many in Mississippi or Alabama.


I guess the difference is I wouldn't call a place like Traverse City C.C. a "mom and pop" course, even if the budget and number of rounds are in the same league.  I assumed you were talking about owner/operator places with that term.  Budget-wise, though, I'd say 2500 "A" courses is probably correct.  There are lots of states that have only a handful of those.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #77 on: November 23, 2017, 04:43:16 PM »
Well, there have got to be more than 30 courses in the Atlanta area that would consider themselves "top tier", but maybe not so many in Mississippi or Alabama.


I guess the difference is I wouldn't call a place like Traverse City C.C. a "mom and pop" course, even if the budget and number of rounds are in the same league.  I assumed you were talking about owner/operator places with that term.  Budget-wise, though, I'd say 2500 "A" courses is probably correct.  There are lots of states that have only a handful of those.

Yep.."mom and pop" might not be the proper term.

As for 30 who think they are top tier in ATL and 30 that are top tier....I'm not sure there are 30 top tier in GA..I was just being nice...and I am quite confident that many of those "top tier" don't play anymore than 15,000 rounds...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #78 on: November 23, 2017, 08:21:15 PM »
Greg — No slinging, but I do believe it has a place for many sites, especially those, as noted, where we have rock in the native soils that cannot be prevented from migrating upward...without a HARD liner that will not give way. I'm in my 32nd year as a golf course architect, and have seen a lot of bunker renovation work...including having to re-do my own work! I suppose to be fair, if you think "recommending" when the application for BBB is right amounts to slinging, then I suppose. But truthfully, all GCAs recommend, whether it be turf, soil plating, native grass selection, sand types, etc.  Everything we import to a golf site (and even the stuff we shift around) comes with a cost. And all this comes with a sales force behind it, whether it be the guy who sells sand, the woman who markets native seed, or the huge corporation who provides irrigation components.


I know the game...I’ve been involved in it a long time.  If 90% of your projects use it, then that means you’re “recommending” it 100% of the time.  That’s slinging it.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2017, 09:18:16 PM »
It lasts. It works. That's my take. But, as noted, we do not employ it everywhere. We are selective, and it has to make sense and work from all angles.


Tom D — You ARE snarky!! Hard to disclaim that title...to claim otherwise is a misnomer. Face it. You are a non-conformist, and that is among your most revered hallmarks — we all love that about you. Staying well away from the BBB bandwagon is good for you. On the other hand, if BBB works mathematically, so neat if you might actually laud it!!   ;)
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2017, 02:51:28 AM »
Using it on 90 percent of your jobs doesn’t sound very selective to me.  Make sense and work from all angles?  Wtf does that mean? 
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2017, 09:46:40 AM »
Calm down Greg. I think it was 5+ years ago that we first tried the BBB method. Based on that success, it has been used on all but two projects, both of which were in locales that did not have soil issues where we would see migration of rock coming upwards. My 90% estimate is about right. If you re-read my rationale for using a hard-based liner I think it will answer any questions you still have.

It seems one of the concerns (I think that's the right word) in this thread is whether specifying BBB, or any liner method, is somehow throwing costs to golf construction work unnecessarily.

1. A lot of bunkers need liners because they are built in areas where contamination between sand and what is underneath will rapidly ruin the bunker and this will lead to adding sand, re-building and potentially undermining drainage. So, form this perspective, liners are good in these situations (e.g., certain soils). Not every course is built on pristine sandy soils with no rock, clays, etc. 

2. Once a liner is determined to be a good approach, the choices are between soft liners (fabrics), hard liners (such as BBB), sprays that seal native soils, or sod placed below the sand layer. Based on my experience with all (except the sod method) I have concluded that the rock (BBB) method is the most reliable.

3. An important factor is cost. Again, in the west where most of my work takes place, gravel is readily available and we have found that the BBB method is about the same as using any of the other methods.

Rebuilding bunkers is costly. In an average capital budget (per year) it is not uncommon to have $40,000 being set aside to re-work bunkers. This is based on $350,000 worth of bunker work at a 7-8 year lifecycle. Of course not all clubs set aside enough for renovation work. What we are trying to do is look for ways to add life to golf course infrastructure ... hard liners like BBB are just one example. Another example is HDPE pipe, which lasts four times longer than PVC.



— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2017, 10:04:01 AM »

Just a note to say it appears even more liners are coming on the market, including Z liners, Soil Tech (technically not new, and a new one from Sand Trapper, which seems to be a bit like the Bunker Solutions method, sort of an Astro turf type, which I always thought was a pretty good idea - the thicker fabric works, and moves with the soil, which BBB doesn't.  It was always more expensive, so few used it.


Anyway, with more and more bunker liner companies jumping in, the cost of all of them should start to come down, which is a good thing.  The monopoly period is quickly coming to an end.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jimmy Cavezza

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2017, 10:33:52 AM »
Has anyone had to renovate a bunker with a hard permeable liner?  Curious on the cost difference between renovating one of these compared to older methods.  Would definitely add a step to the process along with disposing of these materials.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2017, 10:56:09 AM »
Jimmy - The BBB is a permeable liner. The polymer holds the stone together, yet allows water to move down and laterally toward the low point (drain). In essence, it is one large drainage layer.
 
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jimmy Cavezza

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2017, 11:28:27 AM »
Forrest - Have you had to remove a previously installed permeable liner?  Curious on cost.  Does the material have to be hauled off or can it be exposed of on site.  Just curious on what will need to be done in the future when these bunkers are due to renovate.[size=78%]  I know if it's just sand-out/sand-in you can simply respray with polymer but how detailed is the process when there are architectural changes?[/size]

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better Billy Bunker Method
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2017, 11:54:08 AM »
A fat guy walked on the edge of a bunker we completed a few years ago before we had placed sand (at least that was the rumor) and we had the builder/shaper cut out a section about 2x6 feet and replace it. I believe they threw the old pieces in the dumpster. As far as I know there is nothing hazardous in the polymer. It does stick like glue if it gets on your skin! I can attest to that.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back