News:

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


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2022, 08:51:53 PM »
I played Kingsbarns out of respect to Bob Huntley. I don’t recall it being pretty and just google imaged the course. Nothing but drone shots. 275lbs is a realistic price without the social media dregs.

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2022, 07:31:27 AM »
But are those private clubs actually trying to promote the golf course?  Or is the web site just a service for the members?  I know some people are "always selling" but a really good club doesn't need to put out personal ads.
That's a great question. While I'd say nearly all feature a hero image of the course among other banner images that scroll across the top of their homepage, when you go to the actual "Golf" section of the website it's amazing what few images there are of the course on some, while others will have flyover videos and or images of every hole. Thus, it begs the question what some are trying to sell if the golf course isn't being featured as the centerpiece of the club experience?
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2022, 07:34:38 AM »
But are those private clubs actually trying to promote the golf course?  Or is the web site just a service for the members?  I know some people are "always selling" but a really good club doesn't need to put out personal ads.
That's a great question. While I'd say nearly all feature a hero image of the course among other banner images that scroll across the top of their homepage, when you go to the actual "Golf" section of the website it's amazing what few images there are of the course on some, while others will have flyover videos and or images of every hole. Thus, it begs the question what some are trying to sell if the golf course isn't being featured as the centerpiece of the club experience?


Mike-I think there are a fair amount of clubs that are trying to market a lifestyle over the golf course itself.

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2022, 08:01:37 AM »
Mike-I think there are a fair amount of clubs that are trying to market a lifestyle over the golf course itself.
Agree and I see this becoming a trend with many destination golf resorts as well.
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2022, 08:05:49 AM »
https://www.prairiedunes.com/


Is this what you guys want? Feels plastic.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2022, 08:10:05 AM »
https://www.prairiedunes.com/


Is this what you guys want? Feels plastic.


Agreed. Why do you need to oversell a golf course like Prairie Dunes?

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2022, 08:27:21 AM »
https://www.prairiedunes.com/


Is this what you guys want? Feels plastic.
To me, the copy calling it "A little bit of Scotland..." is the bigger head-scratcher than the photography, which no one would ever confuse with Scotland. Why not lean into your unique location in the American heartland, rather than invoke someplace thousands of miles away?
Senior Writer, GolfPass

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2022, 09:20:28 AM »
Here is a complete list of Top 100 courses I have played that are not aesthetically stunning in some way:


-
-
-




John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2022, 09:47:21 AM »
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78455


I can’t believe that the above depicts coastal Maine. Looks like a young girl studying a green site in Kansas. This makes me want to get out and discover life through nature.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2022, 10:37:12 AM »
Not just Scotland, but Australia as well!!

Who the hello did they overpay for that branding?

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.


https://www.prairiedunes.com/


Is this what you guys want? Feels plastic.
To me, the copy calling it "A little bit of Scotland..." is the bigger head-scratcher than the photography, which no one would ever confuse with Scotland. Why not lean into your unique location in the American heartland, rather than invoke someplace thousands of miles away?
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2022, 10:47:35 AM »
Not just Scotland, but Australia as well!!

Who the hello did they overpay for that branding?

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.


https://www.prairiedunes.com/


Is this what you guys want? Feels plastic.
To me, the copy calling it "A little bit of Scotland..." is the bigger head-scratcher than the photography, which no one would ever confuse with Scotland. Why not lean into your unique location in the American heartland, rather than invoke someplace thousands of miles away?




Don't forget New Zealand. Damn drones make the great look ordinary, and the ordinary great. Everything being equal is what we all want or need.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2022, 11:16:55 AM »
John,

I think the tradition of quasi false adverting  has caught up with golf.  Cause the golfer will sure as shit almost never see the course from a drone view when playing it.

But its nothing new. I recall reading an article several years ago that many food commercials actually show inedible versions of the product to make them look more appealing.  Or like those Axe body spray commercials where after using it you suddenly become irresistible to every female within a 5 mile radius.

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2022, 11:21:42 AM »


Damn drones make the great look ordinary, and the ordinary great. Everything being equal is what we all want or need.


Among many quotables on this thread, this one hits.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2022, 11:41:05 AM »
John,

I think the tradition of quasi false adverting  has caught up with golf.  Cause the golfer will sure as shit almost never see the course from a drone view when playing it.

But its nothing new. I recall reading an article several years ago that many food commercials actually show inedible versions of the product to make them look more appealing.  Or like those Axe body spray commercials where after using it you suddenly become irresistible to every female within a 5 mile radius.




We can't control Madison Ave but we have been given the option of controlling ourselves. One picture, from the ground, per round.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2022, 11:56:22 AM »
John,

I think the tradition of quasi false adverting  has caught up with golf.  Cause the golfer will sure as shit almost never see the course from a drone view when playing it.

But its nothing new. I recall reading an article several years ago that many food commercials actually show inedible versions of the product to make them look more appealing.  Or like those Axe body spray commercials where after using it you suddenly become irresistible to every female within a 5 mile radius.


We can't control Madison Ave but we have been given the option of controlling ourselves. One picture, from the ground, per round.


Barney,

I like that last bit...more and more I find myself keeping the phone in the bag when I play.

P.S.  If I want to get a more realistic view of a place, I look up the pictures as they show in Google Maps.  And you'll find something intriguing stuff.  Like this one at Harding Park, a true master class in cart path routing...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/TPC+Harding+Park/@37.7251376,-122.4906841,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipN6sc_S1NiNkt82PAQlSDUdm_U7zHcKhyyVPX6O!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipN6sc_S1NiNkt82PAQlSDUdm_U7zHcKhyyVPX6O%3Dw203-h114-k-no!7i5376!8i3024!4m15!1m7!3m6!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff!2sSan+Francisco,+CA!3b1!8m2!3d37.7749295!4d-122.4194155!3m6!1s0x808f7d09c0e36e93:0x7ca372998950b434!8m2!3d37.7248228!4d-122.4932023!14m1!1BCgIgAQ

Richard Hetzel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2022, 12:37:31 PM »
Proper/creative photography/media of a hole or holes could possibly INCREASE the revenue at a golf course. I am still amazed at so many courses, both public and private, that do not showcase "the golf" but rather weddings and stuff like that on their websites and their social media, assuming they even have it.
To your point, I'm always amazed at how many private club websites I visit where such little photographic attenion is given to the golf course, which should be promoted as the crown jewel.


[size=78%]But are those private clubs actually trying to promote the golf course?  Or is the web site just a service for the members?  I know some people are "always selling" but a really good club doesn't need to put out personal ads.[/size]



Well established, very private courses more than likely do not have a need to advertise. Their websites are mainly for the members, not the general public.


However, many semi-private or pubic golf courses do have a need for self promotion, and they (a majority of them) drop the ball on this.
Last 5:
Fort Jackson Wildcat (SC), True Blue Golf Club (SC), Pinewood CC (NC), Asheboro Muni (NC), Pete Dye River Course (VA)

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2022, 03:38:06 PM »
Here is a complete list of Top 100 courses I have played that are not aesthetically stunning in some way:


-
-
-


What is aesthetically stunning about Southern Hills?

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2022, 03:39:53 PM »
For 100+ years golf courses have used whatever media forms are available to them at the time to promote themselves. We have seen hundreds of old articles here from newspapers & magazines announcing the formation & development of a new golf course/club. Invariably the articles describe the new course as better or the best of its kind.

Sometimes the articles had photos. Sometimes they did not. Before the internet/digital age, golf courses/clubs had glossy brochures with full page photos to announce/promote their presence. Some took out adverts with photos in golf magazines. Some even resorted to "infommercials"on TV to drum up business.

Now that we are well into the 21st century, it should be no surprise (and certainly no cause for concern) that golf course operators & developers take advantage of all the media options available to them to promote their courses.

To claim that photography has driven up the cost of architecture 20% is nonsense, as is the so-called "research" behind that claim.








 
« Last Edit: November 08, 2022, 04:30:58 PM by David_Tepper »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2022, 03:47:59 PM »
John,
I have only played Southern Hills one time and it was before the restoration/renovation work.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but for a parkland golf course, it looks pretty stunning to me especially in the late afternoon with the shadows and backdrops.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2022, 03:56:38 PM »
That’s fair. It’s been fun going through those 100 photos used in the Golf article. Took me three tries to get through the list.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2022, 04:07:09 PM »
Here is a complete list of Top 100 courses I have played that are not aesthetically stunning in some way:


-
-
-


What is aesthetically stunning about Southern Hills?


I love PH2 and Somerset Hills but except for a couple of holes, neither is visually “stunning.” Nor are Bandon Trails or Pasatiempo (not a top 100 for JK). Outside the US, Swinley Forest, St. George’s Hill, and Woking (top 100 in my book) are not either.




Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2022, 04:23:49 PM »
Ira,
With all due respect, Somerset Hills is stunning especially on a clear summer day.  I play there a lot (including the member guest) and it is amazingly beautiful.  I wish I could post photos.  I would also disagree about all the rest you mentioned all of which I have played.  There are photos from every one of them that I would be thrilled to have hanging in my study! 

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2022, 04:24:59 PM »
Here is a complete list of Top 100 courses I have played that are not aesthetically stunning in some way:


-
-
-


What is aesthetically stunning about Southern Hills?


I love PH2 and Somerset Hills but except for a couple of holes, neither is visually “stunning.” Nor are Bandon Trails or Pasatiempo (not a top 100 for JK). Outside the US, Swinley Forest, St. George’s Hill, and Woking (top 100 in my book) are not either.


Hello limb, welcome aboard.  Love that you took some chances there.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2022, 04:35:03 PM »
Here is a complete list of Top 100 courses I have played that are not aesthetically stunning in some way:


-
-
-


What is aesthetically stunning about Southern Hills?


I love PH2 and Somerset Hills but except for a couple of holes, neither is visually “stunning.” Nor are Bandon Trails or Pasatiempo (not a top 100 for JK). Outside the US, Swinley Forest, St. George’s Hill, and Woking (top 100 in my book) are not either.


Hello limb, welcome aboard.  Love that you took some chances there.


Thanks, but Mark and I have disagreed many times before. I concede that he is a far better golfer and has played more courses more times, but I can find great photos from every course I ever played (including the Cook County Park District courses on which I grew up) especially in the Spring or Fall. Several great photos does not make a course “visually stunning”. However, more importantly, I do not believe that a course has to be so in order to be a great course which is the clear implication of his OP.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photography driving up the cost of architecture 20%.
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2022, 05:29:42 PM »
Ira,
This it why rankings are sooo subjective. You for example look at Somerset Hills and see it visually very differently then I do yet we both love the design.  Neither of us are right or wrong.  I get goose bumps thinking about some of the cross course vistas and then you have a hole like #2 that just blows my mind!  It is one of the most visually stunning holes in all of golf.

We have talked about this many times before; the list is very short of great but ugly golf holes let alone great but ugly entire golf courses.  [/size][size=78%] [/size]

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back