17 Nov 2014

One of the founding fathers of the United States of America, Benjamin Franklin once famously quipped that, ‘if you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.’ Whilst true of almost every endeavour, Franklin’s words ring especially true in golf. Those clubs and courses struggling with decreasing memberships or reduced green fee revenue are almost certainly destined for failure, unless able to properly plan a way out of the financial mire.

The key question to address in any situation of strife, is why aren’t golfers joining/playing your course? To many observers golf related recoveries start with better marketing and better management or some sort of internal or financial restructure. For others, however, it is more simple and starts or finishes with better golf. Improve your golf course and surely local golfers will want to play the course more often, or join. That’s the theory but as history has proven time and time again, it’s more difficult in practice.

Across Australia in recent years a number of major redesign projects have backfired spectacularly, with clubs spending good money on what they thought were improvements only to find golfers unimpressed by the changes. Addressing concerns through redesign is important, provided the work undertaken is appropriate to the problem at hand, and, crucially, likely to make the golf course better and more fun to play than it previously was. Golfers are more discerning than we sometimes give them credit for, and simply adding bunkers or back tees for the single figure elite player isn’t going to improve things for the vast majority.

When it comes to major redevelopment or design refinement, there are a few pitfalls to be aware of. For inexperienced board members or administrators charged with making changes to a golf course, it’s crucial to understand how and when things go wrong – and to make sure you do not repeat, but instead learn from, mistakes made elsewhere.

 

Inappropriate Brief.

Despite what some would have you believe, golf course architects are not necessarily the fountains of all knowledge. Some have tremendous passion and creativity and are capable of producing exceptional work, but even the best are unlikely to understand your golf course as intimately as your members. They are also unlikely to be able to solve each and every one of your problems. Often in design solving one problem only creates another. It’s crucial, therefore, that the brief given a golf course designer aims to produce a better golf course for those who play it on a regular basis, not for a consultant who then moves onto another project. A good designer will appreciate strong direction from the club, on precisely what it hopes to achieve and where it draws the design line.

If your design brief talks of longer or harder holes or of making the course more challenging then you might have a problem. Unless you are a tier-one course that wants to host regular events, or have anecdotal proof that golfers are staying away because the holes are too easy, why would you want to make your course tougher? Making it more interesting is certainly sensible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean simply adding length and tightening fairways and greens.

The other reason for a strong, clear brief to the designer is to control costs and project timelines. Golf architects are often great salesmen, and able to espouse the virtues of a particular change or new hole on the basis that it will become an icon and elevate the status of the course. An expensive change can often make sense, but sometimes clubs can achieve more by doing less and fixing blackspots rather than focusing on those that might be just a little brown.

 

Holding onto a Par of 72 and a distance beyond 6,000 metres.

As part of any golf club’s design brief, references to length and par need to be very carefully considered. Too often am I told, by board members or managers, that a membership won’t tolerate a sub 72-par or sub 6,000-metre golf course, when in fact the reality is often different. Vocal, skilled golfers are likely to resist a change downwards in length and par, but my experience suggests the average member is far less concerned.

Just consider the facts for a moment. Australia’s No. 1 course, Royal Melbourne West, barely breaks the 6,000metre mark, while several of the World’s Top 10, including Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Royal Dornoch, are all par 70s. Additionally, some of the best courses in Britain, such as Swinley Forest and Rye, have pars in the high 60s.

Steadfastly refusing to entertain the notion of a shorter golf course is a mistake, particularly for suburban golf clubs surrounded by housing. As the golf ball travels further and further, options for improvement become fewer and fewer. Containing the modern golfer typically means choosing between lowering your par and perhaps adding a par three or shorter par four, against protecting what you have by adding trees and back tees and narrowing the golfing corridors. Diminishing the fun and strategic integrity of the existing holes in this manner only really makes sense if the elite golfer is your only consideration.

 

Wrong Architect.

An inappropriate design brief can be a problem, but not in the same league as choosing the wrong course designer to carry out the work. Often design selections are made on name or reputation alone, with the club reliant upon the designer to deliver on what’s trumpeted on their brochure or corporate website. There is no one-size fits all option for golf course design, and the most appropriate choice for any particular club depends entirely on what they hope to achieve, the land upon which they sit and the funds available for the work. The number of redesigned holes in Australia that have been redesigned a second or third time is quite disturbing. Dr MacKenzie talked about the Finality of Design in one of his books, and if your brief is clear and the architect suitably skilled there is no reason why the next significant change to your course can’t be the last.

 

Working Internally.

This is an age-old problem in golf, across the world. Committees, Captains, Presidents etc looking to leave their imprint by making design changes without consideration for what these decisions might mean down the track. Trees are the obvious one, but we also see a lot of odd bunkers, tees or greens on courses that we discover were changed at the insistence of a certain club figure. The biggest issue with working internally on design is that often there is no over-arching plan on how every part of the golf course is best arranged. Moving a bunker or reshaping an old, tired green in isolation might not seem too great a risk, but it can create problems if the overall Masterplan suggests something different.

Even clubs that can’t afford golf course architects should at least consider outside advice when it comes to design changes, just to help guide works undertaken and provide a likely roadmap for future enhancements.

 

Spending too much money.

Tellingly, the best golf courses built in Australia and elsewhere over the last 20 or so years have also been among the least expensive. The golf world has fallen in love with natural sandy sites again, and these are great because the golf is not only better but also less expensive to build. There is a fine line to tread here, but one of the common mistakes made with higher-end private clubs in particular, is to spend too much money on redesign. Unless there are serious structural deficiencies with the course routing, improvements to greens, tees, fairways and bunkers need not cost as much as a brand-new standalone golf course somewhere else.

A golf club that knows its limitations, is comfortable within its own skin and accepting of the fact that millions spent will not make it a new Royal Melbourne, is less likely to waste good money on gratuitous design alterations.

 

Not spending enough money.

On the flipside of the over-spenders are those clubs that don’t spend enough on redesign, and cut corners on important areas like drainage, greens shaping and bunker construction. Clubs obviously need to consider what an appropriate spend is for their own particular budgets, but often they are better off spending a little more and doing things more slowly than rushing a project through on a shoestring to try have it finished by a certain date.

 

Not planning properly ahead.

Regardless of how often us commentators pretend that great golf is all about design, we all know that conditioning is important and that golfers love nice fairways and smooth greens. Not having the resources to properly maintain your new holes is about as basic a mistake as a club can make, yet it is often made. Whether it’s not appreciating the man-hours required to tender bunkers or cut larger greens, or simply not having an adequate water supply for increased turf acreage, failing to plan in this regard is almost certainly a recipe for failure.

Ultimately, proper planning gets back to a detailed and appropriate design brief, coupled with a sensible design appointment and adequate budget for course works. There are many pitfalls, as outlined, to be aware of when considering major redesign, but there are also many valid and compelling reasons to undertake such a risky project. Looking at golf courses across Australia that are struggling or in financial strife, and many are the victim of an inappropriate redevelopment that either left them with a heavy debt or an unpopular golf course. There aren’t many that offer wonderful golf.

 

Darius Oliver, Architecture Editor Australian Golf Digest Magazine

Back to News
0 Comments


 

More News

Report reveals golf's $3.3 billion contribution to Australia

AGIC report reveals total annual benefits to the Australian community, economy and environment from golf.

Cape Wickham Links – The Inside Design Story

Co-designer Darius Oliver reveals the truth behind the design of Australia’s premier modern golf course

Have your say on the future of Moore Park Golf

Golfers unite – another one of our cherished public access golf courses is under threat

Cameron John wins The National Tournament by two strokes

Victorian claims breakthrough professional victory at The National Tournament presented by BMW

Tags and Countries