Is it time to limit the length of drivers in the equipment rules?

[cval]

16 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

He is saying that existing golf courses will not change.  Tees will not be moved forward and new more forward tee boxes will not be built.  The golf course owners make those decisions and they aren't going to spend time, effort, or money just because the RBs have a bee up their bonnet over distance. 

That was much better articulated. Let be honest it is not that hard to set-up tees at different places to make up the 10% loss in distance mostly the shorter tees. The tips at most courses will stay the same except you might need and 8 iron instead of a pitching wedge for your approach. 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, cval said:

That was much better articulated. Let be honest it is not that hard to set-up tees at different places to make up the 10% loss in distance mostly the shorter tees. The tips at most courses will stay the same except you might need and 8 iron instead of a pitching wedge for your approach. 

Just because something is technically easy doesn't mean it will get done.  Also there will be plenty of instances where the most forward tees are already up against a penalty area where there is no where to move tees to without building a new box.  It won't happen. Zero return on investment.

[cval]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Just because something is technically easy doesn't mean it will get done.  Also there will be plenty of instances where the most forward tees are already up against a penalty area where there is no where to move tees to without building a new box.  It won't happen. Zero return on investment.

I played a course this past weekend that just had a HS tournament and the Tee boxes were all in different locations. If the customers want the Tee's moved up the courses will move them up.  

 

We are not talking going back to Persimmon clubs. The ruling will have negligible zero effect on the amateur golfer.  Instead of hitting your Normal 330 you will only hit the ball 300 with a 10% reduction.  What this does it makes the course play as designed instead of carrying all the trouble. 

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, cval said:

I played a course this past weekend that just had a HS tournament and the Tee boxes were all in different locations. If the customers want the Tee's moved up the courses will move them up.  

 

We are not talking going back to Persimmon clubs. The ruling will have negligible zero effect on the amateur golfer.  Instead of hitting your Normal 330 you will only hit the ball 300 with a 10% reduction.  What this does it makes the course play as designed instead of carrying all the trouble. 

Actually no one knows where the RBs are trying to dial back to.  The number required to restore full shot value and architecture intent (assuming there ever was any) to places like Merion and The Old Course is something like 20%.  That would require a return to persimmon equivalent COR and nerfing the ball to pre-1974 speeds (initial ball velocity was capped in 1974 and that limit remains the same today if I remember correctly).

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, cval said:

That was much better articulated. Let be honest it is not that hard to set-up tees at different places to make up the 10% loss in distance mostly the shorter tees. The tips at most courses will stay the same except you might need and 8 iron instead of a pitching wedge for your approach. 

Sorry you didn't understand or like what I said. 

 

You're making assumptions as if you know factually.  Courses, currently move tee blocks back and forth 10-20' ... that is not the subject.  Building new tee boxes to lengthen or shorten yardages means over 100k investment for just one tee box, plus maintenance costs. 

[cval]

3 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Sorry you didn't understand or like what I said. 

 

You're making assumptions as if you know factually.  Courses, currently move tee blocks back and forth 10-20' ... that is not the subject.  Building new tee boxes to lengthen or shorten yardages means over 100k investment for just one tee box, plus maintenance costs. 

 

So you are making the case to limit equipment then? Look at all the courses having to make the courses longer when will it end? There is only so much land and money. Most courses are not designed for 330yd plus drive it is killing the championship courses.  I doubt many if any courses would need to add tee boxes to shorten a course to acceptable yardages. Most courses are not designed with 330 plus drives in mind. 

 

The madness has to end somewhere IMO.  If golf went back to persimmon tomorrow it  would not make one difference in my enjoyment of the game. What it will effect is the PGA tour players how they play the game. Imagine if MLB allowed aluminum bats. 

 

My opinion is to end the madness now. No need to revert per say but put some limits on the clubs and ball. Bring the shot makers back into the game. 

[Pepperturbo]

1 hour ago, cval said:

 

So you are making the case to limit equipment then? Look at all the courses having to make the courses longer when will it end? There is only so much land and money. Most courses are not designed for 330yd plus drive it is killing the championship courses.  I doubt many if any courses would need to add tee boxes to shorten a course to acceptable yardages. Most courses are not designed with 330 plus drives in mind. 

 

The madness has to end somewhere IMO.  If golf went back to persimmon tomorrow it  would not make one difference in my enjoyment of the game. What it will effect is the PGA tour players how they play the game. Imagine if MLB allowed aluminum bats. 

 

My opinion is to end the madness now. No need to revert per say but put some limits on the clubs and ball. Bring the shot makers back into the game. 

No, I am not making "that" case.  If I am making a case at all, it's course owners that I know are NOT going to follow USGA or R&A edicts, and most amateurs won't follow them either.  Remember the groove rule, nobody bothered.   Changing grooves didn’t affect better players because we have the SS and know how to hit the ball.  So as concerned as many were, it didn’t turn out to be devastating like first thought.

 

This topic is different, however, it's focused on a limited number of PGA Tour players that hit the ball big.  Also, it's a decision that affects the cost structure of independent businessmen, their real estate holdings, and equipment roll-backs affect OEM’s, makes no sense.  For a sliver segment of golfers, the only practical option is narrowing fairways and making rough a lot longer.  Otherwise, they affect the world of golfers and other tours even though distance on those tours are not comparable to the PGA Tour.

 

To that point, even if I make my target of playing in the super-senior category of Sr Open Championship qualifier later this year, I will make my determination when and if an equipment change is deemed necessary to compete.  An equipment roll-back would cost me distance, so it might change my decision.  I can hit persimmon heads too, and been playing blades forever.  And, hit the ball further than many seniors and as far as many players on the Champions Tour.  I just don't see that tour and others buying into the roll-back to hit the ball less.

 

A roll-back would affect not only the Champions tour but the LPGA and Japanese tour.  Lots of people would be irritated and many would walk away from their respective tours, as they have other options.  Taking this topic in the wrong direction could demolish tours, and then there’s the resulting unemployment too.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[cval]

21 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

No, I am not making "that" case.  If I am making a case at all, it's course owners that I know are NOT going to follow USGA or R&A edicts, and most amateurs won't follow them either.  Remember the groove rule, nobody bothered.   Changing grooves didn’t affect better players because we have the SS and know how to hit the ball.  So as concerned as many were, it didn’t turn out to be devastating like first thought.

 

 

This topic is different, however, it's focused on a limited number of PGA Tour players that hit the ball big.  Also, it's a decision that affects the cost structure of independent businessmen, their real estate holdings, and equipment roll-backs affect OEM’s, makes no sense.  For a sliver segment of golfers, the only practical option is narrowing fairways and making rough a lot longer.  Otherwise, they affect the world of golfers and other tours even though distance on those tours are not comparable to the PGA Tour.

 

 

To that point, even if I make my target of playing in the super-senior category of Sr Open Championship qualifier later this year, I will make my determination when and if an equipment change is deemed necessary to compete.  An equipment roll-back would cost me distance, so it might change my decision.  I can hit persimmon heads too, and been playing blades forever.  And, hit the ball further than many seniors and as far as many players on the Champions Tour.  I just don't see that tour and others buying into the roll-back to hit the ball less.

 

 

A roll-back would affect not only the Champions tour but the LPGA and Japanese tour.  Lots of people would be irritated and many would walk away from their respective tours, as they have other options.  Taking this topic in the wrong direction could demolish tours, and then there’s the resulting unemployment too.

 

 

 

I think you may be exaggerating just a bit. No tour will be shut down because of equipment changes. What rules will course owners not follow? The rules have nothing to d with course owners. The only time it would matter would be in a competition. I doubt they will roll back,  but put in parameters on equipment (Driver length etc) and balls.  If they roll back the ball my guess manufacturers will make conforming balls,  and non conforming balls will eventually be hard to find.  No tour is required to use USGA rules as I am aware but I doubt that will change anytime soon on the PGA and Champions tour.

 

The craziness needs to stop sometime or we will need 9,000 yard golf courses but technology will not stop. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by cval

[Pepperturbo]

25 minutes ago, cval said:

I think you may be exaggerating just a bit. No tour will be shut down because of equipment changes. What rules will course owners not follow? The rules have nothing to d with course owners. The only time it would matter would be in a competition. I doubt they will roll back but put in parameters on equipment (Driver length etc) and balls. Guess what if they roll back the ball my guess manufacturers will make conforming balls and non conforming balls will eventually be hard to find.  No tour is required to use USGA rules as I am aware but I doubt that will change anytime soon on the PGA and Champions tour.

 

The craziness needs to stop sometime or we will need 9,000 yard golf courses but technology will not stop. 

I run an N.A. tech company.  It's NOT in my nature to exaggerate.  You just don't agree or like what I said, which is fine with me.   You have a good day.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I would love to hear from an engineer with polymer and aerodynamic experience.  While it's out of my field of engineering it seems that by changing the internal ball design  (polymers and layers) and perhaps dimple modification that ball flight could be limited or inhibited for the fastest swing speeds yet have minimal to no impact for lower swing speeds.

 

I just don't see how changing the equipment for "all of us" is good for the game just to address something that is related to 0.01% of those playing. 

 

Whatever they come up with I honestly think it will be a multipronged solution and as such will be have little to no impact on the game and equipment played by most of us.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I would love to hear from an engineer with polymer and aerodynamic experience.  While it's out of my field of engineering it seems that by changing the internal ball design  (polymers and layers) and perhaps dimple modification that ball flight could be limited or inhibited for the fastest swing speeds yet have minimal to no impact for lower swing speeds.

 

I just don't see how changing the equipment for "all of us" is good for the game just to address something that is related to 0.01% of those playing. 

 

Whatever they come up with I honestly think it will be a multipronged solution and as such will be have little to no impact on the game and equipment played by most of us.

The smart people could come up with ball designs that provide diminished returns the higher the club speed. You still could get longer, but going from 105-110 would provide more yardage than 110-115 etc. 

 

Not sure where the line should be drawn but anything over 100 would mean 99% of golfer would be unaffected. 

[nsxguy]

On 2/10/2021 at 1:57 PM, Pepperturbo said:

I don't see any entity taking it upon themselves to making decisions that affect golf and golfers worldwide. 

 

A few acquaintances own golf courses.  It's been discussed extensively.  We believe course length and tees will be left to owner discretion.  Personally, I been working out since HS, so quite familiar with the physiology or how big muscles can get before size has a derogatory effect on the golf swing.  To that point, don't see tour players physically getting stronger than they are now, or Tour stops adding more course length either, unless they have the funds and or the property and deem it individually necessary. 

 

USGA and R&A can make up potential problems and pontifical on them to remain relevant all they want.  They will NOT be given control of Golf & clubs and equipment around the world.  Short hitters will remain short and those of us that frequent gyms and hit the ball longer - will keep doing that.   Have a good day.

 

Not sure why you sound so upset over all of this.

 

The USGA & R&A are the custodians of the game. and they ALREADY have control of golf equipment around the world.

 

And while some equipment makers will make non-conforming equipment for people that don't care about the Rules and just want to have fun, the vast majority realize that most players WANT to play with "legal" equipment.

 

[nsxguy]

20 hours ago, cval said:

I think you may be exaggerating just a bit. No tour will be shut down because of equipment changes. What rules will course owners not follow? The rules have nothing to d with course owners. The only time it would matter would be in a competition. I doubt they will roll back but put in parameters on equipment (Driver length etc) and balls. Guess what if they roll back the ball my guess manufacturers will make conforming balls and non conforming balls will eventually be hard to find.  No tour is required to use USGA rules as I am aware but I doubt that will change anytime soon on the PGA and Champions tour.

 

The craziness needs to stop sometime or we will need 9,000 yard golf courses but technology will not stop. 

 

Please don't confuse people with common sense.

 

[storm319]

22 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually no one knows where the RBs are trying to dial back to.  The number required to restore full shot value and architecture intent (assuming there ever was any) to places like Merion and The Old Course is something like 20%.  That would require a return to persimmon equivalent COR and nerfing the ball to pre-1974 speeds (initial ball velocity was capped in 1974 and that limit remains the same today if I remember correctly).

Actually the ball velocity limit was introduced in the early 1950s. 1976 saw the introduction of the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) which was the last ball related regulation. 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

Actually the ball velocity limit was introduced in the early 1950s. 1976 saw the introduction of the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) which was the last ball related regulation. 

Thanks.  Wasn't sure exactly when and that history can be hard to track down.

[aswile]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

The smart people could come up with ball designs that provide diminished returns the higher the club speed. You still could get longer, but going from 105-110 would provide more yardage than 110-115 etc. 

 

Not sure where the line should be drawn but anything over 100 would mean 99% of golfer would be unaffected. 

Wouldn't that just bunch the fields tighter, allowing those less capable of moving the ball accurately at higher speeds to gain advantage by limiting the best players in the driving distance category?  It seems to me that golf should be a level playing field when it comes to equipment.  I wouldn't mind having everything roll back so that I could be competitive to my playing partners using my persimmons again...ego won't let me do it today.

[2bGood]

9 minutes ago, aswile said:

Wouldn't that just bunch the fields tighter, allowing those less capable of moving the ball accurately at higher speeds to gain advantage by limiting the best players in the driving distance category?  It seems to me that golf should be a level playing field when it comes to equipment.  I wouldn't mind having everything roll back so that I could be competitive to my playing partners using my persimmons again...ego won't let me do it today.

 Yes it would a bit it depends where you set the line how much things would bunch up. Wither way the long guys would still be longer - just not as much as they are now. 

[oikos1]

Why should the USGA have to reduce the driver shaft length limit?  It is the PGA Tour where the supposed problem is the concern.  Shouldn't it be the PGA Tour's responsibility to address distance on their Tour if they think it's a problem?

 

Guess what, the PGA Tour doesn't think distance is a problem.

[nsxguy]

23 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Sorry you didn't understand or like what I said. 

 

You're making assumptions as if you know factually.  Courses, currently move tee blocks back and forth 10-20' ... that is not the subject.  Building new tee boxes to lengthen or shorten yardages means over 100k investment for just one tee box, plus maintenance costs. 

 

Maintenance is an ongoing process of course but $100K to construct ONE tee box ?

 

Is that a single 100 yard long tee box on which are placed however many sets of tees ?

 

Or is that 1 tee box of roughly 10x10 yards (roughly 100 square yards) so that a hole which now has 3 tee boxes (Forward, Men's, Tips) of that size and would add another one to make 4 tee boxes for each hole ?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not sure why you sound so upset over all of this.

 

The USGA & R&A are the custodians of the game. and they ALREADY have control of golf equipment around the world.

 

And while some equipment makers will make non-conforming equipment for people that don't care about the Rules and just want to have fun, the vast majority realize that most players WANT to play with "legal" equipment.

 

^^^^ that could change if they screw with the equipment and ball that is not currently a problem for 99.99% of us.

[Pepperturbo]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not sure why you sound so upset over all of this.

 

The USGA & R&A are the custodians of the game. and they ALREADY have control of golf equipment around the world.

 

And while some equipment makers will make non-conforming equipment for people that don't care about the Rules and just want to have fun, the vast majority realize that most players WANT to play with "legal" equipment.

 

UPSET... I don't get upset, whine, or argue like an adolescent, wasn't trained that way.  I disagree, and stated my belief, that's all. 

 

I disagree with your broad brush assignment of control by USGA R&A.  They are losing their creditably with the vast amount of golfers, and many businessmen presiding over golf oriented businesses, like golf courses.  People are not in lock-step with their desire to make problems where they don't exist.   The problem is simple, it's the distance the ball flies by a small percentage of the world's professional golfers.  All some people see is the cost of extending courses to accommodate big hitters.   Yet, more and more, we're seeing the PGA build stadium style courses for tour play.  Why, they have greater control, but the other factor is private high-end courses are not interested in holding televised tournaments, and dumping the cost on membership.   

 

Then there's this; the VAST majority of golfers don't even have indexes, and don't play by the rules.  The golfers that do have indexes, many don't play by the rules, and for the most part, don't play in regional amateur events.  So, what you feel on the subject is not inline with the reality of most golfers or the businessmen that run P&L's. 

 

Additionally, equipment company's that have a tour presence, are gradually realizing the cost of maintaining that presents.  As it is, the only entities that can afford tour presents are large sponsors that maintain resources to offset erratic years, like the last one.  Watch what happens as we go forward.  I am done.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[Pepperturbo]

33 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Maintenance is an ongoing process of course but $100K to construct ONE tee box ?

 

Is that a single 100 yard long tee box on which are placed however many sets of tees ?

 

Or is that 1 tee box of roughly 10x10 yards (roughly 100 square yards) so that a hole which now has 3 tee boxes (Forward, Men's, Tips) of that size and would add another one to make 4 tee boxes for each hole ?

 

There are fixed and variable costs on the P&L to maintaining a golf course, or any business.  I been on the BOD of two equity courses.  It's not the same as being leadership of league play.  The BOD runs a costly business P&L that includes every aspect of the clubhouse facilities, and golf course.  Part of the responsibility is managing a P&L that's broken down into Depts or P&L centers.

 

Building a new tee box is not just mowing a 10x10 spot and dropping blocks, like you could in your backyard.  An inexpensive somewhat small tee box might cost 50k+, a tournament tee box can be over 100k, depending on substructure, drainage, turf considered, and sprinkling system as it needs to be built into the current sprinkling network.  The cost of the substructure and turf is quite high these days.  It's not only the cost of RE, either, if even the RE exists, the cost of labor to construct all aspects of the box.  Yes, maintenance is an ongoing cost, but when a plot of yardage is added it requires added manpower, manpower costs hourly, that means an increase in daily, weekly and monthly maintenance/payroll costs.  I will leave it there as it's a complex subject. 

[nsxguy]

18 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

UPSET... I don't get upset, whine, or argue like an adolescent, wasn't trained that way.  I disagree, and stated my belief, that's all. 

 

I disagree with your broad brush assignment of control by USGA R&A.  They are losing their creditably with the vast amount of golfers, and I many businessmen presiding over golf oriented businesses, like golf courses.  People are not in lock-step with their desire to make problems where they don't exist.   The problem is simple, it's the distance the ball flies by a small percentage of the world's professional golfers.  All some people see is the cost of extending courses to accommodate big hitters.   Yet, more and more, we're seeing the PGA build stadium style courses for tour play.  Why, they have greater control, but the other factor is private high-end courses are not interested in holding televised tournaments, and dumping the cost on membership.   

 

Then there's this; the VAST majority of golfers don't even have indexes, and don't play by the rules.  The golfers that do have indexes, many don't play by the rules, and for the most part, don't play in regional amateur events.  So, what you feel on the subject is not inline with the reality of most golfers or the businessmen that run P&L's. 

 

Additionally, equipment company's that have a tour presence, are gradually realizing the cost of maintaining that presents.  As it is, the only entities that can afford tour presents are large sponsors that maintain resources to offset erratic years, like the last one.  Watch what happens as we go forward.  I am done.

 

Forgive me. Things like "I am done" *sound* upset to me.

 

I assume you meant credibility but no matter. They're losing credibility with the "vast amount of golfer" ??? The vast majority of golfers can't SPELL USGA. 

 

Doesn't matter what a handful of disgruntled posters on the internet think about the USGA. So long as the manufacturers adhere to the regulation the USGA bashers will have to live with it.

 

Right now the USGA and R&A make the rules on equipment and the VAST majority of manufacturers adhere to it.

 

Both you and I will be long gone before any of this changes.

 

I look forward to watching what happens,,,,,,, for as long as I can,,,,,,   

[sui generis]

11 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

There are fixed and variable costs on the P&L to maintaining a golf course, or any business.  I been on the BOD of two equity courses.  It's not the same as being leadership of league play.  The BOD runs a costly business P&L that includes every aspect of the clubhouse facilities, and golf course.  Part of the responsibility is managing a P&L that's broken down into Depts or P&L centers.

 

Building a new tee box is not just mowing a 10x10 spot and dropping blocks, like you could in your backyard.  An inexpensive somewhat small tee box might cost 50k+, a tournament tee box can be over 100k, depending on substructure, drainage, turf considered, and sprinkling system as it needs to be built into the current sprinkling network.  The cost of the substructure and turf is quite high these days.  It's not only the cost of RE, either, if even the RE exists, the cost of labor to construct all aspects of the box.  Yes, maintenance is an ongoing cost, but when a plot of yardage is added it requires added manpower, manpower costs hourly, that means an increase in daily, weekly and monthly maintenance/payroll costs.  I will leave it there as it's a complex subject. 

 

Whatever happened to the "I am done." of 30 minutes ago? You sure like the sound of your own voice. 🙄

Edited February 12, 2021 by sui generis

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

There are fixed and variable costs on the P&L to maintaining a golf course, or any business.  I been on the BOD of two equity courses.  It's not the same as being leadership of league play.  The BOD runs a costly business P&L that includes every aspect of the clubhouse facilities, and golf course.  Part of the responsibility is managing a P&L that's broken down into Depts or P&L centers.

 

Building a new tee box is not just mowing a 10x10 spot and dropping blocks, like you could in your backyard.  An inexpensive somewhat small tee box might cost 50k+, a tournament tee box can be over 100k, depending on substructure, drainage, turf considered, and sprinkling system as it needs to be built into the current sprinkling network.  The cost of the substructure and turf is quite high these days.  It's not only the cost of RE, either, if even the RE exists, the cost of labor to construct all aspects of the box.  Yes, maintenance is an ongoing cost, but when a plot of yardage is added it requires added manpower, manpower costs hourly, that means an increase in daily, weekly and monthly maintenance/payroll costs.  I will leave it there as it's a complex subject. 

 

Yes, as I "admitted" ,upfront, ongoing maintenance, is of course an added cost.

 

But you did say "100K to build" a tee box. That's why I asked about the sizing.

 

$100K each, to build 18 new tee boxes is almost $2M. Not nearly enough to build a great golf course but tee boxes ?

 

That sounded very high to me, especially if it's just a "single" tee box so of course I googled it. And found the chart below.

 

The article claims that for an UPSCALE course it's about $100K for 18, so about $5.5K per,,,,,,, and about a third of that for "only" an "average" course.

 

Now, I'll note right off that IS a 17 year old article and no doubt costs have gone up but,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Anywho, as you well know, if the customers want/require it ,the course owners will build it,,,,,,,,,, OR not,,,,,,,, as it affects their bottom line.

 

http://www.scottmacphersongolfdesign.com/media-releases-more/articles/the-cost-of-building-a-golf-course/

 

 

Construction Items	Minimalist Course	Average Course	Up-Scale Course
Mobilisation	10,000	35,000	75,000
Layout, Staking, Civils	10,000	30,000	120,000
Erosion Control	0	25,000	150,000
Clearing and Grubbing	3,000	35,000	280,000
Selective Clearing	0	54,000	240,000
Topsoil strip	40,000	150,000	300,000
Rock Blasting	0	15,000	150,000
Earthmoving	0	375,000	750,000
Shaping	75,000	150,000	300,000
Topsoil Replacement	40,000	150,000	240,000
Storm Drainage	10,000	75,000	500,000
Golf Drainage	20,000	100,000	150,000
Irrigation + Pumpstation	130,000	345,000	910,000
Greens (11,150 sq.m.)	36,000	190,000	600,000
Tees (11,150 sq.m.)	30,000	60,000	100,000
Bunkers	17,000	52,000	84,000
Cart paths	0	112,000	530,000
Seedbed Prep	50,000	95,000	125,000
Grassing (Seed/Sprigs)	50,000	120,000	110,000
Grassing (Sod)	0	50,000	200,000
BUILD TOTAL (US $)	521,000	2,218,000	5,814,000

[Pepperturbo]

10 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Whatever happened to the "I am done." of 30 minutes ago? You sure like the sound of your own voice. 🙄

I am sorry you have issues understanding differences in topic.  That wasn't my intent.  "I am done" was NOT meant to be across the board, but topic driven.  The next post was about tee box construction.  I know that escaped your bias but keep wishing.

[Pepperturbo]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Yes, as I "admitted" ,upfront, ongoing maintenance, is of course an added cost.

 

But you did say "100K to build" a tee box. That's why I asked about the sizing.

 

$100K each, to build 18 new tee boxes is almost $2M. Not nearly enough to build a great golf course but tee boxes ?

 

That sounded very high to me, especially if it's just a "single" tee box so of course I googled it. And found the chart below.

 

The article claims that for an UPSCALE course it's about $100K for 18, so about $5.5K per,,,,,,, and about a third of that for "only" an "average" course.

 

Now, I'll note right off that IS a 17 year old article and no doubt costs have gone up but,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Anywho, as you well know, if the customers want/require it ,the course owners will build it,,,,,,,,,, OR not,,,,,,,, as it affects their bottom line.

 

http://www.scottmacphersongolfdesign.com/media-releases-more/articles/the-cost-of-building-a-golf-course/

 

 

Construction Items	Minimalist Course	Average Course	Up-Scale Course
Mobilisation	10,000	35,000	75,000
Layout, Staking, Civils	10,000	30,000	120,000
Erosion Control	0	25,000	150,000
Clearing and Grubbing	3,000	35,000	280,000
Selective Clearing	0	54,000	240,000
Topsoil strip	40,000	150,000	300,000
Rock Blasting	0	15,000	150,000
Earthmoving	0	375,000	750,000
Shaping	75,000	150,000	300,000
Topsoil Replacement	40,000	150,000	240,000
Storm Drainage	10,000	75,000	500,000
Golf Drainage	20,000	100,000	150,000
Irrigation + Pumpstation	130,000	345,000	910,000
Greens (11,150 sq.m.)	36,000	190,000	600,000
Tees (11,150 sq.m.)	30,000	60,000	100,000
Bunkers	17,000	52,000	84,000
Cart paths	0	112,000	530,000
Seedbed Prep	50,000	95,000	125,000
Grassing (Seed/Sprigs)	50,000	120,000	110,000
Grassing (Sod)	0	50,000	200,000
BUILD TOTAL (US $)	521,000	2,218,000	5,814,000

That gave me a good laugh.  Thanks...  FYI; my last private club was ten years back, and those numbers are so far off from what I experienced it's silly.  A minimalist course in CA is a muni where wkend green fees are around $30-$40, average is $65-$85, and upscale is $110-$200+.  Private clubs spend more.  Depending on how much water is on the course, Pump stations are 700k-1M alone, computerize sprinkling systems 800k-1.5M.  Today NOBODY builds a minimalist muni, least in CA.  Might find them in 4-season states out in the country.  

[Sean2]

I wouldn't like to see the length of drivers shortened. At my last fitting, I was told that a 45.5 inch driver for me, was similar to a 43.5 inch driver for the average person. Anything shorter than 45.5 inches and I feel hunched over. 

[GSDriver]

Longer shafts harder to control, so if someone has the skills to play 48" in competition good for them.

 

Lowest score still wins, so play whatever you want within the rules.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

10 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

I wouldn't like to see the length of drivers shortened. At my last fitting, I was told that a 45.5 inch driver for me, was similar to a 43.5 inch driver for the average person. Anything shorter than 45.5 inches and I feel hunched over. 

As I recall, you're a tall guy, right?  You're exactly why drivers length shouldn't be limited.  It could be an unfair disadvantage for you and that would not be right.