STENSBALLEGAARD BUNKER POLICY PART V

So, we arrive at "Part V" of this four part series....  Curious right?  It was foreseen Part IV would be the final installment, and all updates would be added to that post. 

Then, comes an unforeseen development in the story.......

Recently, the owner of Stensballegaard Golf Club (SGC) called to inform me that he and green committee are engaged in talks to "slightly" modify the bunker policy......

The possibility of compromising the Bunker Policy is not surprising, but it is disappointing.  Discussions about the policy have been ongoing.  There are definitely golfers who don't understand or appreciate the policy.  When the European Challenge Tour played at SGC (August 2012), there was hightened concern and focus on the bunkers.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, there were concessions made for the Challenge Tour - including "rake-toting bunker senturies" posted throughout the golf course.

email to: H,

When we spoke recemtly, we discussed the bunker policy and the decision to put rakes in the bunker.  I said I wanted to revert back to you on this point.  I guess I was hoping for some enlightenment, which would provide an indisputable argument for not changing the policy.  But, it never arrived.

I do understand your feelings and concerns, which are all rational. 

If you remember, when I arrived at Stensballegaard from the Architects Forum in Scotland in 2010, I mentioned my discussion with Ron Whitten, Architecture editor of Golf Digest.  He also owned a course where he implemented a similar policy.  And, he said he eventually succumbed to player pressure – first with rakes, then with more grooming.   For him, the increased bunker maintenance really hurt his operational cost.  He really hoped we would be successful.

I realize – at this stage – you are not talking about increasing bunker grooming.  But, it is the next logical step (and “slippery slope”) which we discussed previously and which must be considered, if concessions are made and the policy is compromised.

I still focus on the distinction the Bunker Policy has brought Stensballegaard; positive publicity, helping establish SGC on the international golfing map.  I worry changing the policy, which brought the course notoriety and which identifies SGC internationally, could also compromise this distinction.    Even the Rolex guide highlights this point: “Of specific interest is their bunker policy.”  So I worry; when this policy is compromised, we lose an important trait, which identifies SGC. 

And, mostly I worry because changing this policy will not:

1.        stop golfers from saying negative things about Stensballegaard.  In our discussion, you mentioned this is  “the only negative point” you hear about SGC.  But, if the policy is changed, I think you will find there will be other negative comments.  This is simply the nature of things.  The bunker policy is an easy target – because it is unique and separates SGC from other courses.  But, there will be people who don’t like the golf course. And, negative commentary is always the loudest.  Changing this policy will not stop negative commentary about SGC.

2.       materially increase revenue. 

Having said this, my deepest fear is:  Once the compromise is made, there is no way to undo the damage to SGC’s reputation. And, yes, I do feel it will hurt your reputation.  I admit my perspective is not the same as yours, since we don’t deal with the daily issues.  But, from where I sit, the bunker policy is an identifying trait for SGC, providing SGC with distinction. 

 SGC is admired for having the courage and veracity – that others lack – taking a stance on this issue.  I know you said you can’t carry this weight for the golf industry.   But, even on this point, please remember you are in good company – with Pine Valley and remember the USPGA Tour event played at Kiawah 2012 – where they treated the bunkers differently.  The tide is turning.  And, SGC is the forerunner in this campaign.  It would be sad to lose this distinction.

So, that’s my pitch.  At least it is food for thought.  I really do understand your concerns of economic sustainability – which is the first priority.  But, I really question the idea of changing the bunker policy.  I just don’t sense this will provide the increase in revenue from green fee players. 

Finally, I offer this suggestion:  As I don’t really agree with compromising the bunker policy:  If you decide to change the policy, please find a way to explain the modification which doesn’t involve our sanction.  Perhaps, in this way, if/when you discover the compromise is not rendering the results you seek, we “might” (and this is a BIG might) be able to reinstate the policy.  Again, if you decide to compromise, I hope you can think of a way to make it positive – or controversial – either way it needs to bring good publicity for the club.  Maybe compromising without our agreement is controversial and can provide interesting publicity….

After you’ve had a chance to read this, perhaps we can talk again.  I am available at your convenience.

Best regards,
Rick

Message from Green Committee Chairman "C", in response to a query for his opinion, from his time dealing with the Bunker Policy, and his feeling about the discussions to modify the policy:

Dear Rick,

Thanks for your e-mail. I know H's concern about the reputation of the course as well as of the bunkers. It is a very very difficult subject and frankly speaking I don't think there is any straight forward answer.

The bunker policy is correct, however, many players disagree and they don’t take our instructions about smoothing out their footprints seriously – I think it is like a kind of punishment towards to club/course – to show their disagreement about the no rakes policy. This attitude comes not only from greenfee guests but also from some of our own club members. There is a vocal group who had disagreed about the no rakes policy from the very start and they still keep the negative attitude alive. Then there is all the comments on the web. This is really the most serious part as many of the active golfers who play on green fee tends to participate in the chat on the these web portals. In general few players have created a lot of hype against our course.

If we look at the problem from H’s side, it is a question if he can afford to continue to support the no rake policy.

This year’s turn over in green fee sales was down, quite a lot. The weather has been bad and we “lost” at least two weeks sales due to ECCO and Challenge Tour tournaments. On the other hand if we look at all the other clubs their green fee turnover has also gone down, so it is a general trend all over Denmark. Weather and economy have generate less turnnover in green fee than last year.Anyway, H needs to promote the course best possible and it is correct that there is a general dislike of the no rakes policy from the guests side, however, problem is that we only get the negative news. The guests leave comments like wonderful course, but a pity that the bunkers are un maintained! I don’t think we ever got a positive message like “wonderful bunkers without rakes!”.

Personally I was not very happy with the no rake policy in the beginning, however, today, I don’t find it a problem. When playing,  I really do my best to avoid the bunkers! They are fierce hazards – and foot prints, well there are quite a few footprints but in many bunkers the sand has settled and the foot prints is no problem. After all there is also a lot of animal footprints and no one complain about these.

Today I will find it a pity if we put rakes in the bunkers, however, it is my personal feeling – if we ask the green committee I think the majority will vote for rakes in the bunkers!

Another issue is the rating of the course, if we remove the rakes the course will have to be re rated and I am sure that course will be rated as less difficult.
What worries me most is that I am really 98% sure that we will not get any more green fee guest by putting rakes in the bunkers! The problem is that the course in no longer a novelty, most players have visited Stensballegaard and some like the course and some not, meaning that we will not see any major growth in green fee guest just because we announce that from 2013 – now with rakes!

The situation for golf is much more complex than just rakes or no rakes. 

Try to think about this small fact app. 3% of the population in Denmark play golf – that is app. 155.000 persons. In the municipality of Horsens there is app. 85.000 inhabitants – 3% of this is app 2500 persons.

We have today 1009 members in Stensballegaard Golf Club, Horsens have app. 1300 members, then there are quite a few still being a member in the old Horsens Golf Club (now Juelsminde) – and some is a member in Odder! We are very close to the statistical number of players in our area – this show, I think why it is so difficult to get more new members – at least it is I my guess! Rakes or no rakes!

Conclusion – personal opinion!

1. Rakes have very little influence towards the average club member
2. Mens sections members are very much against no rakes – the better the player, the more opposition towards no rakes
3. No rakes have created a lot of negative comments on the various internet portals
4. Some players dislike the visual appearance of bunkers with footprints.

C

In response to the above message from C:

C,

I have been thinking about the bunker policy these past weeks.  And, I want to again thank you for your very thoughtful words (above).  I believe you are precisely correct in your assessment.

 

I spoke with H a couple days ago.  Nothing significant.  But, I had sent him my thoughts and we just touched base following that.  I believe he forwarded my email also to you – at least I hope he did.  I expressed my concerns and asked that he please not reference me/vHSB -  if/when the policy changes.  As you mention, it is not a black and white problem.  I certainly understand the need to increase revenue.  But, I also believe this is not the proper target. 

 

Even if we have made progress in shedding light on this issue, we have more work to do.  So, after much thought, I find it illogical to support and concur with a bunker policy modification.

 

After re-reading your message, I have the feeling we could have – and should have – done more to create pride about the bunker policy within the membership.  After all, the members are the ambassadors and salesmen for the club.  Perhaps we overlooked the impact of their opposition to the policy?   Perhaps, we could not have changed this.  But then again, you being one of our more traveled and most sophisticated members – and, as you say, you were also uncertain about the policy in the beginning.

 

I am of course saddened by this development.  I’m not sure if this feeling is for Stensballegaard, for me or for golf in general– or all three.  I hate that we will end up like many others that have made similar attempts.  I had really hoped we would be successful and Stensballegaard would rightfully claim it made a significant impact, resurrecting some of the original spirit of golf.

 

In many ways, this debate is indicative of the state of golf today.  The golf industry, over the past 20 years, established a standard and golfer expectation which is unaffordable – unsustainable.  The problem is, golfers don’t realize this.  The industry does, but now we can’t figure out how to inform the golfing public that we really can’t provide the perfectly manicured golf courses they have come to expect.  So, most of the industry is struggling to figure out how to change golfers expectations.  In the meantime, the various professional tours are still advocating the same imagery of perfectly maintained golf courses – blissfully neglecting to divulge the true cost of this image.   

 

The bunker policy parallels this.  Golfers have come to expect perfect bunker conditions.  Why not – it’s all they see every week on TV – in magazines…it must be the right way…  When will it stop?

 

Okay, actually I didn’t start this – thinking to get on my soapbox again…. 

Hope this message finds you well.  

Rick

 

And, C's response:

Dear Rick,

Thanks your e-mail, first of all I haven’t seen your mail to H, however, we had a lengthy discussion about the rakes or no rakes in the green committee.

 

I think the final conclusion will be that “a tool” will be supplied to help the player smoothen his foot prints – it’s not a rake – and I find this point important. We will still have no rakes, however, we will provide a more suitable tool to make a more even surface than what can be made with a club or a shoe. I hope this initiative will keep the no rakes policy alive as well as maybe, if we are really lucky, close the discussion about rakes!

 

I agree with you that maybe we did not work hard enough on making the club members our ambassadors, however, on the other hand most professional and also many golf magazines was against the idea from the start. I totally agree with you that maintaining the quality of course which is seen on television from big PGA or Euro Tour events is unrealistic so is the quality of the bunkers, even I, being a rather average player find it simply to make a bunker shot from these bunkers where you have exactly ¾” sand on top of a very hard bottom. But if you have this kind of “hazard” is it then really a hazard?

 

I love highly maintained courses, however, I think links type and more natural golf courses will be the future. Having the environment and the green thinking in mind, there seems to be no other way in the long run!

 

Regarding hickory play – I hope that you and Chris will be in Denmark again next year on the 31^st. August, as we will play the Danish Open Hickory Championship at the oldest golf course in Denmark – at Copenhagen Golf Course – right next to the queens hunting castle and a lot of deers.

 

Best regards,

C

This  message arrives from our client:

Hej Rick.

The following  is not official yet, but this is what we might end up with:

 

Revised Bunker Policy at Stensballegaard Golf

 The bunker policy at Stensballegaard Golf has caused a lot of discussions among members and greenfee guests, as well as in the press, both national and international.

 

Chief Architect Rick Baril designed the golf course to be played strategically and avoid the bunkers: which should be viewed as natural hazards and not as safe, well kept landing areas.

Positively,  this concept has caused discussion in the world press, among others: “The Rolex World Top 1000 Golf Courses” has attached importance to the idea, that the bunkers should be hazards, not to be raked. Golf Inc. also commented on our bunkers, when the course was elected ”The Worlds best new course in 2010”.

The negative has been; it turned out to be very difficult to make the golf players level their footprints with their foot or their golf iron, and therefore several deep footprints are left in the bunkers. This is certainly not fair to the following players, landing in these footprints. At the same time, this made the course look neglected.

We have therefore decided to introduce the “Stensballegaard Bunker Shaper”.

The Bunker Shaper is a tool to level foot prints in  the bunker.  But, it is important to make it clear, the bunker still shall present itself as a natural hazard and hereby be a challenge the golf player should avoid.

It will therefore as  always be up to the golf player to act sportsmanlike, and of course make sure the footprints one has made in the bunker is leveled with the “ Bunker Shaper”.

I have done my best to translate, hope it makes sense.

I think I am as disappointed as you, but I am sorry to say so, we are the only two and N.

Best regards,

H

 

And, my response:

Greetings H,

I have read the notice (above) and made some small edits.

I’m obviously interested to see the “bunker shaper”….

As you know, I worry this step will not provide the solution or answer you seek, on this point.  In fact, I worry this concession will encourage even more discussion, dissent and criticism related to the bunkers.  I sincerely hope I am wrong.

In the social “golf” media, I am seeing more commentary related to the disconnect between golf course maintenance and golfer’s expectations.  As an owner, you are keenly aware of this issue:  Mostly unaware of the increased costs and dwindling resources confronting golf, the average golfer continues to expect better golf course conditions and more grooming.  Certainly, the poor global economy is bringing more awareness to this issue.  But, the golf industry seems to segmented to truly provide the cohesive message, which is truly needed to influence golfer expectations.  It is likely the necessary change in golfer’s expectations will not occur until it is literally forced on them….  And this, in a nutshell, is what we have experienced with the “bunker policy”.

I am proud of the statement we made with the “Bunker Policy”.  Even if we haven’t been successful, we did the right thing.  And, in the process, we caused golfers to think, re-think and consider this issue.  Hopefully, we’ve brought this problem one step closer to a rational evolution and solution.

 

Hope Spring comes early in Denmark!  All the best to you and the family…

Regards,

Rick