Ridiculous golf marketing

[Pathetic Shark]

People have ripped Horton Park in Epsom on this forum before for being an appallingly bad golf course with some bad holes. But their latest marketing gimmick takes the biscuit.

Their 10th hole is a 180-yard par-3 to an island green with absolutely no bail out area. All the members just wedge down to short of the water and then pitch on.

So the new marketing involves a picture of the 17th at Sawgrass and then a picture of this moronic hole, trying to compare the two and then making out Horton's is better.

The cretin who runs this place just cannot get it into his head how stupid it makes him and his club look. All the members have given up with him about it. The sad thing is if they shortened this hole to about 120, or ie: the same length at the Sawgrass hole, it would actually be a decent par 3.

 

[garyinderry]

Surely the shot just short of the water is the bail out area.

I would certainly like to play it. How much I'd like to play it every time I am not sure.

Sounds and looks like the kind of hole you need to find a club that hits this specific distance reasonably well.

Agreed it doesn't need to be 180 yards for it to be a good hole.

 

[Fish]

I think at180yds I would be laying up for a pitch onto the green more times than not, especially in a medal. Shortening it to around 120 would make more people go for it, that doesn't make it more easier as such, just makes it more rewarding I think, although I don't know how big the island green is?

 

[patricks148]

don't know the club or the hole, but golf now is all about distance and its a shame, you hardly ever see a nice short par 3 anymore.

our 14th is 217 yards off the back and this would make a far better 150 yarder or less TBH.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

People have ripped Horton Park in Epsom on this forum before for being an appallingly bad golf course with some bad holes. But their latest marketing gimmick takes the biscuit.

Their 10th hole is a 180-yard par-3 to an island green with absolutely no bail out area. All the members just wedge down to short of the water and then pitch on.

So the new marketing involves a picture of the 17th at Sawgrass and then a picture of this moronic hole, trying to compare the two and then making out Horton's is better.

The cretin who runs this place just cannot get it into his head how stupid it makes him and his club look. All the members have given up with him about it. The sad thing is if they shortened this hole to about 120, or ie: the same length at the Sawgrass hole, it would actually be a decent par 3.

I use to play it regularly a few years after it opened. Very short in places, especially some of the par four and fives. As a pay and play and particularly somewhere for new golfers to learn the game it's ideal. The new par 3 is a joke and is far too hard for most to play as there literally nowhere to go other than short and leave a wedge in. A shame as the original par 3 (while a few yards longer) had a big green and lots of room, especially left. I know a few who still use it and as the OP say, most members are out of patience with the owners and how things are running and many are going or planning to go in large numbers. Nearby Epsom GC, another shortish course on the downs by the race course is the main recipient.

The 9th at Horton bears no resemblance to the iconic Sawgrass version and unless it is shortened it never will and to be honest even then a pale imitation. I don't think too many golfers, new or not will fall for this desperate marketing technique

 

[Blue in Munich]

It is the closest course to home for me, I ride past it on the way to work, and having tried it once I would never set foot in the place again. If they want to spend money improving the place, sort the drainage out. It is a swamp in the winter. I lost more balls in the one round I played there than in any other round because they simply disappeared in the fairway off a shot with any height. If they are in any way comparing that place to sawgrass they really have lost the plot.

It might serve a purpose as a pay & play to get beginners into golf as Homer says, but beyond that there is absolutely nothing to recommend it.

 

[KenL]

You might not agree with their island green hole but I don't see a need to refer to someone as a cretin.

 

[HankMarvin]

Don't see a problem with a hole like this just a 6 iron & a chance for birdie @ worst a par and move on.

 

[Robster59]

They should REALLY spend their money on a decent website

 

[TheJezster]

Well, his marketing is working isn't it? You're talking about it. It's made me look it up and I wouldn't mind giving it a go. That's all you can really do in marketing, generate interest. If the course is good enough people will come back. Looks like it's not marketing's fault that people aren't. Think you're moaning at the wrong people. In this instance marketing win!

 

[Robobum]

Not sure I'm missing something here or looking at the wrong hole??

Looks a decent enough design, green and surround looks pretty big enough. 190yd would appear to mean about 170 or so to the front edge of the green??

Difficult, daunting, intimidating.........certainly.

Moronic?? Doesn't look that way from an outside glance.

 

[ScienceBoy]

Don't see a problem with a hole like this just a 6 iron & a chance for birdie @ worst a par and move on.

All par 3s should have a safe place to play short or with no real carry. Certainly agree it's not a well designed hole if they have not considered a layup option.

Does seem like good marketing as we are talking about, no bad publicity and all that.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Well, his marketing is working isn't it? You're talking about it. It's made me look it up and I wouldn't mind giving it a go. That's all you can really do in marketing, generate interest. If the course is good enough people will come back. Looks like it's not marketing's fault that people aren't. Think you're moaning at the wrong people. In this instance marketing win!

If you agree with the mantra that there's no such thing as bad publicity then yes they have. If you believe that comments slating the place are going to bring in visitors in their droves then I think that you're as far wide of the mark as whoever it is thinks that place stands comparison with Sawgrass.

 

[Three]

People have ripped Horton Park in Epsom on this forum before for being an appallingly bad golf course with some bad holes. But their latest marketing gimmick takes the biscuit.

Their 10th hole is a 180-yard par-3 to an island green with absolutely no bail out area. All the members just wedge down to short of the water and then pitch on.

So the new marketing involves a picture of the 17th at Sawgrass and then a picture of this moronic hole, trying to compare the two and then making out Horton's is better.

The cretin who runs this place just cannot get it into his head how stupid it makes him and his club look. All the members have given up with him about it. The sad thing is if they shortened this hole to about 120, or ie: the same length at the Sawgrass hole, it would actually be a decent par 3.

I've just watched the video of the Pro playing this hole on their website.

1. Visually it's fantastic.
2. It's 190 yards off the whites, 150 yards off the yellows and 120 yards off the reds. Golfers who can't carry a ball 180 yards should surely be playing off the yellows normally?

3. Surely anyone who can't reach will get a stroke or this hole, so common sense says they lay up, pitch on and 2 putts gives a nett par, that's just good course management.

4. There's a drop zone, so anyone having a crack at the green and missing has an easy pitch on and the chance for bogey, just like Sawgrass

5. The position of the white tee is not fixed. I recently played a tournament where one similar par 3 over water varied in length from its normal 190 yards down to 132 one day. With a bit of dialogue, surely the club could be persuaded to keep the hole at a maximum of about 150 in competitions when white tees are used?

Sorry, can't see any issue with this hole.

 

[Fyldewhite]

One of those "Go for green and get par or double bogey" holes. I'm a big believer in the punishment fitting the crime and don't think when hitting a 5/4 iron or more into a green this one does that. If you miss that green with say a 9 iron then fair enough, you probably deserve the double whammy but at that length it's just tricked up rubbish IMHO. If the moat around the back was sand then it would be a much better hole in my book.

 

[woody69]

"Cretin"? Really? You might not agree with their marketing or approach, but why cretin? Personal agenda perhaps?

 

[Liverbirdie]

don't know the club or the hole, but golf now is all about distance and its a shame, you hardly ever see a nice short par 3 anymore.

our 14th is 217 yards off the back and this would make a far better 150 yarder or less TBH.

Is that the one down the hill, after the SI 1 up the hill.

2 very nice holes.:thup:

 

[ScienceBoy]

Golfers who can't carry a ball 180 yards should surely be playing off the yellows normally? .

No, golf should be as inclusive as possible.

As for the rest of your post, really good points and I generally agree.

Stick in a decent well maintained layup area for players like me and you have yourself a decent risk reward par 3.

Give me a chance to pitch on for par and I am happy.

 

[Smiffy]

All par 3s should have a safe place to play short or with no real carry.

Really?

 

[ScienceBoy]

Really?

Absolutely yes. General weekly competition golf (off the whites) should be as inclusive as possible.

Same goes for par 4/5s with big carries, need an alternative route.