[Patrick_Mucci]

My dues have gone up 50% since joining in 1999.  I would guess these price increases have stopped younger folks with families from replacing the old boys that die or get too old to play.

Escalating costs are certainly a factor.
You see fewer and fewer members, generationally.[/color]  

Additionally, golf clubs generally have too many rules which doesn't help the cause.  A lot of people don't like being told how they should dress during their leisure time.
In the olde days you didn't need to tell people how to dress because they knew what was expected of them and how they were supposed to conduct themselves.  
Boorish behavior, slovenly dress habits and the "it's all about me" attitude have forced clubs to adopt specific rules and to remind the idiot sector of their membership how to comport themselves.[/color]

Lastly, I think tougher drink-drive laws have been very detrimental to the social aspect of clubs.  The younger generation have more or less grown up with a much more sensible attitude toward mixing alcohol and driving than previous generations.  So the golf club is no longer "the sanctuary" it once was.  I can remember my father going to the club at 7:30 in the morning and he didn't come back until just short of dinner.  Cards, dice, socializing  and drinking ( jeepers, I make him sound like a right ruffian-honestly, he wasn't) were just as important as golf.  This is no longer the case for many members of clubs.

I know many clubs where alcohol was/is a non factor.

Reduced membership is probably related to a change in the cultural patterns, the pace of play and family obligations.
Noone wants to endure five to six hour rounds (see the need for rules comment) and as such golf loses some of its appeal to young family members who have other family responsibilities and obligations.

In addition, parenting has taken on more of a shared responsibility.  In past generations, the mother did everything at home because the father worked during the week, and on the weekend, he went to the club and did as your dad did.
Today, young men are at their kids extra-curricular activities and as such golf takes on a diminished role in their lives.

Clubs failed to change to meet the changing cultural patterns.   Many clubs continued to serve dinner to fewer and fewer members, and in so doing, became highly inefficient and costly.   I don't know of one club that makes money on their dining room operation.  I do know clubs that lose anywhere from $ 250,000 to $ 3,000,000 + in their dining rooms.

Clubs tried to operate as they had in the past despite dramtically altered utilization patterns.

Many clubs tried to continue to appeal to the needs of your dad's generation while their numbers were dwindling.

Fewer and fewer country clubs were willing to face reality and downsize their operations based on reduced utiliization patterns.

Fewer and fewer clubs transitioned from Country clubs to Golf Clubs because those in power never recognized and understood the changing cultural patterns and demographic of their membership.

Certain clubs suffered from poor locations and certain clubs priced themselves out of the market as more and more clubs became homogenized.

There's a number of reasons why membership activity is down, but reduced driving distance isn't going to be one of them.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"The real issue is that when the USGA finally figured this out and proposed Optimization (testing each ball at its' optimum launch angle) the manufactuers balked, because all of the premium double covered balls would fail and be declared non-conforming."

PeteL:

I have never heard that the adoption of the USGA's Optimization test would've resulted in the deeming of all the premium double covered balls (as you call them) as "non-conforming". I certainly do know who to call to ask though.

[Craig Sweet]

Getting back to this whole argument about whether the USGA should do something to "preserve" the game...pleeeeeaaaseee!!!!! Give me a break!!!

I have heard NOTHING but whinning little elitists that want to dictate to the unwashed masses what the "game" should be...most of these elitists are holed up at their private courses thinking that THEY are "golf"...whinning that the grand tradition of the "game is threatened by a handful of long hitters and a bunch of THEIR fellow private club members, who are so short sighted they feel the need to bastardize a 100 year old classic course for the sake of what...protecting par???

Ya know, it's 2005...life has advanced...thank god...and so has golf...people of color, people of less than modest means, even women are playing golf today...most could care less about Redan greens, lines of attack, strategy, the ground game,the USGA, a handicap, etc. etc...they just want a good walk over green grass, and a little excersise....if the new equipment lets them enjoy that more, that is terrific...if new equipment helps them take their golf to the next level, that is splended...if the new equipment gives them something to dream about, great....

Golf is like the 500 other "leisure" activites we have to choose from...it comes with a price tag...and like anything with a price tag, it's probably cheaper today than it will be tomorrow....most of us accept that...but we do so knowing...hoping...that tomorrow it will be easier, more enjoyable, and still there...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Don't you find it odd that the game has endured and maintained its interest, challenge and popularity over centuries under the dictates of those elitists you reference ?

Your opinion on what continues to attract people to the game can best be described as ..... misguided.

You seem more interested in class warfare than golf course architecture and related issues.

And, golf isn't like 500 other activities.
It's one of the few activities where people of different skill levels can compete, equally with one another.
What other sport or game can claim that feature ?

It's a game you can play by yourself, or with others.

It's a game where the challenge is diverse.
Yourself
The golf course
Your opponent.

It is a game that can be played by all ages, where competitors of all ages can mix and mingle.

It's a game that permits participants to spend hours talking to each other, while competing at the same time.

Which of those other 500 activities you reference have all of these facets ?

[Craig Sweet]

"Don't you find it odd that the game has endured and maintained its interest, challenge and popularity over centuries under the dictates of those elitists you reference ?"

I believe it has endured INSPITE of the "dictates" of the elitists. Further efforts to tell people how to enjoy themselves might just do the "game" in...

"You seem more interested in class warfare than golf course architecture and related issues."

Actually, Patrick, most of the golfers I know play public courses that ahve no pedigree, and they uld care less about "archetecture and related issues".

"And, golf isn't like 500 other activities."

Spoken like a true elitist.

[Doug Siebert]

Craig,

I'm with Patrick and many of the other country club guys in my belief that the equipment is negatively changing the game, and I don't belong to a club.  It has nothing to do with elitism as you seem to want to believe.  Further, saying that the guys you know have no interest in architecture doesn't really say anything in favor of leaving the game alone.  Most of the population of the US has no interest in just about everything the government does, does that mean they are silently telling the President and Congress they should not pass any new laws or change any policies because they are happy with the way the government is currently acting?  In fact its almost certainly the opposite.  Maybe more golfers would be interested in architecture if the game wasn't changing in ways that negated architectural variety and thinking about your shots instead of just teeing it high and letting it fly?

And get off this idea of "protecting par", its a tired argument has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with why classic courses are adding length, other than the very small number that are chasing a US Open.  Its about preserving the challenge that the holes were originally intended to and have historically offered.  Hitting a PW into holes that were a 5i approach 20 years ago makes shots that were once difficult fear more easy, and hitting wedge into every par 4 gets pretty repetitive -- especially when many of the classics were already par 70 and had a surplus of par 4s.

[Craig Sweet]

Doug, with the exception of those classic clubs that want to host majors or other pro tournaments, where is the evidence to support the argument that technology is ruining the game and requiring wholesale changes at classic courses? I have heard lots of emotion...but little factual data...and from what I see everyday on the golf course, no one has gone from hitting a 5 iron to swinging a PW into the greens...

My conversations with golfers at my course would indicate they have little or no knowledge of golf course architecture...sure they understand that a particulier bunker makes a hole more difficult, and laying up in from of the pond is a better option than trying to clear it....but they would be lost if you started talking about Redan greens etc...that's ok...their lack of knowledge does not in anyway distract from their golf experience....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug, with the exception of those classic clubs that want to host majors or other pro tournaments, where is the evidence to support the argument that technology is ruining the game and requiring wholesale changes at classic courses?

It's epidemic.

But, to give you a specific example, my home club in NJ, a wonderful, 6,500 yard, 1927 design is being altered to compensate for the "modern" game.

The golf course is being lengthened, bunkers moved, greens altered and the fairways were previously narrowed.

Is that proof enough for you ?

And, this is happening at club after club in the Metro area and throughout the country.

And, ongoing discussions have been held on this site for years describing changes at course after course.[/color]  

I have heard lots of emotion...but little factual data...and from what I see everyday on the golf course, no one has gone from hitting a 5 iron to swinging a PW into the greens...

Then, you're not aware of what's going on outside of the gates of your club  [/color]

[tlavin]

Tom MacWood:

We spent around $3 million, one third of which was for overdue irrigation work.  The balance was spent building bunkers that continue to bedevil us but were largely irrelevant to the touring pros, rebuilding two greens to cure allegedly unfair slopes in the front of the greens that wouldn't allow front hole locations, buliding new tee boxes on virtually every hole and cutting down hundreds of trees.  I have to say that, although the fairway bunkers are simply too difficult for the incapable or the elderly to manage, the rest of the work amounted to a restoration on steroids.  In examining the history of the club, the same thing was done when the course was "rebuilt" for the 1928 Open, only a few years after the PGA championship was held on what was then the #4 course.  Virtually nothing was done to alter the greens or the general shape of any of the holes other than simple lengthening.  The routing of the new course from the back tees suffers on some holes because of the great length that one has to walk from green to back tee, but that is the main price that we paid.  Overall, I think that the amount that we spent and the experience that we had was well worth the trauma that we went through.  I'm sure the membership would do it again, although I would prefer a US Amateur first.

On a side note, knowing what a history buff you are, I have a 1928 National Open Championship Souvenir book with a detailed description of the changes to the holes along with the article by O.B. Keeler that I referenced earlier, entitled "The Duffer Will Like the Larger Ball".    In it, he essentially argues for a change in the size of the golf ball to allow tournaments to be played on shorter courses rather than requiring lengthening of the current courses.  I'd be happy to send them to you if you give me your address.  Here's a snippet:

"For the true expert, this alteration may be expected to bring the proper length of a championship course down to 6400 or 6500, insteead of 6900 to 7,000, thus vastly increasingthe number of courses suitable to major competitions and at the same time changing the conventional design of new courses to a length far better suited to membership play.  It might also be expected to increase the difference at present between the player who has command of all the shots, including the niceties of brassie and spoon play-now almost obsolete among the elect-and the player who possesses mainly a powerful drive and the ability to slug the ball the rest of the way with a mashie-niblick; in a word, it might cause the expert to play all the golf shots instead of specializing in a drive-and-pitch game."

Sound familiar?  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"Sound familiar?  The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Accept that today, we have way, way, WAY less available land around our population centers with which to make design adjustments/build new courses.  The playing field for the discussion - and thus its parameters - has changed dramatically.

[T_MacWood]

tlavin
There were a number of very wise people arguing for the same thing back then: Jones, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Darwin, Low, Taylor, Hutchinson, Behr, Campbell, Fownes, et al.

IMO history has proven them right. Sadly they would not recognise today's game.

[Alfie]

Craig Sweet (guy) blurted ;
"Getting back to this whole argument about whether the USGA should do something to "preserve" the game...pleeeeeaaaseee!!!!! Give me a break!!!

I have heard NOTHING but whinning little elitists that want to dictate to the unwashed masses what the "game" should be...most of these elitists are holed up at their private courses thinking that THEY are "golf"...whinning that the grand tradition of the "game is threatened by a handful of long hitters and a bunch of THEIR fellow private club members, who are so short sighted they feel the need to bastardize a 100 year old classic course for the sake of what...protecting par???

Ya know, it's 2005...life has advanced...thank god...and so has golf...people of color, people of less than modest means, even women are playing golf today...most could care less about Redan greens, lines of attack, strategy, the ground game,the USGA, a handicap, etc. etc...they just want a good walk over green grass, and a little excersise....if the new equipment lets them enjoy that more, that is terrific...if new equipment helps them take their golf to the next level, that is splended...if the new equipment gives them something to dream about, great....

Golf is like the 500 other "leisure" activites we have to choose from...it comes with a price tag...and like anything with a price tag, it's probably cheaper today than it will be tomorrow....most of us accept that...but we do so knowing...hoping...that tomorrow it will be easier, more enjoyable, and still there..."

..........................

There are more holes in this post than there are in a string vest ! Now the rollback / bifurcation / pleeeeeaaase do something for Christ sake brigade are "elitists ? or perhaps "fanatics" ? or even "Luddites" ?
Just what are you (and others) so plain shit scared of ? I can smell it coming from every post you make.

If you had a brain in yer heid you might wonder as to who is really making the sport "ELITIST" ? That's one of my main contentions in seeking change. Are you completely blind, or just wearing glass bottom glasses ?

If I'm a traditional fanatical elitist Luddite - then I'm in bloody good company !

Give you a break ? don't tempt me.

Alfie

[Brent Hutto]

Alfie,

I must say that if there's a smell coming from this thread the post you made just now has to be contributing at least its own fair share.

Some of us believe that a) more could be done by the USGA to slow down, stop or even slightly roll back the performance increases of modern golf balls

yet at the same time believe that b) even if nothing more is done the game will not end, the sky will not fall and classic golf courses will not be forced to disappear.

Over time, people hit the golf ball harder and it goes farther and straighter. People of all eras complain about it but in the end distance does increase. All that is possible is to take steps to determine the pace at which that increase happens. As it is, was and ever shall be.

[Rick Shefchik]

People of all eras complain about it but in the end distance does increase. All that is possible is to take steps to determine the pace at which that increase happens.

Yet as far as I've been able to tell, Craig isn't even willing to take those steps. Or, if he is, he won't tell us what those steps should be.

[George Pazin]

... even if nothing more is done the game will not end, the sky will not fall and classic golf courses will not be forced to disappear.

I think with the tremendous number of significant alterations of classic courses in recent years, many of which are already obsolete, one could make the argument that the sky has already fallen.

Do I believe it? Not really, but it's hard to deny the changes at virtually every big name course, generally in pursuit of making the game play more like it did 20, 30, or 50 years ago.

Wouldn't it make more sense to revisit the ODS number and simply revise it a little?

As I stated on another thread, I fail to see the downside of rolling back the ball 5-10%. I see great upside in doing so.

[Alfie]

Brent,

As far as posts like Craig Sweet's are concerned - RESPECT is a two way thing ! IMO.


However....the problem (if golfers wish to recognise there is indeed a problem ?) is distance. That can  EASILY be rectified if there was a will to do so. Contrary to what some will say on here. The secretary of the R&A even said a rollback of the ball would be a fairly simple process. So at least the R&A have been talking amongst themselves about the distance issue - but with few others in the game ? And all of this in the age of freedom of information ?
 Some on here don't want to apportion blame (if there is a problem) on either of the ruling bodies. Why not - if either or both can be judged to be a fault ? Are these bodies not answerable for their reponsibilities (to golf in particular) ? Whether their posts are paid or voluntary !

There's a great deal more at stake with this issue than this overemphasis on "classic" courses.
There's nowhere that I know of, where this topic is debated in such detail, and that bears great credit to this website.

It's a pity that such openness is less than evident with the people who govern OUR game / sport !

Nothing is certain in life - the sky MIGHT fall in ?

Alfie.

[Craig Sweet]

Rick...the USGA has taken steps to slow the pace of increasing distance from balls and clubs...and I am confident they will continue to regulate this issue...I have said this more than once, though not necessarily in this thread.

I DO NOT see any need for a "roll back" from where we currently are...

I think the issue of classic golf courses becoming obsolete is a lot of hooey....those courses that modify to host a pro tournament are "making their own bed" and they have to sleep in it...those clubs that are growing out their rough, narrowing their fairways, speeding up their greens are delusional...and foolish....I was watching the regulars at my course today...I wanted to see how they played the shorter par 4's...360-390 yards...overwhelmingly...nearly 85%...hit driver...followed by a rescue wood/fairway wood to the green....I saw some driver...6 iron...7 iron...but I saw no drives to 300 yards followed by a pitching wedge....is golf THAT much different at these classic courses back east??

[Craig Sweet]

Alfie...

"The secretary of the R&A even said a rollback of the ball would be a fairly simple process."

Cutting off my arm would be a fairly simple process as well...but it's not a good solution to the distance "problem"....

[TEPaul]

"tlavin
There were a number of very wise people arguing for the same thing back then: Jones, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Darwin, Low, Taylor, Hutchinson, Behr, Campbell, Fownes, et al.

IMO history has proven them right. Sadly they would not recognise today's game."

Tom MacWood:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Thanks.  
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet, et. al.,

I spent several days in June with Ran Morrissett at Sand Hills.

He played every round with a set of hickories, circa 1920's, woods, irons and putter.  He enjoyed himself immensely, he enjoyed competing with all of us.  And he especially enjoyed rolling, or should I say turbo-charging, a putt from 30 feet for birdie on # 17 to beat me 2 & 1.  Had he parred 18 he would have broken 80.  We played again in the afternoon and he played another good game, never once lamenting or pouting over the distance he lost, or the accuracy he forfeited vis a vis the equipment he was using.

He didn't miss the loss of distance.
He didn't whine.  Well that's not quite true, he kept on begging for more shots, day in and day out, until I couldn't take it anymore.

This season Ran has played the great majority of his rounds with his hickories and loved every moment of it.

If you love the game,  the competition and the comraderie, dstance, if you have it, is only some icing on the cake, and certainly not an incrementally, substantive enough component, of the game to make you quit should your distance and accuracy be somewhat reduced.

Reducing distance and dispersing shot patterns won't cause a substantive exodus from the game.  It didn't 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago, and it won't tomorrow.

My 20 year old pings and my 40 year old putter bring me all of the enjoyment I need, and 10 and 20 years from now, I'll be happy to play golf with whatever distance I have.

The real challenge is trajectory on longer shots, hence, I'll have to take different routes.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...that's nice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Thanks.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug, with the exception of those classic clubs that want to host majors or other pro tournaments, where is the evidence to support the argument that technology is ruining the game and requiring wholesale changes at classic courses? I have heard lots of emotion...but little factual data...and from what I see everyday on the golf course, no one has gone from hitting a 5 iron to swinging a PW into the greens...

Well, me, for one.  OK, I'm not claiming I've gained enough distance that I'm hitting a PW now on a hole I used to hit a 5i on after a good square solid drive.  But if you take my AVERAGE drive, which includes those good ones plus ones that are mishit or offline to some extent, then I guarantee you that's true from 1985 (when I switched from persimmon to steel) to today.  About the only way I'll hit a drive less than about 250 with today's equipment is if I hit a tree or duck hook the thing (sadly all the technology in the world can't save one from an attack of the evil duck hooks!)  With the small headed steel driver and Professional (let alone Tour Balata) I could easily miss one bad enough to hit less than 200.  Between good drives taking me from hitting a 7 or 8i to a PW and some bad drives that were probably a 3 or 4i and 7 or 8i today, that 5i to PW thing is not hyperbole.

For the pros who have been optimized (something I keep meaning to do just to see what it does...) that 5i to PW thing is real for them as well.  Today's longer hitters are driving it about 310 and hitting PW say 140, that's a 450 yard hole.  With a drive of 275 and a 5i of 185 in 1985, its pretty close.

[tlavin]

tlavin
There were a number of very wise people arguing for the same thing back then: Jones, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Darwin, Low, Taylor, Hutchinson, Behr, Campbell, Fownes, et al.

IMO history has proven them right. Sadly they would not recognise today's game.

No, they wouldn't, but I would love to see Bobby Jones play with a Hogan hybrid, a Callaway driver and a Bettinardi putter.

[Alfie]

Craig,

I'll apologise for my direct reply to you earlier in the thread.

Pat's story about Ran and his hickories IS nice - very nice ! And totally relevant to the debate. But none of us are touting a complete return to the annals of golf history.
You say that the rollback is not a good solution "to the problem" ? So what is, considering you obviously recognise that golf does indeed have a problem ?

Actually, golf has a problem on top of it's problem ! And that's the percentage of golfers who have absolutely no interest in golf's little problems.  I'll guesstimate on the conservative side, that around 30% of all golfers actually DO care about what's going on (pro or anti rollback). The other 70% or so, couldn't care less about all this mumbo jumbo we talk about on here ! The 70% just want to play their game and most, will comply to whatever rules are put before them. It's little wonder that this argument for action is a difficult nut to crack.
Of the 30%. Those in favour of rollback / bifurcation / A SOLUTION / are in the minority and always have been. Does that really mean that we and history, have been wrong all this time ? OT ; I see they are questioning Adam Smith's economic masterpiece ; The Wealth of Nations ? (of course, there were always critics, but they were a minority. Darwin's Theories of Evolution were accepted as a solid base for teaching and educating the masses through the ages. Now they're not so sure about his theories ? Nobel thought his greatest achievement was discovering dynamite till he saw what man would do with the stuff. So his greatest legacy became the Nobel peace prizes.
The world was square for a long, long time - then man got wise ! etc...........

I think I'll stay with the rollback minority -- seems like a safe bet ?
......................

tlavin ; "No, they wouldn't, but I would love to see Bobby Jones play with a Hogan hybrid, a Callaway driver and a Bettinardi putter. "
....
I wonder if Bobby Jones would have loved to ?

Alfie

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()