Considering the greatness of the sport...

[Adam Clayman]

... all of it's multi-faceted nuances, that can captivate a soul to the point of multi-faceted fanaticism, how could the numbers be shrinking?

One theory should place blame at the foot of the mass produced copying of poorly based architecture.

If hindsight is 20/20, how right was Mackenzie?

Many poor golf courses are made in an endeavor to eliminate the element of luck. You can no more eliminate luck in golf than you can in cricket, and in neither case is it possible to punish every bad shot. If you succeeded in doing so you would not only make both games uninteresting and no one would want to play them.
ALISTER MACKENZIE

Thanx to Geoff's site for quote.

Discuss...

[JESII]

Adam,

You're thinking about what brings people to golf, but other factors take them away from golf.

[Rich Goodale]

One problem is that too many people in the industry think that golf is a "sport" when in fact it is a "game."  Games are mass market activities whereas sports are just pastimes for those with nothing better to do.

[Mike Sweeney]

Adam,

You're thinking about what brings people to golf, but other factors take them away from golf.

I agree with Sully. At this stage of life, I am amazed with two young family schedules that Sully and I were actually able to play rather that talk about golf together this summer.

However, the bigger long term problem for golf is kids. I was taught not by my parents/father, but rather by my friends who got me into it during high school. That just does not seem to happen anymore. The kids get so specialized in sports these days that if they are not Top 50 and can't get a golf scholarship, they lose interest. Yes there are more better players, but less casual players, I think.

[Phil Benedict]

The numbers are shrinking because the game is too expensive and takes too much time.  I don't think the architecture has anything to do with it.

The other more conceptual matter is that golf is probably out of sync with the prevailing zeitgeist.  How many celebrated courses of the past 20 years have a business model based to some degree on conspicuous consumption (eg Sebonack at $650K)?  This will no doubt continue to some degree - witness Tiger's forays into architecture and real estate - but it's bordering on bad taste in this economy. 

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, Sweens, I'm certain I'm thinking of the aspects that keep people in golf. Not what brought them.

Phil, You are correct about those other factors cost and time. However, I don't see how you can't equate that to the architecture. Besides, you are disagreeing with the good doctor.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

I'm with Phil.  There are quite a few wonderful golf courses that still cost too much to play.  And the game takes way too long to play at both great and crappy courses.

Society has changed such that very few have the time and money to devote to this great game.  The rise of courses that Mackenzie would puke at is just a side-issue, not a cause for declining participation.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

To add to Toms comments...

Many of the greats are privates, and many of the ones that aren't are very expensive. So I don't think Joe the golfer really has many great courses at his disposal on his average Joes wage.

Then throw in the time, work, and family demands and getting to play a great course is a rare special treat, nowhere close to a typical experience.

[Bradley Anderson]

It is definitely a great sport, but how many people will take it up if someone doesn't get them started, especially when they are young and fearless?

When we were kids there were many more opportunities to play with our dads or our grandfather's or with other kids that we caddied with in the summers.

I think that childhood has become something really different than it once was. Children have an economic power that they didn't have years ago, and there are so many forces vying for their time. We talkabout golf taking too much time for adults - kids don't even have enough time to play golf today.

Just as an informal poll, I'll start another thread here asking everyone to state who introduced them to the game.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bradley and Mike make great points also.  I have kids aged 13, 10 and 2.  The older two have exactly zero time for golf given all of their other activities, and if anything they are LESS active then most of their friends!  Kids these days play team sports, do music/dance, go to school a lot longer and have more homework, etc. etc. etc.  They do indeed have zero time for golf.

And if they don't take it up as kids.... and have no friends who play as they grow to be adults.. who's gonna get them interested in the game?

Nope.  This is a society issue, not one of golf course design.  I really think that even if the entire design business became completely altruistic and designed nothing but very fun courses that included luck and all the other things Mackenzie and others found to be great, and priced these even lower than what might be called reasonable, participation would STILL continue to decline.

The game just takes too damn long and is too difficult to get decent at, ESPECIALLY when one's time is so greatly impacted.

[Jason Topp]

I think architecture has little to do with it.  I thnk quality architecture is a very small portion of the pleasure of the game that it is probably irrelevant to most customers.  In my opinion courses today generally are superior to those generally available as the game was growing substantially.


Factors I think are significant:

(1) Less free time due primarily to TV and commute times (read Bowling Alone),

(2) the change in expectations that expect fathers to spend weekends with kids

(3) expense

[Greg Chambers]

time and money, time and money

[Dan Kelly]

Put me in the Time and Money camp -- with this proviso:

Surely modern architecture has played some substantial role in increasing both the Time and the Money it takes to play golf nowadays.

[Peter Pallotta]

For discussion purposes only. Dr Mackenzie also wrote about the health-promoting aspects of the game: the walking, the good companionship, the time outside in nature and in natural settings, and the peaceful temperament that could be developed by learning to accept the luck and fate and vagaries of golf (and inherent in its fields of play). I think one could argue that much of that has been lost in the mechanized and modern version of the sport, and in the qualities of its fields of play, and with the card-and-pencil mentalility that has increasingly professionalized the world of golf.  And I think that golf is a sport that, if you have the card-and-pencil mentality -- and I have enough of that mentality to know --  can just tear you up, i.e. it is just the hardest of all sports to get better at (at least in my experience, as someone who played several sports competitively early on and only took up golf later in life). So, you end up with a sport/game/past time that gives you none of the peacefulness of old-time golf, but none of the satisfactions of other modern-day sports either. Then add on top of that the expense and the time involved...it's a wonder anyone is playing it at all....

Peter

[JESII]

well crap, after that summation I'm giving away my clubs right now...

[RJ_Daley]

I think it is relatively simple and not a great expense to get started in golf.  You can rent or borrow clubs, you can play at some entry level muni for relatively low cost.  But, once you 'get it' and want to move up in style, challenge, interesting golf, the cost goes up exponentially.  Once you get the bug, you want new sticks and better balls, and they are costly.  Then you start to improve you skills and you want a more difficult challenge.  I think there might even be a corelation to stepping up in course challenges from mostly the enjoyable walking courses to start to cart required courses as they get more complex architecturally.  Then the modern architecture mentality of complex means harder and the competitive sporting drive that Peter P., mentions, frustrates the intent on competing player.  Then you see the big cost increase in green fees at better courses, or if the player really gets the bug, starts to comtemplate a membership in a club.  Then the time factor comes in.  The game is addictive and you spend more and more time at more and more cost, and pretty soon it is a vicious cycle until some folks give up for cost and time, or get divorced, or get angry with the cost-time trap.  As all these factors increase, attrition of those dropping out along the way occurs as they reach their own individual level of time-cost barrier.

All the above is wild speculation.  

[RJ_Daley]

This is something like the Rosann Rosanadana syndrome. 

[Dan Kelly]

well crap, after that summation I'm giving away my clubs right now...

Good luck finding any takers.

(Bravo, Peter P.! You said a mouthful -- and only "the greatness of the ..." whatever it is can answer your final observation.)

[Tom Huckaby]

Put me in the Time and Money camp -- with this proviso:

Surely modern architecture has played some substantial role in increasing both the Time and the Money it takes to play golf nowadays.

Dan - that would be what Adam is driving at, I'm sure.

I will just stand by my post, however.  While I would agree that these days more costly and un-fun and time consuming courses are being created, I still think that even if they weren't and all that were created were nothing but cheap and fun courses that can be played quickly, participation would continue to decrease anyway.

Disagree?

[JESII]

well crap, after that summation I'm giving away my clubs right now...

Good luck finding any takers.

Ian Poulter, calling Ian Poulter...

[Peter Pallotta]

well crap, after that summation I'm giving away my clubs right now...

I'm surprised (and glad) you didn't die of boredom before getting the chance...

[Dan Kelly]

Dan - that would be what Adam is driving at, I'm sure.

I will just stand by my post, however.  While I would agree that these days more costly and un-fun and time consuming courses are being created, I still think that even if they weren't and all that were created were nothing but cheap and fun courses that can be played quickly, participation would continue to decrease anyway.

Disagree?

Yes, I think I do disagree. I think there would always be good demand for fun courses that were relatively cheap and could be played relatively quickly.

I thought Adam was indicting the quality of the architecture.

Perhaps this is mere semantics, but I'm thinking that it's not the quality, but the nature, of the architecture (and its maintenance) that is leading to slow, expensive rounds that aren't as much fun as they should be because they're too slow and expensive.

I'm thinking of things like: long distances between greens and tees; huge areas of unplayable ground; huge areas where balls must be searched for, and are often lost; enormous bunkers that can take minutes to rake properly.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

Adam can - and surely will - speak for himself, but I believe he is looking at this exactly as you just stated:  that it is these things regarding the quality of the architecture that are leading to slow and expensive rounds that shouldn't be so slow or expensive.

And I would agree with that also.  I also agree that there will always be a demand for fun and cheap courses that can be played quickly.

The question here, however, is what is causing decline in participation.

So, I believe I exaggerated too much in my previous post, and that has thrown you off.  Scratch that last one.  Let's try this:

I do quite firmly believe that the societal issues I have previously listed have a MUCH larger role in the decrease in golf participation than do new courses being created that are not as fun, cheap or inexpensive as they might be.   

Do you disagree with this? 

TH

[JNC Lyon]

... all of it's multi-faceted nuances, that can captivate a soul to the point of multi-faceted fanaticism, how could the numbers be shrinking?

One theory should place blame at the foot of the mass produced copying of poorly based architecture.

If hindsight is 20/20, how right was Mackenzie?

Many poor golf courses are made in an endeavor to eliminate the element of luck. You can no more eliminate luck in golf than you can in cricket, and in neither case is it possible to punish every bad shot. If you succeeded in doing so you would not only make both games uninteresting and no one would want to play them.
ALISTER MACKENZIE

Thanx to Geoff's site for quote.

Discuss...

I think it's because many people aren't really concerned with nuances, sophistication, or captivation of the soul.  This is true even for a lot of golfers.  Honestly most people don't have patience for things that require extensive thinking.  It is frustrating because of all the positive qualities associated with golf:  honesty, friendship, fresh air, exercise, metaphor for life, etc.  Many people seek cheap thrills without concern for long term happiness.

Call me elitist, but I think I'd rather only have people who are concerned with the nuances of the game rather than those who are just going through the motions.

Certainly modern architecture trends that make golf more time-consuming have a lot do with this, but even 2.5 hours is a lot of time for many people.  They'd rather spend it doing other things.  I think the more architecturally-oriented factor is a lack of interest in MANY public courses.  A golfer can't really think about the game if he isn't challenged or inspired to do so.  Ultimately, many public courses are more concerned with efficiency rather than inspiring people to play the game.

[Kenny Baer]

Golf is too expensive to play; you can link that to "poor architecture/expensive to maintain, but the fact of the matter is, at least in Atlanta, it cost to much money to give yourself a chance to fall in love with the sport.

A "Cheap" round of Golf on the weekend in Atl is $50 and that will only get you on a dog track.  For someone that loves the game then you will pay $50; but for someone who has yet to fall in love then forget it.  

$50 just isn't cheap for anything and especially 1 round of golf for someone who hasn't yet been bit.  Golf is something that you get addictied to overtime; nobody grabs a club for the first time and then loves the game, it is way to hard.  

GOLF NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER; if a decent course was $20 to walk then more people would start playing and continue to play.