Considering the greatness of the sport...

[JNC Lyon]

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.

I agree, but non-golfers spend tremendous amounts of money on hobbies that are far less fulfilling.

[Kalen Braley]

Kenny,

This is the case here in Northern Utah.  There are many courses that are in the decent category and/or better that be played for $30 and less.

[Phil Benedict]

Slow and expensive tend to be uncorrelated when it comes to golf.  I live in Westchester County, NY, where golf is relatively inexpensive if you are willing to commit yourself to a five-hour plus round.  The same is true on Long Island.

Private golf isn't so slow - with four-hour rounds being fairly typical - but it's very expensive.

Around here nobody seems to have come up with a formula for inexpensive golf that isn't too slow; thus, you have to choose either expensive or slow.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom H's last post hits the nail on the head in my opinion. We had an extensive discussion of those societal factors in a thread a couple of months back. While I recall that on that thread I disagreed with Tom on whether the confict with modern society was inherent in the game, the cause seems clearer all the time. Cost is still huge, but the time issue is being confused I think. It's not how long the game takes to play, it's the fact that time spent playing is generally time away from the family.

[Kenny Baer]

Kalen,

Is the sport declining in your part of the country?

[Jeff Fortson]

As I was growing up, my parents did not belong to a country club until I was 17 years old.  From the age of @ 9-15 I was fortunate enough to live near golf courses that the local pro was supportive of youngsters taking the game up.  

For example, I lived in Temecula, CA from the age of 14-16 and the local pro at Temecula Creek Inn, Mike Brotchie, allowed me to play anytime there was room available.  He did have one stipulation, I had to go around the entire range and chip/hit all the errant range balls back onto the range.  It would take me @ 1 hour and taught me two very valuable lessons...

1. Nothing comes for free.  I had to work, albeit not much, to get access to the course.

2. It taught me how to shape shots instinctually that are so hard to teach through words.  I learned how to escape from EVERYWHERE.  Under trees, off of roots, out of hardpan, etc.  This may have been the best instruction I ever got.  When I was a teaching pro I used to have my juniors in the junior program do the same thing and created games for them.  It taught them some work ethics and got them to use their own instincts on how to make a golf ball do what you want it to.


I think the golf world needs more golf pros that aren't burdened by the bottom line so much.  It's unfortunate that so many have been forced into positions of only being concerned with budgets.  The role of the golf pro, in general, has been forced out of fostering interest in the game and instead having to please the expectations of their bosses.


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H's last post hits the nail on the head in my opinion. We had an extensive discussion of those societal factors in a thread a couple of months back. While I recall that on that thread I disagreed with Tom on whether the confict with modern society was inherent in the game, the cause seems clearer all the time. Cost is still huge, but the time issue is being confused I think. It's not how long the game takes to play, it's the fact that time spent playing is generally time away from the family.

I too recall that thread, Charlie - it was a good one.  And whatever I said there (I can't recall that exactly!), I think you nailed it here.

In a long-gone by era, it was normal and accepted for Dad to desert the family and spend all day on the golf course.  These days that is just not normal.  Ask our friend shivas how he feels about the time required for attending kids' sporting events.  While I believe that was one of the things we disagreed about in that thread (he and I anyway), few can deny that Dad these days spends way more time with the kids and way less time on any singular pursuits such as golf.  That is just how society has evolved.

Now as to whether this is a good thing... well... that is what that other thread was all about.  No need to revisit here.

It's just hard to deny that societal issues such as these are what has caused declining golf participation - at least compared to architectural issues.

Or at least I think so.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Is the sport declining in your part of the country?

Kenny,

I'm not sure.  We haven't had any recent course closures and many have opened in the last 10-15 years.  A lot of them are Salt Lake City, or SL county owned so that helps.

[Steve Lang]

 
I say let it momentarily wane.. some critical mass will survive where it is cultured and folks will gravitate to it and stay as able or inclined.  

..in this attention-focus challenged world, perhaps golf for the masses just isn't sustainable..

I started playing with my mom's clubs at 9 yrs old, sneaking on local muni about 400 yards away.. later playing there mornings and evenings with best friend when not playing baseball, basketball, football, tennis or soccer.. now at 56, it is my main outdoors activity..  i belong to the WCC and make time for it and gca related pursuits as able and inclined

[Adam Clayman]

The aspect thats missing from all the responses about society, cost and time is that this loss of participants has not occurred over night. 

The American architecture failed to fully grab the souls of people long before the cost and time constraints cited took affect on modern life. Does anyone have a historical feel for participation levels in Scotland, England, Ireland?

When the NGF came up with those ridiculous predictions of increased demand requiring a commensurate increase in the supply of courses, costs were reasonable.

[Bradley Anderson]

The article.

[Bradley Anderson]

page 2 - hope you can read it

[Eric_Terhorst]

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? 

Tom,
I disagree with this 100%.  Why do people want to blame "society" for impacting their individual choices?  When you choose to spend time with your family instead of playing golf with your pals, or vice versa, you're simply acknowledging that you'd rather do one more than the other.  Why not just say "I WANT to spend time with my kids" rather than "That is just how society has evolved."  Should we conclude from your statement that your societal forces COMPEL you to spend time with the tots, not your everlasting love?  Is someone in your Society holding a gun to your head?

When you say the kids "don't have time" for golf all you're saying to me is that they found something they would rather do.   

I had a boss once who liked to yell "Don't f---ing tell me you didn't have time to do it--if you wanted to do it, you would have."

I think Adam is on to something with the focus on architecture.  The culture of golf in America, poorly assisted by the architecture of many of its courses, is not inclusive and not well-suited to recruitment of new golf addicts.  The old UK version is much better suited to these purposes, and the architecture has a lot to do with it.  Here is another quote from the good Doctor--from "Spirit of St. Andrews."

*******
On the Old Course there is a continuous stream of players--men, women and children--playing all the year from daylight to dark.  At St. Andrews I have seen women wheeling their babies in perambulators and playing round the Jubilee course...The whole community is golf crazy."
*********

[Tom Huckaby]

Eric:

I am not trying to blame society at all; of course we all make our own choices.  I was just commenting on what is prevalent and "normal" today, that's all.

If you really do think architectural issues are the main reason why participation in golf has declined, well, we shall have to agree to disagree.  As I say, I think that the creation of overly expensive unfun courses that take too long to play hasn't helped, for sure.  But there's no way that's the main reason why participation has declined.  How people choose to spend their time these days is a far more compelling reason than what the courses hold.

But reasonable minds may differ, of course.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

The aspect thats missing from all the responses about society, cost and time is that this loss of participants has not occurred over night. 

The American architecture failed to fully grab the souls of people long before the cost and time constraints cited took affect on modern life. Does anyone have a historical feel for participation levels in Scotland, England, Ireland?

When the NGF came up with those ridiculous predictions of increased demand requiring a commensurate increase in the supply of courses, costs were reasonable.

Adam:

The societal norms and changes did not occur overnight either.  Isn't it logical that the loss in golf participation just went along with these changes, chronologically.

Look, most golfers I know outside of this forum could care less what how much "luck" is involved in a course, or about any of things people in this forum hold dear.  They want a course that is cheap, with nice conditions.  And that's if they are avid golfers... if they are not, they don't really care what a course holds.

So putting this on lack of quality architecture, well... I really don't get it - not as a prime reason for decrease in participation anyway.

TH

[Jason Connor]

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.

I agree.  And as has been discussed here before, the family model is changing.  In the past, dad was much more likely to slip away from the family for a half day Saturday.  Now he's at a soccer game in the morning and baseball in the afternoon as parents seem to attend every child's every function.  Nothing wrong with that, but when you take any parent with kids out, that's a big chunk not playing.

I see it at my club on weekends.  You have younger adults without kids, and the older empty nesters / retirees.  Not alot of the 30-40 crowd.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason - exactly - this is the reality today.

As for why it has occurred, if it's a good thing, etc. - those are separate questions.  But it's just plain logic that this would be the prime reason for decrease in golf participation.

Isn't it?

[Charlie Goerges]

I didn't give one rip about architecture until I started reading about it. I didn't start reading about it until shortly before I discovered this site. And (to bring this back around to the current discussion) I've come to think that appreciation of it is higher on the hierarchy than the other factors mentioned here already.

So, by way of analogy, think of it like Maslow's Hierarchy (google it to get the entire hierarchy). Maslow's top was "self-actualization". In golf I think the top is "appreciation of architecture". It's a worthwhile end goal, but one that won't be met until one has (or has had) access to the game and ability to nurture an attachment to it (i.e. affordable golf, time to spend on it etc.)

[Steve Lang]

  Adam,

So you'd agree that the business model of CCFAD is not sustainable for growing the sport's numbers.. and the First Tee program?

[Adam Clayman]

Steve. The first tee program has merit in introducing the game where cadddying did in the past. I'm aware of both good positive programs but I'm also aware of abuses. The matching funds aspect being the catalyst for the abuse.    Tom et al. One of the main reasons for the THEORY is the unheeded warnings of the consequences of gca taking the wrong road by such individuals begining with Max Behr. The subluminal affect of the quality of the architecture should not be dismissed because novitiates are oblivious to it.

[Sean_A]

I think Adam has a point with the architecture aspect, though perhaps slightly off target.  I don't think architecture has responded well to the changing nature of what golf competes against (family dynamics included).  The focus in the past few decade seems to have centered around high end privates and publics (regardless of what style of architecture is on offer) - or at least this is the impression I get from the media - this site included if we can include it broadly as part of the media.  This high end stuff doesn't really look to grass roots to build the next generation of golfers.  But then, I am not sure golf ever really did do a great job at this - it has traditionally been down to parents to get kids involved in golf. What should the response have been/be?  I don't know because not an awful lot has been attempted from an architectural model to encourage folks to get into the game.  I almost want to believe its in the nature of golfers, those in the seats of golfing power and those with fat wallets to be somewhat stagnant and/or looking to the past for inspiration - afterall, its always worked in the past.   Golfers will come and golfers will go and only time will tell if the current climate will effect the game any more than bad times have done many, many times in the past.  I think of golf like cars.  Things are different around the edges and quality has improved immensely in the past 100 years, but golf, like cars, still has a basic engine which is still fundamentally the same.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

"The subliminal affect of the quality of the architecture should not be dismissed because novitiates are oblivious to it."

Very nice indeed, Adam... 

Peter

[Art Roselle]

Architecture and cost and time all play a part in the decision to play, but I do tend to think that the latter two are more important to most casual players than the first (although I understand that they are all related and there is some cause and effect there). 

When you look ahead, however, it will have a lot to do with kids and how many of them take an interest.  The time issue is clearly a big one, but there are other more subtle factors at work: the decline of caddy programs that introduce kids from all backgrounds to the game, the trend toward two working parents, safety and supervision concerns, etc.  I learned the game from my Dad.  He learned it because he caddied from the age of 9-14.  Neither of his parents played nor paid for him to play, but access through a caddy program was all it took.  That path is almost non-existent now.  When I was a kid, my mom did not work and so it was not that hard to get a ride to the course in the summer.  I certainly did not have as many activities as my kids have, but I also had a parent who had the time to take me.  That is less and less normal now.  I also would routinely ride my bike several miles to the course as young as 10 or 11.  My wife and I would never let my 10 year old ride his bike that far.  Granted, I grew up in a smaller town, but parents are less likely to let their kids roam off to a golf course by themselves than they used to be.  There are many factors like that, which I notice more and more as my kids grow up and I try to steer them toward an interest in the game.  Many of those shifts have good reasons, but they are what they are.  The old days of a 10 year old kid from Pittsburgh (my father) riding his bike 6 miles to his caddy job all summer are gone and not coming back.

Another thing to consider is Tiger.  This is either a positive or a scary negative, depending on how you look at it.  Despite the challenges facing golf (and junior golf specifically), the sport is facing all of that at a time when the abolsute most famous athlete on the planet is a golfer.  That is a very rare benefit.  My kids think golf is cool and great in part because of Tiger.  I may have been able to get them interested without him, but it sure would have been tougher.  They even like to watch golf on TV (but only if he is playing).  I sure didn't do that as a kid.  It is scary (to me) to think of how much worse off the sport might be, without the interest that he has driven.  He will not be around forever.

[John Kavanaugh]

When superintendents gained power and pushed the strong pro aside golf lost two of its most enduring factors for the very people that grew the game....honest competition and debauchery have been replaced by handicap cheats and horti/torti-culturists.  A strong pro, with a smile on his face and either a drink, or on Mondays a different woman, in his hands could introduce young men to a manly mans world that put a spice in golf missing today.  He would orchestrate competitions where the scratch champion was "The Champion" while flight winners were just that and only that.  People wanted to have lower handicaps to earn his respect while sandbaggers were quickly shown the door and the butt of many a joke.   It is not my intention to insult our modern superintendent but do find it interesting that as the game turned towards conditioning over competition everything became more effeminate.   Everybody, no matter how skilled, became equally important to the club.  Money and trophies for all flights became the same.  People shop for equipment at the mall.  Equality, equality, equality.  Yech.  You might as well stay home, remodel the "master suite", work on the yard and watch junior make an all star team while you glad hand your travel team coach.  In other words, when I took up the game I wasn't promised a rose garden so why make the gardener the focus or our sport?

[John Kavanaugh]

Given all the wonderful and exciting avenues open to women can anyone explain to me why a working heterosexual woman would want to play golf in her precious spare time away from the children?