Considering the greatness of the sport...

[Tom Huckaby]

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.

 
"Subluminal" - that's a tyop worthy of Rhic.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  Peter was nice to fix it.  I'll just play the part of the prick this morning.   

And that's interesting and clever word usage....

Only I don't believe a word of it.

I get what you are trying to say:  courses are made to be too difficult, too un-fun, take too long, etc. and even if novitiates don't realize this - not having any frame of reference from which to make comparisons - it causes them to either give up the game or not play as much as they might.

Plausible, perhaps.   But I don't believe it.  This MIGHT be a reason that some new golfers quit the game.  Maybe.  But I still believe in the overall, if you want to get at why overall golf participation is down, the reasons remain that the game takes too long and is too expensive, as people look at it today.  And TODAY, that occurs both at great, fun, cheap courses as well as horrible un-fun and expensive ones - and of course this is where pinning this on architectural reasons falls apart.

Nope, people in general just don't make the choice to devote their time and money to golf as much any more.  As for WHY this is, I would accept that a small reason for a small minority is these un-fun courses they encounter.  But a MUCH larger reason is just that they choose to do other things with their time and money; for reasons that have nothing to do with golf or its courses - reasons that I and several others have described.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

So Tom, You have people who wrote and warned, yet you don't believe.

Is that a correct summation?

I was on my Pearl and with the double letter buttons typos are common.

I get what you are trying to say:  courses are made to be too difficult, too un-fun, take too long, etc. and even if novitiates don't realize this - not having any frame of reference from which to make comparisons - it causes them to either give up the game or not play as much as they might.

I'm doubt the too diff, too un-fun, take too long was the crux of Behr's warnings. His "game mind" distinction has proven to be the real culprit in the loss of much of the spirit of the sport.

The fundamentals found within the history of playing golf, somehow somewhere got lost. The demarcation line appears to be a direct result of the innovative American culture present at that time which then manifested itself in the architecture.
 They made it so much better they ruined it. I'm sure history is filled with similar examples of such comeupance.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Yes Adam, that's a fair enough summation of my stance.  These old dead guys did indeed warn, and I do indeed not believe them.

See, I doubt they contemplated how much society would change.  I don't think that's what they were talking about.

But heck, their words are your bag, not mine.  I don't really care all that much what they say.

I just look at how society is today, and it's pretty clear to me that societal issues influence one's choice to spend time and money on this game (or not) far more than does the the quality of its venues.

If you want to argue that a lot of the spirit of the game was lost over the years, hell I'll agree with you!  I agree with every word of this:

The fundamentals found within the history of playing golf, somehow somewhere got lost. The demarcation line appears to be a direct result of the innovative American culture present at that time which then manifested itself in the architecture.
 They made it so much better they ruined it. I'm sure history is filled with similar examples of such comeupance.

But where we will differ is that you seem to take it farther, saying this loss of spirit is the main reason for declining participation.  I don't buy that at all.

But then again, reasonable minds will continue to differ.

Here's the thing, Adam:  you know (I hope) that I love this game as much as anyone on this planet.  If you don't know that, well accept it just for the sake of argument.  I really do live and die for this game.

If they somehow created a course like The Old Course or Ballyneal within 10 miles of my house... and let me play it for next to nothing.... and there was a group of regulars there I loved to hang out with....

I still wouldn't skip my kids' sporting events to play it; I still would only very rarely get to play it during the week due to work and other family demands; and the end result is I might play it 10 times during the course of a year.  And I have to believe I am just a normal example.  The only ones who would play it all the time would be the retired or others with far less work or family commitments.

And therein lies the crux of my argument.  It's not the courses; it's how society is today.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

I would differ wholeheartedly with one contention of my friend Tom Huck here...

His contention about reasonable minds disagreeing is based on fallacious assumptions and reasoning.

If any of us truly had "reasonable minds" would we be typing here at all? 

[Tom Huckaby]

I would differ wholeheartedly with one contention of my friend Tom Huck here...

His contention about reasonable minds disagreeing is based on fallacious reasoning.

If any of us truly had "reasonable minds" would we be typing here at all? 

Now that is a hell of a point, best one made in this thread.

 

[Greg Chambers]

I am going to go in a slightly different direction here, and I risk being chastized by doing so, but here goes...I blame the USGA.  First, their stupid ass handicapping system, where everybody must shoot a score, then record it, then use it as some sort of measuring devise for their abilities, has taken the fun out of just going out and playing.  I have the most fun when it's just me and my wife, or with friends, not keeping score, just playing the course and enjoying it for what it is.  Second, the USGA's BS recomendations about how a golf course should be constructed.  How many millions of dollars to these recomendations add to the construction of a course?  Which in turn causes higher green fees to recoup those dollars.  These are just thoughts...

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I agree with you!!!???

Behr was behind the times when he dissed the "game mind" (whatever that is?).  Golf was and is always a game and not a sport, except maybe to the people like Behr who probably had too much time on his hands.  By the time he said it, it was solidly in the game category, and this led to the mass popularity which grew the game.

The real problem is that too many people have believed and continue to believe that golf is a "sport and acted accordingly, which led to the country club mentality of opulence, immaculate gardening and timeless rounds which pervert the spirit of thre game today.

If anybody want's to see how time is affecting our leisure/voyeristic pursuits, look no farther than cricket.  5-day test matches are quickly fading away and "20-20" matches are taking over.  What golf needs is a similar paradigm shift, where we focus on the fundamentals of the game (athleticism, camaraderie, chance, etc.) whilst discarding the baggage of privilege and conformity.  Peter McEvoy's idea of affordable 6-hole courses is a good start.

Looking nostalgically and through rose-coloured glasses at some imagined "golden age" is not.........

Rich

PS--and of course, architecture has almost nothing to do with the issues being discussed.  If this were so, all the great artchitecture built over the past decade would have solved the "problem."  It clearly has not.

rfg

[Tom Huckaby]

Greg:  so just don't keep score! No one is forcing you to do anything the USGA requires for those maintaining a handicap....

Heck, I agree the USGA handicap system is imperfect, and the result of following it does cause some problems.  But what is the percentage of golfers that even hold valid handicaps, and thus follow these rules?  It's pretty darn small, isn't it?

This is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam in here.  Many do find fault with the USGA handicap system.  Imperfect it is, without a doubt.

But is it really a main cause of declining golf participation?  Is that what you meant to say?

Wow, I'll never buy that.

Now construction methods - you may have a really good point there - adding to cost, etc.  That makes sense to me. I just don't know if the benefits outweigh the negatives - this is far far far from my realm of knowledge.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

While that did take bravery to post - agreeing with me - I do appreciate it.   You and Adam can debate Behr's meanings and what the game/sport was and is.  Heck, I just kinda like my example of how things work today.  If that jives with dissing Behr, then so much the better.

 

You do make a GREAT and simple point, which rather does also jive with my example... yes, if architecture was the main issue, all the greatness happening these days would indeed have solved the "problem."  And it very clearly has not.  Well said, as per usual.

TH

[Greg Chambers]

Tom,

In this world of increasing competition, you don't think people go out on the course, shoot terrible golf, keep score, then become disinterested because they can't get their handicaps down?  I think they do.  It has become the bottom line measure of one's ability, and too many people take too much stock in that.  Thus leading people off the golf course.  Like I said before, just a thought.

And for the record, I only keep score when I'm playing in the Tuesday skins game...  

[Adam Clayman]

Greg,  one would need to quantify the problems C.B. had with those who took control back in those formative years, to get a head start on where the USGA may have started to go off road.

Rihc, The few great courses built over the last ten years is but a pimple on solving a mindset problem nearly a century old.
BTW, The competition you play is the game. Golf is the sport. Otherwise, how else could you do it by yourself?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

In this world of increasing competition, you don't think people go out on the course, shoot terrible golf, keep score, then become disinterested because they can't get their handicaps down?  I think they do.  It has become the bottom line measure of one's ability, and too many people take too much stock in that.  Thus leading people off the golf course.  Like I said before, just a thought.

And for the record, I only keep score when I'm playing in the Tuesday skins game...  

Greg:

Oh for sure, I think SOME people have that experience.  I just think it's a tiny minority.  See, in order to get discouraged about handicap one must establish a handicap first.  The number of golfers who establish a handicap is a small minority.  Put that all together and while this is a discouraging issue, well... in the scheme of things it has very little relevance.

TH

[Rich Goodale]

Greg,  one would need to quantify the problems C.B. had with those who took control back in those formative years, to get a head start on where the USGA may have started to go off road.

Rihc, The few great courses built over the last ten years is but a pimple on solving a mindset problem nearly a century old.
BTW, The competition you play is the game. Golf is the sport. Otherwise, how else could you do it by yourself?

Adam

There are more than a few "great" courses built over the last 10 years, and to say that there is some sort of century-old "mindset" problem that is somehow thwarting their ability to bring the game out into the sunshine is just naive.  As to your last paragraph, are you on the magic mushrooms again?

rfg

[Dan Kelly]

If the "problem" is caused in large part by parents' eagerness (or, at least, willingness) to spend more time with their kids -- and I do agree with that view -- isn't a large part of the "solution" quite obvious?

Make GOLF one of the activities where parents and kids spend more time together.

What can architecture do to foster that?

[Tom Huckaby]

If the "problem" is caused in large part by parents' eagerness (or, at least, willingness) to spend more time with their kids -- and I do agree with that view -- isn't a large part of the "solution" quite obvious?

Make GOLF one of the activities where parents and kids spend more time together.

What can architecture do to foster that?

Good questions.

I just don't see golf replacing team sports.  Not enough anyway.  And there's nothing architecture can do one way or the other to change this.

TH

[Mike Benham]

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.

Convenient, as "in the neighborhood", is also an issue to play golf by the general golfing public.

There is a reason why Pebble Beach has needed to market and promote, they have open tee times where in years past they did not.  The architecture is the same (except for a few holes and that unfair 17th hole )

[Jason Connor]

Make GOLF one of the activities where parents and kids spend more time together.

But any 'good' course is now >$50 (oftentimes more) to play.  So mom, dad and the two kids spend $200+ for 4 hours?

Probably not.

And in the real estate boom, many cheap courses were bought and plowed under.

If (and a huge if) architecture has any role, it's to build fun, affordably sustainable, challenging for the good dad, but family friendly for the kids, golf courses.  That's tough by itself.  Then you have to find a developer who wants to build that sort of course vs. just another lush green and blue course for which he'll charge $80 a round and make you ride a cart.

[Phil Benedict]

With a sympathetic  nod to those of you who are in the golf business, the fact that golf is no longer a growth industry doesn't even rise to the level of minor tragedy.  The sport had a pretty good run for 20 years or so and is now facing demographic and economic challenges.  As a discretionary leisure activity that takes time and money the game is vulnerable to changing tastes, habits and the economy.  The game is leveling off because the population it draws from - people with money and lots of leisure time - is no longer increasing at a rapid rate.

I'm not sure that changing the structure of the game - eg six hole courses - is an answer.  That's like moving the World Series to a neutral, warm weather site.  Dedicated golfers want to spend a lot of time on course; they just don't want it to be slow.

[Kirk Gill]

I have four children, and three of them want to play golf. They're still pretty young, and so I tend to take them out one at a time.

What can architecture do to make them more likely to play (or me more likely to take them out for a game)?

First of all, build the occasional par 3 course. Even from the front tees, most par fours and all par fives are a slog for them. My kids have a good attitude about picking up and moving along on a full-size course, but have much more fun on a par 3 where they have a chance at the green with one or two shots. I live in the suburbs of Denver, and there isn't a par 3 within 30 miles (well, other than the one over at Colorado Golf Club, but I'm not a member). And building a par 3 course will probably take municipal involvement, as for virtually anyone else there's likely a better way to absolutely maximize every single possible dollar from the bit of land required. And I get it. The entreprenurial spirit, don't leave a dollar on the table, the whole thing.

Honestly, that's my biggest problem with the "golf experience" as it is practiced on many courses. I feel like a "revenue stream," not a customer. Buckets of balls on many courses are up to $10, and  from someone not all that familiar with the costs of running a driving range operation, that seems like a lot. Like too much. Like WAY too much. Like someone sat around and decided something like "hitting a buck of balls takes about 1/2 an hour. Folks need to pay at least $10 bucks for any experience that lasts 1/2 hour." A trip to the driving range with my three boys for an hour or so ends up costing $60. For those that run such things, I'm sure you can tell me that the price is justified, I guess. I just feel like the entry-level experience is hard to find out in the suburbs, with every course looking to be a high-end public and make some decent ROI.

John Kavanaugh was nice enough to point out to me that there is a junior price at his brother's fantastic Murphy Creek layout, and I love to take the kids there, but for them it's an awful lot of course, that they're really not so ready for yet. There's also a little executive course not all THAT far away that's $11 for kids to play 9. And it is crowded. I wish there was more of that kind of place around...

The reality is that golf is a fairly expensive, time-consuming game, and it takes time and effort to be proficient. It's also a game that gets into your soul like no other. What's needed more than anything else from an architecture or business perspective is to provide venues for youngsters to learn, where the cost can be minimized, the amount of time required can be varied, and where a beginner can start and get better without feeling intimidated or depressed by the difficulty (or the fact that so much money is involved). And for many, once they have access to that experience, the hooks are in. The game becomes a pastime, and a part of life, and then all the bigger courses and the bigger challenges are in play.

I also sometimes wonder if a version of the local executive, or any other local course, was available as a download to play in Mario Golf or the like, if kids would get excited about the notion of playing the course on a video game, and then going out and seeing that same course in real life. Just a notion.......

[Jim_Kennedy]

... 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.

Adam,
One of the largest booms in GC construction and participation happened in the late 1950s and continued into the 1960s, yet this era has never been praised for its 'enlightened' designs.

There may be one overriding reason in a particular market for the lack of participation, but there are just too many different reasons( many posted by others) to make your ( and Dr. Mac's/Behr's) assumptions applicable across the board.

.......and given the slide in wages we have been subjected to for the past 8 years, it's a wonder that anyone in the middle classes has any 'play money' left.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Interesting comments, so I would like to add mine.

Architecture to blame or is it the Architects, in my humble opinion it is neither. The problem is that golf has been made easy, no need to have a commitment to the game (sorry - Richard to me it’s a sport – expect that makes a statements but I can’t think what), always looking to encourage those on the peripheral to participate to increase earnings. The key word is earnings not golf.

Golf is not meant to be easy it’s mean to be fun in that it offers the golfer various challenges on eighteen different holes. Our game is actually suffering not because of architecture or architects but from the stupidity or more appropriately the greed of the developer to place a course on an indifferent section of land.

In truth golf need to (IMHO) weed out those not interested in playing the game in its original form. I am not advocating removal of cart but restriction on their use where climate allows, nor am I suggesting removing distance aids although I hope that again they use could also be restricted (perhaps certain days of the week they are removed or not allowed – to keep the golfer in touch with his inner abilities). This would reduce numbers, but would allow more time to enjoy the game and golf could then be reintroduced as a form of beneficial exercise in an open air environment. Not another convenience or an extension of the car (we ride to the course we ride around the course and we ride home from the course) or a place where the mind can switch off and yet again allow a computer to feed us information. Perhaps understand how to lose and accept our own limitation gracefully may minimise the need for anger management, if nothing else may well help the waistline.

There is of course a side effect, initially numbers may well reduce, but that could keep the developers out of the equation and allow more genuine courses to be built – giving the architect something to actually get his teeth into.

This will not happen regrettable but we need to look at where we are building and why. And yes it is down to architects to say NO and walk away, but understandable not many would go down that path. But I still maintain that design is defined by budget and location and we should not expect wonders when compromise has been incorporated from the start. The fault is in the hands of the client, the source for the brief/money.

Golfers are interested in their game whereas clients/owners are looking for a quick return on their outlay, not always a good mix.

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice post, Kirk - and good answer to Dan's fundamental question.

Tom H, Rich - You remind me of the philosophers who, in criticizing the theory that possible worlds exist and are no different in kind than the actual world, claimed the theory was "catastrophically counterintuitive".  Okay, you're probably right; but what a hollow victory, no? 

Peter

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk Gill:

Great stuff as always.

However, this time, well... let's just say my experience differs from yours (and mine tracks that of most people I know).  

We have several accessible and relatively cheap par three and executive courses around.  The First Tee and other programs do wonders for making it doable for kids.

And yet golf participation still declines.  Many do try the game, being given the exact opportunities you wish for.  The hooks DO NOT set in, for most.  Now as for why this is.... there can be many reasons.  That's worthy of a separate thread.  But one thing you mention are video games....

Damn near all kids play video games also - and golf is sometimes one of them.  This doesn't hook them on the game.  If anything the incredible coolness of NON-golf video games is perhaps another main reason they do NOT play.  Why play real golf when video golf is just as well, and other video games are WAY more fun?

Nope.  I'm gonna stick with team sports being far more attractive - and doable - than golf, and add to it that the presence of video games just adds to the non-golf things to do, such that even in pro-golf situations like we would seem to have here, golf participation remains in the decline.  Even when newbies are given the opportunity to play and learn, the hooks don't set in like they once did.



Peter:  I never said I was HAPPY about the situation.   

[John Kavanaugh]

I honestly believe Huckaby is the poster child for why the game is failing.  Ten quick reasons and we can discuss the whys later.  Each of the examples found below can be one symptom that many of you may have and contribute to why golf is failing, Huck is just rare to exhibit them all.

He would never join a club that does not cater to his daughter.
He knows that the handicap system is broken but will not insist, or listen anymore, on a fix out of self serving reasons.
He chooses to live in an area where the game is not affordable.
He puts what he perceives to be the wants of his family above his forgotten needs.
He informs an uninformed public on the greatness of architecture using a formula not his own.
He claims not to keep score when knowing his score.
He believes that a game well fought beats a game poorly won.
He barters time.
He spends more time talking about the game instead of thinking about it.
He believes that golf is a walk in the park.

[Rich Goodale]

Nice post, Kirk - and good answer to Dan's fundamental question.

Tom H, Rich - You remind me of the philosophers who, in criticizing the theory that possible worlds exist and are no different in kind than the actual world, claimed the theory was "catastrophically counterintuitive".  Okay, you're probably right; but what a hollow victory, no? 

Peter

No victory is as hollow as a philosopher's heart.