[Joe Bentham]

Spent my morning discussing the impacts of technology on the game while hanging out at the caddie shack.  And as product of too much time and not enough loops the discussion was heated and all encompassing.  My hope is that the discussion board of GCA can add a different perspective to the discussion and maybe help us clear up a few issues. 
One of the major points of contention was the number of golfers in the US and at what rate that number has increased/decreased over the years.  One opinion is that with the advances in technology the game must be growing because it is becoming easier to play.
Is the number of golfers in the US doing anything other then staying about the same?  Or is that an optimistic view? 
The National Golf Foundation's website said that there where 28.8 million golfers in 2000 compared with 28.6 in 2008.  The same site says that there where 518 million rounds played in 2000 compared with 489 million in 2008.  I'm having a hard time finding stats for anything further back then that.  Anyone know where I could find similar numbers for the last 50 years?  When was golf's high water mark?  Where there more golfers in the 30's,  the 60's or the decade we just finished?

 

[Kyle Henderson]

Spent my morning discussing the impacts of technology on the game while hanging out at the caddie shack.  And as product of too much time and not enough loops the discussion was heated and all encompassing.  My hope is that the discussion board of GCA can add a different perspective to the discussion and maybe help us clear up a few issues. 
One of the major points of contention was the number of golfers in the US and at what rate that number has increased/decreased over the years.  One opinion is that with the advances in technology the game must be growing because it is becoming easier to play.
Is the number of golfers in the US doing anything other then staying about the same?  Or is that an optimistic view? 
The National Golf Foundation's website said that there where 28.8 million golfers in 2000 compared with 28.6 in 2008.  The same site says that there where 518 million rounds played in 2000 compared with 489 million in 2008.  I'm having a hard time finding stats for anything further back then that.  Anyone know where I could find similar numbers for the last 50 years?  When was golf's high water mark?  Where there more golfers in the 30's,  the 60's or the decade we just finished?

The number of golfing Americans should be expressed as a percentage of the total American population to normalize the data. The total population has almost tripled since the 1920's.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Joe/Kyle

Alas it is a totally different game they were playing back in the 1920. Pity, but at least there is still a good minority in America who still believe and play the real game of golf. Wonder what the rest think they are playing?

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe,

In 1900 there 982 golf courses (C&W)- pop. 76,094,000(U.S.Census)

In 1915 there were 3,000 golf courses (Am. Golfer). (pop. 100,546,000)
In 1915 there were estimates of between  2 and 3.5 mil players and it was conjectured that there were only 5,000 players in 1905

There were 5, 856 golf courses in the US in 1930, and 5,745 in 1958(USGA)
In 1958 (pop-174,881,904) there was 1 golf course for every 30,461 people.
In 1930 (pop- 123,076,741) there was 1 golf course for every 20, 833 people.
In 2008 (pop- 308,000,000) there was 1 golf course for every 19,250 people.
An estimated 3,970,000 men, women and juniors played at least ten rounds of golf during 1958, an increase of 290,000 regular golfers over 1957.(USGA)
 
25mil golfers played 500mil rounds in 1997,( pop 267,743,595) same as in 1990 (NGF)
(pop 249,438,712), but there were 23% more courses in 1997 than in 1990
High water mark for number of golfers was 30 mil.in 2005, roughly 10% of the population.(NGF)

[Bill_McBride]

Joe, what evidence did the caddies offer to show that golf is becoming easier?   Are the scores on Bandon Dunes or Pacific Dunes lower than 8 years ago?  I don't think the average handicap in the US has decreased a bit.

[Joe Bentham]

Jim

Thanks for the stats.  Any way to fill the blanks in from 1958-1997?

Bill
Our discussion wasn't really about how much easier the game has gotten since 2000, more like how much easier has it gotten since 1960.
Keep in mind that most of the participants in this discussion aren't old enough to have played with persimmon drivers and balata balls.  Most of us started with big Bertha drivers and titleist professionals.  All we have to go by is what everyone has told us.  Older guys love talking about how much more forgiving there new equipment is, how mis hits on the old stuff didn't go anywhere.  How much straighter the golf ball is.  And I don't think there is much disagreement on this point, is there?  The new equipment is better and more forgiving, we can all agree on that, right?
The issue I had (and I think you have, Bill) is the idea that the game is easier now so that must mean there are more people playing it.  I made the argument that the new equipment might actually be holding a generation of golfers back.  The big headed drivers make it easy to get a ball airborne.  I'm really only guessing here but I think a lot of the huge slices and hooks we see wouldn't have even gotten airborne with the equipment of yesteryear.  Golfers had to learn how to swing the older stuff somewhat properly in order to see results.  Todays equipment covers up a lot of faults in our swings, but is that a good thing?  Would we all be better off with equipment that forced us out of our bad habits and into good ones?

[Bill_McBride]

Joe, I'm not sure about that last point.  All I was saying is that I don't think modern equipment has really helped golfers IMPROVE their games.  They may be able to get balls airborne but now they go in the gunch.  They may hit better shots even if struck off center due to the equipment, but they STILL CAN'T GET THE BALL IN THE HOLE.

That's all I was saying.  The average handicap hasn't changed in spite of all the technology improvements, further proof that the improvements in balls and clubs that have lowered scores on the PGA Tour haven't really helped amateurs score better - where the rubber meets the road so to speak!

[Mac Plumart]

The game is MUCH easier today.  

As I've mentioned in other threads, I just got hickories for Christmas.  Ugh!!!  Hard to hit for sure.  But for me, I like the challenge.  However, I don't think many others feel that same way.

I think most people like the feeling of hitting the ball a long way...I think the anecdotal evidence of this is how many guys go to the range and hit balls for a long time...and putt and chip rarely, if ever.

I think the reasons scores aren't going down for the aveage Joe, is that they don't practice how to score.  If they practice at all.  They swing away with their driver and they seem to like it.  Good for them, I guess.

The first time I played in late 2007, I hit 121.  This weekend, I hit 85, which is my best round after my last surgery.  My all time low is 81...which was right before my second surgery and essentially off of one leg.  But I have friends who've been playing for over 10 years and haven't scored that low.  Why?  They don't practice scoring.  They don't chip well and they always want to take the gimmie putt.

Today after work, in 20 degree temperatures I practiced for about 1 1/2 hours.  Hit balls for 15 minutes.  Putted for 30 minutes.  Chipping for 45 minutes.  FYI...the only guys at the practice facility were me and the guy who finsihed second in our club championship.

Anyway, that is what I see.  They don't score better because they don't really want it deep down in their belly...they don't have the fire.

EDIT...To be clear, not wanting to put the time in to put up low scores is fine.  We all enjoy the game for different reasaons.  I am simply saying that to judge the ease of the game by looking at the Average Joe's handicap can lead to misleading conclusoins.

[Kyle Harris]

Mac,

Are you certain that the Hickories were hard to hit - or are they hard to hit because you learned to swing an entirely different type of golf club?

[Mac Plumart]

Man Kyle.  I don't think I can answer that definatively, since as you allude to...I learned how to hit the modern equipment first.

They are heavy, with small sweet spots, the drivers don't have the trampoline effect, the putters don't propel the ball like the new ones.

So, I think the hickories are more difficult to hit.  If not, why would we have changed.

But like I said, I can't say for sure as I didn't start with the hickories. 

[Adam Clayman]

Joe, I agree with your point. But I do think it could be even deeper.

Since the clubs are all designed now to assist the aerial assault, learning "shots", and feel, has been made almost obsolete. This obsoleting has changed the nature of the challenge, if not the number of them, too. It's in the nature of the challenge where the Eli Callaway's of the manufacturing world, have likely taken the wrong road, as far growing the number of participants goes.

Joe, if I were a better typer I'd recount how I learned (self-taught) the game with the old equipment. Maybe this May we can have a chat and I'll tell you all about my years combating (learning) the banana ball, and, the shock I had when someone told me how straight a hitter I was.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that a lot of people are getting priced out of the golf market, especially in the last three years as the economy has slowed.  Perhaps this slowdown will cause courses to rethink their models and start charging more reasonable greens fees, allowing more people to afford it.  I play a lot of free golf now because I'm on my college golf team, but I know that once I graduate I'll have to make some decent money to continue to play as much golf as I'd like going forward.  As it stands right now, a lot of people my age and younger just cannot afford to play a lot of golf.

[Garland Bayley]

Man Kyle.  I don't think I can answer that definatively, since as you allude to...I learned how to hit the modern equipment first.

They are heavy, with small sweet spots, the drivers don't have the trampoline effect, the putters don't propel the ball like the new ones.

So, I think the hickories are more difficult to hit.  If not, why would we have changed.

But like I said, I can't say for sure as I didn't start with the hickories. 

Sorry Mac, but you have really been drinking the cool-aid. Any improvements by technology in the clubs such as "larger sweet spots" (there is no such thing), and trampoline effect are so miniscule you would not be able to tell the difference if you could be blind tested. Hickory shaft to steel shaft is a significant improvement, so much so, that it is readily acknowledged that they take different swings. That said, you would be just as far behind Bobby Jones if you lived in his era as you are behind Padraig Harrington now.

[Mac Plumart]

Garland...

I guess I don't get what you are saying.  Any improvement in clubs is miniscule?  A hickory driver to a Taylormade r9?  What?

If you blindfold me and put my new clubs in my hands to swing and then my hickories, I sure as heck could tell the difference.  MAJOR differences.  Weight for one.  And a totally different feel/sound when the club hits the ball...not to mention about 100 yards of ball flight difference.

I can totally feel (or sense) the trampoline effect on my Taylormade driver and, as of yet, I haven't felt anything like that off my hickory driver/spoon/play club whatever you want to call it.

Not a large sweet spot?  That makes no sense to me.  Look at the size of the driver heads nowadays and see the amount of space that allows for an acceptable shot.  If I mis-hit a ball with a hickory the way I frequently mis-hit my modern clubs, it is entirely possible that I would miss the ball entirely. 

Now...could they require totally different swings...I totally believe that.  100%.

Would I be just as far behind Bobby Jones as I am to Paddy Harrington...probably more.  My 11.6 handicap with modern clubs is not good at all.  Throw in hickories, bumpy greens, etc...and I would be lucky to break 100

[Joe Bentham]

I think people are confusing striking the ball better for playing better golf.  Dose the new equipment make hitting the golf ball easier?  Of course it does.  Does the new equipment make it easier to, as Bill says, 'get the ball in the hole'?  I don't think so, and I think most of the stats would back that up.  Golfers like hitting the ball a long ways.  The only thing they like better is scoring lower.  I think you could make the argument that those two goals oppose each other for the average player.
Have all of the 'advancements' in the game, whether its the golf cart, the $350 driver or the $200,000 country club, made it less enjoyable?

[Matt Day]

I've been playing at the same course since 1985, where I started as a 15 year old playing with persimmon woods. Since that time no new tees were added to the course until last year. Technology has seen a considerable change to how the course plays.

I now play with 15 year old's who are playing the same holes from the same tees but hitting probably 2-3 clubs less into the greens than when I was their age.

When you explain to them the size of the driver head in 1985 was about as big as their Puma belt buckles they look at you as if you're from another planet. I'm playing with a Cleveland Launcher 330 at the moment and even that's a museum piece to them

That said its good to see them enjoying the game of golf, and its good for the old blokes to knock a drive past them now and then.

[Sean_A]

Joe, I'm not sure about that last point.  All I was saying is that I don't think modern equipment has really helped golfers IMPROVE their games.  They may be able to get balls airborne but now they go in the gunch.  They may hit better shots even if struck off center due to the equipment, but they STILL CAN'T GET THE BALL IN THE HOLE.

That's all I was saying.  The average handicap hasn't changed in spite of all the technology improvements, further proof that the improvements in balls and clubs that have lowered scores on the PGA Tour haven't really helped amateurs score better - where the rubber meets the road so to speak!

Ace

I think golfers are better now because their handicaps haven't gone up (on average) with the increased length of courses.  I know from my experience, I hit my driver as well as I ever did and I NEVER practice  whereas I used to practice a lot back in the persimmon says.  However, my iron play is far worse.  Perhaps this endorses my idea that hitting the driver should be the easiest shot in the bag.  

Ciao

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Joe, I'm not sure about that last point.  All I was saying is that I don't think modern equipment has really helped golfers IMPROVE their games.  They may be able to get balls airborne but now they go in the gunch.  They may hit better shots even if struck off center due to the equipment, but they STILL CAN'T GET THE BALL IN THE HOLE.

That's all I was saying.  The average handicap hasn't changed in spite of all the technology improvements, further proof that the improvements in balls and clubs that have lowered scores on the PGA Tour haven't really helped amateurs score better - where the rubber meets the road so to speak!

Ace

I think golfers are better now because their handicaps haven't gone up (on average) with the increased length of courses.  I know from my experience, I hit my driver as well as I ever did and I NEVER practice  whereas I used to practice a lot back in the persimmon says.  However, my iron play is far worse.  Perhaps this endorses my idea that hitting the driver should be the easiest shot in the bag.  

Ciao

Ciao

Sean, that's my point.  All the technology has done for the handicap man is allow him to keep up with the distance that's been added to the courses as a result of the technology!  The average score hasn't improved in spite of all the $400 drivers and $4 golf balls.

The new technology has also doomed the 3 wood off the tee because you're right, the driver is the straightest club in your bag today,  it's just harder to turn around the corner one way or the other.

[Mac Plumart]

Sean... (edit...I meant Bill)

I think you are 100% correct.

When my left leg was going bad, I couldn't put any weight on it whatsoever.  I would load up my all of my weight on my right leg and just put my left big toe on the ground for balance.

I had to learn a unique swing to hit the ball and without question the driver was the easiest club to hit by a mile.  Big face, large sweet spot, trampoline, etc.  I could simply swing my arms with zero leg movement and hit the ball 200 yards in the middle of the fairway very easily.

When I tried to use the 3 wood on shorter holes, I had an awful time...smaller club head, etc.

THe modern driver is easy to hit...if you simply make contact on the middle of the club face...the ball flies.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I feel that modern equipment has not only allowed the poor golfer to hit the ball but also to make that shot/stroke look good as defined by the modern idea of distance is good. However the game has always been about getting that ball down the hole, with both the long and short game producing the overall winner.

The tendency of the new club from the Tee just makes life much easier and I suppose are more forgiving, which from my view point is not what it is all about. I keep going back to the challenge, if no challenge and it is or has become easy, tell me guys, what the bloody point. So you can hit an easy Tee/fairway shot, wow, you can get to the green fairly easily, double wow, but if you can’t sink the ball then just where is your skill and how are you going to learn?

Old Tom was call the miser of the short putt by his son Young Tommy due to at times his inability to sink the ball on the Green. Old Tom was also not a great distance man from the Tee, however when he got his game together he would beat everyone on the day – consistency is the name of the game, that toned with improved skill is the way forward. That is something I believe you will not get from the clubs but they will & do in my opinion help the golfer off the Tee. The proof is to ask each golfer to try different drivers and see for ones self, however I feel many release the benefit that the new clubs offer and may refuse the test knowing it may really show the true state of their game. Technology helps, otherwise why bother and why buy the equipment, have you got money to burn? The proof to my opinion I believe was shown by Mr Norman in the 2008 Open when he out played all the new guys, not because his equipment was better but he had the skill and EXPERIENCE to work with the wind and weather. The first few days of that Open was about a Master showing the youngsters how to play Golf. The new guys just could not catch him until the weather improved allowing their cubs and game to come to them – but still does not overshadow Greg’s great display of real links golfing. Sorry Sean, on this one not totally with you, clubs do add quite a difference IMHO.

Melvyn   

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Wishon, The Right Sticks.

"Technically the sweet spot is a point inside the head called the center of gravity that's about the size of the sharp end of a pin. It can't get "larger" and it can't get "smaller." It just ... is."

"depending on how well the designer manipulated the face thickness over its entire area, you will lose at best about 3-4 yards flight distance, and at worst about 10 yards for each half-inch by which you miss the center of the face."

As most of you know, I am a pretty high handicapper compared to the rest of the members of this site. In my club fitting, the impact tape that shows the point of contact when properly fitted, did not vary even a full half-inch from the center of the face. Therefore, it would seem to me that I am would not be sacrificing much by not using all the hyped technology the liars marketers in the golf club business push.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Have golfers at clubs of lesser distance's handicaps gone down then?

Garland,

I'm with you....Only the best players fully reap the technology's benefit as far as distance is concerned....

[Garland Bayley]

...
The new technology has also doomed the 3 wood off the tee because you're right, the driver is the straightest club in your bag today,  it's just harder to turn around the corner one way or the other.

Interestingly, my personal best was achieved on a day when I left the big headed driver at home, and played my 3 wood off the tee the whole round.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
It depends what you are swinging. You will not get anywhere near the performance from a persimmon smacked on the screws than you will from a new ______ 460cc titanium driver smacked in the same place. If nothing else you will not be able to get the same lift, and lose yardage because of it.  

....and some drivers have a little extra 'kick' (hi cor) built into them usually high on the center of face or high towards the toe.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
It depends what you are swinging. You will not get anywhere near the performance from a persimmon smacked on the screws than you will from a new ______ 460cc titanium driver smacked in the same place. If nothing else you will not be able to get the same lift, and lose yardage because of it.  

....and some drivers have a little extra 'kick' (hi cor) built into them usually high on the center of face or high towards the toe.

Define "anywhere near", and provide authoritative references please.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()