Why ? Why ? Why?

[archie_struthers]

 


Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game ,  and does worrying about this  hurt golf architecture?

[PThomas]

If we dont bring new young people into the game wont it eventually die out Archie?

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

You know as well as anyone that a lot of people's livelihoods are at stake, and a lot of them are dependent on more golf courses being built. 

Lately, we've figured out that building more courses is not a good idea unless there are more players, too.

[David Lott]

Grow or die.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tom , your courses are so much more about the art than the industry.......and do we really need everyone to embrace the sport ...I think not.....isn't this what led to the big mistake with the Natioanl Golf Foundation and their ridiculous course a day mantra ...

Isn't this what is leading Tiger to think of himself as an icon/brand first and a golfer a distant second

[John Moore II]

Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game ,  and does worrying about this  hurt golf architecture?

Yeah, it might hurt architecture, but not more than has been hurt before. The rich will continue to have ideal golf courses to play on, and I could care less. I want a course where the average bloke can come out and have a quick, enjoyable round of golf. Quick, fun, cheap, now thats a good combination for golf. Thats how we need to grow the game. Good architecture can take a seat in the bed of my pick-up for now, we need to get people out and playing, starting the game, picking the game back up, enjoying the game.

You ask people why they either don't play golf at all or don't play more than they do, you'll see two major answers: cost to play and time to play. Figure those two things out and you are onto something. Piss on architecture as far as I'm concerned, at least in this context.

[Mac Plumart]

Archie...

I think you make some valid points worthy of serious consideration.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game ,  and does worrying about this  hurt golf architecture?

Yeah, it might hurt architecture, but not more than has been hurt before. The rich will continue to have ideal golf courses to play on, and I could care less. I want a course where the average bloke can come out and have a quick, enjoyable round of golf. Quick, fun, cheap, now thats a good combination for golf. Thats how we need to grow the game. Good architecture can take a seat in the bed of my pick-up for now, we need to get people out and playing, starting the game, picking the game back up, enjoying the game.

You ask people why they either don't play golf at all or don't play more than they do, you'll see two major answers: cost to play and time to play. Figure those two things out and you are onto something. Piss on architecture as far as I'm concerned, at least in this context.

Rotten, boring, stupid and idiotically maintained courses can't help. If the courses are better the game is more fun. If I wanted to grow the game, which is moot, I'd start an initiative to take the crap out of the average course and make it better. If we removed 100 trees (the right ones) from my course, it would go from a Doak 1 to a 3. Ok, maybe a 2.

[David_Tepper]

Archie -

"Isn't this what is leading Tiger to think of himself as an icon/brand first and a golfer a distant second"

I seriously doubt whether Tiger has ever thought of himself as a golfer distant second to anything.

DT

[Mac Plumart]

Lloyd...solid points.

Taking into consideration the need for golf course designers and architects to continue to generate revenue and the points raised by Archie and now Lloyd, would it be possible to do something like Tillinghast did during the Depression?

Phil Young please chime in and correct me if I am way off base...

but didn't he go around to many PGA member course and spruce up their designs and enhance the courses?  This would have had to improve the golfers experience while playing them, therefore improve their enjoyment, therefore improve the chances of their return and therefore potentially grow the game.

Win-win-win...players get a better experience, golf architects get more work, and the game grows in an efficient manner.

2 cents.

[Steve Strasheim]

An excerpt from the link listed below:

" Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.

The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.

More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.

The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?_r=2&ei=5087&em=&en=9c9070c4064e72a7&ex=1203829200&pagewanted=all

[Tom_Doak]

Tom , your courses are so much more about the art than the industry.......and do we really need evryone to embrace the sport ...I think not.....isn't this what led to the big mistake with the Natioanl Golf Foundation and their ridiculous course a day mantra ...

Archie:

I am just feeling bad for so many talented people sitting on the sidelines right now.  There are so many guys out there just dying for a place to practice their art.

Certainly, not everybody needs to play golf, and I don't really give a damn if anybody in the golf business gets rich.  Golf is still healthier in Scotland than it is in America, and that has nothing to do with growth rates.

But, I can't help feeling that kids today do not have the chance to get into the sport the way we did.  I grew up a mile from a public golf course I could play (as a junior after 3 pm) for ONE dollar; where is that opportunity for kids now?  When I was ten Dave Stockton came to town and did a free PGA clinic; when's the last time a top ten player did a week's worth of those? 

And without such opportunities, where is the next generation of golfers going to come from?  Kids with $50,000 college debt and no job?  I have seen plenty of places in the past year where the sport is just dying, because the numbers don't work anymore, even on older courses with no debt.

[Jon Wiggett]

Maybe the problem happening in the states is a little to do with the system and general golfing culture there appears to be there. If you are forced to return a scorecard for every round then it follows you will be looking for every ball lost in the rough, wanting the course to be in top condition all the time so as not ruin your score and spend lots of time on every shot leading to slow rounds. It only takes one group out there to be slow especially as many golfers seem unwilling to let quicker flight through these days.

The first leads to demands for excessive cutting of rough (increased maintenance costs) the second leads to excessive attention to detail/conditioning (increased maintenance costs) and the latter leads to slow rounds of 3.5 hours plus (takes to long and is boring especially for kids)  This means that a good many golfers will avoid the cheap local 'muni' which on a low budget cannot afford such measures.

Also, it seems to me that many golfers in the US judge a course by things on the periphery such as club house or driving range. These are nice to have items but have no real affect on the golfing experience. I mean would PV, NGLA or Merion be any less enjoyable courses to play without them?

Lastly it needs the people at the top to be interrested in the roots of the sport. What are the USGA doing or the PGA tour?

[Mike_Young]

The question I would ask is "How many courses were built for golf in the last 25 years?"  I say less than 10%....and if that is what was built then we would not be having these conversations.   We would not have an excess of architects, golf professionals or golf supts.  we would not have 20 something schools offering PGM programs.  Or Turfgrass management programs. . or this  First Tee stuff  And someone mentions the NGF....come on...they were there to serve a purpose  But that didn't happen, so now we have a correction and a big one.

Most courses were built to either fill hotel rooms and restaurants at resorts, to increase lot value of land that had no amenities going for it without a man made golf course..especially in the deserts...or politicians wanting to subsidize the latest and greatest muni project ( for awhile)...and all of this allowed it to get out of hand...manufacturers made better equipment whether it be , playing equipment, irrigation, or maintenance....and clubhouses...well they almost single handedly destroyed much of the game....

Even ANGC is beginning to get into the Brand promotion marketing schemes with the land purchases and all the plans outside the tourney...We have abused the sport to a point where it is so revenue driven it can't make it and the only answer we have is to grow it...well, I wish that could happen but it may not be possible and if that is the case...why don't we address that at the same time.  
The free enterprise system has a way of working if left alone....and it will work here....
Small business people have always had an ingenuity that allowed them to get it done...and that is what golf is...one golf course at a time making it's way.....not some management company with a figure head that has never mowed a green or broken 75 sitting at a table at a golf summit telling you how to make it thru next year.  Years ago the pro and his family or the supt and his family would drive down to FL for a few weeks..hang out with their buddies and a few suppliers or reps would show up to show them their product.....there was no "for profit" show developed to put money in the hands of an ASSOCIATION.... the guys that put golf on the table here never needed that and the truth be known ..they still don't.  
Tom is correct in stating that is sad that more people can't practice....but he is also polite about it....the design business is going down to a much smaller number than last year, same for contractors and golf professionals and supts....BUT in the ODG days didn't many do a variety of things in the game....I certainly don't mind operating a course and mowing the greens and picking up a design here and there....the market will allow it.....even if associations say you should either be the supt or the pro or the architect....reality says you can do it all.
But he answer is not in more players or more courses or even less courses....it is in allowing the game itself to be the game...not some hidden agenda such as real estate, hotel rooms, conventions or economic development authorities.
It will all keep going and we will all keep playing just like the guys that were expert wagon wheel makers or typewriter repairmen.....

[John Moore II]

Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game ,  and does worrying about this  hurt golf architecture?

Yeah, it might hurt architecture, but not more than has been hurt before. The rich will continue to have ideal golf courses to play on, and I could care less. I want a course where the average bloke can come out and have a quick, enjoyable round of golf. Quick, fun, cheap, now thats a good combination for golf. Thats how we need to grow the game. Good architecture can take a seat in the bed of my pick-up for now, we need to get people out and playing, starting the game, picking the game back up, enjoying the game.

You ask people why they either don't play golf at all or don't play more than they do, you'll see two major answers: cost to play and time to play. Figure those two things out and you are onto something. Piss on architecture as far as I'm concerned, at least in this context.

Rotten, boring, stupid and idiotically maintained courses can't help. If the courses are better the game is more fun. If I wanted to grow the game, which is moot, I'd start an initiative to take the crap out of the average course and make it better. If we removed 100 trees (the right ones) from my course, it would go from a Doak 1 to a 3. Ok, maybe a 2.

Lloyd, you have a different opinion about golf courses than most though. And I never said "rotten, boring, stupid," I said an enjoyable course. Can't courses be made enjoyable for a moderate budget?

[Mark Chaplin]

Lloyd,

The average player wants an enjoyable golf course that isn't too expensive to play. Design, trees, etc do not worry the average guy.

IMVHO the way the game will be grown again is smaller courses on less land, costing less and taking less time to play.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game’

There is nothing wrong with the game, it has grown and is mature being well over 600 years old.

Alas Archie, many Golfers have not as yet caught up with the game and keep trying to stamp their own type of identity or mould it in the image they believe the game should be played.

There is nothing wrong with the game of Golf, just those not satisfied with the traditional game. Not certain of their reasons, but believe one being, it is just to hard for them so they want it made easy, not what I would have thought a good enough reason to make changes.

And yes it does worrying me because it IS hurting golf architecture IHMO.   

Melvyn

[Steve Strasheim]

Why do many here feel that we need to grow the game’

There is nothing wrong with the game, it has grown and is mature being well over 600 years old.

Alas Archie, many Golfers have not as yet caught up with the game and keep trying to stamp their own type of identity or mould it in the image they believe the game should be played.

There is nothing wrong with the game of Golf, just those not satisfied with the traditional game. Not certain of their reasons, but believe one being, it is just to hard for them so they want it made easy, not what I would have thought a good enough reason to make changes.

And yes it does worrying me because it IS hurting golf architecture IHMO.   

Melvyn

It isn't just golf architecture that's hurting.

My own interest and enthusiasm for golf has been increasing dramatically the last 6 months because of my own personal situation. Meanwhile, everywhere around me I see the opposite. Locally, we had a real shocker when an entire staff of the best teaching professionals in the state were let go.  Yes, they will probably eventually end up on their feet somewhere, but it is a very troubling sign of the times.

Find the whole discussion quite interesting and appreciate the opinions on this thread.

[Mac Plumart]

Great posts guys.  Mike Young is spot on IMO...great post Mike.

Here is one additional point.  The entities that supposedly are the Stewards of the game (USGA, PGA, R&A, etc) have assets, investments, cash in their coffers...I suppose for a rainy day...that they could use to help support the game.  For instances, I just looked at the USGA'a balance sheet...$9mm cash, $208 million in investments, and $251 million in total assets...no long term or short term debt.  And in 2009, they increased their assets.  I didn't have time to look up the others, but I'm sure they have assets as well.

So, if indeed they are saving these assets for a rainy day...isn't it pouring right now?  How about deploying some of those assets to help the situation out.  Improve existing facilities and things of that nature to help improve the current experience and attract people to the game.

I see things like this happen all the time (meaning hoarding cash/assets at the wrong time).  At market tops, people spend money like it is going out of style...this leads to a bust and over building.  But when spending money will actually yield you a good return (financially or strategically) people won't spend because they are nervous, scared, or uncertain...usually at market bottoms...but that is when your money will go the farthest.  The best returns are made when capital is scarce and/or people are scared to invest/spend.

[Brett Hochstein]

Mac,

You may be right about the USGA, and good "rainy day" analogy.  I would say the R&A is doing more for growing the game, however.  They take amounts of their surplus from The Open and invest it growing the game in far places such as China where there is great potential to thrive. (I actually know people here from St Andrews who spend a few months over there giving seminars and whatnot).  They also set aside money for scholarships for coaching and player development as well as international greenkeeping students, such as myself.  They are at least doing something.

Melvyn,

Certainly, the game is nice and mature in Scotland, just as Tom D. stated.  Though it is the Home of Golf, it is still just a small part of the golfing world.  The U.S. doesn't so much need growth right now as it needs re-evaluation.  Values are flawed but getting better.  Once the American golfing public can come to embrace the game to something at least slightly resembling that of the Scots, then it may be time for growth again.  Perhaps in America, the "growth" simply needs to be that of better values of existing players.
Also, there is so much room for growth in the Far East.  They have the most people in the world and a very strong budding interest in the game, yet they still have fewer courses than the small country of Scotland (correct me if I am wrong).  Either way, the potential to expand and share our game there is immense, and isn't golf about sharing and ethos, in the end?

This isn't just about China or Asia either.  What about South America and Central America?  Northern and Eastern Europe? Italy(a place that shocks me for how little golf it has)?

[Tim Nugent]

Grow the game?  Look at where this is coming from!  Kudos to Mike Young -  he's spot on.  Don't worry about us architects, we'll survive -somehow, but for many of the associates out there, they will either need a wife w/a good job or find a new line of work.  This isn't the 1st down-turn I've lived through, probably not the last.  But, I don't have a big manufacturing plant and network of distributors to feed.  The ones who really want to "grow the game" are those who want to sell stuff to the participants. More golfers mean more golf balls and clubs to sell, more over-priced mowers to sell, more fertilizer to sell, more Feasibility studies to sell etc.

When golf became a Business,  many outsiders flocked in to what was perceived as a 'fun' way to make money.  Now that things have turned, there will an exodus, just like in the past.  Road builders will go back to building roads, golf pros/supts will under-bid management companies who have outgrown their economies-of-scale and cut out the bloated overhead, but those manufacturers will have to cut capacity & prices;.  Thye will resist for as long as they can but... eventually market forces will dictate.

The hit to the 2nd half of the baby-boomer generations prime earning years will resonate for a long time and perhaps even produce a "new normal".  But golf doesn't need to be 'grown'.  I would be happy if it was just Maintained - but this is probably wishful thinking.  Many of the models anticipated wealthier Boomers, living longer and retiring earlier.  Well that's been shot to hell. And the Gen X/Y/Zer's don't want to expend the time to get proficient at, what is a hard, frustrating, and expensive sport to learn.  Muni's became profit centers to subsidize other activies (or management companies) and I fear Tom's days of almost free golf for kids is long gone. It costs more to play our 9-hole muni (run by management company) than twilite at the nearby highend DF.

What is different about this down-turn is that it has, or will, outlast the backlog of work.  Golf course development is like a supertanker, it takes a while to get going and even longer to stop.  Or, put another way, a car on an icey road. we are now slidding through the stop We may crash, end up in a ditch, or get lucky and just come to a stop sign somewhere down the road. but in any event, it will take a long time to get back up to speed.

[Jason Topp]

For me the concern is the aging demographic of the game.  At both my current club and my former public golf course the field for the senior club championship is as strong as the field for the regular club championship.  Ten years ago no one would have ever had such a thought.

As the current seniors pass on, that is when the real problems could occur.  We need a bunch of kids, college age kids, and 20 somethings (prior to becoming parents) playing the game, including those that do not want to play in formal competitions.

[Tim Nugent]

Jason, I just had a talk w/our HS Athletic Director.  I pointed out that over the summer, there are school sponsored camps/programs for just about every sport except golf and bowling - the 2 sports that could include the most kids as a certain body type is not needed.  However, due to the fact that schools have to purchase time from outside facilities, they don't.  I suggested that if a high school can spend money to build ball fields, tracks, pools, basketball & tennis courts, wrestling and gymnastic rooms, why not build a short game/putting area?  He responded with "it would cost too much to maintain, we don't have anybody who could do it".  When I suggested that there is perfectly acceptable synthetic materials out there that require hardly any maintenance and that could be performed by anyone capable of maintaining a ball field, he was at a loss.

[Jim Tang]

Growing up in the 80's, my brother and I got a summer pass  each year at a local public golf course for $200 or so.  That included all the golf you could play for the entire summer.  Let me tell you, we abused that pass to no end,  playing daily, sometimes just spending the entire day at the course.  The course lost money in the short run, but in the long run my brother and I became golfers for life.  Now, as adults, we of course pay the full fare each time we play and the game of golf is reaping the benefits.  So are the club and ball and bag makers.  The entire industy benefits now because, as kids, we got hooked on golf like it was crack cocaine, and we can't stop even if we wanted to.  I am sure many of you have similar stories from your youth.

The question is, why don't more public golf courses of today take this approach?  If you can hook young people on golf early in their lives, they are more likely to play the game for life, and probably will promote the game they love for life as well.  That seems like a pretty simple model.

I am a teacher.  I see kids every day.  Very few of them play golf.  Instead, they play video games or spend hours online,  play football, soccer, baseball, basketball, and are involved in a great number of clubs and sports that were just not around when I was growing up.  Today, golf is competing for kid's attention and money with many more activities than existed in the past.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Tang:

I had the same thought about High Pointe when it closed. 

Why should a community let a golf course go to seed if there is no other development ready to take its place?  It's not like anybody is going to build condos or a strip mall on these abandoned courses in the short term ... for $250,000 a year you could do basic mantenance on the course and set up after-school programs and break even.

Unfortunately, the owners of High Pointe do not see the light on this ... they'd rather just close the place than do something for the community.