Why ? Why ? Why?

[Jon Wiggett]

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.

This is the mind set of the 'making a profit for the shareholders'. Doing something for the community or even something for a good cause is not interesting if there is not a huge profit to be made. It is the major downside to the 'Wall Street' culture and nobody who could really seems to want to change it. A sad reflection on our money/greed style culture that has become so important in the last 20 or so years.

[Mike_Young]

I think there are still plenty of cases of guys doing as described above with young people...but it is individual ON SITE owners,,,,not management companies or RE driven properties....have often thought First Tee would be better off to send $$$ to some of the public places for specific times for kids than build a bunch of new stuff...but then that doesn't get the press to the right people....

[George Pazin]

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.

Are you willing or able to work for next to nothing? I'm not trying to be rude, just asking a simple question. I don't think most communities have enough people around willing to work cheap to bring others into the game.

The only courses I can see being able to do this are munis, for obvious reasons.

As for the original question, golf will grow on its own accord if all those deep thinkers trying to make it grow would stop doing all the wrong things. Kinda like our country.

 

[rjsimper]

How does the story go...something like 5 years ago, the average age of an opera goer was 60
Today, it's 65.

Archie, Tom Doak's courses may be "more about art" to you, but it costs pennies a year to hang a Dali on your wall.

People care about "growing the game" because without money, there is no game.

[David Kelly]

I think Tim nails it. Growth is over for the foreseeable future and maintaining the level of participation seems like a pipe dream at this point. Unfortunately because of the way the game was mishandled during the boom times even when the economy comes back to previous levels (and that when is really an if) I don't think the game will be in very good shape.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I guess it all depends on what you call growth.

Here's a report on the number of public sector rounds at Metro Denver golf courses. Note that the number of rounds has risen between 1997 and 2008 although they are down from the 2002 high.

Something else to consider is the 6 new golf courses that were built between '03 and '08 and the 200,000 rounds they have siphoned away from the other courses. That's about 4,000 rounds and $100k per facility.

http://www.cogolf.org/uploads/pubs/2008sog.pdf

[Niall C]

I was about to post and then I saw Jim had asked the exact question I was going to ask, what constitutes growth ? More players ? more rounds being played ? or more golf courses being built ?

A lack of growth in the golf business doesn't necessarily mean the "game" is dying. Perhaps the lack of money will encourage a return to core values ie. spend whatever money there is on the course and not another extension to the clubhouse, cut down on tree planting and ornamentation and generally make the game more affordable.

Just a thought.

Niall

[Jim Tang]

To: George Pazin

Am I willing to work for next to nothing?  As stated, I am a teacher, so yes.  Ha!  

I'm not saying courses should offer golf passes at super low prices to everyone.  I'm saying if we're talking about growing the game, or, as mentioned earlier, simply trying to maintain the game where it is, then you've got to bring in new blood, mainly, kids.  How do you do that?  One way is to offer golf at inexpensive rates.  Golf is easily the most expensive sport out there in terms of start up costs; clubs, shoes, balls bag, etc.

I'm not saying you offer a summer pass at the 1980's price of $200 that I mention earlier.  But I think it could be done for a reasonable amount of money so kids can get on the golf course and play as much as they want.  Everyone else, leagues, outings, tournaments and regular adult play all pay full fare.  

Would it be better to not offer some type of pass or incentive program FOR KIDS and have golf courses empty instead?  Or, get kids on the course during the weekdays, expose them to a game they can potentially play for the next 70 or 80 years of their lives, and hope down the road, when they become adults, they continue to be golf junkies like all of us here on GCA and play the game.

Think of it this way.  All luxary automakers have an "entry" level model which is their least expensive model.  They hope you will buy that car and through exposure to their product you'll form brand loyalty.  Then, later in life, when you've got more money, you'll buy the more expensive model, and better yet, talk up their company to friends and associates.

Your comments were not rude.  Just your point of view.

[Jim_Kennedy]

As for the original question, golf will grow on its own accord if all those deep thinkers trying to make it grow would stop doing all the wrong things. Kinda like our country.
 

Seeing as how the last two quarters of '09 showed growth (5.7% in the 4th was the best since '03) and 2/3 of economists say that  the stimulus has saved 1.2 million jobs, I'd say those 'deep thinkers' in our country have done a better job than you care to admit.

If golf grew by over 2% in the third quarter of '09 and 5.7% in the last quarter we wouldn't even be seeing a thread like this.

You need to turn your AM radio off between the hours of 12 noon and 3 pm.     

[Matthew Petersen]

I guess it all depends on what you call growth.

Here's a report on the number of public sector rounds at Metro Denver golf courses. Note that the number of rounds has risen between 1997 and 2008 although they are down from the 2002 high.

Something else to consider is the 6 new golf courses that were built between '03 and '08 and the 200,000 rounds they have siphoned away from the other courses. That's about 4,000 rounds and $100k per facility.

http://www.cogolf.org/uploads/pubs/2008sog.pdf

That's a fascinating statistic. I graduated from high school in Aurora in 1998 and I remember that from 1995-2000 or so it was virtually impossible to get a tee time at public courses in the metro area. Drove me and my Dad crazy trying to call everywhere we could just to get out!

[George Pazin]

Jim T -

I understand your point, I just think there is more to it than most realize. It's easy to take less when times are good, less so when times are tough.

And did you say my point of view was rude?

(As an aside, teachers in western PA make pretty decent livings, much better than many other careers in the region. And I know, my wife is a high school teacher.)

Seeing as how the last two quarters of '09 showed growth (5.7% in the 4th was the best since '03) and 2/3 of economists say that  the stimulus has saved 1.2 million jobs, I'd say those 'deep thinkers' in our country have done a better job than you care to admit.

If golf grew by over 2% in the third quarter of '09 and 5.7% in the last quarter we wouldn't even be seeing a thread like this.

You need to turn your AM radio off between the hours of 12 noon and 3 pm.     

Sorry, Jim, I can't take this seriously. That's all I'll say.

[David Kelly]

I guess it all depends on what you call growth.

Here's a report on the number of public sector rounds at Metro Denver golf courses. Note that the number of rounds has risen between 1997 and 2008 although they are down from the 2002 high.
http://www.cogolf.org/uploads/pubs/2008sog.pdf

Looking at the numbers from that report - 1,836,623 paid rounds in 2007, approx. 1,700,000 (although actually larger from looking at the graph) paid rounds in 1997 indicates a rate of growth of 8% over 10 years or .08% per year.  However Metro Denver's population increased at a lot greater clip over that same period (28% from 1990-2008 or 1.55%) so people were actually playing less in 2007 than they were in 1997.  And those were the Tiger Woods boom years.

[Sean_A]

I guess I have always been the one on the sidelines asking why do we need golf (and broadly the economy - especially at such an alarming rate) to grow? What does the old established player get by pursuing such a policy above and beyond the normal teaching of one's kids, the odd bit of coaching etc?  Far more often than not it breaks down to those in the business being worried about growth and proclaiming the end is near and those outside of the business not really caring other than how to keep the club going for the next generation etc - ie slow growth which essentially maintains the status quo.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

If I don't make another dime off golf in my life, that would be okay.

But I'd still like to see the game made available to people in the far corners of the world, and here at home, because I think it's a great game and a great culture.

The crusade SHOULD be not how to make the game grow (in terms of GDP), but how to make it more affordable so that more people could play.  But now that I think about it, there is no one in the golf business saying anything like that.

Of course it is the same for all other businesses ... all of them lobbying in Washington how more regulation might cost people jobs, or lower the value of investors' 401(k).

[David Kelly]

Tom,

You are right but unfortunately having the game "grow" to most people in the golf industry means $650 drivers, massive real estate developments, $200 green fees and higher PGA purses.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
I don't think it's a big problem if population increase outpaces the round increase, as long as the rounds stay on an upward momentum they'll outweigh any loss in the percentage of the population that plays. The number of people playing golf today is about equal to the total population of the USA in 1850. 

George, 
I'd say the same about your original post, and that's all I'll say, too.   

Tom,
I wonder how the game can be made available in those far corners, especially when I read that the average green fee in China on the weekend is $161.00 US dollars.
 

[Sean_A]

The crusade SHOULD be not how to make the game grow (in terms of GDP), but how to make it more affordable so that more people could play.  But now that I think about it, there is no one in the golf business saying anything like that.

Tom

You don't hear anything like that because there is very little money in that sort of thinking - otherwise you would not only have heard about, but seen it everywhere.  I spose its easy to be flippant about these matters, but the truth is, even in the UK where profit and spending from/on courses anyway is much lower down the list of importance than in the States, the down numbers have the average joe club members worried.  Its a vicious cycle of rising dues, increased average age of club memberships and reduced waiting lists.  So perhaps it is time for the clubs to start talking very seriously about how they are going to keep juniors in the game as dues paying members through adulthood. 

Ciao 

[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.

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?

John
I was just responding to this quote
"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."

I wasn't denying it is valid, as a point of view, albeit blinkered, only stating that surely the game is more fun on a better course, is all. And there are plenty which could be improved vastly for little money with the right ideas.

'Can't courses be made enjoyable for a moderate budget?' - Absolutely.

[David Kelly]

David,
I don't think it's a big problem if population increase outpaces the round increase, as long as the rounds stay on an upward momentum they'll outweigh any loss in the percentage of the population that plays.

Unfortunately 1997 - 2007 were the supposed boom times in golf and even then the numbers show a minimal growth rate. And I suspect that Denver did better than most other areas of the country.

[Sean_A]

David,
I don't think it's a big problem if population increase outpaces the round increase, as long as the rounds stay on an upward momentum they'll outweigh any loss in the percentage of the population that plays.

Unfortunately 1997 - 2007 were the supposed boom times in golf and even then the numbers show a minimal growth rate. And I suspect that Denver did better than most other areas of the country.

David

I think that decade was a boom time for corporate golf, but not for the game or its future.  Somehow, as with most nearly everything, we have tied the profit side of golf with the game.  We need to remember these two are very different entities and in truth, they often clash as to what their goals are. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean, brilliant insight...boom time for corporate golf!  I would add profit-centric golf. 

[Jim Tang]

To George P:

I reread my last post to you.  Ha!  It did sound like I said your opinion was rude.  Of course it is not.

I agree there are many aspects to running a golf course.  I do not pretend to understand the financial conditions that courses operate under today.  My summer months since college have been spent working a 2 different private golf courses and one public facility in the Chicagoland area, and there are many good people working in the golf business.  At times I have been shocked to learn how little some of the assistants and others involved in the industry make.

Unfortunately, for the business side of golf, there are only so many golfers and their wallets to go around.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
It was a boom time for overbuilding, with a bent towards CCFAD's to service that corporate market, I'd bet that there wasn't even 2% of the action geared toward affordable places to play.

Take away the 'Denver Six' that were built between '03 and '08 and the remaining courses will all be adding a significant number of rounds to their tee sheets and substantial dollars to their coffers.

Getting rid of a few of the CCFAD's/over-builts might help drive business back to the courses that deserve it, like all the courses you played before some slick marketing sucked you in to thinking that $500.00 for a 'golf experience' made sense, or that $220.00 to play a course sucked out of a mudhole was 'a deal', or that you were sub-human if you didn't play the next-best-thing. 

Driving business back to where it belongs (you'll have to find out 'where' in your own market) will increase rounds and revenues in that locale, and local owners who are once again making some dough can be 'persuaded' into making golf affordable for youngsters and new players.

[Tim Nugent]

Jim, you can't turn back the clock.  Those 6 will most likely survive as a golf course and not close.  They may go through a bankruptcy tho and come out able to lower the greens fee.  In which case, it will be the courses with the lessor designs/facilities that will probably go away or be "bought" by a local municipality.
Plus, as was stated, he and his dad went crazy in the 90's just trying to find a tee time.  If the status quo had persisted, how many would have left the game?  Those 6 were built because, at the time, market forces dictated that they be built.  Did they need 6? Probably not but the problem one runs into in an open market is multiple entities may identify and move to capitalize on the same opportunity concurrently.

[George Pazin]

To George P:

I reread my last post to you.  Ha!  It did sound like I said your opinion was rude.  Of course it is not.

I agree there are many aspects to running a golf course.  I do not pretend to understand the financial conditions that courses operate under today.  My summer months since college have been spent working a 2 different private golf courses and one public facility in the Chicagoland area, and there are many good people working in the golf business.  At times I have been shocked to learn how little some of the assistants and others involved in the industry make.

Unfortunately, for the business side of golf, there are only so many golfers and their wallets to go around.

I knew what you meant, that's why I put the smiley on there.

In theory I agree with your earlier wishes; I just don't think it's very fair to ask someone to do something I am either not capable of doing or not willing to do, at least in general terms. I'd love to be able to run my business at a break even, but my wife wouldn't love that...

Jim -

Nice quip. I'd argue there is a difference - and a not insignificant one at that - between calling out faceless "leaders" in DC who have a proven track record of, shall we say, less than effective practices (and I'm including both sides of the aisle) and calling out a poster on this site with a personal comment.