[Dan_Callahan]

FIS (the governing body of World Cup skiing), announced in July new length and shape requirements for competition skis. More and more athletes are coming out against it. It's interesting to compare this to the questions surrounding modern golf equipment.

From ESPN.com:

Bode Miller has lashed out at the international ski federation, accusing the governing body of "ruining our sport" because of new equipment regulations set to take effect next year.

The 34-year-old American ski star on Thursday called the FIS rule changes regarding minimum size and radius of skis "a complete joke. It's going backwards every time they do a regulation."

Miller said that longer skis with a wider radius will not make ski racing any safer but instead will wipe out all technical developments that have made the sport more appealing to both racers and fans in recent years.

"This is another step back in time," Miller said. "Next year you will see people walking into a ski shop and buy better skis than we can race on in the World Cup. That's a really bad situation."

The new equipment rules have been widely criticized by athletes and manufacturers since the FIS announced them in July. About 80 percent of all World Cup racers signed a petition to protest the changes.

Most affected will be the giant slalom discipline, where skis will need a minimum radius of 35 meters, eight more than the current limit. In giant slalom, super-G and downhill, all skis must become longer by various amounts of centimeters.

"No one can ski as good on the 35-meter radius ski as he can ski now," Miller said. "And people cannot ski as good now as they could have on the skis from four years ago. From 1999 to 2003 was the peak of equipment in ski racing. Since then, it's all gone in the wrong direction."

The governing body have set up a meeting Friday with a delegation of racers and equipment suppliers to clarify its decision, which has been based on a six-year running research project by Salzburg University into various safety issues at World Cup races.

Miller, a two-time overall World Cup champion, said the FIS has shown its inability to handle the safety issue because "bindings make the biggest impact. But there is zero regulation on bindings, they have never addressed that. That tells it all."

Miller was backed by U.S. teammate Ted Ligety, arguably the best giant slalom racer in the world.

"I think in sports like ski racing it's foolish to make rules that hinder the evolution of the sport, our capabilities and the entertainment value. These rules do that," said Ligety, who holds the World Cup and world championship titles in the discipline.

"(Race chief of ski brand Head) Rainer Salzgeber told me he raced on a 32-meter radius ski in 1994," Ligety said. "So to go back to skis from the early 90s is kind of a joke ... It's been a big jump from 27-meter radius to 35-meter radius. That could lead to a jump in injuries as well."

FIS men's race director Guenter Hujara said he understands, but does not agree with the criticism.

"Our primary task is to provide a set of rules that guarantee equal opportunities to all racers," Hujara said. "We won't follow the suggestion that FIS should only look after the courses. We will try to achieve the best possible result for all involved."

[jeffwarne]

Yes, you'd hear similar complaints if the ball was rolled back.

You can certainly buy a better bat in any sporting goods store than you can play in Major League baseball.
You can certainly innovate a better implement than they allow/use in field hockey.

Body cites 2003 as the peak of equipment in the sport.

What's next? a nascar like team that innovates,constantly tweaks, and takes care of your golf/ski equipment so you can "compete"?

Whatever happened to practicing until you were the best.

I certainly hope pro golfers soon sound exactly like Bode and lament the good old days of 2011....

Anyone WATCHING more skiing now than they were in 1993 because of the innovation for the experts?
You could certainly argue more are skiing due to improvements, but I'm not even sure that's true.


It does kind've suck for those that have to adjust and may not be favored by the rollbacks, but it's nice to see an organization with some balls.

[Dan_Callahan]

I totally agree, Jeff. And FIS is basing the decision at least in past on injury studies (although those aren't necessarily definitive if you ask Ted Ligety).

Skiing is, in my opinion, a much more enjoyable sport on the new equipment. I also think events like slalom and GS are far more exciting on the shorter, faster, more maneuverable skis. But it isn't nearly as popular from a spectator standpoint as it once was. I'm not sure that decline can be attributed to the equipment, though. Similar to other sports that were once huge and are fading: boxing, track and field, etc. There are just too many other things on TV these days. And based on last weekend, a major network would rather show a bunch of celebrities snowplowing down a course at Deer Valley than Body Miller, the best skier in US history, win a downhill at Beaver Creek. With that kind of exposure, it's no wonder there isn't any interest. Rolling back the equipment isn't going to change that.

[Brad Isaacs]

What golf needs is participation.  I do not think making golf more difficult for the 99% of us that dont shoot par will increase participation.  My heart and my back would not be able to live through it either.

Being much closer to scratch skier than scratch golfer, I dont know if I care that much as I have fun on any boards, but people tend to have much more fun on new boards than 1992 boards. COme to think of it, I dont want to ski those 203's in the bumps.

[Ben Sims]

The difference here is the injury quotient.  No one is saying that pro skiers are going too fast on the classic runs and making them irrelevant.  Golf's rollback would have nothing to do with injury.  I've skied on planks from 1993 and hit balls from 1993 as well.  The differences in that equipment from today's is far more obvious with the skis.  It's not even close.  The radii of the skis you see these days allows the speed and subsequently G loading in the turns to be double what they were just two decades ago.  I don't see this as a bad thing competitively.  In fact, the folks that can manage that G loading and extra speed the best are better athletes, IMHO.  And it's certainly not a bad thing recreationally.  As ski technology has allowed far more people to hit the slopes than ever and with greater skill.

But in the case of golf, the 2011 golf ball allows golfers to do things that the "ski hill" isn't able to handle in the long run.  Not only that, but skiing isn't breaking itself trying to keep up with ski technology advances.  Competitive golf however...

[jeffwarne]

What golf needs is participation.  I do not think making golf more difficult for the 99% of us that dont shoot par will increase participation.  My heart and my back would not be able to live through it either.

Being much closer to scratch skier than scratch golfer, I dont know if I care that much as I have fun on any boards, but people tend to have much more fun on new boards than 1992 boards. COme to think of it, I dont want to ski those 203's in the bumps.

I'd argue the BIGNESS of the game is the very thing that hurt golf in the first place.

Big drivers, hot balls, the requisite long courses, more hazards, BIG clubhouses, big marketing, big prices.
If the new equipment is such a turn on, why is participation dropping?
That's a silly myth the manufacturers have fooled many with for years.

I'd say the game had a boom and then a bust, and the parties that were drawn to the game during the recent boom, weren't the types that would create a sustainable future for the game.

[Lou_Duran]

But in the case of golf, the 2011 golf ball allows golfers to do things that the "ski hill" isn't able to handle in the long run.  Not only that, but skiing isn't breaking itself trying to keep up with ski technology advances.  Competitive golf however...

What evidence can you cite to support your suggestion?

Posted on: Yesterday at 08:08:55 PMPosted by: Brad Isaacs 

"What golf needs is participation.  I do not think making golf more difficult for the 99% of us that dont shoot par will increase participation."

Bingo!  How many here have ever heard a golfer complain that high tech has made the game too easy?

Too costly?  I can buy a recent generation "brand" driver for $100.  New.  I remember a buddy of mine buying a one year-old graphite driver in the late 1970s for $150.  That's about $530 in current year dollars.

 

[jeffwarne]

But in the case of golf, the 2011 golf ball allows golfers to do things that the "ski hill" isn't able to handle in the long run.  Not only that, but skiing isn't breaking itself trying to keep up with ski technology advances.  Competitive golf however...

What evidence can you cite to support your suggestion?

Posted on: Yesterday at 08:08:55 PMPosted by: Brad Isaacs  

"What golf needs is participation.  I do not think making golf more difficult for the 99% of us that dont shoot par will increase participation."

Bingo!  How many here have ever heard a golfer complain that high tech has made the game too easy?

Too costly?  I can buy a recent generation "brand" driver for $100.  New.  I remember a buddy of mine buying a one year-old graphite driver in the late 1970s for $150.  That's about $530 in current year dollars.

 

Lou,
your buddy overpaying for a driver isn't evidence either.

Cost of equipment is only one small piece of the puzzle.
new tees, safety issues (whether real or not) have driven the cost as well.

Watching golf's organizational leaders(PGA, USGA) revamp and renovate every course slated for a competition is real evidence of costs being driven up ,and their example prompts other venues to follow their(misguided ) lead.

[Travis Dewire]

Just no belly putters please....

Enough w/ Bode, watch out for Leanne Smith !!

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,
your buddy overpaying for a driver isn't evidence either.

Cost of equipment is only one small piece of the puzzle.
new tees, safety issues (whether real or not) have driven the cost as well.

Watching golf's organizational leaders(PGA, USGA) revamp and renovate every course slated for a competition is real evidence of costs being driven up ,and their example prompts other venues to follow their(misguided ) lead.

The suggestion was made that competitive golf was "breaking itself" as a result of advancing technology.  I don't believe that this is the case and I simply asked Mr. Sims to support his comments.  The fact that competitive golf is expanding globally with multiple tours for men and women, professionals and amateurs, would at least suggest that techonology is not "breaking" this segment of the game.

As to your assertion that "my buddy overpaying for a driver" not being "evidence either", he paid the market price and got great enjoyment from picking put 10-15 yards when he occasionally hit it flush and in the correct zip code.  Given that graphite shafts are now the standard for drivers, his choice as an early adopter some 35 years ago appears to have been validated.

I've been playing golf fairly seriously since 1971 and there is no question that the real cost of the equipment available to most of us today is lower than it was 40 years ago AND the quality is far superior.  BTW, this is also true of many tech goods like televisions, stereo equipment, computers, etc.   I don't know what your definitions of "overpaying" or "evidence" are, but that's okay.  You can dismiss my experience as anecdotal and irrelevant, but others who have been around awhile may look into their own and decide otherwise.  

As to construction costs, renovations, redesigns, these have been the rule of the game since the first rocks were hit on the links.  Reference the early literature and you find the same issues we discuss here with the passion of a college student who believes that he is the first to come upon a wold-changing undiscovered truth.

There are a number of factors beside technology driving these things including the common human desire for something bigger, newer, and better.  In the U.S. at least, we are a much more litiguous, entitlement society which has to account for at least part of the alterations made to our courses.  Environmental sensitivities and a plethora of regulations to impose these are another.  As well is the fact that golf courses are living organisms which depreciate physically and require capital improvements.  Advancements in science, equipment, chemicals, supplies, etc. contribute also (e.g. new irrigation systems to better control water; new green construction, specialized equipment, and grass strains to provide superior surfaces with lower costs and longer lives).

Golf, in my opinion, has much bigger fish to fry than trying to "roll back" equipment at this stage.  Most people I know have the opposite problem- we can't hit the ball far or well enough.  If the pros have outgrown their courses and adding distance is undesirable, the tours or tournament sponsors should consider a lower distance ball for their competitions.  Me, I would recommend alternative strategies with course setup such as growing rough and firming up fairways and greens, and not being too concerned with par.

Concur on belly putters.

[Ben Sims]

Lou,

All the evidence I need can be found by comparing driving distances from the early 90's to those of today and also by providing a list of all the golf courses lengthened for competitive play since that time.  I don't think it is up for debate that golf is financially in a bad spot right now.  Now as to the assertion that the neverending cycle of advancing technology and accomodating the technology for  competition is the reason for that financial deficiency; well, we can debate that all day.  

A couple of links preface what I believe to be a very real and necessary conversation about golf in its current state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Golf, like defense, was once a cottage industry.  Post WWII and the early Cold War created the idea of defense as a commodity and a "complex" sprang up around it.  And--like many recreational exploits in the post the industrial age--golf became a commodity as well.  Once golf became an arms race--in all facets--then a permanent industrial structure was built around the game much like the defense industry.  Professional organizations, equipment companies, media and education outlets all vie for attention.  After awhile, these organizations and companies no longer serve the interest of the member or consumer, but to justify their own existence.  This has happened in defense as well.  This inevitably leads to increased costs and heightened expectations where there was once nothing.  You can argue economically that economies of scale and mass marketing make the game more accessible and affordable.  I would argue the opposite, based mainly on the old-fashioned idea that golf is not a commodity.  I would be wrong however, because the market has spoken.  Golf is a commodity.  The trick for it going forward will be to minimize excess and truly look at the necessary facets of value for our customers.  That includes technology.  

Golf is not unique from skiing in that technology advances have made the game easier--as least in terms of performance--for the beginner and intermediate.  However, it is the frequency of these advances--and their subsequent marketing campaigns--when combined with competitive golf popularity that adds unnecessary costs to the equation.  Until golf and defense recognize that growth and evolution don't require bigger and newer, but sometimes smarter and more efficient, then costs will continue to spiral.

Again, no one is touting a ball roll back for the purposes of safety here.  It is to control the exponential growth in capability that our professionals are exerting on golf courses.  Which will, IMHO, greatly control costs and help secure golf's future down the road.

[Dan_Callahan]

I think the part of the story that is most relevant to golf lies in Bode's quote:

"Next year you will see people walking into a ski shop and buy better skis than we can race on in the World Cup. That's a really bad situation."

Obviously, FIS has no problem living with bifurcated standards -- one set of rules for those racing competitively and then the rest of the public is free to do as they wish. If the average guy wants to ski on the same equipment as Bode, he's more than welcome to do so. On the other hand, for the person who recognizes that he's not quite as good as Bode and therefor would prefer picking up more forgiving (game improvement) skis, that option is available as well.

That kind of flexibility is unavailable in golf, which is in my opinion the reason why it is so difficult to roll back the equipment. Because we all live under one set of rules, a roll back impacts the entire industry rather than just the top 1%.

[jeffwarne]

I think the part of the story that is most relevant to golf lies in Bode's quote:

"Next year you will see people walking into a ski shop and buy better skis than we can race on in the World Cup. That's a really bad situation."

Obviously, FIS has no problem living with bifurcated standards -- one set of rules for those racing competitively and then the rest of the public is free to do as they wish. If the average guy wants to ski on the same equipment as Bode, he's more than welcome to do so. On the other hand, for the person who recognizes that he's not quite as good as Bode and therefor would prefer picking up more forgiving (game improvement) skis, that option is available as well.

That kind of flexibility is unavailable in golf, which is in my opinion the reason why it is so difficult to roll back the equipment. Because we all live under one set of rules, a roll back impacts the entire industry rather than just the top 1%.

I can go to Ebay and buy a Cleveland wedge brand new with grooves that are illegal for USGA Championships and PGA Tour events, yet I can legally use them in regular play and even in PGA Section events.
So the rules are already bifurcated, and the world hasn't come to a screeching halt.
The precedent is there, so why not limit the 320 yard drivers/balls for the .01%.

[Ben Sims]

Because we all live under one set of rules, a roll back impacts the entire industry rather than just the top 1%.

Dan,

Please explain how a "USGA ball" or "PGA ball" would affect the entire industry.  The bifurcation argument doesn't hold much water when we start talking about the ball.  MLB has wooden bats with certain standards that it must meet.  I don't see Easton or Louisville Slugger's aluminum bat lines suffering for MLB's wooden policies.

The ONLY problem with a "pro ball" is the question of what level it should be introduced for play.  

[Jim Hoak]

Aren't records being broken in all sports--and athletes getting better?  Aren't they running faster, jumping higher, skating faster, etc.?  Why should golf be any different?  I'm sure modern equipment has made golf easier for some, but aren't the professional athletes who play the game also better trained, better conditoned?  And aren't better athletes choosing to play professional golf than did years ago as money and prestige has improved?  And with all the equipment improvements, aren't scores for the average player about the same, and aren't the number of regualr golfers level or falling?  I love the old golf courses--and I'm still challenged by them.  Who really cares if the elite modern professional athletes aren't?

[Ben Sims]

  I love the old golf courses--and I'm still challenged by them.  Who really cares if the elite modern professional athletes aren't?

Jim,

You make a good point.  But unfortunately, it's not the reality of professional golf.  I would be a fan of one of two things happening 1)  Understanding that whatever a winning score might be has no bearing on the quality of a tournament.  Which means that we would not need to lengthen golf courses for professional play or 2)  We use a sanctioned ball to get the performance back to what the courses were designed for.

But neither are happening.  Technology progresses and golf courses are being 'roided up.  They both cost money. 

[Dan_Callahan]

You misunderstand. I'm in favor of two standards in golf. One for the competitive player, and the other for everyone else.

However, look what happened a few years ago when the Palmer-backed con-conforming driver came out. If memory serves, it was a flop because the general populace wants to play what the pros play. Even though the average golfer will never participate in a tournament of any kind, there is a mindset in golf that one set of rules governs the equipment. Sure there are a few out there who will deviate, but I think the market as a whole falls under a singular standard.

Easton and Louisville Slugger didn't suffer because at the lower league metal is still ok. If there was one standard in baseball, however, so that all games at every level can only be played using wood bats, do you really think anybody would buy aluminum just for fun? Maybe a few people to take to a batting cage, but again that market would collapse.

[Ben Sims]

Dan,

It's easy to make a dual standard.  It already exists with wedges and bats and myriad other equipment in sports.  POOF!!  Dual standard. Here's a ball for you Mr. Mickelson, and here's yours Mr. Callahan.  How hard was that?  By the way Mr. Callahan, your ball spins way less off the driver and a lot more off the short irons than Mr. Mickelson's.  What's that you say?  Yes, it is legal for your club dogfight.  I'm sorry, say again? No, it costs the same. 

Just like playing hickory blades from 1923, you'll have the option of using the inferior equipment because you're a purist.  But like aluminum bats in softball, once the competitive guys at your home course start kicking tail because they're still legally using Pro V1's, you'll switch back. 

[jeffwarne]

You misunderstand. I'm in favor of two standards in golf. One for the competitive player, and the other for everyone else.

However, look what happened a few years ago when the Palmer-backed con-conforming driver came out. If memory serves, it was a flop because the general populace wants to play what the pros play. Even though the average golfer will never participate in a tournament of any kind, there is a mindset in golf that one set of rules governs the equipment. Sure there are a few out there who will deviate, but I think the market as a whole falls under a singular standard.

Easton and Louisville Slugger didn't suffer because at the lower league metal is still ok. If there was one standard in baseball, however, so that all games at every level can only be played using wood bats, do you really think anybody would buy aluminum just for fun? Maybe a few people to take to a batting cage, but again that market would collapse.

Dan,
Palmer was condoning ILLEGAL equipment-where exactly would one draw the line on that?.
That backfired.

A continued bifurcation of the rules would not dampen sales in any way.
Pros use wood bats, amateurs use and buy aluminum bats because both are legal in their respective leagues.

People may think they want what the pros play, but how many could actually hit Ernie Els driver? (about .01%)
The bifurcated pro equipment would still have the Callaway or Taylor Made on it, it would just meet certain specs,
Dorks would still buy Callaway, just clubs that conformed to their rules and their specs.


I'm always amazed by the resistance to what every other sport has.
standard ball for tournaments, bifurcated rules
amazing the grip manufactures have on the (otherwise intelligent) golf world

[Lou_Duran]

Ben,

It would never have occured to me to analogize defense, a hyper-regulated $trillion industry to golf (probably less than $50 billion worldwide and relatively "free").  I don't get where you're coming from and really don't care about delving into it much further (my first job out of grad school was with GD in the business and finance end, so I am somewhat familiar with the industry).

I do find your perspective of golf as a commodity interesting.  Several years ago, Ron Whitten penned an article analogizing golf with the pizza business (there was considerable discussion here, but I am not good with the "Search" function).  The article was in the context of a CCFAD owned by the city of Arlington, TX (Tierra Verde GC) and, as I recall, how the superintended lamented that though the design and conditioning of his course were clearly superior to other area offerings, the golfers were choosing the cheaper alternatives.  The point was made that like the pizza business, he couldn't differentiate his product and compete at a higher price point (btw, I left GD after three years to go to work at Frito-Lay, a company which for over a half a century has mastered the art of taking basic commodities- in the true definition of the word- and branding them into fantastic products with substantial price premiums and customer satisfaction).

Obviously, I have a totally different perspective than you on golf technology.  The equipment business is quite small- maybe $5 Billion worldwide?) in size and proportion.  The short and frequent product cycles you allude to are actually a boon to most golfers who are content to let the early adopters pay retail then buy the one and two generation old fantastic products at a huge discount (not to say anything about used clubs online through eBay and Craigslist).

You are right about the financial plight of the golf industry.  The attached link might provide some useful information as to why.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Callaway_Golf_Company_(ELY)

The woes of the industry have been discussed here at length.  I think that they have quite a bit to do with shrinking disposable income in the classes who play the most golf AND, particularly for those retired or nearly so, the change in expectations that their nest egg not only won't be earning a fairly safe 4-8%, but instead yielding a negative return after inflation and taxes.  Us babyboomers who had hoped to retire comfortably with golf as a major theme in the sunset of life are instead making do as "player ambassadors" at the local courses in between our partime jobs greeting customers at Walmart.  

A second problem for golf is that it is expensive in terms of time and money relative to other entertainment alternatives.  How it overcomes what some see as changes in the culture is beyond my understanding.  I could be totally wrong, but I have had very few positive experiences picking up games at public courses, though the overall quality of the courses and the price have seemed to improve over the years.      

The bottom line is that I see technology being used as a boogie man in a similar (but much less consequential) way as the "top 1%" being served by the populists to the masses as the cause of our real economic distress.  Rolling back the equipment may not be disastrous to the golf industry; it just won't have much of a positive effect.  As a 99 percenter, I have ZERO doubt that redisributing wealth will.

I wasn't aware that the equipment manufacturers were fighting bifurcation.  I thought it was primarily the ruling bodies and perhaps the Tours. 

[Ben Sims]

Lou,

I liked your post a lot.  The reason I compared defense and golf is that both became commodities when they are about as far away from the pure definition as you can get.  And that's part of the problem with modern society in many cases.  These structures sprang up around the core functions of these "commodities" and became permanent.  It then became necessary to justify their existance.  That's when " a golf course a day" became the mantra. 

All people ever wanted was for golf to available when they wanted it.  But it became ubiquitous.  After reading your post I'm not so sure golf needs to "grow."  Maybe that was the issue in the first place.   

[Lou_Duran]

Ben,

I generally believe that change is constant and if one is not growing and improving, by definition, he is declining.

Back at one of the early King Putters, a GCAer who has been in the golf industry for a couple of decades and was operating a course at the time, posed a similar argument- why was it a given that golf needs to grow?  From his daily experience- and he can correct me if I am misrepresenting his views- he was uncomfortable with the type of newcomers to the game: their lack of etiquette, knowledge, courtesy, care for the course, etc.  He opined that perhaps the industry might better focus on builiding the rounds played by the core groups and, I think, by increasing participation through these groups (serious golfers introducing other people with similar values).  I don't know how this is can be done if at all, but as the industry sheds the excesses of the 1990s, an attempt at keeping your best customers might warrant more consideration.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I generally believe that change is constant and if one is not growing and improving, by definition, he is declining.

Back at one of the early King Putters, a GCAer who has been in the golf industry for a couple of decades and was operating a course at the time, posed a similar argument- why was it a given that golf needs to grow?  From his daily experience- and he can correct me if I am misrepresenting his views- he was uncomfortable with the type of newcomers to the game: their lack of etiquette, knowledge, courtesy, care for the course, etc.  He opined that perhaps the industry might better focus on builiding the rounds played by the core groups and, I think, by increasing participation through these groups (serious golfers introducing other people with similar values).  I don't know how this is can be done if at all, but as the industry sheds the excesses of the 1990s, an attempt at keeping your best customers might warrant more consideration.

Lou,

I need to reorganize my thoughts on this subject.  I might be in the same camp as that GCA'er.   I would like a pardigm shift amongst our core golfers to expect a different maintenance perfection than what has been generally accepted over the past couple decades.  I would like a more architecturally aware core golfer.  I would like a return to simpler and more efficient operations.  The problem is that a lot of people will lose money and jobs for that paradigm shift to happen.

The funny thing about my other favorite pastimes of skiing and backpacking, is that growth of the sports has had a small impact on their core.  The general directions of those sports has not changed with the massive boons of the last two decades.  People still take care of the trails and slopes, technology makes it more platable, but the challenge remains.  The core ideas and attractions of backpacking and skiing stayed true.  Golf lost it's way with the real estate market.  There's a small group of forward thinking guys (a lot on this site) that care about the roots and the core.  The industrial complex around golf (professional societies and corporations) has done a good job of convincing golfers about qualifications and spending more money and are at odds with those "core-ists."  

It will be an interesting evolution going forward to see how golf gets its groove back.  Trim the fat seems lofty.  Even though it's the right way to be.

[jeffwarne]

Ben,

I generally believe that change is constant and if one is not growing and improving, by definition, he is declining.

Back at one of the early King Putters, a GCAer who has been in the golf industry for a couple of decades and was operating a course at the time, posed a similar argument- why was it a given that golf needs to grow?  From his daily experience- and he can correct me if I am misrepresenting his views- he was uncomfortable with the type of newcomers to the game: their lack of etiquette, knowledge, courtesy, care for the course, etc.  He opined that perhaps the industry might better focus on builiding the rounds played by the core groups and, I think, by increasing participation through these groups (serious golfers introducing other people with similar values).  I don't know how this is can be done if at all, but as the industry sheds the excesses of the 1990s, an attempt at keeping your best customers might warrant more consideration.

Lou,
Great post.
i totally agree with that GCAer and did so at the time as well.

As golf was "growing", quantity of players was UP, but quality was down.
As capacity increased dramatically to meet that quantity, all was good, and operators could turn a profit.
Once the economy hit a rough patch,
and it became apparent that many weren't going to stay with the game, the quantity dropped and we were left with way too much capacity.
Now the quality operator can't compete with the businesses that are competing on price and in a death spiral.
Eventually, that diminishes quantity(it takes a long time to go through 3 owners at every course in the country ), but not without a lot of casualties who were running a quality operation.

Sadly, the PGA was always about growth of the game, but they /we would've done better to take care of the quality customers that were there all along, and are playing wherever they want for a lot less now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()