The Future of Golf?

[Ian Andrew]

I participated in one of the annual meetings with the RCGA on the subject of Growing the Game. This was part of the conversation that I brought to the table.


Understanding Junior Golfers

The number one reason children stay with any game is because they have fun, and the main reason they leave is because it no longer is fun. While some kids mention exercise, developing skills, or the enjoyment of competition, the “fun factor” is still by far the main reason to draw kids in and keep them through to becoming adults.

The Model of Sweden

Sweden has presented the world with a fascinating model that many are trying to emulate due to its overwhelming success. The Swedish have brought many new players to the game by changing the way things are done. One of the keys to their success has been by promoting the game primarily as a family sport.

What is most impressive in their participation numbers are the numbers of players under the age of 20. Even more impressive is the number of overall players who are women. In Sweden they recognized the difference between boys and girls. Boys are encouraged with friendly competition and girls with friendships.

The overall population of the county is 9,000,000 with golfers representing 600,000 or 15%. This is up from the around 8% in the 1980’s. The percentage of player under 20 is approximately 15%. The percentage of women’s play is 27%.

One of the great factors to the large percentage of junior golfers in the system is the club structures. There is a unique system to Sweden where juniors can be members at clubs, with the club having no obligations to accept them as members when they become adults. It creates a system where more juniors have access to more places to play.

Access is often sited by the existing professionals as an essential key to their long term development.

[David Harshbarger]

Ian,

That is why I joined my modest little club, to have fun with my kids.  Not coincidentally, the course, built in 1925, is 5920 for men, and 5138 for women, using two sets of tees for the 9 holes.  The course has 3 par 3's, playing from 125 to 210.  There are 16 bunkers across the 9 holes. 

My oldest, 10, has shot par on a couple of the holes already.

Most importantly, after school, he would call me as soon as the bus let him off to see if we could get to the course that evening.  Obviously, he finds it fun.

With my younger son, 6, I incorporated this concept from the USGA, Kids Par
http://www.usga.org/handicapping/articles_resources/Golf-is-for-Kids-too!/

The USGA recommends that the pro/course put this in place, but since we didn't have that, I just made a little cheat sheet of the recommended pars.  When you are 6, getting a "par" on 450 yard "par 8" is really awesome, and somewhat challenging.

As for the numbers thing....as I have said before, people know how to compare numbers, so instead of bemoaning the fact they equate longer == better, come up with a different set of numbers so they can equate "more architectural quality" == better.

The Doak scale is a shorthand used on this board, a lot.  How about adopting that?

Or, maybe we should come up with the "GCA" rating, so people can look at two courses and say, "hmm, course A (7500 yard ball buster) is a GCA 3.5, but course B (5800 architectural gem) is a GCA 6.5. maybe I should go play course B to see why it's so highly rated".

Good restaurants chase Michelin stars and Zagat ratings.  Get enough people to pay attention, good golf course will chase the "GCA" rating.  Why?  Because when people don't know how to evaluate the quality of things, they fall back on what they know how to compare: numbers.

[Dave McCollum]

I read the first page, emailed the link to friends because I thought it might be a good thread, then didn’t come back until today, almost a week later.  Not much that I can add to a lot of good observations by a lot of smart guys.  I don’t say much around here, so before I do I should say that I run one of those ma-and-pa public courses that comes close to some of your ideal configurations.  Examples: main tees 6,000 yds (6,800 tips), modest clubhouse, adequate but modest maintenance, cheap $5 junior golf, affordable for everyone else, good pace of play, great landscape, great sand-based rolling terrain, good fun course, very walkable, little debt, cheap water, other revenues, blah, blah.
 
Despite this ideal positioning for difficult times, it’s still not easy.  Golf courses are expensive to build and maintain, golf is an expensive hobby or game, and golf is a difficult business most of the time and especially now.
 
Reminds me of the time back in boom years when a speaker asked a few hundred course owners why they were in the golf business. Return on investment?  Silence.  Highest and best use of your property?  Silence.  So on and so forth.  Silence.  Because it’s fun?  EVERYONE!

So, we’re in this business for pretty much the same reasons that golfers play.  That becomes more difficult to keep in mind as we struggle to survive because, if we succeed, that pretty much equates to someone else failing and definitely not having as much or any fun.  I think we’ll survive because we’ve been here a long time, but we’ll need to manage very wisely and adapt.

Thanks to all for the frank discussion.  I can’t imagine a world where the skills of talented designers won’t be needed and valued.  You may well end up working at other things or, like a lot of folks in the business, largely for the fun of it.  The business has changed; your talent remains.  I hope we all make it through the weeding out process.  We all won’t no matter how much we love what we do.           

[Niall C]

Ian

Whats so unique about the Swedish model ? Most clubs over here have junior members, both boys and girls, and further more they have their own comps if they want to play in them and they also get group lessons.

I might add that the ladies sections of most clubs I know are fairly healthy. Good luck to the swedes if its working for them but not sure what is different to over here.

Niall

[Jud_T]

On the idea of short courses, I like to think of the golfer I know best.  I don't consider myself a short--or long--hitter, and at right around 5900-6100 yds, I hit driver out of necessity on 10 holes at Palmetto GC.  Since the course has four par three's, that means four par fours will require less than driver.  On those par 4's (#2, #15, #17, #18) my average score in relation to par is likely higher than many of the 10 driver holes.  

The idea that shorter courses aren't challenging is a myth.

Ben,

This is an excellent point.  Nothing gets guys panties in a twist more than not being able to pull Driver on the tee on a Par 4 or Par 5, or even better, having it be the wrong play.  Given modern technology the Driver is much easier to hit for many than a 3-wood or even a rescue club.  Just look at all the consternation on another thread over the 7th hole at Kingsley.  Must be a bad hole if you can't bomb Driver on it.  Many dismiss Shoreacres for the same reason.

[Ian Andrew]

Niall,

I'm glad access is not your issue either.
It is a huge issue depending where you live here.

[JC Urbina]

Ian,

The future of golf will be dependent on the cost to participate. 

The difficulty of the courses will play a factor, the time to play a round of golf another important component but IMHO it will be the price point each time you gather up the family to go do something.

The cost to buy clubs, balls and the total cost of a green fee will all be important factors in what families decide to do with any free time.

 A-  More nine hole rounds of golf to start. 
 B - Clubs made available at every facility at little to no cost.
 C - The bigger the group the larger the discount.
 

[Mike_Cocking]

For Phillipe - the rough lengths of the course we did at Healesville - par 68 5500 yards (5000m).

320m
130m
340m
180m
350m
320m
350m
430m
340m

130m
170m
290m
150m
360m
430m
120m
290m
310m


If we could have an extra 100 metres or so would have made a big difference - stretching one of the fours to 410m or so, one of the threes to about 200m and 20 or 30 metres to the two fives.

For those that are interested here is the article I did a few years ago - http://ogilvyclayton.com/uploads/files/AGA_01_HEALESVILLE.pdf
- the photos don't show many of the holes in full but you get the idea of the kind of course it is.   Of course this was an existing course which couldn't really be lengthened if you stayed within the fairway corridors (which we generally did).  Convincing a client to build a new course of this length is another matter.

[Niall C]

Ian

I wouldn't say access isn't an issue but it does seem that Sweden and the UK employ similar models.

Overall with less money sloshing about, you've got to think the business side of golf has to adapt to become more sustainable by the means already mentioned eg. smaller clubhouses, fewer clubhouse staff etc. Not sure how you cut down on costs on the course as I suspect the maintenance regimes for most UK clubs are already fairly basic.

How this new sustainable mode would translate into changes in golf design, I'm not entirely certain but got to think that apart from a few high end Trump style developments, most will be fairly basic pay and plays laid out rather than created with a gazillion tons of muck being shifted.

Niall