Growing The Game

[Lloyd_Cole]

I know there a lot of good people here whose livelihoods depend upon the golf industry thriving but... do you think we might try to put this expression to bed? Look at who is using it, particularly this week in the wake of 14-1b... Very rarely is is it ever used in the name of golf the sport, the pastime. No, it is industry speak at its very worst. Golf Channel Newspeak.

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

There are certainly lots of people desperate to "grow the game" for the wrong reason -- namely, income to support a career in the golf business.

But, I'd like to see the game grow in countries where it hasn't yet flourished, and among women and girls here in America, where there is the potential for significantly higher participation.

I'm not at all in favor of changing anything about the game itself to encourage more people to play, apart from encouraging more nine-hole rounds and retrofitting shorter courses to accommodate people who only have 1-3 hours to play.

[Garland Bayley]

If they want a sport that can be made easy for them, then we don't want them.

The interesting thing is that my hacker buddies are far more enthused about golf than the local ball hitting robots that are bored with the game unless there is some high stakes betting to be done.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd:

There are certainly lots of people desperate to "grow the game" for the wrong reason -- namely, income to support a career in the golf business.

But, I'd like to see the game grow in countries where it hasn't yet flourished, and among women and girls here in America, where there is the potential for significantly higher participation.

I'm not at all in favor of changing anything about the game itself to encourage more people to play, apart from encouraging more nine-hole rounds and retrofitting shorter courses to accommodate people who only have 1-3 hours to play.

Tom, absolutely.
My argument here is purely one of semantics. Let's let that part of the industry that loves to use this phrase have it, and the rest of us, let's never use it again because it has become polluted.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agree the phrase is being used wrongly Lloyd.

I tried to explain – unsuccessfully – on another thread that for me growing the game also didn’t just mean breaking in to new “markets” but replenishing the existing ones as we all die off (i.e. getting youngsters interested)

But for once I would like to see  a completely new area of growth start at grass roots level rather than just another unsustainable tourist destination. I have romantic notions that if we built cheap as chips golf courses in India, the 1.2 billion people there might take to the sport in the same way they took to cricket.

[Paul Gray]

Lloyd,

Entirely sympathise with your point, but I rather think the phrase means different things to different people.

I opened this thread expecting to find something positive about the sort of growth Tom was referring to. That's what I think of as really growing the game. Maybe those of us that care should be actively using the phrase as our own instead of letting it be hijacked.

Maybe I'm not as cynical as I had always thought. 

[Carl Rogers]

Lloyd:

There are certainly lots of people desperate to "grow the game" for the wrong reason -- namely, income to support a career in the golf business.

But, I'd like to see the game grow in countries where it hasn't yet flourished, and among women and girls here in America, where there is the potential for significantly higher participation.

I'm not at all in favor of changing anything about the game itself to encourage more people to play, apart from encouraging more nine-hole rounds and retrofitting shorter courses to accommodate people who only have 1-3 hours to play.

Tom, it (for me) means less than $30 golf and that seems like a tough nut to crack.  How can any banker or financier get interested unless they go into as charity project?

To me the best type of course I have seen in this vain is Lester George's Lambert's Point in Norfolk, VA.  Quirky, short from the whites, good muni "neighborhood course" over a landfill adjacent to the Elizabeth River.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd,

One of the biggest impediments to increasing participation amongst younger, married folks with children is the time to play.

The trend amongst younger family golfers is the need to tee off early and be home early.

Ergo, rounds have to take 3 to 3.5 hours in order to be able to fit family schedules.

Younger, married golfers want to tee off at 7 to 8 and be home by noon.

As a group, being younger means that they're more fit and capable of playing at a brisk pace.

The dilemma is that you can only fit 8 foursomes (32 golfers) between 7:00 and 8:00 at eight ( minute intervals.
So now some clubs tee off on both nines and increase the number to 16 foursomes (64 golfers).

The second dilemma occurs when both groups go to make the "turn".

If pace of play isn't brisk and equal on both nines, there will be a back up on the 10th tee and play on he back nine will be slower, disrupting the intended schedule.

Golf is much more than a sport, it's also a social event.
That combination is what makes it attractive.
But, if the current culture of slow play prevails, the social and sporting interest will wain.

Contributing to the dilemma is what Tom Doak mentioned, lengthy courses.
It seems reasonable to conclude that it will take longer to play/walk a 7,200 yard course versus a 6,500 yard course.
But, golf also has to retain it's inherent challenge.

How many have heard the phrase, in a derogatory sense, "it's a pitch and putt course" ?

So golfers, interesting breed that they are, tend to reject courses deemed "too easy"

So where's the balance ?   What's the solution ?

From my perspective it's the marriage of interesting architecture, even quirky architecture on 6,500 yard courses, with a rollback in the ball along with 3:00 to 3:30 hour rounds.

Produce those results, and you'll "grow the game".

[jeffwarne]

From my perspective it's the marriage of interesting architecture, even quirky architecture on 6,500 yard courses, with a rollback in the ball along with 3:00 to 3:30 hour rounds.

Produce those results, and you'll "grow the game".

+1  Pat

and assuming there's not a lot of eye candy "native grass" everywhere,under such conditions a culture of brisk play can be implemented.

Nearly everything introduced to golf in the last 20 years promotes slower play

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think you are correct that we need shorter courses with interesting architecture but at the same time we need to produce enough courses where people can learn to play.  And in most cases that means less bunkers, simpler greens and simplicity.  Not many owners will accept that and not many architects want to build that.  The biggest disservice ever done to the GAME was the RE industry not the club manufacturers.  This game was never meant to be an industry. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I think you are correct that we need shorter courses with interesting architecture but at the same time we need to produce enough courses where people can learn to play.  And in most cases that means less bunkers, simpler greens and simplicity.

Mike,

I'm going to disagree with you.

The courses in existence in the first third of the 20th century were pretty difficult, and golfers played them with equipment far inferior to ours, and yet, the popularity of the game grew and new golfers learned to play.

Golf course aren't where people should "learn" to play golf.
Practice ranges ARE

Not many owners will accept that and not many architects want to build that. 

I don't think they should.

Why dumb down the product for that particular subset of golfers ?
A subset who may even quit the game shortly after introduction to it.

 The biggest disservice ever done to the GAME was the RE industry not the club manufacturers.  This game was never meant to be an industry. 

Agreed

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think we are growing the game, its just at a different level then what many in the industry consider.
I just got home from a a kick off meeting for a very cool project at a small community that is investing in their 50 year old golf course and that investment includes a snag golf area (www.snaggolf.com), a 9 hole kids course, and new range and practice area. The city's parks and rec department, and the schools have developed programs to bring young boys and girls to golf. I'm not sure of all the details, but I think the kids course will be free to play and might have a sign like "Adults must be accompanied by a child".

Big developments and high end courses will be the focus of the Golf Industry's effort to grow the game, but at the grass roots level I'm seeing a strong effort to grow the game.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think you are correct that we need shorter courses with interesting architecture but at the same time we need to produce enough courses where people can learn to play.  And in most cases that means less bunkers, simpler greens and simplicity.

Mike,

I'm going to disagree with you.

The courses in existence in the first third of the 20th century were pretty difficult, and golfers played them with equipment far inferior to ours, and yet, the popularity of the game grew and new golfers learned to play.

Golf course aren't where people should "learn" to play golf.
Practice ranges ARE


Not many owners will accept that and not many architects want to build that. 

I don't think they should.

Why dumb down the product for that particular subset of golfers ?
A subset who may even quit the game shortly after introduction to it.

 The biggest disservice ever done to the GAME was the RE industry not the club manufacturers.  This game was never meant to be an industry. 

Agreed

Pat,
I do agree regarding the first third of the century.  We had 3000 courses and if you could have seen some of those down this way( not Seminole) you would understand my view
We have 300 million people here in the US and now less than 24 million golfers.  We have 16500 golf courses and YES there should be courses that are not dumbed down BUT I would wager that out of the 16000 only 2500 would be considered " worthy" .  The rest are extremely simple and can't really justify architectural services as we know them today.  I think China will prove my point.

[Paul Gray]

Once again I find myself in complete agreement with Pat. 

And further to the points Pat raised, let's not forget that many of the early courses which proved so popular were not necessarily built at huge expense. I raise this point because it's key to understanding where the potential for future growth lies within western economies.

Many regulars here will be familiar with some of the inexpensive gems we have in the UK. Many of these courses are tough and rewarding because of the lack of over elaborate expenditure, rather than because of it. It may be a tired old point but it seems to be one which takes a while for people to really grasp. Less is more.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Well said Paul - It's about cost and affordability. It has nothing to do with elaborate design.

As Mike Young said, the RE / resort model has a lot to answer for.

I agree with Lloyd though - growing the game has become a polluted phrase. Those who care about the game need a new one.

[Greg Tallman]

Just out of curiosity what is the distance from the tips on Tom Doak's last 3 courses?

[Thomas Dai]

Like others above I've never really liked the phrase 'growing the game'.

What I feel sad about is the decline in easily available golf.

Okay there are more 18-hole pay-n-play courses at various quality levels and more drivings ranges but what about the giant putting greens and short pitch-n-putt courses you used to find in so many municipal parks. Places where you just turned up, payed a small fee, hired some clubs and a ball and just knocked it about for fun, maybe with your mates, maybe with your parents and siblings, maybe even with grannie and grandad.

I guess the most well known place like this would be the wonderful Himalayas putting green at St Andrews - indeed didn't MacKenzie design a wacky putting green for a municipal park somewhere in northern England, was it in Derbyshire maybe? Opportunities to initially attempt golf through fun facilities like this just don't seem to be around as much these days.

All the best

[Jason Thurman]

Thomas, here in the US there's plenty of what you're looking for. We call it mini-golf, or putt putt, and it's fun for everyone except Happy Gilmore.

http://www.vitense.com/miniature-golf/

[Tom_Doak]

Just out of curiosity what is the distance from the tips on Tom Doak's last 3 courses?

Greg:

As Bill Coore is so fond of saying when you ask him anything about yardages ... "Greg, I honestly have no i-dea!"

But, let's see ... my last three courses completed are

Dismal River - about 6900 yards, but that's at 3500 feet so it plays pretty short
Streamsong Blue - 7176 yards, talked the client down from 7500
Marygrove College / Midnight Golf Program - about 600 yards for 7 holes

So I'm averaging a little under 5000 yards for my last three courses  

P.S.  Our current projects in France and New Zealand will each tip out around 6700 yards.  The Chinese client won't let me go there.  I am trying!

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

There are certainly lots of people desperate to "grow the game" for the wrong reason -- namely, income to support a career in the golf business.

But, I'd like to see the game grow in countries where it hasn't yet flourished, and among women and girls here in America, where there is the potential for significantly higher participation.

I'm not at all in favor of changing anything about the game itself to encourage more people to play, apart from encouraging more nine-hole rounds and retrofitting shorter courses to accommodate people who only have 1-3 hours to play.

Tom, it (for me) means less than $30 golf and that seems like a tough nut to crack.  How can any banker or financier get interested unless they go into as charity project?

To me the best type of course I have seen in this vain is Lester George's Lambert's Point in Norfolk, VA.  Quirky, short from the whites, good muni "neighborhood course" over a landfill adjacent to the Elizabeth River.

Carl:

That's why I suggested retrofitting older courses.  It makes little sense to build very many new courses of any length, and if you built a new course for a $25 green fee, it sure wouldn't be to provide a return to investors.  But there are hundreds or even thousands of struggling courses getting ready to shut their doors and go fallow.  What if the country club that was about to fold, instead joined forces with another club, and turned their redundant course into a 5000-yarder that cost $25 ?  How good would that be, for the game and for the community?

[PCCraig]

Lloyd:

There are certainly lots of people desperate to "grow the game" for the wrong reason -- namely, income to support a career in the golf business.

But, I'd like to see the game grow in countries where it hasn't yet flourished, and among women and girls here in America, where there is the potential for significantly higher participation.

I'm not at all in favor of changing anything about the game itself to encourage more people to play, apart from encouraging more nine-hole rounds and retrofitting shorter courses to accommodate people who only have 1-3 hours to play.

Tom, it (for me) means less than $30 golf and that seems like a tough nut to crack.  How can any banker or financier get interested unless they go into as charity project?

To me the best type of course I have seen in this vain is Lester George's Lambert's Point in Norfolk, VA.  Quirky, short from the whites, good muni "neighborhood course" over a landfill adjacent to the Elizabeth River.

Carl:

That's why I suggested retrofitting older courses.  It makes little sense to build very many new courses of any length, and if you built a new course for a $25 green fee, it sure wouldn't be to provide a return to investors.  But there are hundreds or even thousands of struggling courses getting ready to shut their doors and go fallow.  What if the country club that was about to fold, instead joined forces with another club, and turned their redundant course into a 5000-yarder that cost $25 ?  How good would that be, for the game and for the community?

There was a nice article in one of the local papers (Star Tribune) regarding the retrofitting of a local executive golf course to attract more golfers and grow the game:

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/208086001.html?refer=y

[Mark Pritchett]

The game is growing, just not in the traditional areas where it previously flourished. 

[Greg Tallman]

Just out of curiosity what is the distance from the tips on Tom Doak's last 3 courses?

Greg:

As Bill Coore is so fond of saying when you ask him anything about yardages ... "Greg, I honestly have no i-dea!"

But, let's see ... my last three courses completed are

Dismal River - about 6900 yards, but that's at 3500 feet so it plays pretty short
Streamsong Blue - 7176 yards, talked the client down from 7500
Marygrove College / Midnight Golf Program - about 600 yards for 7 holes

So I'm averaging a little under 5000 yards for my last three courses  

P.S.  Our current projects in France and New Zealand will each tip out around 6700 yards.  The Chinese client won't let me go there.  I am trying!

LOL - well played. Just pointing to the fact that even you are forced to give in to the demands of the owner/developer against your better judgement or personal desires.

67-6800 would be ideal as a new standard but I don't see that happening anytime soon. 

[Carl Rogers]

 TD said "Carl:

That's why I suggested retrofitting older courses.  It makes little sense to build very many new courses of any length, and if you built a new course for a $25 green fee, it sure wouldn't be to provide a return to investors.  But there are hundreds or even thousands of struggling courses getting ready to shut their doors and go fallow.  What if the country club that was about to fold, instead joined forces with another club, and turned their redundant course into a 5000-yarder that cost $25 ?  How good would that be, for the game and for the community?"

I hope you and team can do some projects like this.  It seems like a slam dunk participation wise.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Streamsong Blue - 7176 yards, talked the client down from 7500

Tom,

That's interesting.

I'm glad you prevailed.

I think one of the reasons I prefer the Blue to the Red is that I found the back nine on the Red too long.

The Blue has length, but not overwhelming length, even though 16, 17 and 18 are a pretty stiff closing challenge.