[Grant Saunders]

If this discussion group was given free reign to dictate how golf courses are to be built, presented, set up etc would the game of golf really have a brighter future than what it does now?

Would things like no tee markers, unraked bunkers, blurry definitions between surfaces, slow(er) greens, less than 3 hour mandated rounds actually combine to grow the game?

Just because a handful of golf architecture nerds spend countless hours thrashing out the benefits to be had to all from adopting these principles, is there not a gross overestimation of the demand for these attributes?

I for one participate on here because I see these values as something which appeals to me. It is not however my only frame of reference and I enjoy certain aspects of the game which perhaps goes against the consensus on here. I also however recognise the right of others to have alternate views on such issues.

I for one feel that given the opportunity, the narrow prevailing attitude expressed on here would in fact kill the game quicker than what is currently happening

[Garland Bayley]

You wouldn't get too many competent doctors if you left everyone to their own devices.

[Chris DeToro]

I fear that golf has a significant perception issue right now.  My generation is leaning on other hobbies like marathon running, etc.  Why this is the case, I have no idea.  I think golf provides multiple benefits that other games and hobbies don't--it's physical, mental, social.  I can't think of many other multi-benefit hobbies.

Slow play may be stopping people from repeat play, but I don't think it's preventing people from starting

[Matthew Lloyd]

Okay, here is an incredibly un-PC comment to make, but I'll make it anyway...

As a young golfer (36 going on 37) I am familiar with WAY TOO MANY would-be golfers that either give up the game or don't play nearly as much as they'd like due to insanely demanding girlfriends or wives that don't allow them to play.  There, I said it.  I know many of you must be thinking the same thing.  In this era where single-income families are incredibly rare and where the gender roles between parents are more blurred than ever, I think this results in guys having a lot less freedom to play golf.  This will only become more common in the years to come.  I'm not saying the domestic issues are a negative in other important ways, but they are a negative when it comes to golfing, there's no question there. 

I also concur with what Chris just posted about younger "yuppie" hobbies taking over.  Marathons, spinning classes at gyms, etc. are so en vogue right now.  When I was growing up and playing baseball and basketball golf was considered a "soft" sport for kids in school.  Now, compared to what some of these guys are doing, golf looks as rugged as hockey.

There has been a lot of chatter in our society lately about "men" disappearing. Well, less golf is unfortunately collateral damage as far as that is concerned.  I still go on a number of golf trips each year with friends in the age 30-40 range, but it's a small group of die-hards and it's hard to add to the mix because most guys in our age bracket just can't pull that rabbit out of their hat at home.

For most of us on this site, it's probably a non-issue, we all make it a priority obviously. But we're definitely in the minority.

So this is a major concern for me about the future of golf.  As younger men grow less and less independent, how can a sport that requires travel and a 6-7 hour time commitment (including getting to the course, driving home, etc.) continue to grow?

I truly believe the future of golf is with elite golf-only clubs that cater to die-hards.  Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Bandon, Kingsley, etc.  That business model will endure because it's only appealing to those who are guaranteed to play repeat rounds and make the sport a priority.  I think the mid-level public courses will feel the squeeze as golf is played by fewer players and more average players. 

AUTHOR NOTE: yes, I'm single -- in case that wasn't obvious. 

AUTHOR NOTE 2: the flip side of this analysis is also true -- that as guys we should give girlfriends/wives the same free reign to pursue their activities. 

Okay, rant over.  Please feel free to tar and feather me over these comments should you feel I need it.

[Dan Kelly]

I am familiar with WAY TOO MANY would-be golfers that either give up the game or don't play nearly as much as they'd like due to insanely demanding girlfriends or wives that don't allow them to play.

One must choose very carefully, and communicate one's needs clearly, if one is to be happy in life.

Thankfully, I couldn't have chosen better -- but I, too (at a considerably more advanced age) am familiar with way too many golfers who would play more, even at our age, if they had chosen differently, or had communicated their needs better.

Don't blame the wives and girlfriends. It takes two to tango -- or not tango.

[Matthew Lloyd]

In terms of actual playing conditions and more golf related issues, here are the factors that frustrate me about some golf courses:

(1) glacial pace of play -- anything longer than 4.5 hours is ridiculous. when you have to wait on every tee box and every fairway golf is no longer fun. courses have to police this better.

(2) courses that don't allow walking -- this is absurd. i don't object to people taking carts but cart people tend to be equally as antagonistic to walkers, incorrectly thinking walkers are slowing them down.

(3) "cart path only" rules -- surely others would agree that you can walk backwards and still play faster than those stuck to cart path only? there is nothing worse than that.  

(4) overpriced courses -- sure, I'll pay $250 to play Pacific Dunes or even $500 to play Pebble Beach. those are all-world golf experiences. But there are far too many below-average courses charging $75+ out there that i think many people view as rip-offs, especially when forced to pay that on a regular basis.

[Andrew Buck]

Okay, here is an incredibly un-PC comment to make, but I'll make it anyway...

As a young golfer (36 going on 37) I am familiar with WAY TOO MANY would-be golfers that either give up the game or don't play nearly as much as they'd like due to insanely demanding girlfriends or wives that don't allow them to play.  There, I said it.  I know many of you must be thinking the same thing.  In this era where single-income families are incredibly rare and where the gender roles between parents are more blurred than ever, I think this results in guys having a lot less freedom to play golf. This will only become more common in the years to come.  I'm not saying the domestic issues are a negative in other important ways, but they are a negative when it comes to golfing, there's no question there.  

I think it goes beyond single income for gender roles.  Even when a wife stays home after kids come, it's much more common that they are leaving a career to do so.  With so many couples marrying withing the same professional band, and starting families later in life, even if a woman leaves her career to "raise kids" the mentality is much different from that of a housewife of previous generations.  I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm saying it simply is often the case.

Because a stay at home parent in this situation has both their own earning potential and an understanding of the work world things are different.  Many stay at home parents find that "job" more demanding than their previous professional career, and as such if a spouses recreational activity takes them away from the house/kids for most of a weekend day, it's perceived as being akin to asking the stay at home spouse to "work" another day.  

This doesn't mean golfing isn't an option, but the reality is for most men with kids spending men's day and both weekend days at the club is a much harder sell.  The flip side is if you are spending both weekend days at the club, it's really hard to give your spouse the same opportunity to pursue her activities since someone needs to be with kids.  The time commitment associated with kids activities is a entire other issue.  

Although this is another reason my very young boys are fixtures at the club anytime it isn't too crowded for them. 

[Matthew Lloyd]

Andrew, I totally agree.

And now that I re-read my post, I realize that I meant to direct more of my analysis at single guys who have no excuse to not play more golf as opposed to husbands and fathers. Being a parent is obviously way more important than golfing so that is a totally different story.  Not sure why I lumped the two together.  My issue is more with guys in my situation who want to play more golf but fail to do so.

[Thomas Dai]

Time is likely to be key. Not just pace of play, but as others have mentioned, time away from the family/other commitments. For example, time has changed cricket in the last few years (not necesarily for the better I can hear some say). Grand Prix motor-racing used to be over several hours, now it's just a couple of hours.

Is 18-holes at the modern pace of play and with modern family/other commitments practical in the long-term future? Would more 9-hole games perhaps be of benefit? I was discussing 9-hole games the other day with some friends and we pretty much concluded that we'd still be happy golfers if most golf, both social and competitive, were only ever played over 9-holes. I'll be interested to see how this thread develops.

All the best.

[Dan Kelly]

In terms of actual playing conditions and more golf related issues, here are the factors that frustrate me about some golf courses:

(1) glacial pace of play -- anything longer than 4.5 hours is ridiculous. when you have to wait on every tee box and every fairway golf is no longer fun. courses have to police this better.

(2) courses that don't allow walking -- this is absurd. i don't object to people taking carts but cart people tend to be equally as antagonistic to walkers, incorrectly thinking walkers are slowing them down.

(3) "cart path only" rules -- surely others would agree that you can walk backwards and still play faster than those stuck to cart path only? there is nothing worse than that.  

(4) overpriced courses -- sure, I'll pay $250 to play Pacific Dunes or even $500 to play Pebble Beach. those are all-world golf experiences. But there are far too many below-average courses charging $75+ out there that i think many people view as rip-offs, especially when forced to pay that on a regular basis.

I think 1 and 4 are very big deals -- and deal-breakers.

2 and 3, not so much for most people (though I agree with you on both).

I would guess that the cost of equipment (and its near-immediate obsolescence) is another major factor in golf's failure to grow.

[Ulrich Mayring]

If this discussion group was given free reign

But it ain't. And it never will be. No group will ever be given free reign. It's a market, not a dictatorship.

What we are doing here is advocating certain principles and hoping to persuade many others. Because, if one day our attitudes are shared by most golfers, then they will be implemented.

Therefore I believe it is wrong to say we should do X and that will grow (shrink) the game of golf by attracting (detracting) new golfers. Whatever it is that we implement should be first and foremost tailored to those people playing golf right now and doing so in spades. Those folks, who account for 80% of the play. They are the core of our sport and if we can persuade most of them that slow play is bad, then slow play will be eliminated. And if we can't persuade them, then slow play should not be eliminated, because obviously it is the backbone of golf. Too bad for us, but it's a market.

So let's focus on what we want to see on the course, persuade others of our sentiments and let the game grow itself off that.

Ulrich

[Steve Kline]

Regarding the wife thing, apparently I have been very fortunate with my both of my wives. My new wife is even more accommodating to my golf than was my first.

I own my own business so my time is flexible. I usually play once during the week and am always home in time for dinner. Also, play once on the weekend.

The glacial pace of play really bothers me. At the Dixie Cup it was over five hours at TR and the first round at Dormie. The round at Dormie was worse because the group in front of us typically hadn't even teed off when we reached the tee. They quit after 13. It was brutal and I almost wanted to walk in myself. There's no excuse for anything over 4.5 regardless of course or conditions. I prefer about 3:45 for a foursome walking. That's relatively quick but slow enough to chat and take in the surroundings.

Cost is also an issue. I'm a member at a private club. But, I wouldn't want to play any of the public courses around me for the going rates regularly.

The inability to walk AND carry my own bag really irks me. I eliminated some private clubs as choices because they don't allow you to walk and carry whenever you want. I don't mind if other people ride but I hate being forced to ride.

[John Cowden]

When my boys were young, and I was a young father and a young lawyer, I said that of the three most important things in my life--my family, my career, and my golf--I could only succeed at two at a time.  I chose well, but my golf was sacrificed.  My game has improved significantly in the eight years since the boys left home for college an to their own lives.  And my wife has NEVER had a negative comment about my frequent golf trips, three golf clubs, or anything else concerning my near-mania for the game.  Beside, she and the boys are still, and always will be, my number ones.  

[Dwight Phelps]

I would say that time and fun are the biggest factors.

I have problems getting my wife to say 'yes' to ANY 6-7 hour activity on weekends that doesn't include her or our son.

She's normally fine if I want to go hit balls or commit to being back in 2 (or sometimes even 3) hours, it's just 6 or 7 hours that makes things tough.

What can be done about this?  Moving to 9-hole rounds seems the best solution to me.  While there can be more focus on speeding up the pace of play, doing so to the point that it really helps this issue would require that courses offer fewer tee times each day, giving up revenue.  Don't see this happening.  No amount of policing will really impact pace of play if you're sending out fivesomes as soon as the group ahead is out of range.

I also think that most non-golfers or new golfers have trouble seeing beyond the stereotype that golf is just really hard.  You rarely hear people talking about the pleasurable excitement of the game - you hear Robin Williams going on about how the Scottish are crazy, you hear that 'golf is a four letter word', etc.  There is no easy way to fix this.  Tees (play it forward) are being discussed in another thread.  I just try, with my just-introduced-to-golf wife, to really emphasize that the good shots stay with her more than the bad (though apparently  I've been saying 'It happens' too much on misses).  I don't have an answer for this, I just think golf has a rep as a hard sport, not a fun sport, and that perception is the biggest obstacle to continued growth of the game.

[Matthew Lloyd]

I remember reading an article once -- can't recall the publication -- suggesting the possibility of new courses being designed with three "6 hole courses" in mind, with #6, #12 and #18 returning to the clubhouse, to help appeal to golfers playing after work, and to younger golfers who may not want or be able to play a full 18.  I always thought this was an interesting idea.  

Personally, I don't have time after work to play 9 holes, but I could fit 6 in, and for the right price that would really appeal to me as a way to unwind at the end of the day. Plus you could probably do it in less than 90 minutes (ideally!).

[Mike_Young]

The business of golf is the main detriment to the game of golf.   The average course being built in the average US town is not a course a beginner can learn to play.  We know they are needed but why do we not see them?  Number 1 reason is that architects would not consider it acceptable and fear it would keep them from getting other business.  Irrigation and equipment vendors know it would be a much cheaper sale.  And it goes on from there.  Same thing will happen in China.  Let's face it.  People aren't going to pay much more than 30-40 bucks to play until they learn the game.  That means we need courses that can make a profit when the revenues are under a million bucks and probably closer to $750,000.  We can talk design, architecture, equipment enhancements until we are blue in the face but the biggest problem is we don't have a product that fits the market in small town America.  JMO

[Donnie Beck]

I totally agree with the family, wife, girlfriend arguement but I also think that most on this site are so sheltered that they have no idea how hard this economy is on the average working class family. I was just having this conversation with some of my bowling buddies that were avid golfers as recently as a few years ago and they flat came right out and said they could no longer afford it.  The local muni's are charging over $60 with cart for 18 holes. Add in bucket of balls, a couple of beers and a bite to eat and you are looking at 100 dollar bill. Playing one day a week works out to over $400 a month. It is just not just golf. Bowling numbers have been steadily declining for many years but have really taken a drastic turn for the worse in recent years. If you want to know how well your local economy is doing look no further than your local bowling center.

[Andrew Buck]

People aren't going to pay much more than 30-40 bucks to play until they learn the game.  That means we need courses that can make a profit when the revenues are under a million bucks and probably closer to $750,000.  We can talk design, architecture, equipment enhancements until we are blue in the face but the biggest problem is we don't have a product that fits the market in small town America.  JMO

Is this really an issue in small town America?  All 5 public access courses in our are can be walked for under $30.  I've rarely had a hard time finding similar if not in a resort area.

[Mike_Young]

Andrew,
Presently it may be happening but the owners are not making any money and will eventually have to close.  Most of the courses we see doing such are not built to operate at those fees.  There are some that can do it but not the quantity needed.

[Andrew Buck]

Andrew,
Presently it may be happening but the owners are not making any money and will eventually have to close.  Most of the courses we see doing such are not built to operate at those fees.  There are some that can do it but not the quantity needed.

The ones that were overbuilt may go bankrupt.  That said, in much of small town America a $350k maintenance budget will work if you're willing to give a little on bunkers and roughs, so someone should be able to operate them out of bankruptcy (unless the area is over saturated, which is a different issue).  It may be more in year round climate, but revenues should also be higher.

[Mike_Young]

You got to go lower than that in most cases.  
Let's say a course does welll and gets 20,000 at $35 per round.  That's $700,000 and let's say someone bought such a place for 1.5 mill so he has debt service of around $150,000 and then you have to operate the golf shop and taxes and insurance.  It can be done but these places are not being talked about on this site...

[Mike Sweeney]

The local muni's are charging over $60 with cart for 18 holes. Add in bucket of balls, a couple of beers and a bite to eat and you are looking at 100 dollar bill. Playing one day a week works out to over $400 a month.

Donnie,

Come on. Shennecosset is $47 max for a non-resident on a weekend and it is a fabulous course on the water. How many courses are on the water in Connecticut? Easily a Top 5 for me in the State of Connecticut. Skip the cart and pack a lunch if you really love golf.

If you want to drink beer and play cart ball go to http://www.pequotgolf.com/rates/, max rate is $30.

Life is about choices and options. I choose to make a golf range my "home course", play less and drive the miles to Yale. Sorry, but golf will be a better game without cart ballers drinking beer at Shenny.

I have said it before. As a consumer of golf, it is a great time. Private clubs are cheaper with more access and lots of the BS to join is going away. Public courses, non-muni, are cheaper too. Yes the munis are packed because they offer a good product at a reasonable price. That is good for golfers, like me.

I am hoping to sneak in 9 holes at Hotchkiss School GC on Saturday before a family friend has a high school football game nearby. Hopefully Jim Kennedy will take my $15 green fee. I know he will let me play with my Autistic son.

The future of golf is great, if you are a golfer.

[Donnie Beck]

Mike,
I agree with Shenny being among the best in CT. You don't have to sell me on that as I grew up in Waterford and learned to play the game there. I will disagree about the holes by the water as I am not a fan of the land swap. Anyway the guys I were refering to played most of their golf at http://www.norwichgolf.com/course/daily-rates/ which is indeed $45 walking and $63 with a cart. That may not seem like a lot of money to most of us but when things are tight it adds up at the end of month.  When a group of guys that played league golf one night a week for 10+ years and usually had a weekend game suddenly stop playing because they can no longer afford it you have to worry about the future of the game. I, like you would prefer not to play with a group of drunken cart balllers but in reality these are the type of guys that keep most of the smaller public courses around the country in business.  I have never been to Hotchkiss but have heard nothing but great things about it. I hope to make it over there one of these days.
Donnie

[Paul Gray]

Matthew et al,

As a man the same age as you I can only agree with many points raised. I've long argued that golf needs to go back to the future in order to find a sustainable business model. Chasing the fair weather types is a sure fire route to fluctuating fortunes and therein too often confusion breaks out whereby growing the game and benefiting the game are taken to be the same thing.

I must take you up on one point, if only to attack our own gender in doing so. Equality is about the removal of gender stereotypes for all, not least the one featuring the nagging wife and the brow beaten husband. Having put a professional career on the shelf for the last six months to work in a Pro Shop I'm frankly almost embarrassed now to hear the same old "the wife won't allow it" line. I've always played golf when I wanted to, much in the same way as my wife has always looked at soft furnishings (and bought them with her own hard earned money) when she's wanted to. I'm not about to stop her from doing so and visa versa. Time we stopped blaming others for our own inability to seize the day. Ultimately, we've all got choices.          

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of other points for the discussion, particularly given ever increasing global population:

1 - availability of land
2 - availability of water

All the best

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()