Total Rounds Down In US - Reason to worry?

[Patrick_Mucci]

My take is that there is more interest than ever in good courses and flagging interest in average golf.  That means there are lots of average courses that will eventually close ... unless they can find a way to be considered above average.  That should keep some architects busy, even as the total number of golf courses declines over the next decade.

Tom,

I agree, I think the flight to quality is already underway.

And, most average, local clubs are in trouble, not just because of the golf, but because of the debt to build Taj Mahal's and attempts to be all things to every member.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD is basically right.  Statistically, the courses that close are the ones that are basically simple mom and pop operations.  Better designs survive, even if they have dropped fees (hopefully, for them, temporarily)  Golfers seem to be paying about the same greens fees, but upgrading the quality of the course, perhaps also playing less rounds, over playing more rounds at cheaper fees.

Of course, that is very broadly speaking....your experience may be different, but then you would be a statistical anomaly!

[Jon Cavalier]

I work harder at my business than I ever had.

To spend 5 hours behind slow golfers is agonizing.

I bet I only play 10 times this year - down from 170 in the late 90's

That's tragic.

[Jim Tang]

Golf is hard.  Golf is expensive.  Golf takes a lot of time.  Those are the negative attributes of an otherwise wonderful game.  These attributes won't keep the hard core golfer away, but, they will drive away the "average Joe" that plays the game more casually.

Golf will never disappear, of course, but I can see it being marginalized by other sports or activities that appeal to younger generations that value ease of mastery, value for dollar and speed.

[Steve Salmen]

From the consumer's standpoint, is it really a bad thing if the game of golf shrinks in the way we're describing? It may not be bad if bad courses get weeded out.  Also, wouldn't  golfers leaving or not taking up the game speed up play for the balance of golfers?  What's left may cost a little more but could take less time.

I understand the concern by industry professionals and am not unsympathetic.  Just wondering if there is a silver lining somewhere in this.  I don't have an opinion, just asking a question.

[Dave Doxey]

TD is basically right.  Statistically, the courses that close are the ones that are basically simple mom and pop operations.  Better designs survive, even if they have dropped fees (hopefully, for them, temporarily)  Golfers seem to be paying about the same greens fees, but upgrading the quality of the course, perhaps also playing less rounds, over playing more rounds at cheaper fees.

Of course, that is very broadly speaking....your experience may be different, but then you would be a statistical anomaly!

I don't agree.

GCA participants look at the game (and the business) quite differently than the “average” golfers that make up the majority of the customers for the business.

I’d like to offer a different perspective, based upon my frequent playing with business associates and customers – “average” golfers, 15-30 handicappers who I believe represent the vast majority of the golf market. I’m often delegated the task of arranging golf, so I hear the reasons for not playing. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of golfers play public access golf – the state of private golf is a whole other discussion)

I’ve yet to hear anyone in my business golf circle dismiss playing a course due to architectural considerations.  When I bring up architects or architecture, I generally get a blank look in return.

I’ve had golfers decline to play for a number of reasons, but none citing the design or architecture of a course.  Reasons I’ve heard for declining to play a specific course (in order of frequency):

-   Pace of play too slow (5 hour + rounds normal at a given course. Can’t afford the time to play)
-   Price is too high (usually CCFAD type places, over $90 in the DC area)
-   Course conditions (spotty greens, soggy course areas, washed out bunkers)
-   Lost balls (courses where average players will lose a half dozen balls in long grass, slowing play and affecting enjoyment)
-   Customer service (unfriendly staff, rain check policy, poor starters/marshals, cart path rules)

These are the considerations that I have to use when asked to set up a game for associates. It reduces the perhaps 30 options in our area down to 3 or 4 on a given weekend.  None would make the list of “Top 5000 courses that you can play”, but all have full tee sheets. Some are "mom & pop", none are architectural gems.

If a course would address the above list, they would do well.  If many courses all addressed the list, perhaps then architecture might enter the decision process.

Again, this is for the AVERAGE golf customer.  As for me, a GCA reader and mid-single digit HDCP, there are times that I’ll go out of my way to play an architecturally interesting course. I’ll also occasionally pay a premium for above average conditioning and customer service.  I’ll also sneak out for a quick, cheap, round on a nearby dog of a course, simply for the opportunity to practice and hit some shots.

I don’t think that I represent the core of the golf market, nor do most other readers here.

Golf architecture and golf business are two different discussions, and in many ways disconnected. There’s a market for selling to architecture buffs, but a very small one.  Perhaps golf business discussion does not even belong in this forum & may deserve a forum of its own.

[BCowan]

TD is basically right.  Statistically, the courses that close are the ones that are basically simple mom and pop operations.  Better designs survive, even if they have dropped fees (hopefully, for them, temporarily)  Golfers seem to be paying about the same greens fees, but upgrading the quality of the course, perhaps also playing less rounds, over playing more rounds at cheaper fees.

Of course, that is very broadly speaking....your experience may be different, but then you would be a statistical anomaly!

I don't agree.

GCA participants look at the game (and the business) quite differently than the “average” golfers that make up the majority of the customers for the business.

I’d like to offer a different perspective, based upon my frequent playing with business associates and customers – “average” golfers, 15-30 handicappers who I believe represent the vast majority of the golf market. I’m often delegated the task of arranging golf, so I hear the reasons for not playing. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of golfers play public access golf – the state of private golf is a whole other discussion)

I’ve yet to hear anyone in my business golf circle dismiss playing a course due to architectural considerations.  When I bring up architects or architecture, I generally get a blank look in return.

I’ve had golfers decline to play for a number of reasons, but none citing the design or architecture of a course.  Reasons I’ve heard for declining to play a specific course (in order of frequency):

-   Pace of play too slow (5 hour + rounds normal at a given course. Can’t afford the time to play)
-   Price is too high (usually CCFAD type places, over $90 in the DC area)
-   Course conditions (spotty greens, soggy course areas, washed out bunkers)
-   Lost balls (courses where average players will lose a half dozen balls in long grass, slowing play and affecting enjoyment)
-   Customer service (unfriendly staff, rain check policy, poor starters/marshals, cart path rules)

These are the considerations that I have to use when asked to set up a game for associates. It reduces the perhaps 30 options in our area down to 3 or 4 on a given weekend.  None would make the list of “Top 5000 courses that you can play”, but all have full tee sheets. Some are "mom & pop", none are architectural gems.

If a course would address the above list, they would do well.  If many courses all addressed the list, perhaps then architecture might enter the decision process.

Again, this is for the AVERAGE golf customer.  As for me, a GCA reader and mid-single digit HDCP, there are times that I’ll go out of my way to play an architecturally interesting course. I’ll also occasionally pay a premium for above average conditioning and customer service.  I’ll also sneak out for a quick, cheap, round on a nearby dog of a course, simply for the opportunity to practice and hit some shots.

I don’t think that I represent the core of the golf market, nor do most other readers here.

Golf architecture and golf business are two different discussions, and in many ways disconnected. There’s a market for selling to architecture buffs, but a very small one.  Perhaps golf business discussion does not even belong in this forum & may deserve a forum of its own.

Dave,  thanks so much for your common sense response which I agree completely. 

[Brent Hutto]

I agree with Dave. In my own observations locally the design features of a course matter little in distinguishing the heavily-played ones from the ones struggling the worst. Price, location and reputation for conditioning seem to trump all else with price being the biggest factor.

That said, it is possible for the customer relations/service to be so bad over an extended period of time that a course will struggle even with favorable price/location/conditioning but that takes some doing!

Maybe other parts of the country are different than where Dave and I play golf. But in my area if the price is attractive (with cart) and the greens are consistently in great shape the tee sheet will be fairly full on weekends as well as having steady play during the week. There's one absolutely gorgeous Tom Fazio course (admittedly not a typical Treehouse favorite but it has the most "distinguished" architectural reputation of any course nearby) that stays near empty most of the time. It's private, which is say not affordable or convenient, so even in peak season you can play any time without crowding.

Unlike Dave's observation, even pace of play doesn't seem to trump price/location/conditioning around here. There's one course I played recently that took well over the 5 hours on a Saturday afternoon (one of the three longest rounds I've ever played) yet it is just about the most popular place in town. Why? Because it's 40 bucks with cart with GolfNow discounts off that rate, the greens are nigh perfect even after our tough winter and it is within 25 minutes drive of about 50,000 people.

P.S. The one very popular course I mentioned is also a place where lots of balls are lost. But there's little "searching through tall rough" involved, the lost balls come from hitting tee shots into the deep,deep woods (easy to do even though the fairways are quite wide) and especially from water hazards in front of and/or behind several of the greens. Lost balls aren't as much of a problem for the typical hacker IMO as LOOKING for lost balls.