[Bryan Icenhower]

What has never made sense to me about this is that putting is the one area of the game that, in theory at least, my 13 year old nephew could compete against Bubba Watson.

You want to grow the game? Bring back par 3 courses and chip and putts like Woody's Golf Center (NLE) in Norristown, PA where I grew up playing.

Wait Woody's is NLE?? I spent many of a night during my youth there.  And I didn't take up golf until post college.

As for the holes - lots of good conversation happening here, and that is the point. I've actually played with one large hole cut 2x - one for our superintendent's revenge at Rivermont and once at a team.competition at Hidden Creek where one team cut the larger hole and the other got the small hole. And again one hole only.  It was a gimmick for serious golfers, but I can see the benefits in certain instances as many have noted above.

[Niall C]

As to the snide jabs at profit only motive, I would say most folks just in general worry about providing for the next generation and keeping it going.  Are we really so selfish that we don't care if golf dies the day we do?  It's not all about the profit, as some suggest.

Jeff

I'm probably one of the people you are referring to as making snide jabs. Let me just say that I'm very happy for people to make money out of the game they love however when they then change that game for profit motives then to my mind the tail is wagging the dog. As for passing down the game, what would we be passing down other than a bastardised and much poorer version of what we have. That's not a legacy I would like to leave.

I suggest if you leave it be, it will do just fine.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall, Unfortunately you have to have profit to keep your facility going.  Golf is a hard biz.  My only point.  And, it is a biz.

Actually, my other point was that some cry foul over clubs, balls, green speeds, range finders, and a host of other changes that have actually happened to "their beloved game."  But, most folks have adapted, and those changes probably have helped bring golfers to the game.  I mean, its not all Tiger.  People like these other changes, too, or they wouldn't sell stuff. 

It's easy for this board or others to say those things hurt golf, but the fact is, the market says it hasn't.  And now, with golf rounds stagnant, it might be temporary due to the economy, or it might be some structural thing in golf relative to society - time, money, relative fun vs. other activities, etc.  It is worth asking the question of whether golf has to evolve somehow, and not just stick its head in the sand because 8M white males like it just the way it is......

I mean, is it really "just fine?" Not everyone agrees, and not everyone will just wait it out, as some want to be proactive.

[Mike_Young]

Niall and others,,

Most public privately owned public golf courses or even semi private course have to make a profit and that has not been happening lately.  It's not greed it survival....you guys really have ZERO clue...we are not talking about the 1000 private clubs that can assess members...but we may be talking about some of the next 3000 private clubs.  If they dont make a profit they will go away...especially with this Golf Now crap...

[DMoriarty]

Niall, Unfortunately you have to have profit to keep your facility going.  Golf is a hard biz.  My only point.  And, it is a biz.

Actually, my other point was that some cry foul over clubs, balls, green speeds, range finders, and a host of other changes that have actually happened to "their beloved game."  But, most folks have adapted, and those changes probably have helped bring golfers to the game.  I mean, its not all Tiger.  People like these other changes, too, or they wouldn't sell stuff.  

It's easy for this board or others to say those things hurt golf, but the fact is, the market says it hasn't.  And now, with golf rounds stagnant, it might be temporary due to the economy, or it might be some structural thing in golf relative to society - time, money, relative fun vs. other activities, etc.  It is worth asking the question of whether golf has to evolve somehow, and not just stick its head in the sand because 8M white males like it just the way it is......

I mean, is it really "just fine?" Not everyone agrees, and not everyone will just wait it out, as some want to be proactive.

Golf is a business to you, but not to me.  What is good for you isn't necessarily good for me.  What is good for the business of golf isn't necessarily good for the game.  Somewhere along the line golf lost track of this.  

As for your contention that the many recent "changes probably have helped bring golfers to the game," prove it.  So far as I can see, at the same time all this innovation has occurred, 5 million golfers stopped golfing.  Hardly sounds like all this crap has brought golfers to the game to me.  

As for your contention that "people like these other changes, or [manufacturers] wouldn't sell stuff," again you confuse short term profit for equipment manufacturers with what is good for the game.  9 month product cycles are unsustainable, and inevitably hurt the game, regardless of Taylor Made's short term bottom line.  

[Ben Malach]

If Taylormade was truly interested in growing the game why are they not providing a grant to help maintain Muni's. Muni's are the life blood of North American golf. Everyone that I know who plays the game started on a muni. This focus on the hole seems more like marketing than it does a true quest to make the game better. Taylormade needs to focus less on branding and more on what makes the game grow true community involvement.

[Bill Brightly]

Jeff,

It is about profit.

I'm not saying that those advocating for 15 inch cups are bad people, but they do have a "self serving interest",  an agenda.

They are not advocating or acting from an arms length, independent, neutral position.

If they were a "think tank", I might view their advocacy differently.

Pat,

I would have no problem if they cut a second larger cup on each hole of our courses for the Monday of each outing, threw in a different color pin, and allowed each player in the outing to choose which "course" they wanted to play. They could leave the second holes and pins in on Tuesdays, too. Maybe some of the ladies would prefer that?

Now, I don't know what you do with the turf that you cut out and if you can simply put it back on Tuesday night...


But if there is a significant part or the population that wants to learn golf in an easier format, I have no problem with that.

[Niall C]

Niall and others,,

Most public privately owned public golf courses or even semi private course have to make a profit and that has not been happening lately.  It's not greed it survival....you guys really have ZERO clue...we are not talking about the 1000 private clubs that can assess members...but we may be talking about some of the next 3000 private clubs.  If they dont make a profit they will go away...especially with this Golf Now crap...

Mike

Let me apologise in advance if this causes offence but I do have a clue and to be honest if some operators can't make a profit to survive then I'd rather those operators and their staff took their talent and resources and found something else to make a living at, rather than screwing with the game.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

There have been a lot of industry conferences and think tanks. Obviously everyone there has some stake in the industry.  Hack Golf is an attempt to get real ideas from outside the industry, I guess.  Never a bad idea, even if most aren't workable.

And I am not at all sure that the 15" cup is the answer, as I stated.  Just not sure its not worth trying for a small segment of the game.

Ben,

I think that good Republican, Pat M, will point out to you that a subsidy cannot go forever, nor does it fix the root cause, in golf or anything else.  And, there have been lots of subsidized First Tee and other youth initiatives.  They don't work, at least as of yet.  In truth, I think having family introduce the game to their kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews is probably the very best recruitment tool.  Facility development or maintenance is further down the list, even as I am arguing for it to do something different.  I am working with a Hispanic golf group and they say that too few of their families play golf already. Even a second coming of Lee Trevino probably wouldn't get more of them out there.

Niall,

I will agree with Mike.  I think most have squeezed as much cost out of their operations as possible.  Most golf owners love their facility and walking away because times are tough isn't an option for them.

David, I can easily agree with some of what you say.....but as I said, most of us who love golf would naturally give some thought to extending it beyond our golfing lives.  And, I have always sort of been of the belief that whatever happened in golf sort of had to happen that way for a combination of reasons.  Those in the 50-60's or whatever era we thought we lost our way in weren't idiots.  (as some here seem to assume from time to time) and they did what they needed to do to survive, in the circumstances as they saw fit.  As always, 20-20 vision from a few decades in the future is always easy, as is pitching answers when you don't have any vested interest.

And, with all due respect for anyone's opinion here (which I understand and generally feel the same way) if we refuse to take a look at what golf might have to be in the future, and can't imagine any change, I believe its short sighted.  I mean, we know it will have to use less water, and can't stick our head in the sand there.  And, as you note, play is down and we can't say it will come back.  So, always worth thinking about, rather than dismissing out of hand, at least IMHO.

[Mike_Young]

Niall and others,,

Most public privately owned public golf courses or even semi private course have to make a profit and that has not been happening lately.  It's not greed it survival....you guys really have ZERO clue...we are not talking about the 1000 private clubs that can assess members...but we may be talking about some of the next 3000 private clubs.  If they dont make a profit they will go away...especially with this Golf Now crap...

Mike

Let me apologise in advance if this causes offence but I do have a clue and to be honest if some operators can't make a profit to survive then I'd rather those operators and their staff took their talent and resources and found something else to make a living at, rather than screwing with the game.

Niall

Niall,
No offense taken but tell me where your argument is coming from or in other words "where do get you "clue"?"  That way we can discuss further from your perspective vs.mine.
Cheers,
Mike

[Lou_Duran]

I don't know Jeff, I felt a bit debased last week playing a certain course in Carrolton with standard 4.25" cups- 87 strokes including 37 putts and numerous chips from just off the green.  15" holes may have salvaged the round!  BTW, did you run out of money on 16 and 17?  Those two greens seemed to be totally out of character- way too normal!  

It is hard to understand how the poor economic health of the golf industry can be good in the long run for the game or the golfer.  Consumer demand and competition will govern product cycles and weed out marginal operations.  I find that those who hold their nose up at profits don't seem to have many qualms concerning their own.   W/O profit everything declines, golf included.  Pat Mucci is right- it's the ailing economy that's hurting golf.  If a few courses wish to experiment with alternative formats, why object?  And I was under the impression that the no-judgement "progressives" were winning the day.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

That was the old design model.  Someone convinced an architect to listen to the crazies at this site and believe that 2% greens were just bad, no fun, and killing golf........didn't run out of money.  16 is small, so its flat and 17 is a long par 4, so I thought it should give them a break, plus some variety.

I agree on profit being necessary.  I think the economy is definitely hurting golf, but it has survived recessions before.  My big argument here is whether we should presume our grandkids will grow up to be like us in all respects?  If not, then if golf stays the same, it withers a bit financially.

Doesn't really matter though, what is going to happen is going to happen.  If the middle class shrinks, needs to work two jobs, etc., then a 7 hour round (hour drive, 5 to play) will simply decline.  If it turns out that we end up like Japan with a class of golfers that love to hit golf balls, but never get off the range because they only have a few hours (and non daylight hours at that) to indulge, then we will have more range golfers and less traditional golfers.....etc. etc. etc..  Maybe the par 3, big cup courses that are in between the two really don't solve the biggest problems we face - time, money and difficulty (all shown in surveys to be obstacles to starting the game)

So, maybe its just getting rid of back tees, setting markers up, and maybe offering big cups.  Shorter courses (maybe by offering only 12 holes....or by lowering distance played) is certainly one easy way to trim time, reduce challenge.

[Ben Malach]

Mike,
The support for municipal facilities is what grew the game in the gold age of golf from the 1950's  through to the recession in 2008. It is the maintenance of these facilities through this era of tighter local budgets that I worry about. The disinvestment of state funding from civic projects is at an unprecedented level this leaves cities and towns to fill the sadly this means they have to cut back on spending on things that are more superfluous to the actual running of the city such as recreation facilities. What I was suggesting was if Taylormade or anyone else wants to step up to help fund cheap municipal golf they would be doing more than blowing hot air about a bigger hole. It is on these cheap golf courses where the introduction to the game that you see as most effective occurs. It is through efforts to keep golf affordable via providing these facilities that will grow the game not talking about a bunch of ideas that have never worked. The cheap public golf course is where we all start so why are we letting state and municipal governments cut them. I think that the short term fears are limiting the opportunity to have a second golden age of municipal golf. FDR built a lot of ok golf courses.

[Jordan Caron]

When I first started playing basketball there was no three point shot. Today it is a HUGE part of the game.

When I first started playing squash, it was on a narrow court with a hard ball. Now everyone plays on a wide court with a soft ball and it is a MUCH better sport.

When I first started skiing, I used skis. I still do but the mountains are filled with snowboarders (except for Alta )

What is the big deal if 150 golf courses out of 15,000 in the USA give it a shot?

Beginners have a place to play without being intimidated and they don't hold up play...

Squash is indeed a better game. Love that sport, couldn't image playing with the hard balls and smaller courts.

I really don't see how this is coming to help people get better and enjoy the game more. For many golfers new and old, they're going to struggle hitting the ball. Not much we can really do there to make the game easier.

[Paul Gray]

Well said Moriarty.

And look, old chestnut that it might well be, golf isn't struggling because demand is low, golf is struggling because golf got itself into a sorry state whereby demand had to be absurdly high just to break even. So, as many have been saying for some time now, a painful realignment is the only thing that's going to return us to a state of sustainable profitability.

No amount of gimmicks can redress the imbalance between £10 green fees and expectations of fairways a la Georgia in April.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

There have been a lot of industry conferences and think tanks. Obviously everyone there has some stake in the industry.  Hack Golf is an attempt to get real ideas from outside the industry, I guess.  Never a bad idea, even if most aren't workable.

And I am not at all sure that the 15" cup is the answer, as I stated.  Just not sure its not worth trying for a small segment of the game.

Jeff,

Why have those efforts been unnecessary for the last 100 years ?

Why now ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall and others,,

Most public privately owned public golf courses or even semi private course have to make a profit and that has not been happening lately.  It's not greed it survival....you guys really have ZERO clue...we are not talking about the 1000 private clubs that can assess members...but we may be talking about some of the next 3000 private clubs.  If they dont make a profit they will go away...especially with this Golf Now crap...

Mike,

The challenge is changing the culture that's developed over the last 50 years.

Specifically slow play.

The younger generation can't take the entire day away from the family.

Rounds have to be compressed down to 3.5-3.00 hours.

But, what privately operated public facility will bite the bullet and institute a FAST play policy.

You can't have it both ways.

Get golfers to play in 3.00 hours and you'll attract more of them to the game.

Take 5.00 to 5.50 hours and you'll lose the young family golfers and those who don't want to take an entire day.

[Bob_Huntley]

When I first started playing basketball there was no three point shot. Today it is a HUGE part of the game.

When I first started playing squash, it was on a narrow court with a hard ball. Now everyone plays on a wide court with a soft ball and it is a MUCH better sport.

When I first started skiing, I used skis. I still do but the mountains are filled with snowboarders (except for Alta )

What is the big deal if 150 golf courses out of 15,000 in the USA give it a shot?

Beginners have a place to play without being intimidated and they don't hold up play...

Mike,

I preferred the hard ball. My first set of skis seemed seven feet long, never did get the chance to use the short ones of today.

I taught a bunch of very small children using a tennis ball as their first whack at the game. It worked.

Bob




Squash is indeed a better game. Love that sport, couldn't image playing with the hard balls and smaller courts.

I really don't see how this is coming to help people get better and enjoy the game more. For many golfers new and old, they're going to struggle hitting the ball. Not much we can really do there to make the game easier.

[Paul Gray]

Thirty years or so ago my local golf course (Hayling) was certainly not a place a kid could just turn and play golf. But I've had a life of golf. Why?

Firstly, the local pitch and putt, adjacent to the 'big club' was and still is first rate. £1 or so got you nine holes of pleasure with clubs and ball freely provided.

Secondly, and here myself and Pat may disagree slightly, the local park provided a small putting course for all. The holes, needless to say, were the correct size.

Just what benefit would it have been to ME if Hayling Golf Club had invited me along to play holes which took me fifteen shots to reach and then served up a giant cup? They might have taken some money from my parents but how would I, the golfer, really have benefited, particularly when compared to my other, cheaper golf options?

[Philippe Binette]

A bigger hole will only lead to longer courses... since the better player would hole out more often

not really a solution !


You want to make the game of golf eaiser, faster to play with no investment : Throw the driver out of the bag of every player with an handicap of more than 15...  done

and people don't learn to play golf, they learn to hit a golf ball... strategy, smart play short game is not well taught

[jeffwarne]

Let's suppose the 15 inch holes are the panacea that cures all the supposed lack of participation ills in golf, and all current facilities are again busy and able to run profitably. (pretty big assumptions)
Of course now courses would be far more crowded and play even slower, but I digress......

Who's to say 5000 more courses wouldn't pop up due to this new seemingly never ending demand and end up making all of them unprofitable again? (Good news for architects I guess)


Many people took up golf in the 90's and early 2000's. It was cool and their friends were doing it.
Now they have moved to other "cool' things, because they weren't really golfers to start with.
Real estate was sold and many more courses were built than were needed based on ridiculous assumptions, and lack of concern for an end game once the developer left.

There is still an oversupply of courses out there. that is beginning to be worked off, but remains a problem because many people want to own a golf course and are willing to subsidize them in various ways.

Solving a supply problem by creating an artificial demand (15 inch holes etc.) is an unsustainable and desperate plan.
Golf appeals to a certain kind've person and can grow at a reasonable rate if shared responsibly and access created.(which shouldn't be that hard given all the apparent excess capacity)
When it grows too fast, the knucklehead factor goes way up and long term that makes golf more like other pasttimes that many golfers have chosen not to participate in as much to focus on golf.

It's not good news for those in the business, but that's life.
I'm unwilling to see golf the game change so much to be short term more popular and or more profitable, but then I'm not facing extinction, and some no doubt are.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A bigger hole will only lead to longer courses... since the better player would hole out more often

not really a solution !

And that attitude right there is the problem....design and management has focused so much on better players rather than designing specifically for the average guys, for whom 6300 yard courses, easier play, maybe larger cups, etc. would be just perfect.  But, even many of those guys, for whom the back tee is merely a rumor and could be a flower bed, still think they need to have those tees behind them, so they can play a "championship" course that never really will be one.

I wonder if some flagging play course simply made those changes (shortened, bigger cups, less rough) and advertised it as an "express golf" course or something like that, if it wouldn't be a great marketing tool without debasing the game?  No doubt, we have to get more folks into a recreation mindset, where golf is just faster and more fun.  Society is moving faster, less time, and golf has to respond somehow, at least on some courses, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would have no problem if they cut a second larger cup on each hole of our courses for the Monday of each outing, threw in a different color pin, and allowed each player in the outing to choose which "course" they wanted to play. They could leave the second holes and pins in on Tuesdays, too. Maybe some of the ladies would prefer that?

Now, I don't know what you do with the turf that you cut out and if you can simply put it back on Tuesday night...

But if there is a significant part or the population that wants to learn golf in an easier format, I have no problem with that.

Bill,

One of the problems I have is the "mindset" and natural progression that takes place when you reduce the challenge.

Today 15 inch cups, tomorrow super golf balls and pool cue putters.

Once you break with one rule, you open the door to break all others, you begin the process of mongrelizing and bastardizing the inherent purity of the game.   It's the domino theory.

There's a great sign above the door as you exit the Mens locker room at Southern Hills.

"When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf"

This proposal for 15 inch cups is indicative of a degenerative society where things are dumbed down such that they become achievable with less talent and less work.

There's a woman firefighter in NYC that failed the physical test five (5) times, five (5) times.
A test that was already dumbed down to allow women to "meet the standards"
How many times have you seen pictures of firefighters carrying victims out of burning buildings in NYC ?
And now they promote a clearly unqualified candidate, one who couldn't carry groceries out of a building, to the rank of "fireman"  ? ? ?

And that's what's happening in America.

When the going gets tough, reduce the challenge.

I don't want to reduce the challenge, I want people to aspire to meet it.
I want them to take lessons, practice and play in an effort to gain a measure of proficiency.

I don't want 15 inch cups, "family" tees, a two putt maximum, a bunker throw or anything else that assaults and diminishes the purity of the game.

I'm not interested in growing a game that isn't GOLF

END OF RANT  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

While I may not care all that much about growing cheez whiz golf either, it occurs to me that it might just very well happen in some circles.  Like I say, we can't force the next generation to be like us. 

If somehow, someone comes up with a variation of golf that fits the 3 hour time frame and other criteria that would make it more popular with Gen X (or Y, Z, etc.) and it catches on, it catches on.  The USGA might still never endorse it, and that is their choice.

And whatever happened to the old saying "If you love something.....let it go......"?

[BCowan]

I agree on profit being necessary.  I think the economy is definitely hurting golf, but it has survived recessions before.  My big argument here is whether we should presume our grandkids will grow up to be like us in all respects?  If not, then if golf stays the same, it withers a bit financially.I learned from my parents, many of my friends and others learned on their own through friends.  It has to do with culture, kids don't know how to play anymore due to progressives like yourself.

Doesn't really matter though, what is going to happen is going to happen.  If the middle class shrinks, needs to work two jobs, etc., then a 7 hour round (hour drive, 5 to play) will simply decline.  If it turns out that we end up like Japan with a class of golfers that love to hit golf balls, but never get off the range because they only have a few hours (and non daylight hours at that) to indulge, then we will have more range golfers and less traditional golfers.....etc. etc. etc..  Maybe the par 3, big cup courses that are in between the two really don't solve the biggest problems we face - time, money and difficulty (all shown in surveys to be obstacles to starting the game).Two incomes have been required by more families since the early 70's, and you don't even know why....  Your observations are hilarious, but yes we are following Japan's economic policies.

So, maybe its just getting rid of back tees, setting markers up, and maybe offering big cups.  Shorter courses (maybe by offering only 12 holes....or by lowering distance played) is certainly one easy way to trim time, reduce challenge.Playing the back tees as a kid was a badge of honor and was cool (We played in under 4 hours too).  Your ''give trophies to everyone'' type attitude is what has destroyed sports!!!  Your comments I find very troubling, do you really mean what you say?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()