[Steve_ Shaffer]

Just found this article by Matt Ward featuring Skyway in NJ, Borrego Springs in CA, Kiva Dunes in AL, Gamble Sands in WA, Cabot Cliffs in NS and Grand Canyon GC in AZ:


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1912660-fun-golf-key-to-games-future

[Duncan Cheslett]

"The reasons are varied but essentially boil down to this: the baby boomer generation is near the end of the active golf shelf-life. The replacement millennial generation—those born in 1980 and beyond—have not embraced golf as readily. In fact, they’ve distanced themselves from it. In today’s go-go-go world the very definition of quality leisure time is being shaped and defined differently than from years ago.

For many millennials the thought of playing a game that can take several hours to play is not warmly embraced. We live in a Twitter world of brevity and quickness. Golf’s key benefit is “smelling the flowers” —allowing the day to unfold. That past necessity is today’s dinosaur for many."


I took my 24-year old son in law for his first ever round of golf the other day. His previous experience had been limited to the driving range and a golf simulator in a bar in Manchester.

A very fit, athletic young man who excels at most sports, he enjoyed himself but was absolutely staggered at how long it took. He honestly expected a game of golf to last an hour or two, like all other sports, and not four hours!

I am sure he will be converted, but it brought home to me how completely out of touch with the reality of today's youth golf has become in terms of the time commitment necessary for participation.

I'm not sure what the future holds but I'm pretty sure it isn't just four hour 18 hole rounds.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The game is in the hands of pickleheads who don't understand their actions are ruining the game and too many many are sitting around watching it go to ratshit.


A round of golf needs to be reduced to 3 hours, 3.5 hours max.

[Sean_A]

Adrian


In the UK...I think 9 hole (or 11 or 14 or whatever depending on how a course relates to the house) rates should become the norm where possible.  3.5 hours is neither here nor there compared to 4 hours if time is a true consideration.  Its the enjoyment factor of not standing around which makes that 30 minutes important, but to attract the short attention crowd fewer holes has to be a viable option. 


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm with Adrian. I've been writing about this three hour round stuff for years. I really think that's the number. You play in three hours, it's a half day activity, not a full day. You could play Saturday morning and be back for lunch with the family. That has to make a big difference.

[Sean_A]

I'm with Adrian. I've been writing about this three hour round stuff for years. I really think that's the number. You play in three hours, it's a half day activity, not a full day. You could play Saturday morning and be back for lunch with the family. That has to make a big difference.

Adam


Lets face it, if you are to be home for lunch you play at 8 and it will be quick round at that time anyway...especially if you don't hang about the house.  Tons of guys do this now.  But that is the already sold on the game crowd...I thought we were trying to attract the no attention span guys 


3 hours is flying if you aren't a 2ball.  There can't be many folks on the course for that sort of time to be expected across the board unless 4somes is the game of choice as it was when guys were playing that fast.  I have never known a course with people on it to routinely play that fast for 4 balls in nearly 40 years of golf). Look, we just played Huntercombe last week as 3balls and we took more than 3 hours on a course reknown for fast play not least due to a course design which allows for fast play...most courses are so welcoming for fast play.     


Ciao 

[Philip Hensley]

The same people we deride as the "short attention span" crowd are the same people that will spend 3-5 hours going to craft beer breweries a couple times a month, or going to concerts, etc. Time isn't the factor unless you're talking about 5-6 hour rounds. Everyone is going to be spending those 3-5 hours on Saturday or Sunday doing something, so now the question is why do they spend it doing something other than golf?

[Joe Sponcia]

I'm with Adrian. I've been writing about this three hour round stuff for years. I really think that's the number. You play in three hours, it's a half day activity, not a full day. You could play Saturday morning and be back for lunch with the family. That has to make a big difference.

Adam


Lets face it, if you are to be home for lunch you play at 8 and it will be quick round at that time anyway...especially if you don't hang about the house.  Tons of guys do this now.  But that is the already sold on the game crowd...I thought we were trying to attract the no attention span guys 


3 hours is flying if you aren't a 2ball.  There can't be many folks on the course for that sort of time to be expected across the board unless 4somes is the game of choice as it was when guys were playing that fast.  I have never known a course with people on it to routinely play that fast for 4 balls in nearly 40 years of golf). Look, we just played Huntercombe last week as 3balls and we took more than 3 hours on a course reknown for fast play not least due to a course design which allows for fast play...most courses are so welcoming for fast play.     


Ciao

Steve,


What an excellent and thorough title . 


Sean,


I played with my wife last week, she's a 38, I'm a 2, and we played in 3 hours on the button.  Played with a four-ball in four hours with everyone 10 or better a few days later.  Both walking rounds.  3 hours is quick, even on a tight routing, but I like the goal of it.


"Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago.  Golf courses are becoming far too long.  Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round.  Today it not infrequently takes over three hours".

- Alister MacKenzie, 1933


Phillip,


I would tend to agree.  My kids can watch 6 hours of Netflix any day of the week.  Go to a fair trade coffee shop and watch in amazement as kids camp out for hours mindlessly zoning out on the internet.   I wouldn't sit through a widespread panic concert if you paid me, but those are 3-4 hours.  Lots in my area spend entire weekends on the lake in the summer, go across the mountain on ski trips for the winter - equipment for both sports are not cheap.   


I think one of the least talked about aspects of not having enough kids in the game starts with the broken home.  Many of us can remember our Fathers taking us to play as kids.  What if you only saw him every other weekend?  That is sadly a reality.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


In the UK...I think 9 hole (or 11 or 14 or whatever depending on how a course relates to the house) rates should become the norm where possible.  3.5 hours is neither here nor there compared to 4 hours if time is a true consideration.  Its the enjoyment factor of not standing around which makes that 30 minutes important, but to attract the short attention crowd fewer holes has to be a viable option. 


Ciao

I sort of agree with you that more consideration should be given to 9 hole or 11, 14 hole rounds, BUT there is not much call for shorter than 18 holes golf from visitors they seem to like Twilight Rate (that should really reflect a deal based on a % of 18 holes after a certain time, perhaps even half rate for the last two and a half hours of daylight). In reality, the customer expects twilight rates to start early afternoon and a comfortable 18. Members are the ones that like 9 holes. The Pickleheads have been slow to harness 9 hole rounds counting for handicaps but at least they are allowing them to count now. Our 13th returns to the house,  I am not sure if a 13 hole competition counts for awarding and adjusting handicaps. If it does not then it should.


I don't agree with your 3.5 is not much different than 4 hours though. Its 12.5% of time and time is the most precious commodity of all. Someone with plenty of time may find it hard to understand a working family with two children and how hard it is to find the space to play golf for what is more than half a day with the to and fro travelling. Skipping up the club for nine holes on a summers evening is doable but a large chunk of the families weekend time makes it hard for that 25 - 40 bracket. Hence many quit the game.


If you could develop games that are golf but quicker it would make a huge difference. One we talked about was a 'Gonzalez' wherby you play as a team of 4 with just one best nett score counting per hole. All putts are conceeded under 4 feet, (the green keeper puts a dozen ball markers at 4 feet from the hole) so as soon as the team is within a circle the next one is conceeded, it leaves the others with a free putt. The older pro-am formats were one from four, two from four has become the norm but sometimes there are three from four counting which takes forever.


The balance is finding a way not to destroy the game of golf and the associated history. Therefore things like 12 inch holes inflict too much on the game of golf.

[Sean_A]

Adrian


You honestly think the difference between 4 and 3.5 rounds is a serious roadblock to getting new folks into golf? I don't buy that theory at all....otherwise course owners would be clamoring to build 6000 yard easy to walk courses without tons of rough and hazards...that is not a trend I see anywhere..  I can see older golfers dropping out because of 4+ hour rounds on top of steep rises in dues and a poor economy shrinking their pension. 


The irony of your argument is that the more golfers you recruit the slower golf will become.  If you think its bad now...what would it be like with full memberships everywhere?  The fact is, newer golfers to the game are generally slower players than the older generation, not least because 4ball play is now immensely popular.  Older folks (again in general) seem to get on with it much more and hence I can see the irritation with an obvious slow down in the game...to the point where they think about walking away or reducing membership.   


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I agree with Sean about shorter courses. I think 9 holers have a bright future if they are marketed correctly. On the time taken to play 18 holes then it would help if people played from tees they are suited to not too far back and would carry even if this means just a half set. If you are slower then let any quicker group through without delay. 3 hours for a 4 ball should be the norm.

Jon

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

You may be right, But I truly believe most golfers don't know anything about different golf...be it shorter courses, less holes, dry/under-pimped conditions, etc.

That's why no one is clamoring for anything. They don't know what they want apart from the norm. And, no one is likely to invest substantial money to deviate and teach.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think shorter formats are a good idea. But, and this is the key, no-one is going to build hundreds of new nine hole courses in existing golf markets, whether America, Britain or Australia. We have to find new ways of using the facilities we already have.

[Sean_A]

I think shorter formats are a good idea. But, and this is the key, no-one is going to build hundreds of new nine hole courses in existing golf markets, whether America, Britain or Australia. We have to find new ways of using the facilities we already have.

Absolutely Adam.  A ton of courses could easily implement shorter loop rates, yet very few in the UK do. I do think the obvious two loops of nine courses will figure this out in the next few years and we will see more of it.


Joe


Hence my reasoning that the difference between 4 or 3.5 hour rounds for recruiting new golfers is not a roadblock.


Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

I think shorter formats are a good idea. But, and this is the key, no-one is going to build hundreds of new nine hole courses in existing golf markets, whether America, Britain or Australia. We have to find new ways of using the facilities we already have.

Most of those facilities, especially in the U.S., come back to the clubhouse at the ninth. 


And clubs are starting to use them that way more and more.  I've talked with several club pros recently that say the members are putting more nine-hole golf events on the club calendar, whether it's a late weekday afternoon or on the weekend.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


You honestly think the difference between 4 and 3.5 rounds is a serious roadblock to getting new folks into golf? I don't buy that theory at all....otherwise course owners would be clamoring to build 6000 yard easy to walk courses without tons of rough and hazards...that is not a trend I see anywhere..  I can see older golfers dropping out because of 4+ hour rounds on top of steep rises in dues and a poor economy shrinking their pension. 


The irony of your argument is that the more golfers you recruit the slower golf will become.  If you think its bad now...what would it be like with full memberships everywhere?  The fact is, newer golfers to the game are generally slower players than the older generation, not least because 4ball play is now immensely popular.  Older folks (again in general) seem to get on with it much more and hence I can see the irritation with an obvious slow down in the game...to the point where they think about walking away or reducing membership.   


Ciao

Sean - Something is dramatically amiss with your reading. I did not mention new golfers. People are turning away because they don't have the time.

[Adam Lawrence]

Edwin Roald's Why 18 Holes campaign www.why18holes.com is on the right track I think. We need to revise our thinking -- and our handicapping systems -- to regard any number of holes (perhaps over a small minimum, three say) as a round of golf.

[Thomas Dai]

More 9-hole courses and more 9-hole comps would be great, even more so with only 7-8 clubs in a wee bag.


More pitch 'n' putt courses as well. Both are where many of us started to play the game as kids. Rent (with deposit) an iron, a putter and a ball from a booth, play 9-holes, have fun, return equipment to booth, collect deposit and go for an icecream.


Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

More 9-hole courses and more 9-hole comps would be great, even more so with only 7-8 clubs in a wee bag.


More pitch 'n' putt courses as well. Both are where many of us started to play the game as kids. Rent (with deposit) an iron, a putter and a ball from a booth, play 9-holes, have fun, return equipment to booth, collect deposit and go for an icecream.


Atb

But this is just it Thomas, there are _not_ going to be more courses, or at least not that many more, in existing golf markets. There isn't the land and there isn't the incentive to create them, especially near major centres of population. Would it be great to have a load of new nine hole and pitch and putt courses? Sure it would. But the only places they're going to happen are where 18 hole courses close, sell off part of their land, and reinvent themselves.


Real solutions to golf's problems need to make use of the many, many golf facilities that we already have.

[Niall C]

I think shorter formats are a good idea. But, and this is the key, no-one is going to build hundreds of new nine hole courses in existing golf markets, whether America, Britain or Australia. We have to find new ways of using the facilities we already have.

I agree. We use them by cutting out the hanging around that Sean referred to in an earlier post. Playing nine holers will not only half the hanging around but will also half the actual golf. To me the key is education, not the number of holes. What we need to drum in is the following;


- Be ready to play when it's your turn.


- Move smartly between shots, and do so as soon as you have played your shot; replaced your divot; raked the bunker etc.


- Good course management also means leaving your bag on the side of the green nearest the next tee and not just where you want to put your ball to make the next shot easier.


- But most of all look over your shoulder - if the group behind looks as though they are going quicker or having to wait then let them through. Don't wait until you've lost a ball to do so.


IMHO the big mistake is assuming that because someone has a new set of Titliest in his MacKenzie bag, that they know how to behave on the course.


Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

9 hole golf has always been there. Most golf courses in the UK have returning nines. 9 hole golf seems more about the evenings rather than competitive weekend play. Not many visitors play half a round.


People seem to want to play 18 but can't afford the time the solution is more to make the playing of 18 holes quicker.


The average walking speed is 100 yards in a minute, so to walk around a course is only 60-70 minutes, the rest of the 2-4 hours is where time could be saved. The time spent on the green itself is lots. Mark it once rule would eliminate all the faffing around with re-alignment. No penalty for putting with the flag in, no penalty for hitting opponents ball are actually going back to the 1950 rules of golf and golf was quicker then.

[Dave Doxey]

 I'm not convinced that the time difference between a 9 hole round and 18 makes that much difference.

 
Figure in 30 minutes to get to the course,  30 minutes warming up and getting ready to tee off, and 30 minutes getting home from the course.  You have 90 minutes invested without the actual golf.  The 120 minute difference between 9 and 18 isn't that significant.

 
In many cases, the time to and from the course may be even more that 30 minutes each way.

 
That said, I can't say that I can identify the reasons behind decline in the game's popularity.  Bringing along new or infrequent players, I have seen their difficulty learning the process, rules, rituals, etiquette, etc. that can make them uncomfortable as newbies.  I've seen struggling new players get chewed out by a marshal & vow to never return.

[Ben Sims]

Its time AND people. I'm all for the 9-hole movement. It will make a difference.


But I also think casual golfers in that millennial category want to see people their own age at the course/club. Go to your local joint and look for an autonomous (not with someone outside the demographic) group of 21-35 year olds. Generally I'm not for anecdotal stories as evidence, but in this case I'll break my guideline. I can't begin to count how many times I've gone to play golf alone and seen no one remotely close to my own age. Let me tell you, that feeling of always being an outsider does more to dissuade me from playing than the time commitment.


For reference, I saw more millennials at an ice climbing park this past weekend than I've ever seen at either of the clubs I've belonged to. Ice climbing for chrissakes.

[Adam Lawrence]

You need to move to Sweden Ben. The only place in the world I have seen large numbers of young women playing golf. And to make things even better, these are _Swedish_ women!

[Thomas Dai]

Is there an outline intimation here that maybe those courses that upgraded from 9-holes to 18-holes a few decades ago and then lengthened themselves by building new tees further back made the wrong move?


Out of interest, have any 18-holers downsized to 9-holes?


Is there a market for 9-hole pitch 'n' putt courses with say a driving range as well?


Are any grants available to build courses for kids?


Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()