[JESII]

Mike Sweeney,


Chip is a smart guy and a great leader for Callaway...but he is the golf business. Evidenced by his 20% stake in TopGolf.


I believe the game of golf and the business of golf are wholly different.


If participation numbers dropped to, say, 15M, how do you think the game would change?


I see fewer courses to choose from...by as much as half because we already have an oversupply but they will be healthier. This will leave a glut of real estate properties that will drag on values.


I see smaller equipment companies although not necessarily fewer...but I see relatively small differences in equipment today. This may empower the regulatory bodies, much to the delight of the roll-back crowd.


I see course maintenance continuing to improve...because it will continue to receive capital and experimentation.

[George Pazin]

Oddly enough, George Pazin earlier in this thread tried to claim that the only area of the economy I might have been right about when I claimed that there were plenty of growing sectors in the economy is the financial sector. In fact, it's the only sector that HASN'T made gains in the last ten years, not that anyone should let facts get in the way of good old-fashioned disenfranchisement.

 


Hilarious, thanks for the shout out.


I'm not talking about investing in the financial sector, I'm talking about working in it. Do you know anyone who does or has? I did myself, and know plenty of folks who still do. They are rolling in cash. The rest of us aren't, unless we are politically connected or in a favored industry.


But nice try, though, Jason...

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

The other thing that’s different now? We just have a lot more options when it comes to recreation. There’s a real opportunity cost in spending five hours on a golf course in 2016. Golf may not have improved in the last 65 years, but plenty of recreational options have while plenty of entirely new options have emerged as well. Golf, like every other recreational activity I can think of, has evolved fairly rapidly throughout the course of its history. For the last 30+ years, it has rapidly evolved in an unsustainable direction that hasn't made the game better. That trend can be reversed. I just don’t know if it will be reversed.

Emphasis on that sentence is mine...and the question is, like what?


I'm 41, married with 4 kids between 10 and 13. I've played golf most all of my life and think golf is only dying in areas where people haven't introduced the right version of true golf...and TopGolf is not it.


I have friends that play pick up basketball, hunt, fish, travel with their families, coach kids sports, volunteer, hike, one that rides long distance tandem bike races with his wife (true...) and probably a dozen others...Which should I see as the additional recreational options that will threaten golf participation numbers?


I wonder if I took a snapshot of golf participation numbers at 20 year intervals, as opposed to 1 year, you would agree that growth has slowed instead of actual numbers decreasing...


Either way, I suspect we're on the back side of a contraction that will stabilize and find it's level. I don't think it will escalate at the 1995 - 2005 rate again because all facets of The Game really do carry significant costs as a barrier to entry.

Jim,

As a peer, how much of an effect on the game in our generation is the changing gender roles and expectation of Dads now? Most of my friends marvel that my wife "lets" me play golf once a week, They're running around between soccer tournaments, softball tournaments, recitals, all weekend. My Dad was gone on Saturdays from 8-2:30 at the club with his friends, while my Mom looked after us.  I somehow managed to be a well-adjusted adult anyway. (I think)

[JESII]

Yep, no doubt.

I think active golfers are a much better bar to measure the game's health than once per year folks. For you and I, it's certainly more difficult, than it was for our fathers, to play 40 or 50 rounds.

As much as anything, I think this drives the clubs to adapt and accommodate. The ones that do will thrive against those that do not.

[Jason Thurman]

I’ll answer Jim’s question about “what other options for recreation are there now that didn’t used to exist?” on Twitter during a Netflix binge between games of Call of Duty later. But I do want to respond to Mike asking how much I spent at Topgolf, because only someone who has never been to Topgolf would ask how much someone spent at Topgolf. Part of the brilliance of their business model is that they charge you in three different ways at the same time so the money seamlessly flows out and you need a spreadsheet to know how much you’ve actually given them when you leave. But I can tell you I spent three hours there in a foursome that comprised the following:

·         * [/font]My 60 year old father-in-law, a true beginner. I played 18 with him on Sunday and he did not finish a single hole after the 8^th.
·         * [/font]Another 60 year old battling a hamstring injury that’s kept him off the course for a few weeks, but an avid player who formerly played to a scratch handicap and is now one of those 10 handicaps that you don’t want to find yourself wagering against.
*·         [/font]A 24 year old fresh from winning a 36-hole tournament up the road earlier in the day by 8 shots – he shot 64-66.
·         [/font]Me – a garbage 8 handicap who probably doesn’t hit Topgolf’s Uniflex clubs any worse than I hit my own.

We showed up planning to stay for an hour, and ended up staying for three and having dinner. And every one of us had a great time, and the tournament winner lost a game to the guy with the balky hamstring. I don’t care if golf isn’t a booming business. But I do notice the smiles plastered on everybody’s face when I go to Topgolf, and there's no doubt that people are having a blast. The game of golf’s health isn’t a matter of profitability. As high-on-PCP Jake Hoyt might say, it’s a matter of Smiles and Cries.

I didn’t intend for this thread to be a bitchfest or a “Circle the wagons!” call to change golf’s business model or anything like that. I’m more interested in a real discussion about how we think that model will evolve due to market forces, and the paths that evolution can take to either improve the game’s health as opposed to the paths that will destroy it. Evolution is organic by its nature and will happen no matter what. There’s nothing any of us can do to actually dictate how golf will change due to market forces. We can, however, articulate what some of those forces are and discuss the different outcomes that those forces can have on how the game shifts, and which outcomes are ideal vs which aren’t. And I think that’s ultimately what I probably hoped this thread would do when I started it. There’s an interesting discussion there somewhere if we can get past the thing where everybody gets butthurt as soon as someone mentions that golf is subject to market forces too.

Ironically, the unhealthiest path the game may ever have taken was the path it took to unprecedented short-term growth during the real estate boom years when it hitched itself to housing developments and participation grew wildly. Lots of people made a lot of money while growing the worst version of the game – the home-lined cartball version that put more focus on amenities and marketing than on just creating a good product that made its consumers happy. The economics were good, at least for a while. But the health of the game suffered dramatically. And maybe the opposite is happening now – maybe the economics of golf will suck for a few more years, but we’ll eventually look back and see that the game’s health actually improved along the way.

[JESII]

Jason,

Read what industry the CEO of TopGolf thinks he's in.

You had a great time there. Everyone I know that's been has had a great time as well. They seem to be doing it right...

To your hopes for this thread; I haven't seen anyone denying the game's evolution. What I have seen is people countering your specific cry of alarm with a different perspective that maybe letting the game to continue to evolve might be ok.

[Mike_Young]

Supposedly we have 24 million golfers out of 300 million population.  That's around 8%?  All we need is for the percentage to remain the same or even a slight drop and golf will do very well. 

[John Kavanaugh]

We need the people who love the game the most to stop playing for free.

[Mike_Young]

We need the people who love the game the most to stop playing for free.

Most of those I have met who push the "playing for free" thing are not the types I care to play....

[Joe Zucker]

It's been mentioned a few times already, but demographics are a large factor and not something that can be easily controlled.  Baby boomers are aging out of golf now and over the next 20 years.  Dreaded millennials like myself are choosing lifestyles that are not always conducive to golf.  Young people are living in densely populated cities and are less likely to own cars in their 20s.  While in some areas it is possible to get to a course on a train or bus, it's not the easiest way to play the game.

As of now, millennials aren't moving to the suburbs as quickly where golf is more accessible.  Maybe they move to the typical suburban home ownership path later in life and golf will rebound.  Or maybe they will stay in downtown NYC or San Francisco.

[JESII]

You mean the golf business, right Joe?

[Joe Zucker]

You mean the golf business, right Joe?

Somewhat, I'm not sure how to define the "golf business".  I was thinking about more golfers and rounds played, which would have some impact on the business obviously, but I don't know if it will help equipment companies or something like that.


I should have been clearer with the term "rebound".  I'm not sure golf needs some huge growth spurt to be great.  It is already a great game that some people find boring and others love.  And that's OK.

[Richard Hetzel]

No one ever took me golfing as a kid, but I sure did want to go. We lived on a golf course, but no one in my family would take me or allow me to take up the game. At 17, I took it upon myself to play "on my own" at crappy places like Bash Golf Course (Dublin, Ohio NLE), and Twin Oaks GC (Powell, Ohio NLE). I would gladly take my kids golfing more, but the interest just isn't there. While packing up the Sequoia to take 2 of my sons golfing today, my 13 year old asked "are we were going to Top Golf?". Nope, we are playing a par 3 course today. I think he was bummed. We played a local Cincinnati par 3 course and I will say that although I had fun (1. I was with my kids, 2. I was golfing and 3. I didn't even need to have a driver in my bag), it cost $32 for the 3 us to walk 9 holes which was expensive compared to some of the other places I could have taken them to play golf. On the bright side, I am sure it was lighter on my wallet than Top Golf would have been. The kids asked "do we have to dress up?" and I replied with , "not today." Where are the golf carts? Can I drive first? They don't have any, we will walk and carry our own bags. The course was OK for what it was, but the pro was super quiet, couldn't carry on a conversation with the kids, couldn't get the kids excited to be at the course (they were once we got a few holes in and they figured out the straps on their Ping carry bags), couldn't even give me a score card and pencil assuming they were empty in the box (there was 1 left). I am OK with a low budget club house (like Sweeten's Cove) but the X factor in getting people to return and play again is the people that work at the course (IMO). There was absolutely no human element present at Green Hills Golf Club, at least not today. I am not sure par 3 courses are the way to build the game (I am sure they can be if operated correctly with youth in mind), we had the course to ourselves. I don't agree with John K that I should be happy playing courses like these, because I am not. The only thing good about it was that I got to hang out with my kids.


The course was packed today.

Clubhouse was sufficient (and tightly locked up).


Ryan (13) and Rhys (11) ready to tee off in non-regulation golf attire.

The head pro had absolutely no personality.

Highly detailed course routing and yardage.

Hole Number 1. 96 yards from the tips (course is par 27, 1100 yards)

Hole Number 2 green

Hole number 3. Good luck holding the tiny green

Hole Number 4 had the most interesting green complex.

Hole number 4 green

Hole number 7.

I'll spare you the rest. The kids had fun, but I am not so sure it would have been the first activity that they would have chosen to play on their own. I don't force golf on my kids at all, but I encourage them to play and they are aware of how much I enjoy it. Hopefully, at some point they will feel the same way.

[Steve Lang]

   Richard,
Looks relatively flat for Cinti ... How long did the adventure last?  Did you finish off with Graeters or Skyline?

[Richard Hetzel]

  Richard,
Looks relatively flat for Cinti ... How long did the adventure last?  Did you finish off with Graeters or Skyline?

We teed off at about 3:05 pm and we were walking off the 9th green by 4:20 pm or so. My 11 year old had not played in a few years so that added a bit of time to combat some of his frustrations. Not to mention he broke the rules of golf by looking for his "pink Bridgestone e6" for at least 10 minutes (never found it). The course sits in a little flood plain looking drainage area and it's definitely anything but flat. All of the greens are located on either side of the valley or the low area of land that has a small stream. The greens themselves were flat, and rolled quite nicely. Tee shots were either downhill or uphill, nothing was flat per se.


One does not lose 25 pounds by eating Graeters and or Skyline after golf! I am down to 200 and want to lose another 25. Here are a few more pics.

[Steve Lang]

    I thought it was about the kids??

[David_Tepper]

mygolfspy.com tests the Kirkland ball vs. the Pro-V:

http://www.mygolfspy.com/kirkland-vs-titleist-pro-v1/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()