[V_Halyard]

I'll tell you what's worse and it concerns me more than the economy. Race relations. Probably the worse in the last 40 years. Our current president has none nothing in my opinion to improve it. In fact he's hurt it with some of his statements. I don't see our president elect as anyone who can solve it either. Back to golf.........

Obama has ruined race relations.

I work to stay on topic, but that is just ridiculous. It really is an absurd statement.
Obama has ruined race relations for whom, people that hate black people?

With regard to on or off topic, this may actually be painfully On-Topic
Golf changes people for the better when they are exposed to the game.
This is the type of rhetoric long associated with golf so as an African American golfer, and golf chair of a classic Donald Ross course that loves the game and the great courses on which it is played,
... sorry Ran et al, when I see noise like this I have to call it out not just out of anger but to make sure it is recognized as noise.

This is the type of rhetoric that keeps people, of all races and gender and especially ages, from joining the game and playing some of the very courses we are discussing in this thread
I would also understand why this off kilter thread might be deleted but until it is, that is an absurd notion.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll tell you what's worse and it concerns me more than the economy. Race relations. Probably the worse in the last 40 years. Our current president has none nothing in my opinion to improve it. In fact he's hurt it with some of his statements. I don't see our president elect as anyone who can solve it either. Back to golf.........

Obama has ruined race relations.


As far as the Obama economic numbers quoted above: We are not seeing growth in the rust belt. If the economy is booming on the coasts great. But Ohio is ready to collapse.

So blame a black guy for "ruining" race relations?  How?  By having the nerve to be a black guy in a position of power?  I think African-Americans might differ just a bit with you on your assessment of President Obama's impact on race relations.  Jeez...

As to Ohio, you and John Kasich need to get on the same page.  He ran for president touting the "Ohio miracle", which would have arguably been even better if he had supported the bailout that saved GM.  The unemployment rate in Ohio is currently below 5%, very much in line with the national rate, and has been falling for some time; that is a matter of fact, not hype.

And FWIW, the term "Rust Belt" goes back slightly farther than January of 2009.  Like the 1970's.  But just to add some more inconvenient facts to the mix, take a look at info about U.S. manufacturing.  It's the largest sector of the economy, and we are manufacturing at near-record levels in this country, accounting for 36% of GDP in 2015.  The "problem" is that automation has reduced the number of workers necessary to generate that output, and THAT genie ain't going back in the bottle with Trump or anybody else is in office.

Facts are messy and inconvenient when they interfere with a preferred fairy tale, aren't they?

[Joe Hancock]

I'd rather see posters insult each other over obviously poor preferences in golf course design and presentation than have to suffer through this. Isn't there somewhere else on the web to vent and puff your political chests?


Ran, thanks in advance for the upcoming deletion of this thread.

[John Kirk]

I wrote a long response to support my friend Terry Lavin, but decided at the last minute to send it to Terry personally, thus wasting 10 minutes of his time, but not yours.

Politics and economics are complicated.  I try to be pragmatic rather than ideological.  I would guard against frequenting any media source that reinforces a daily message that one political party is always wrong.  Don't play their game.

The subject of courses closing is a sensitive topic for this board.  It will be difficult, if not impossible, for golf to grow in the current (and future?) macroeconomic environment.  The game of golf can improve, but I doubt it will grow.  I'm not sure threads about golf economics are valuable, even though I tend to participate in them. 

[Mike_Young]

Who cares?  Why do so many of us have to define ourselves by our politics and jobs?  Try not to think about politics more than five minutes a day and all things get better.  Same goes for jobs.  I see so many of the young guys trying to get in the design business defining their life by golf design.  You can have a passion for politics or occupation but don't let it define you.  Just tell us why you think courses are closing.....that was the question....

[John Kirk]

OK, I'll repeat the unconventional answer, since Mike Young asked.

Golf courses are closing because the total amount of energy required to support their existence is becoming economically unsustainable.  The easy sources of oil are drying up, and the energy required to extract, deliver and defend diesel gasoline, while maintaining peace and social stability, is reaching a tipping point where maintaining 50+ pristine acres of playing fields for golf is unsustainable and unreasonable.  Furthermore, in many places, the use of millions of gallons of fresh water for golf is a questionable practice.  That's the main reason.

 

[V_Halyard]

Who cares?  Why do so many of us have to define ourselves by our politics and jobs?  Try not to think about politics more than five minutes a day and all things get better.  Same goes for jobs.  I see so many of the young guys trying to get in the design business defining their life by golf design.  You can have a passion for politics or occupation but don't let it define you.  Just tell us why you think courses are closing.....that was the question....

Good point.
A general answer may be they are out of synch with the needs of that market's golf consumer demographic.
Reasons are likely location dependent.
Some are too expensive, others may be too long/too hard/too boring.
Some may need not so much as a "restoration" but have fallen into disrepair.  Either way, the quality of the golf experience is not compelling enough to attract/retain enough golfers to deliver a profit or sustaining private club revenue.

[Mike Sweeney]

Just tell us why you think courses are closing.....that was the question....

Natural cycle of time, money, and options.

• Time - There is more demand on people's time. Technology was supposed to reduce that, but it seems worse with 24-7 pressures from the phones. It seems more difficult to break away. Now when I do, I really try to put the phone in my golf bag.
• Money - I think golf can be pretty affordable, but fancy golf favored by this Board is less affordable.
• Options - Lots more leisure activities these days.

[Thomas Dai]

A word that comes to mind when the subject of why courses are closing arises is 'over-ambition'. A dangerous thing with a tendency to be fatal.
Atb

[Frank M]

Golf courses are closing because even on a website devoted to golf course architecture we can't refrain from talking about politics.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is a much simpler reason. The game of golf is not as good as it was.


Various reasons lead to that but the extra time it now takes reduces the enjoyment factor and/or makes it too "time expensive" versus the "time availabilty".


The internet takes a lot of peoples available time now. That was not there 15+ years ago. From a UK perspective our roads are more crowded adding time getting there/back.


In the 1.62 days we pitched up at 5.30 in the summer played a full round no problem. Now you seem to get 13 holes in.


TV exposure shows a really boring game not one to grab attention. The courses are extremely boring (except for majors) and it seems the game revolves around who holes putts and who does not. The game at the high level with crossing water hazards etc etc is not so easy to relate too for the lesser player. The ground game is/was which the novice can enjoy.


Lots of other reasons too but fundamentally golf takes longer to play against the pattern of peoples available time. It has crunched the 21-45 year olds quite hard.

[John Kavanaugh]

Just take a look this weekend at the people attending golf tournaments and ask yourself if you didn't already play would you learn a difficult game so you could hang out with them. Having those who carry our bags lead the next generation of participants is modified inbreeding at its best.

[Mike_Young]

If location and economic efficiencies are good then the other reason a course may close is playability....If the architect's name stood out no more than the supt or the golf pro then we might be on our way to fixing some of these places that close.  If you look in developing countries at the courses being built, they are built for show and no one is willing to build a technically sound golf course with shallow bunkers and simple greens that cna be played by peoples that have never played before.  Go thru south Florida and look at many of the older courses that have large amounts of play and you will see simple shallow bunkering with simple greens and open fronts.  So many architects don't think they should be involved with such and yet that is what most people want. 

[MCirba]

It's tough to divorce politics and economic realities from a realistic discussion of why courses are closing.   Golf does not exist in some microeconomic vacuum, except at perhaps the 1% level where folks are economically shielded from the realities most of us face.

A.G. Crockett dared share facts here and I think that's a good thing.   There sure as hell weren't many of those things...facts...shared during this past election cycle.   

Perhaps some folks and the game of golf will thrive in this new post-factual universe.   Stranger things have happened, I guess.   I simply suspect the decline of golf participation will drop even further under a President who believes participation in golf should be an "aspirational" endeavor for the wealthiest, and not something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives.

[Mark Pritchett]

As the Charlotte Golf Links thread shows us, sometimes a closure occurs simply because a golf course is not the highest and best use of the land. 

[Mike Wagner]

something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives.

I'm slower than most - can you explain what you mean by this?

[Kalen Braley]

something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives.

I'm slower than most - can you explain what you mean by this?

Seems clear to me when you include the whole sentence...


" I simply suspect the decline of golf participation will drop even further under a President who believes participation in golf should be an "aspirational" endeavor for the wealthiest, and not something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives."

[Mike Wagner]

something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives.

I'm slower than most - can you explain what you mean by this?

Seems clear to me when you include the whole sentence...


" I simply suspect the decline of golf participation will drop even further under a President who believes participation in golf should be an "aspirational" endeavor for the wealthiest, and not something where the propagation of participation directly benefits our society and our individual lives."

Kalen -


Thank you for your wise contribution.  Please give me your interpretation.  Thanks.

[MCirba]

Mike Wagner,

No need for Kalen to interpret as I'll be happy to expand on my thoughts.

Generally throughout history, nations where golf is played have flourished and have also tended to be the most civilized, the best educated, the most peaceful, and economically thriving   Is it the chicken or the egg?   From my perspective, it doesn't matter.   I'll take my chances there.    There's a reason King James the Whatever utterly cryeth down the game of golf as it was interfering with his warring pursuits.   

I've spent a lot of time researching and spending time understanding the dynamic of the game as it's played abroad which is very egalitarian, and the game as played in the United States, where it has tended to be more segmented to the upper classes historically.   However, that doesn't mean that the nobles haven't seen the wisdom and benefit of expanding the game of golf to all classes.   In Philadelphia, for instance, club officials from the top private clubs were the ones who finally convinced the city to use its park system to expand golf to all citizens.   They saw the benefits in developing culture and character in their citizenry that is basic and inherent in the game.

Coming out for making access to the game limited, or "aspirational", as the President-elect puts it, runs counter to that spirit.   The irony is that the President-elect learned the game on the very same Philadelphia course that was started for the use of all people back in 1916; the same course where the first black PGA professional Charlie Sifford learned to play the game.   

I trust that helps explain my statement.   Thanks.

"One has only to walk about for a bit on a fine afternoon to realize that these people are truly a sport loving people, firm believers in the doctrine of "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"—these are the people who are clamoring for a chance at golf over those broad acres of Fairmount which are at present unused.  Those of us who know the good old game also know that nothing is so well calculated to bring out man's good qualities—if they be there—or instill them if they be wanting. Golf develops and makes character—so give us public schools that our boys may be men; and give us public golf courses that our men may be men indeed." - A. W. Tillinghast 1909

[MCirba]

A bit more from Mr. Tillinghast in 1911.   

[Jim Sherma]

Having read through this thread for some reason the one thought that sticks in my mind is a quote from Ron Burgundy:


"Boy, that escalated quickly"




And interns of the initial reason for the thread.


The parts of golf of significance that are being lost in golf is two-fold


1: the serious working class public course golfers that played three or so times a week and were the backbone of many public courses. The good jobs that afforded that luxury are disappearing.


2: the marginally attached club member that belonged to a second tier club for social reasons and played some golf while there. The cost and time demands of the modern economy and marriage makes it very difficult to justify.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike Wagner,

No need for Kalen to interpret as I'll be happy to expand on my thoughts.

Generally throughout history, nations where golf is played have flourished and have also tended to be the most civilized, the best educated, the most peaceful, and economically thriving   Is it the chicken or the egg?   From my perspective, it doesn't matter.   I'll take my chances there.    There's a reason King James the Whatever utterly cryeth down the game of golf as it was interfering with his warring pursuits.   

I've spent a lot of time researching and spending time understanding the dynamic of the game as it's played abroad which is very egalitarian, and the game as played in the United States, where it has tended to be more segmented to the upper classes historically.   However, that doesn't mean that the nobles haven't seen the wisdom and benefit of expanding the game of golf to all classes.   In Philadelphia, for instance, club officials from the top private clubs were the ones who finally convinced the city to use its park system to expand golf to all citizens.   They saw the benefits in developing culture and character in their citizenry that is basic and inherent in the game.

Coming out for making access to the game limited, or "aspirational", as the President-elect puts it, runs counter to that spirit.   The irony is that the President-elect learned the game on the very same Philadelphia course that was started for the use of all people back in 1916; the same course where the first black PGA professional Charlie Sifford learned to play the game.   

I trust that helps explain my statement.   Thanks.

"One has only to walk about for a bit on a fine afternoon to realize that these people are truly a sport loving people, firm believers in the doctrine of "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"—these are the people who are clamoring for a chance at golf over those broad acres of Fairmount which are at present unused.  Those of us who know the good old game also know that nothing is so well calculated to bring out man's good qualities—if they be there—or instill them if they be wanting. Golf develops and makes character—so give us public schools that our boys may be men; and give us public golf courses that our men may be men indeed." - A. W. Tillinghast 1909

Mike - thank you for the explanation.  This is genuinely what I was looking for and didn't find it self-evident as others did.


Very thoughtful.

[MCirba]

Thanks Mike. I really appreciate that sincerely. Have a great day.

[Tim Gavrich]

Mike C's analysis is tremendous and agreeable to me, and it highlights that golf's crippling PR problem is deeper than ever. To me, there are two challenges:


1) How do we get people to start playing golf?
2) How do we get people who already play golf to play more golf?




On the first question, the fact that our next president is, to many non-golfers, the avatar of all that is loathsome about the game (that it's dominated by the old, the white, the male, the rich and the snobby) will not do much to help bring new players to the game in the near future without some herculean efforts on the part of individual course owners/municipalities to continue to make the case that, no, actually, golf can be for everyone. There are some points of light, though, especially in things like the ascendant PGA Junior League. Still, it's going to take time and effort to overcome the overwhelming feeling shared by non-golfers that golf is bad.


On the second question I'm actually a little bit more hopeful, because the average quality of golf course seems to be increasing, especially at the muni level. The renovation of Keney Park in Hartford has single-handedly revitalized my father's own golf desires, and recent work at munis in Wilmington, Savannah and other cities should create more cases where golfers who had played 15 rounds last year may want to play 20 or 25 this year. Increasing the average quality of courses also has the benefit of helping awareness of architectural virtue in golf creep incrementally higher. Unfortunately, because golf is still dominated by older folks, when the Baby Boomers start to "age out" at high rates (2025 and after), it'll REALLY be white-knuckle time for the game.

[Sean_A]

Mike


I spose you could say there is a trickle down effect of golf in the US.  Rich folks built private clubs who in turn created the USGA who then created tournament golf which was popular enough for public courses to be built due to interest.  Of course, other socio-political factors contributed to make golf a popular and somewhat affordable game.  Its been the modern rise of real estate golf and country club for a day places which have helped undermine the concept of golf for the working classes. In effect, folks who can't afford private golf faking it for a day.  Loads of golfers have opted for less golf on "better" courses. But I think its important to remember, the US has far and away the best variety, quality and price point choices of public golf in the world.  Public golf is golf, the USGA/private clubs are the facade which is often mistaken for what golf is in the US.  If folks in the US won't afford golf, that doesn't bode well for gobal growth.  All that said, I don't think there is any need for the panic we often see.  For those who want to play golf, there will remain options.  Maybe not in every nook and cranny of the globe, but then why should golf be available in that way?


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()