Would the game be better or worse off had 12 holes become the standard?

[V. Kmetz]

VK:  I get that.  The funny part is that those 12 holes at Prestwick played right over the top of each other, with multiple crossovers and a couple of greens that were used more than once ... as a model it was as unsuited to the long term growth of the game as any you could find.  In general, it bothers me that golfers get so fixated on numbers.

TD:  First as a person who cut his teeth on "make-do," arcane, nine hole courses that feature such problems, that aspect is kind of charming and sentimental to me...But your "as a model suited to the long-term growth of the game" remark speaks to one of the reasons my original post speculated that golf, in toto, might have developed into a more provincially played, more "backyard," less public game...you're right, that Prestwick course, if as paternally dominant a model as tOC, would have led to a far different design of the game.


cheers   vk

[Tom Bacsanyi]

There is no more 1/3 less acreage needed than 1/3 less cost. You still need the same infrastructure. I would guess that no one is taking a 1/3 pay cut.

True that.  A nine-hole course is maybe 75% as expensive to operate as an 18-hole course, because there are so many fixed costs.  However that does tend to keep them from spending much money on big clubhouses.

Is there a study or article that you are referencing here?  I have to challenge the 75% number.  Speaking of 9 hole courses, if you halve the water bill, and halve the maintenance crew, and halve the equipment budget I don't see how your year to year operating costs aren't cut nearly in half.  Now, I would agree with you if you are talking about startup and construction costs, as a 9 hole irrigation system, clubhouse, driving range, and maintenance facility probably would cost well over half of an 18 hole course.

[Tom_Doak]

There is no more 1/3 less acreage needed than 1/3 less cost. You still need the same infrastructure. I would guess that no one is taking a 1/3 pay cut.

True that.  A nine-hole course is maybe 75% as expensive to operate as an 18-hole course, because there are so many fixed costs.  However that does tend to keep them from spending much money on big clubhouses.

Is there a study or article that you are referencing here?  I have to challenge the 75% number.  Speaking of 9 hole courses, if you halve the water bill, and halve the maintenance crew, and halve the equipment budget I don't see how your year to year operating costs aren't cut nearly in half.  Now, I would agree with you if you are talking about startup and construction costs, as a 9 hole irrigation system, clubhouse, driving range, and maintenance facility probably would cost well over half of an 18 hole course.

Tom:


I don't have a study.  My only real-world reference is a 36-hole facility that started with 18 holes and added 9 more and 9 more, many years ago.  Their maintenance budget for the 18 holes was $1m.  For 27 holes, $1.3m.  And for 36 holes, $1.35m !


Perhaps my 75% number was too high, but I'd bet it's closer to that than it is to 50%.


It is always difficult to compare maintenance budgets between different types of facilities because expectations can be so different.  You are right, to the extent that most nine-hole courses are by necessity fairly modest places, and might be more likely to get by with a minimal staff than a full 18-hole course.  But it's hard to find a good mechanic if you're only paying him half-time.

[V_Halyard]

Pay to play whatever holes you choose reminds me of what happened to the music industry. I miss albums.

Sadly much of the fate of the music industry (part of my day job) was industry self-inflicted. Before digital downloads, when companies began to use "hit" single as loss leading attractions, labels began forcing consumers to pay an album's ransom just to buy the one or two hit songs they actually liked.  Hence when Napster and MP3.com came along offering choice (Legal and otherwise), this skewered the "album for a hostage model" as well as the company investment in the larger album length body of work.
 
In contrast to that era of the music industry, one could imagine a golf course that offered an entertaining selection of holes would likely find people paying for "x", realizing or wishing they had paid for "X+Y" or "2X". This is part of the iTunes model where buyers listen to one or two songs and decide they ultimately like the entire album.


Ponder this, after playing 9 holes and your foursome's pace of play was so outstanding that you come to the realization you have enough time to go a bit longer. You swing by the pro shop/kiosk/iPhone app, see there are some open tee times, and "upgrade" your round by purchasing another 3,6,9,or 12 holes. Like buying another bucket of balls, or the entire album... or TopGolf.

[Luke Eipper]

I recently read a terrific review of the  Shiskine Golf and Tennis Club located on the island of Arran in Scotland.

It's an old seaside links made up of quirky holes. While I have never been there, the course looks terrific . It maximises the acreage available, and all in all produces a fun test.

IMO, golf today takes too long and people are either not taking it up or giving it up so as to work more, family commitments etc. In Australia, houses prices are higher than ever before and many families see mum and dad working full-time jobs. Consequently, mum or dad heading off to the golf course on the weekend for 5+ hours is no longer commonplace .

I think more people would be interested in taking up the game if it was quicker to play. For those that love it or have the time, they'll likely play 12 holes and then an extra six.

Existing golf clubs could learn a thing or two from courses like Shiskine. Creative re-routes might allow players to play 10, 11, 12 holes etc. in 3 hours and get home. This in turn might see more golfers remain or even take up membership.