The Impact of the Hobbyist Crowd on Memberships and Architecture?

[Mike Hendren]

Terry Lavin coined the term "hobbyist crowd" on another thread.  His Honor is on to something.  I have played exactly one round in Nashville this year, that being at a charity scramble for business.  Otherwise, I've played four courses in Oregon, three in Virginia, two in Tennessee, three in North Carolina and one in Georgia off the top of my head.  Unfortunately I had to cancel one in Illinois with the esteemed S. Solow, Esquire.  

It's not ehard to see why I resigned from a private club a couple of years ago.  Why buy the cow when the milk is cheap?  I received a five-figure return of my deposit and spent less on golf this year than I previously paid for annual dues.  

This is appalling to John Kavanaugh and I understand his perspective.  Take Ballyneal for example - what percentage of rounds played in its history have been by non-members?  

What are the pluses and minuses of the hobbyist crowd?

Mike

[PCCraig]

Mike,

Can you define "hobbyist crowd"?

[Mike Hendren]

I interpreted the phrase to mean those golfers who are habitually seeking out opportunities to play new-to-them golf courses with some level of perceived or actual architectural merit even at the expense of regularly scheduled games at home. 

I'll defer to Terry, however. 

Mike 

[Pete Garvey]

Bogey,

Good question and one that will take some thought.  On the surface, the good news is you've played 14 rounds so far this year.  The bad news is, you've only played 14 rounds this year.     

[Lou_Duran]

A companion for the "card and pencil type" on GCA.com's Nerd couch, the "Hobbyist" (aka the "avg. cost per round type").

[Terry Lavin]

Mike Keiser has dubbed the monied, willing-to-travel golfing crowd the "retail golfers".  That's a bit of demographic genius, IMHO.  When I use the term "hobbyists" hereabouts, I'm referring to those of us who have accumulated a certain degree of knowledge on the subject of golf and golf course architecture, without being professionals in either endeavor.  Not that there's any shortage of opinions in this crowd, but the desire to be somewhat more comfortable with the language and the business of these two pursuits is something that almost all of us share.  It's sort of like learning how to talk about wine, how to develop the knowledge and then to articulate the likes and dislikes with language.

So, with that lame definition out of the way, let me address the question posed by Bogey.

On the plus side of the ledger:

1.  It's a knowledgeable crowd that is somewhat conversant with private club management, resort development and the rudiments of golf course architecture and history.
2.  This group is not particularly focused on par.
3.  This group tends to embrace quirk, minimalism and respects those professionals who embrace same.
4.  It is a passionate group that likes to fan flames of their own creation, which can be mildly beneficial to certain aspects of the game itself, to the business of golf course development and club membership.

On the negative side of the ledger:

1.  We "know" a hell of a lot less than we think we know.
2.  Many are prone to "group think".
3.  With some exceptions, this group doesn't have the sort of wealth in numbers that can have any negligible influence on the success or failure of anything other than a rater outing.
4.  The flames of passion can just as quickly turn against a former object of affection.

So, in a sentence, I'd say that the impact of the hobbyist crowd on Memberships and Architecture is, well, minimal.  Couldn't resist!

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I can only answer the question with another question. 

How many of the last 20 tier-two English courses that Sean Arble has profiled here do you think would have survived and flourished as they have for the last hundred years if the 'hobbyist crowd' and its ethos and goals had been the prevailing one?   

How many of these wonderful, modest, walkable, playable, easy and inexpensive to maintain, architecturally sound and charming courses that have provided countless golfers with countless hours of homely and affordable pleasure would the hobbyist crowd have supported?  (Not now, I mean, with Sean having helped raise their profile and with an experienced -- and some might say slightly jaded -- hobbyist crowd ever-looking for the new hidden gem -- but 20 and 50 and 70 years ago).

Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Not many English clubs would have done so well if they heavily relied on the discerning (both in terms of quality and value) traveling golfer.  Without an enthusiastic membership I am sure many clubs would now be housing estates. 

I do think a great many of the second tier courses are fairly well supported, but usually by members of other clubs (or at the very least societies) - its a clique thing.  Even today I don't know many vagabond golfers (a golfer being someone who plays 20+ times a year).  It usually isn't economical NOT to join a club if one is going to play that often. 

Ciao     

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - And thus you (still) have dozens of "Doak 5s" dotting the landscape and continuing to fulfill their primary purpose, IMHO, i.e. to provide a fun and challenging game of golf with fresh air and exercise to people of all ages/skill level at an affordable and sustainable price and in an environment of goodwill in which friendships and a sense of community are fostered and sustained.  

If golf/golf courses/gca can use that as model/value system moving forward, and if the majority of golfers can embrace the modest ethos expressed in/by those teir-two courses, I think golf and golfers and gca will flourish for a long time to come.  

Peter

PS - thanks for your post; I appreciated the confirmation of my assumptions from a knowledgable source. 

[Kirk Gill]

is the Hobbyist Golfer more or less likely to actually join a club?

Does the hobbyist brain relish continually re-playing the home course, or does it require constant "new-ness" and Top 100 levels of gratification?





"I don't know about YOUR brain, but mine is really...........bossy."

                                                                - L. Anderson

[Scott Stearns]

The hobbyist crowd, if it is defined by either the mainstream of people who post here or those who have gone to Bandon in the last 12 months, affects golf only in the sense that they are "opinion makers".

Posters here, for better or worse, have a lot to do with defining (or at least mirror) the debate on hot courses and the top 100 lists.  These people also affect the architecture columns in magazines.

These things in turn have an impact on what clubs people join--i.e. people in new york join a club that is either (a) near their home (b) attended by their friends (c) is a "hot" property, however defined.

Aside from this, however, i think Hobbyists have ZERO impact on memberships.  The number of people who play more golf on the road than at home, and base that travel on the quality of the golf is about 1500--roughly the membership of this site.

I dont mean to say that anybody cares what i personally think--i have no special knowledge or credibility and havent played but a few of the courses mantioned.  I mean to say that the general discussion either influences opinion or reflects it--sometimes i cant tell which.

[Carl Rogers]

I am not ashamed to admit that I am in the "hobbyist" crowd.

If I was not married, did not really enjoy the field I am in, had the time, travel $ & connections to play at the World top 500, I would start doing that tomorrow.

I have a keen curiousity (only the most anecdotal knowledge) on how courses are maintained, grass types, etc, but have no desire to kibbittz Owners and Supers.

I could never imagine impacting the opinions concerning the game.