[Jim Thompson]

One of the arguments that keeps coming up relative to any changes is that they will make the game more difficult and folks won't be as inclined to stay with or take up the game.  Is that so bad???

The NGCOA will probably be after my card for this, but are there to many courses because there are to many golfers?  Are there to many golfers because the game has gotten easier?  When the test gets harder do we lose character players?  Is the good of the game the same as the growth or profitability of the game?

Something to think about.

Cheers!

JT

[Brent Hutto]

There is zero chance that the USGA or anyone else is going to make some sort of massive change that will "make the game harder". It would be suicide for them as an organization to try and by fiat make everyone start playing wound balata balls and persimmon clubs or some such.

So within the range of possible USGA equipment rule changes I don't think there will be any discernable effect on the number of golfers playing the game or the number of rounds played. That said, I think fewer people playing the game (for whatever reason) is an undesirable outcome to any but the most bloody-minded contrarian.

I'm sure there is somone out there pining for the days when golf was viewed as an elite activity suitable only for the upper classes but that's about as mainstream a belief system as belonging to the Flat Earth Society.

[A_Clay_Man]

Hey, Brent. I'm a blloody minded contrairian, and I value golf's spirit, of the more the merrier.

[Bill Gayne]

What would the people who disqualified themselves from playing golf because they lacked necessary skills do?

They would probably join the majority of the population that doesn't play golf and make it more difficult for new courses to be built and further enhance golf's image of being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

If the current eight handicap was suddenly a thirteen because of increased difficulty, would he/she quit the game? I don't think so, you would just have more golfers with higher handicaps playing slower from the wrong set of tees. They would probably be grumbling about the good old days when the USGA had the technology correct.

[John Keenan]

Bill

What you described in effect is happening today.

Golf is not growing. New people come to the sport while others drop out so the impact is no growth. Being too hard is I feel a key factor in this. Certainly not the only one but a key one

 

[Tim Gavrich]

I know this much:

If all the players out there with 35+ handicaps (and the players who top a ball 5 feet, drive the cart forward 5 feet, and then grab a different club out of their bags) were to suddenly take up fishing, I'd not say I'd miss them.  Golf is not a 9-5 game.  Unless you play 36.

This is assuming we all believe that the worst players are the ones likely to be driven away, of course.  There are plenty of good players who are slow.  But that's a discussion for a different thread.

[Doug Siebert]

The hardest thing about golf for beginners and occasional players used to be hitting the driver.  Now that's probably one of the easiest clubs in the bag for them to hit well, because the heads are so big and the clubs are so forgiving.  When's the last time you saw a pop-up drive?  Not a whole lot of worm burners or 50 yarders off the back of the heel these days either.

The courses are a lot more penal, partly because of the Dye/Fazio factor and partly because more courses are being built on marginal land that can't have swampy areas drained.  Crappy marshy lowlands are being sold as "challenging Florida style courses".  That's how ball makers are able to survive despite selling balls that are essentially impervious to damage.  I can play a Pro V1x for an essentially unlimited number of rounds (providing I'm okay with the road rash that results when a drive lands on a concrete cart path)  If Moe Norman was still around he'd probably still be on the first sleeve of Pro V1s he got when they were introduced five years ago!

Which type of difficulty is more frustrating for beginners and occasional golfers....being unable to hit the driver and not doing very well with other clubs either, or being as good or better with the driver than the other clubs, but constantly losing balls all the time, to both good shots and bad?  I think they were better off in the old days, because guys who couldn't hit the driver would switch to a 3W or even an iron and get around the course.  Worm burners on unirrigated courses got some pretty decent mileage when they didn't have to carry 100 yards of wetlands off the tee or in front of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill Gayne and John Keenan,

So you're saying that this generation of golfers is a bunch of wimps, unfit for a challenge that's been waged by generations of golfers that came before them, men, women, children and seniors.

That's an interesting perspective.

Brent Hutto,

Why do you couch your position in terms of one calamatous event.

Why wouldn't a "phased in" roll back, over 5-10 years work well ?

We didn't come to this junction through one quantum leap, why do you feel it's necessary to return through one quantum leap ?

Many golf issues, including square grooves had "phase out" periods.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent Hutto,

Why do you couch your position in terms of one calamatous event.

Why wouldn't a "phased in" roll back, over 5-10 years work well ?

We didn't come to this junction through one quantum leap, why do you feel it's necessary to return through one quantum leap ?

Many golf issues, including square grooves had "phase out" periods.

I suppose if you made the change gradual enough you could get by with a bigger change than if it were all done at once. But they wouldn't convince people to give up durable golf balls and large, metal clubheads no matter how gradual the implementation. But even if we're talking about something like a 3-5% decrease in carry distance through a ball rollback that wouldn't be the sort of thing you announce and make effective all at once next January 1.

My answer to this particular question remains that there is no chance of rules changes being promulgated that are sufficiently drastic to cause large numbers of people to quit the game. So "losing players" is a moot point when discussing potential USGA equipment rulings. The original framing of this topic made reference to a "calamitous event" causing players to leave the game. My response is that no such drastic thing is under consideration.

[T_MacWood]

The long term postives would far out weigh any intitial negative affect. What about the opposite question. Has uncontrolled technology brought more people to the game? No, from what I understand...as many people who now take up the game, the same number quit.

The game is too expensive today, and is much more time consuming than it has to be. Golf should be no more than a three hour walk....walk being the opperative word.

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

There nothing in the USGA's power to induce people to walk instead of ride in carts. Likewise, slow play is not a matter of Rules although I suppose some tiny improvement could be made by providing some sort of alternative to stroke+distance for balls lost not in a hazard. But basically people play slowly because the modern American game has a culture of playing slowly.

To answer the other question, I don't think technolgy changes have much direct effect on bringing people into the game. The only indirect effect might be that the companies promulgating the new technology advertise a lot and in theory that might attract some non-golfer to give the game a try.

I do think that modern technology may be having a small effect on retaining people who try the game. Durable and easy to hit clubs and cheap, durable golf balls won't turn a casual (few times a year) player into a so-called core golfer but perhaps it could keep them playing a few times a year instead of trying the game briefly and quitting because they can't get the ball in the air and it hurts their hands.

Finally, as to the expense of the game that's nothing to do with prices of premium golf balls and name-brand high-tech golf clubs. You can still get golf equipment as cheaply as ever and you can get balls in particular more cheaply than years ago. The game is expensive because of lack of access to reasonably priced courses. Like all other consumer goods, there are people spending boatloads of money on golf but that's just the modern way. Except for the golf course and the time it takes to play the game, everything else can be done on a budget if that's what someone wants to do.

[T_MacWood]

I did not say the USGA has the power to make people walk, but rolling back the game would help. Shorter golf courses would be a good first step, the shorter courses could also potentially reduce the high cost of playing the game.

The USGA should do whatever they can to promote walking and a standard of three hour rounds. They have the power to promote "the good of the game", and IMO they've done a poor job to date (as have the equipment manufacturers...at time when we have the most popular golfer the game has ever seen) They could start by setting an example with their own championships.

Because of the outrageous expense of green fees and golf euipment and ball, golf today is a game for rich white guys (at least in America). At least in the good old days it was a game for rich white guys and poor to middle class white guys (caddies). They (USGA) need to look at that and I try to do something to make the game more affordable and inclusive.

[Craig Sweet]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks new technology should be bringing more people to the game, or should somehow magically make golf  easier...

If your argument is new technology doesn't add anything to the game, and you point to declining numbers (rounds played etc.) and the continued difficulty of the sport as the basis for that argument, then I think you totally miss the point of "new technology"...

Yes...losing players to increase difficulty would be bad for golf...narrowing fairways, growing deeper rough, speeding up greens, lengthening classic courses, etc. for the sake of making the game more "elitist" is, in my opinion, bad....

[Craig Sweet]

Tom...I work at a muni and there is NO WAY anyone is going to walk the course in 3 hours on a normal day...a weekday...HOWEVER...80% of our regulars DO WALK the course.

Of course if you belong to an exclusive private club you can probably walk on anytime and get around in 3 hours...

Once again I'm amazed that anyone can be so insulated in their private golf club that they do not understand the world beyond the gates...3 hour rounds! Ha!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes...losing players to increase difficulty would be bad for golf...narrowing fairways, growing deeper rough, speeding up greens, lengthening classic courses, etc. for the sake of making the game more "elitist" is, in my opinion, bad....


How does narrowing fairways, growing deeper rough, speeding up greens, lengthening classic course have anything to do with making the game more "elitist" ?

Those alterations are about protecting par, not class warfare, which you seem hung up on.[/color]

[Craig Sweet]

Tom, how can you make the statements you make???

Golf a game of rich white folks? Have you EVER been to a public course?

Golf a 3 hour walk? You're joking right?

You are out of touch.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...if you make the course more difficult you will discourage the mediocre golfer/high handicapper...they will stop playing the game....if you roll back the equipment, some golfers will leave the game or never get into the game...

In other words, when you take actions that essentially say "if you aren't good enough to bad" you are making the game more exclusive for those that are good enough...thus...they become elite...

STOP using the word elite in a "class" sense....the golfers remaining, after you're finnished tinkering with the "game" are the elite....

[T_MacWood]

Craig
I have played the majority of my golf on public courses...my observation, blacks and hispanics make up a very small percentage of the golf population...considerably smaller than their percentage of the over all population.

Three hour rounds...no I'm not joking.

[Craig Sweet]

A single, playing thru foursomes at every opportunity, and on a near trot, might...might...be able to squeeze out a 3 1/2 hour  round at our muni...and we set the course up for speedy play...

[T_MacWood]

You need to get your ass in gear.

One of the bizzare developments in the last few years, predominantly black colleges (like Morgan State, Central State, Grambling, Hampton, etc) have golf teams that are almost exclusively white. I'm not sure what to make of it....but it certainly says something about the game today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Pace of play isn't a function of net worth.
It's not a private versus a public issue.

Pace of play is a function of how you learned the game and the values you place on the game.

The "me" generation wants to do what's best for them without any consideration for others.  Slow play has become a cultural issue within golf

If you want to wage class warfare, wage it against that culture.

As to your views on members of private clubs, you're right, what do they know, they probably can't read and only have the money to belong to a club because they won the lottery or inherited their wealth.  I bet most of them never worked a day in their lives, and don't know what's going on in the real world, like you do.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, YOU seem to be the one hung up on "class warefare", not me....

I am saying, if you make the game more exclusive...in any fashion...limiting technology...making the course more difficult...you automatically limit the participants...thus you make the game more elite...

The question asked in the title of this thread is "would losing players to increaded difficulty be so bad"....you seems to be saying.. NO

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...if you make the course more difficult you will discourage the mediocre golfer/high handicapper...they will stop playing the game....if you roll back the equipment, some golfers will leave the game or never get into the game...
Why do you think those things are being done to golf courses ?
To offset the impact that hi-tech balls and equipment have had on making the architecture and architectural values obsolete.

Most on this site want wider, firmer, faster fairways, balls that "move", a return to a game that wasn't so one dimensional.[/color]

In other words, when you take actions that essentially say "if you aren't good enough to bad" you are making the game more exclusive for those that are good enough...thus...they become elite...

That's absurd.  You want to remove skill from the game and in doing so, destroy the inherent values of the game.[/color]

STOP using the word elite in a "class" sense....the golfers remaining, after you're finnished tinkering with the "game" are the elite....

Why, you continually couch your position in terms of class warfare.

As to your contention that only the elite will remain after courses are beefed up to defend par, that's completely absurd.  24 and 36 handicappers are elite ?
You must be kidding.

According to your theoy only single digit handicaps will be left to be your "elite" core of surviving golfers.

As low handicappers age and become less proficient, do you find them abandoning the game because it's too hard.
Or, do you find them chomping at the bit, to get to the golf course and have a go at it ?

You're the one who doesn't have a clue as to what's happening beyond the gates because you're so caught up in class warfare.

By the way, what's your handicap ?[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Shorter golf courses are easier to walk and more affordable to maintain.

Craig
Do you play with the top of the line equipment? How much would the average guy have to pay for the top of the line equipment and a dozen pro-V1's (I have no idea, I bought my current clubs with the money I earned caddying)? Can the average guy afford top of the line equipment?

How much is a green fee and cart at your course on the weekend?

[Craig Sweet]

Partick...I know you are smart enough to understand how I'm using the word elite...when you are finished tinkering with the "game"...growing the rough longer...making the fairways narrower...then wider...then faster...then wetter...then firm and fast again...and after you have rolled back the equipment to a space and time that suites you...we will have fewer golfers.

Those that remain...will feel pretty special won't they.

My handicap is not the issue here, but I'm pretty sure I can hold my own in a match with you

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()