[TEPaul]

This prospect is something everyone seems to want to prevent and counteract in every way possible.

But what if participation in golf shrunk immensely?

I wonder where that would leave golf architecture over the long haul.

Sure, clubs would go under, those in the business would lose money et al, but I wonder where golf architecture would end up at the end of some real decline in participation in golf?

Do you think that might get it to a place where most of those who care most about golf and architecture would be the ones left?

Do you think too much has been done to golf and even to architecture trying to use it for things that maybe just weren't so good for it?

So what if participation really shrunk? Can you ever go home again?

[Mike_Sweeney]

I think it is shrinking already. America just counted its 300 million person, and golf rounds has been flat for a number of years. The growth for golf is in China, Russia......

The hard core golfer is probably not going anywhere in America, and that is the person who wants to play better courses. If golf rounds drop by 10%, which would be huge based on the growth of baby boomers and total number of people, I don't see anyone quitting or not playing 97% of the Top 1500 or so courses that architecture buffs focus on.

Losing Blue Heron Pines-Smyers, which may not actually happen, is too bad, but there are plenty of other courses to play at The Shore that are as good or better.

[JESII]

To expand on Mike Sweeney's response, I think the "survivors" would be the hard-core golfers. I think the GCA looney's are just a subset of the hard-core golfer.

Would it be the worst thing in the world if participation decreased some (10 - 20%)? What are the pros and cons?

[Jeff_Brauer]

First, of 25 million recorded golfers, the big bucks are spent by 7-8 million of them, and those are the ones who will go anywhere and pay anything for that golf experience. I am going to guess that if each of us in that category trains one young golfer to feel the same, the numbers of avid golfers (25 or more rounds per year) will stay the same.  

That stagnancy should impact the high end of architecture, reducing, but not eliminating the great courses being built.

For all other golfers, the courses that survive will be those that are most convenient to play at the lowest price.  I think some older inner city courses will go under, and those recent upscale publics, perhaps under their third owners, will be the moderate priced courses.  Overall, low end golfers will get improved gca.

I also think a fair number of upscale publics will survive - at the expense of the mid level clubs in many cases.  Paying even $100 per round works out better than average dues at a club that impresses no one for business purposes.

Just a guess though. The golf world is too big to have just one trend.

[cary lichtenstein]

Participation has already dramatically shrunk, we have 300 million population, no 200 or 250, more courses, and stagnant # of rounds.

Probably the over 50+ crowd plays 50% or more of all rounds.

Real Estate development is driving new construction.

We can get on any public course at almost any time we want.

Many courses are being converted into housing and that trend will probably accelerate.

Anyone have any numbers on the # of courses for sale v. 5 years ago?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Your last statement is indeed the best summary.

Golf in America is not a monolith, it's the sum of 500 different markets.  In each market the effect will be different, and it doesn't do any good to worry about the problem "in general" any more than it did for the NGF to state the need for "a golf course every day" years ago.  It's just too simplistic.

In most of the rest of the golf business, the decline will be felt ... fewer golf balls sold, less equipment, fewer golf shirts, etc.  For course owners, revenues might take an even bigger hit as courses feel the need to cut their green fees to compete for market share.  Which is better for the golfers who stay or new golfers taking up the game, and worse for the golf course operators.

For architects, who knows?  There are always going to be some people who want to develop something new, but not as many as before ... we're already seeing that.  Some architects will be forced out of the business, but the high end still seems to be thriving.  (Nicklaus is up to 150 new projects under contract, the majority of them overseas.)  In the end, it may be easier to determine who's in the business because they love it, and who's in it for the money.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom's comment about the number of courses, 150 that Nicklaus has under contract, just illustrates how much time Jack is spending as a practicing architect on average on each of those $2.5 million dollar fees

[Gary Slatter]

Rounds are shrinking and unfortunately it is the aging hard core ranks that are shrinking the most, replaced by the new golfer.
Just read interesting piece in the Economist about this, can't find it right now.

[Paul Payne]

Assuming the worse, one thing is an absolute certainty.

Those who are in the business purely for the profit will be stung. The GCA factories like Palmer and Nicklaus will need to change their business models in order to survive.

Resort and housing developers will also need to find new draws to attract clients (assuming that general interest in golf is on the wane). Golf will not drive premiums in those markets amy more.

I am sure there is a sector of private coures which can weather any storm. I am actually more interested in the potential impact on the local public courses. They would no longer be in competition with the lush resort courses so this could spawn a return to a more quirky low cost style of design. Maybe good???

In the end access may be the issue for the public golfer because shear numbers would determine where a course could survive.

Realistically I think the impact would be more immediate on the golf equipment industry. Supply, development, and quality would all suffer very quickly simply because the operational investments required for these companies to endure.

I am not pessimistic though, I believe there will always be golf because of zealots like me. The only question is will I be making my own clubs and playing in a meadow or something in between that and what we enjoy today.

[RJ_Daley]

TEP, I'm not sure your getting the answers you seek.

Do you think too much has been done to golf and even to architecture trying to use it for things that maybe just weren't so good for it?

That may be the case.  We need to get back to the origins of the game, or at least to the game's ideals when the last century guys brought it here from the craddle.  We should try to understand the game that they knew, for what it was worth to them.  I'm just into Stuart Bendelow's book on his Grandfather Tom Bendelow, the 'Johnny Appleseed of American Golf".  He has the same quotes and descriptions of what benefits golf offers as MacKenzie and Ross and the others of that era.  They all state it to be something on the order of a pleasurable passtime to promote health and wellness of mind and spirit.  They designed to meet the balance of what would be pleasurable, exercise, and accessible to many.  

I don't know that many of the old greats would have liked the game it has become now.  Too much cartball on too many courses that are designed and built for exclusivity status socially and bombastic eye and sensory appeal, to sell ancillary lifestyles in golf communities and penty of merchandised 'stuff'.  I think the old guys would have recognized straight away that modern golf would and has to shrink, based on where it has migrated to in lifestyles and commercial activity.

One can say that they couldn't conceive of places with totally man made water courses of faux ancient streams, and waterfalls, and rides through canyons and tall timber from hole to hole, all because they didn't have the techno construction means to achieve that, and that they would have if they could have.  But, I don't agree.  I don't think they would have gone to the extreems we are seeing, regardless of what equipment they would have had.  Because, they wanted it to be simple, pleasurable, envigorating, accessible to many, and not bombastic.

Yes, bombastic is the word I'd use that would describe where "too much has been done to golf and even architecture, using if for things that just wasn't good for it" as it was known to the forefathers that brought it and promoted it.

So if participation shrinks, I believe it will be in those areas of the bombastic.  The areas of excess, not access.  In fact, I think participation and access will shrink as long as the bombastic continues.  There will be a tipping point, and the rediscovery of the roots and ideals of the original game will finally stimulate the renewal of participation, after the big shrink.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

This prospect is something everyone seems to want to prevent and counteract in every way possible.
But what if participation in golf shrunk immensely?

I wonder where that would leave golf architecture over the long haul.

It would certainly limit new designs, but, it might create interest in fine tuning or redesigns

Sure, clubs would go under, those in the business would lose money et al,

but I wonder where golf architecture would end up at the end of some real decline in participation in golf?

I think a lot of great designs would be lost to developers

Do you think that might get it to a place where most of those who care most about golf and architecture would be the ones left?

No.

I don't think that survival would be dependent upon the quality of the architecture, rather, the wherewithall of the membership.

Do you think too much has been done to golf and even to architecture trying to use it for things that maybe just weren't so good for it?

Could you elaborate on this ?

So what if participation really shrunk?
Can you ever go home again ?

Ask the cows.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

(Nicklaus is up to 150 new projects under contract, the majority of them overseas.)

Tom,

Please stop saying this like 150 x 2.5 M = $375 million in Jack's pocket. You know better than anyone that signing a contract, especially overseas, and collecting on it are two different stories. For instance, I follow the progress on Trellis Bay in Tortola, which is listed on the website, but it could be Jack's grandkids who actually develop it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always found it interesting about the Jack model in a declining market.  Rather than just do a few great projects with small staff, he goes after everything by dropping his fee (using his associates only, his sons at another fee level, etc.)

I guess if he has 150 anywhere near under contract the model works.  I have always felt doing more of the lesser type courses would dilute his architectural legacy, which I presumed would be as important to him as his golf legacy.

I belive the current golf market has affected even the other business model in the high end market - even Coore and Crenshaw are taking more work on, risking some overlap and reduced personal attention to avoid slow periods.

As usual, those business models in the middle seemngly get hurt the most. like Buick suffering while luxury cars and ultra cheapies sell well.  Those not needing a name can always find someone working out of a basement for a rock bottom fee.  Those who want a name will pay the difference and justify it in marketing costs.  A decent gca (and guess who I am thinking of now) with normal office overhead and mid range fees will feel the most pressure.

BTW, in theory, architecture should get better as the number of courses being built goes down.  Each should be treated as an opportunity to create a design masterpiece and get more personal attention and time.  At least, those who love the profession will treat them that way.  Those in it for money only will have 18 green designs on their computer that will get repeated over and over.

BTW 2 - there is a growing market for land planning old courses into new housing, possibly converting them to executive or par 3 courses.  It would be an odd way for those types of courses to get the popularity they deserve but have never had......and they just might fit the bill for future golf, if golfers are aging and playing in retirement, or if younger golfers want golf light that takes less time.

[Mike_Cirba]

I really don't have much intelligent or interesting to add except that I'm feeling we're just now seeing the tip of the iceberg.

As the baby boom generation leaves for heavenly rewards, where are the demographics in the next generation that will support golf in the way it's been happening over the past 20 or so years?

Open land just outside the large population centers and within inner cities has become much more costly than fiscally fits the golf course model and is much more valuable as real estate.  

The "Tiger" factor of bringing minorities into the game seems to me to be a non-factor, ultimately, and sadly, because of access, cost, transportation, time, and yes, popular culture.  

[John_Conley]

Would it be the worst thing in the world if participation decreased some (10 - 20%)? What are the pros and cons?

I was just scanning the posts and thought this said, "would it be the worst thing in the world if POPULATION decreased some 10-20%?

To which my response was, "depends if I'm on the list for contraction!!!!"

[Jim Nugent]

Tom Paul, we could look at what happened during the 1930's to maybe get one answer to your question.  I don't know that golf participation shrank back then -- anyone have any real numbers? -- but it makes sense that it would.  What happened to golf course architecture during the Great Depression?  What happened to golf course construction?

BTW, I think a severe economic downturn, at any time in the future, would mean fewer golfers.  A burst in the real estate bubble might do the same.  

On Jack's 150 courses: those aren't all signature courses, are they?  i.e., does his firm really get $2.5 million on each one?  Either way, Cary is right.  JN must spend very little time at most any course his firm designs.  Ever since I learned this, I've wondered if his courses would turn out better, if he spent more time on them.  Or not?

John Conley: don't think demographic trends show U.S. population shrinking any time soon.  Europe is another matter.  Its population already peaked, and has probably started falling.  By 2050, Europe is expected to have 10% less people than now.  So there might be a laboratory for your idea, on the other side of the pond.  

Add in its immigration policies, and Europeans are looking at some truly earthshaking changes over the coming decades.  One good thing for the U.S.:  maybe the Ryder Cup will get competitive again!

[Emmy]

Instead of wondering…. what if participation in the game of golf shrunk in America….how about a few of us focusing on efforts to help grow the game?

Allied golf associations are now standing shoulder-to-shoulder in their commitment to welcome new players to the game and former players back to the sport. In the USA, Golf 20/20 and national initiatives like Play Golf America are springboards for new growth. Why not support these efforts? More golfers (avid or otherwise) equates to more opportunities in and around the game and business of golf.

[Peter Galea]

What Emmy said.

how about a few of us focusing on efforts to help grow the game?

How about ALL of us focusing on efforts to grow the "greatest" game?

You all OWE it to golf.

[Brad Klein]

Emmy's post about "grow the game initiatives" reminds me of of those "Drug Free Zone" signs at high schools. If it were really a drug free zone, you would not need the sign to remind everyone. The very presence of those programs -- whether "Drug Free" or "Grow the Game" -- is evidence that they are not really working. And while I applaud the effort and endorse it, I'm also by nature suspicious.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

You and I seem to think alike about a number of things to do with golf. Although I'm generally an optimist, I'm suspicious of those programs too but unlike you I don't know that I do applaud and endorse them. Maybe I'm just becoming one of those old Adam Smith "Inviisible Hand" type of guys.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Bradley:

You and I seem to think alike about a number of things to do with golf. Although I'm generally an optimist, I'm suspicious of those programs too but unlike you I don't know that I do applaud and endorse them. Maybe I'm just becoming one of those old Adam Smith "Inviisible Hand" type of guys.  

Not sure if this is the answer, but the Golf Union of Ireland appears to be focused in on schools and kids. My Dad did not play, but my buddies did and taught me as a freshman in high school.

_______________

Appointment of Regional Development Officers

Junior Golf Ireland is the body that oversees the development of grassroots junior golf in Ireland for the governing bodies. It is a partnership between the Golfing Union of Ireland (GUI), the Irish Ladies Golf Union (ILGU) and the Professional Golfer’s Association (Irish Region). Based at the PGA National in Kildare, the aim is to provide an awareness of golf among children and young people in both primary and secondary schools throughout Ireland, and to create pathways for those children to become regular golfers at club and elite level. In order to advance these goals JGI seeks to appoint 2 Regional Development Officers, (Munster and Leinster)

Duties

• To raise the profile of and increase the level of golf among children and young people
• To promote golf to children and young people in schools and create development pathways into regular coaching sessions
• To encourage golf clubs to create an environment in which junior golf can thrive
• Provide guidance to clubs regarding meeting the requirements of the ‘Junior Golf Charter’
• Support local councils, schools, junior convenors, volunteers and parents by providing information which will assist in the provision of golfing opportunities for children and young people.

Skills, Knowledge and Experience

• Organised, enthusiastic and self-motivated
• Excellent communication and presentation skills
• Effective time management skills
• Up-to-date IT skills
• An understanding of the structure of golf in Ireland
• Experience of sports development work and an knowledge of the structures in Ireland
• Experience of development initiatives in another setting
• A sports or leisure qualification is desirable

How to apply

Send a copy of your CV with covering letter, (including names of referees) to the Director of Development, Junior Golf Ireland, PGA National, Palmerstown House, Johnstown, Co. Kildare or email your details to info@juniorgolfireland.com

The closing date for applications is Friday 10th November 2006.


“terms and conditions to be discussed at interview”

[Mike_Trenham]

What will happen when the boomers retire?  If you read the NGF report from ~ 15 years ago one of the primary assumptions was that at age 50 many leisure golfers transition into core golfers (20+ rounds a year).  Now I know that report is really flawed but is this not happening.  I think it is generation X that is not picking up the game the way previous generations did they are spending time on their kids, home and work.

My guess is we will see a recovery soon but it will be the decline after this that will really hurt, when it is generation X that is the older population.

Who knows which will survive but it will be a blood bath.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

That sounds like a great program to emulate in PS 184 in Harlem, don't you think? How much crack do you think you could score for a nice Callaway driver?

[wsmorrison]

What's wrong with spending time with your kids on the golf course?  That is a family activity that we can all enjoy out in the fresh air.

For that matter, golf courses should make it easier for kids to play golf.  Our club allows juniors, once they've qualified--not by score but by learning the rules, proper behavior and ability to keep pace, to host 3 junior non-members for free on our second course.  Private courses need to make a concerted effort to make golf accessible to juniors, especially in the summer on weekdays.

Public golf courses ought to see the light and encourage junior play through free clinics that certify them to play unaccompanied in a foursome of juniors playing at a discount.  Tournaments for juniors will give them something to strive for and practice.  Practice facilities should offer a discount to junior golfers during certain hours.

I don't know how well these macro initiatives work, but there's a lot that can be done at the local and course level.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike:

That sounds like a great program to emulate in PS 184 in Harlem, don't you think? How much crack do you think you could score for a nice Callaway driver?

Tom,

They are playing squash in The Bronx, so why not golf in Harlem. You have to start somewhere. It is not the kids fault where they are born:

http://www.citysquash.org/about_us.htm

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()