News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2005, 11:03:23 PM »
What public course do you work at?

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2005, 11:09:14 PM »
The reality is Tom, unlike you, I spend 8 hours a day at a public golf course. If I stick around and play or practice I might spend 12 hours a day there...

I pay attention to what our clients say...what they do...and how they play the game. The golfers I see with their clubs and "speed carts" have $1000 invested easily...they do not like 4.5 hour rounds, but unfortunately that is the norm on a course doing 50,000 rounds between mid March and late October...they like slower greens, easy pin locations, wide fairways and little rough...they don't sit around and whine about equipment ruining the "game"...

I have to seriously question whether you ever go to the golf course.
LOCK HIM UP!!!

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #52 on: October 14, 2005, 06:36:56 AM »
What public course do you work at?

Brent Hutto

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2005, 09:19:03 AM »
Tom P,

Here's part of the other Tom's original post on the subject.

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.

It sounds like he wants equipment rules that don't allow expensive clubs that are better in some way to cheap ones. The problem is that old-style clubs are no cheaper to manufacture than new-style ones. I suppose some kinds of exotic Titanium alloys and Kevlar filament shafts are very expensive but that stuff doesn't hit a golf ball any better than a $20 clubhead and $20 shaft.

I've already posted on this subject but the fact is there are perfectly usable brand-new golf clubs available at just about any price point you can name. And even the fanciest stuff is available for 1/5 of its brand-new price if you buy it used a couple years after it is discontinued. For anyone who can afford the green fees at a decent muni a couple times a month the cost of equipment is no barrier.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2005, 09:29:47 AM »
Tom...it's none of your business what course I work at...besides, it's irrelevant to this discusion.

Golf is probably more accessable to low and middle class people...of all colors...than it has ever been....progams exist to encourage young kids to play...programs in urban areas that were not available 10 years ago...equipment costs run form cheap mass produced entry level clubs to expensive forged sets, but they are, in today's dollars, no more expensive than they have ever been...

However, it is my opinion that thru regulation of clubs and balls you run the risk of driving many club makers out of business...they will not pay the price to conform...when your options are either buy your clubs from manufacturer A or manufacturer B, you are at their mercy regarding costs...this is just my opinion, and that might not happen...

As you regulate what clubs and balls you can and can't use I would not be surprised if some golfers quit the game...many might respond to a rollback by saying why would I want to use clubs and balls like those I used 20 years ago...and walk away.


LOCK HIM UP!!!

TEPaul

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2005, 09:48:41 AM »
Brent:

Thanks, I guess I didn't look far enough back in this thread to see Tom MacWood's point.

Tom MacWood:

If a lower price for equipment, or some scheme to offer golf to the public at lower prices is what you'd like to see, then how do you see that happening today and what do you think the USGA's part in it should be?

It occurs to me that the USGA looks at their roll or their mission in American golf as a not for profit amateur organization to protect their playing rules, their I&B rules and regs, their rules on Amateur status and as a tournament association to conduct and administer app 13 national championships, as well as agronomic research, a handicap system and its semi-related handicap service provider GHIN. Their new initiative into such things as "First Tee" some think may be somewhat outside their original mission and purview, but they are into it anyway these days.

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #56 on: October 14, 2005, 02:15:31 PM »
Would it be Larchmont in Missoula Montana...I'm not sure why it is now a secret, you were quite open about it before. I have not been to Missoula, does it have a fairly representative Black population (its a college town, isn't it?)?

What may be true in Missoula may not be true in Cleveland, Houston, Detroit or Atlanta.

TE
A good first step would be to roll back equipment...resulting in shorter courses, which would have a number positive affects: shorter golf courses = less golf course to maintain, fewer courses to modernize/lengthen, lessening the pressure on classic architecture, preservation of these courses would become easier....shorter courses=shorter rounds and easier walking, hopefully an increase in popularity for less costly equipment.  The state of the art equipment is very expensive; the equipment that is roughly equivalent to the equipment of the 70's (and before) is relatively cheap today. Making the game more affordable and less time consuming would make the game more popular IMO, which should be a financial boon for everyone within the game.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 02:21:51 PM by Tom MacWood »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #57 on: October 14, 2005, 03:10:48 PM »
Quote
The state of the art equipment is very expensive; the equipment that is roughly equivalent to the equipment of the 70's (and before) is relatively cheap today. - Tom MacWood

Not true, technologically advanced equipment that is not expensive is available in the marketplace and it's nowhere near the equivalent of 70's product.
Quote
Making the game more affordable and less time consuming would make the game more popular IMO, which should be a financial boon for everyone within the game.- Tom MacWood

The game is affordable if you go to any one of the 8,500 courses in the U.S. which charge less than $26.00 to play and any one of the 2,700 that charge less than $16.00. Many of these course may not considered great or very good but adequate golf is better than no golf.  Here at Hotchkiss we charge 13.00 for 9 holes and $20.00 for 18.
The game can also be made less expensive and time consuming by focusing on 9 hole rounds. Actually, marketing rounds of 3, 6 and 9 holes is already being tried in various places to increase traffic.    

 
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 03:12:28 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2005, 03:43:10 PM »
Jim
The state of the art equipment is the most expensive equipment on the market today. Today's equipment that utilizes older technology is less expensive.

We have several public city courses locally here that charge $23/round on the weekend...unfortunately they are not even mediocre designs. That is another thing we need, more pulic courses that are at least moderately interesing architecturally. The one good city course charges $35/round. the rest are CCFAD...and are quite a bit more than $26 when you throw in the mandatory cart.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 03:43:56 PM by Tom MacWood »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #59 on: October 14, 2005, 04:40:39 PM »
Tom,
State-of-the-art or cutting edge technology in any group of product offerings will initially cost more and when it's use beomes more widespread costs decrease. This happens with golf equipment, too.  
I could send you out the door of my shop with a full set of state-of-the-art Pings, driver through putter including the bag for $1,500 and smile when I do it. That's equivalent to $240 in 1965 or $630 in 1980. If you can't afford that I can sell you the same make-up in AMF product for around $300.00. Included in that set are a Ti-Matrix Forged driver and Hyper-steel fairway woods (graphite shafts of course), perimeter weighted stainless steel irons with steel shafts, wide track putter w/insert and a lightweight stand bag.
Other companies, like Tour Edge, Precept, etc. offer similar products and there are components for the do-it-yourself'er.
Price points are everywhere and suited to just about anyone's wallet. Using the premise that equipment costs too much, thereby limiting participation, is just not a valid statement of the facts. It's only true if a newcomer to the game, who only earns an average income, feels he has to have the absolute highest priced equipment before he will play. Too bad for him.

I don't know where you live Tom, but we are blessed with some interesting and reasonably priced courses in the tri-state area of Ct, Mass and NY. In my winter travels I have found a good number of courses up and down the eastern seaboard, all of which were reasonably priced and not a bore.  
Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd bet that there are many areas of the country where reasonably good golf could be found for less than princely sums.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #60 on: October 14, 2005, 05:44:57 PM »
Tom MacWood:

Regarding your post #57--most everyone on this site and many others out there would like to see those things happen. That's pretty much been the party-line on this website since its inception.

It looks to me that some on here are just questioning if those opinions of ours are the same opinions of a consensus of golfers out there. And if not why not?

Obviously manufacturers may not think so, and apparently the USGA/R&A doesn't either. Some on here are probably saying to you why should the USGA/R&A and perhaps the manufacturers and others listen to people like us if we're nowhere near a consensus of opinion? Do you think they should do what we say because they should feel we're smarter or we know something most golfers don't?

Maybe the manufacturers and the USGA/R&A feel they should represent a consensus of opinion. On here you have a guy like Pat Mucci saying that nobody who complains should be listened to. He seems to be implying that golf clubs and golf should be run by dictators. I guess the question is who does he think the dictators should be? What if most of the rest of American golfers don't feel that way? What Pat's proposing sounds like some kind of new ultra-elitism to me. How do you feel about that?

If we're so smart---if we're so good maybe what we probably need to do is get out there and start to form a consensus of opinion. Do you think we could do that? How about if we called up Jack to join us, and all the other tour pros who seem to be calling for a rollback? How about all the architects we know who're calling for a rollback? Let's get them to join all of us and take this message on the road bigtime.

And if a consensus of the American golfers and golf consumers don't like what we're saying what do we do then, go to the manufacturers and the USGA/R&A and tell them they should listen to us anyway despite what a consensus of American golfers want?

Do you doubt that what the USGA/R&A and the manufacturers perceive to be a consensus of opinion from American golfers would fail to get their attention?  
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 05:50:07 PM by TEPaul »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #61 on: October 14, 2005, 06:55:31 PM »
Tom MacWood...the color of a golfer has no bearing on the equipment they use, how they feel about the game, or whether they belong to a private or public course...there was a time in America when golf was the game for the leisure class...not the working class...most of the classic courses, built by your heros, were built for people with the means to enjoy them...they were located in what was once considered rural country...fortunately, golf is now enjoyed by more than "rich white guys" (your term)...today, even a modest wage earner can purchase a set of clubs and play the game....

As for Missoula's black population, of what relevancy is it to this discusion?

By the way, a more enlightened questioner might ask about the native american population....
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #62 on: October 14, 2005, 07:00:34 PM »
Jim Kennedy...I agree with you. I think Tom MacWood is (A) a Luddite and would like to see everyone using hickory shafts and lousy balls...(B) out of touch with what equipment is out there and what it costs...and (C) has no ides to the extent that he is making an elitist argument for his belief...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #63 on: October 14, 2005, 07:11:12 PM »
Jim
$1500 is cheap? That is a lot money in my book. I'm not sure a kid who is saving his money from delivering papers could afford it. You're right obsolete equipment does usually drop in price. Of course the problem with the buying old technology, the fellow with the new technology will always have an advantage. That is why many upgrade on a regular basis. To remain competitive you must spend and spend a lot (the average guy can not afford that)...from the newest driver to the best golf balls. It is a never ending cycle. And not a healthy one either.

Freeze the rolled back equipment, and put the emphasis on the skill of the golfer (not on how good the equipment is). Golf is not race car driving or horse racing, where the car or the horse is the key factor. Golf should be more like basketball or hockey or the javalin...a basketball is a basketball is a basketball in Bel Air, Harlem or Argentina.  And in the process make the game more affordable for kids and those without a lot of money.
 
I'd love to join you touring the east, but the average golfer is just looking for a decent course (hopefully more than one for multiple options) near their home that doesn't break the bank. There are two very interesting public courses around Columbus (not exactly high cost of living area by national standards)--Granville and Champions, $39 and $35 respectively, plus cart. My favorite public courses in Cleveland are Sleepy Hollow, Manakiki and Fowlers Mill, $30, $30 and $65+ respectively.

In Connecticutt, Shennecossett is $36+. Triggs Memorial (RI) is $36+. The Orchards (Mass) is $80+. Taconic (Mass) is $80+ George Wright is $36+ Cape Arundel (Me) $40 and Kebo Valley (Me) $63. Not excactly cheap.

A round with you, your son and daughter might be a little hard to swallow...maybe a once a year splurge/annual event.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 07:25:35 PM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #64 on: October 14, 2005, 07:24:19 PM »
What percentage of the American Indian population plays golf?

Missoula:

53387   White
   207   Black
  1341  American Indian
   703   Asian

A real melting pot.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 07:26:33 PM by Tom MacWood »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #65 on: October 14, 2005, 07:25:54 PM »
The only people I talk with that pay full price are occasional golfers, or a tourist passing thru town. Anyone that plays at least once a week buys a punch card or a season pass....

Today I played with two guys, one plays everyday and has a $700 pass that gets his cost down to a few dollars per round...he bought his equipment at Shopko and just smokes the ball...he might have $250 invested in his clubs...the other guy didn't buy his pass until August and he told me it was paid off before the end of September....

The notion that golf is expensive is just plan wrong...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2005, 07:31:21 PM »
Beats me Tom MacWood...nor do I care. Besides, the subject of this thread is "would losing golfers to increased difficulty be so bad"....not the socio-ethnic-racial demographics of Missoula, Montana....

The answer to the thread question is YES!!!!!   Losing golfers to boneheaded, emotional, responses to "technology" would be bad as well...

My advice is to leave it alone...don't rollback...don't modify your course...let the "markets" play out...if someone doesn't like playing a short, classic course because it's too easy, fine...they can play elsewhere...and I can almost guarentee you the person that leaves will not represent the majority of the members...

LOCK HIM UP!!!

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2005, 07:37:11 PM »
$700 is not a lot money? A pool pass is a little cheaper.  

How much does it cost for a kid to play tennis everyday? Basketball? Baseball? Soccer? Swimming?

I'll grant you it is cheaper than polo...

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2005, 07:44:22 PM »
Craig,
If you agree with me than I'd hope you agree with another of my opinions: I don't consider TMac a Luddite.

He has staked out his claims and is using any data that he feels will bolster his premise and he isn't above shifting definitions if that suits his needs. Did you happen to notice his subtle change when defending his statement that equipment was too expensive? He went from "Top-of-the-line" to "State-of-the-art" when it was shown to him that very capable and well made clubs were available in the marketplace. Why the change?,of course no state of the art equipment comes cheap, the very title implies the newest, most advanced products. If he was sitting on the porch at Hotchkiss and tried to do that his argument would be over. It would be "Hey Tom, enhhhhht, you lose !

Don't let 'em badger you Craig. You see thousands of golfers every season and your opinions about the game and player's desires come from actually having to work in a golfing  environment. Collect your data, empirical or otherwise, be prepared, keep your eyes and ears open and if you hear someone say something that sounds right don't be afraid to listen.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

T_MacWood

Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2005, 07:46:55 PM »
When I said the game is dominated by well-to-do whites, you asked in dismay if I had ever been to a public course...I have (often), but not in lilly white Montana.  :)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 07:47:12 PM by Tom MacWood »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2005, 07:54:59 PM »
Out here in Montana we are not lily white...especially those of us that get outside and enjoy this lifestyle...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2005, 07:56:31 PM »
TEPAUL...just today I was chatting with a "brother"...he plays Nike from head to toe...Ignitor driver...irons...bag...shoes...Nike One ball...hat...Nike.

He was in no pain as far as I could tell... ;)
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2005, 08:13:53 PM »
"Craig Sweet: If you're gonna mention The Brothers on here you better capitalize Brothers, honkie."

Yes sir Mr. Paul
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2005, 08:20:17 PM »
 "$700 is not a lot money? A pool pass is a little cheaper.

How much does it cost for a kid to play tennis everyday? Basketball? Baseball? Soccer? Swimming?

I'll grant you it is cheaper than polo..."

$700 is not a lot of money...a pool pass is cheaper, but the golf is not as good....why would a kid want to play tennis...everyday????

Basketball? Baseball? Soccer? Swimming?? Gee...I did all of that...often in what passed for "organized" sports whn I was a kid...and I still played a boat load of golf.

Polo is for sissys'...

Tom MacWood...I said several posts ago that golf is a leisure activity...one of hundreds available to us...MY point being, people do not need much excusse to find another leisure activity....tell joe sixpack you're going to take away his golf ball and club to save some old golf courses, and joey might just pack it in....
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would losing players to increased difficulty be so bad?
« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2005, 08:21:57 PM »
TEPAUL...I miss spoke...it was the "lily white" in me coming out...I MENT to say I was rappin' with a Brother today..
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back