Who benefits from the growth of the game?

[Rick Shefchik]

The only time I see Americans racing around the course in their carts is when a few good players get a crack at a nearly-empty course late in the day and floor it to get in 18.

Otherwise, golf carts serve as the functional equivalent of covered wagons, transporting clothes, food, beverage, medicine and household goods slowly across the prairie -- the only discernable goal to reach their distination before winter, without being attacked by angry locals...

[Alfie]

Tom Doak said - "I have no idea if the game is "growing" in Scotland or not, but I am 100% sure that it is healthier there than it ever has been here.

Tom,
Golf tourism in Scotland is probably growing quite steadily and believe it or not, the Foot & Mouth crisis can be thanked for that ! (IMO)
Contrary to the tourism aspect, I assure anyone reading this thread, that grass roots golf at ordinary club level is certainly in decline (Scotland). That's been a sad fact for several years now.
I would agree that golf is probably healthier here because we know how to walk   but that's changeing here too !

...............

RJ Daley said ; " American culture (being exported elsewhere as well), contains the virus of golf's decline, partly based on these cultural expectations driving costs up, and partly because it gets superficial and exclusivity creeps into the social aspects.

RJ,
Well said. Couldn't agree more !

Alfie.

[Lou_Duran]

Dan King,

You keep trying to type cast me as a "republican".  This will not do.  Those chaps are way too liberal for me.  If you would read "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray you'd understand me better.

I think that modern architecture and the CCFAD fad has made golf more difficult for most wanna be golfers.  I don't buy at all that the game is too hard intrinsically for most people.  It may by its very nature be a bit too slow and time consuming for it to be more popular.

Perhaps you are right that the future growth in golf will be elsewhere.  As Asian economies continue to outperform much of the West, places like China are probably making those in the golf business salivate.  Based on the small amount of anecdotal evidence I've seen, the Asian culture- patient, long term oriented, traditional, and highly competitive, seems highly compatible with the game.  

Another issue to consider is that as our society has become more affluent, there is more competition for our leisure time and discretionary spending.  It may not be a matter of being lazy, too preoccupied with work, too snobbish and exclusive, and all the other negative reasons being suggested for the decline of the game (rounds played).

Pat Mucci,

No growth means little work for new architects.  I think that this would retard innovation and the evolution of the game, factors which may not be of concern to you.

What would have happened if interest in golf had waned in the late 1800s and it failed to make the jump to the U.S.?  From what I've gathered, MacKenzie was not much of a doctor?  Who knows, you might not have been around if he came to this country to practice medicine in the NY Metro area.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

I look at growth a little differently then you do.

If there was one golf course per 100,000 citizens, and the population increased by 1,000,000 I don't consider ten new courses to be a form of "growth".

As to the question of the game and architecture remaining "static", and the need to employ architects to design new courses, when do you hit the saturation point ?  Must there be a continual expansion of the game ?

If the game were to become static couldn't architects be employed to improve mediocre to poor golf courses, thus making the game more appealing to those who already play it, and to those who might be attracted to it ?

Will expansion dilute rather than improve the quality of golf courses ?

It seems that many clubs are short members and in trouble, why would you want to expand in that environment ?

[Matt MacIver]

Be careful what you wish for....football has over-taken baseball as America's favorite past-time, MLB didn't react fast enough and now it's probably too late.  

Less golfers - bad; more golfers - good.  Work from there.  

[JESII]

Be careful what you wish for....football has over-taken baseball as America's favorite past-time, MLB didn't react fast enough and now it's probably too late.  

Less golfers - bad; more golfers - good.  Work from there.  

Matt,

Please expand on your statement there. I understand the football/baseball analogy, but please clarify or quantify the more = good vs. less = bad line.

[Lou_Duran]

Pat Mucci,

We do agree, my understanding of what growth is differs to yours.  Are you one of those Democrats in Congress who with a straight face full of indignation can call a $10 billion budget increase a budget CUT because you had hoped for $15 billion more?

In your example, the game is growing even though the participation rate may not be.  No growth in my book is when # of rounds played remains largely unchanged as has been the experience for a couple of years.

I am a believer that history repeats itself, so yes, if no new courses are built, I think gca will be stiffled.

This may be blasphemy to some on this site, but I do believe that the average golf course being built today is far superior to its counterpart in probably any era.  I am not concerned with dilution, but the thought that new Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Wild Horses, Baronas, etc. may not be available to others throughout the country does.

I just don't see much upside to the game if it looses its vitality and becomes once again an activity for the elite.  We often talk about what a superior game golf is in Scotland.  Isn't that partially a function of golf remaining fairly democratic over there?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci,

We do agree, my understanding of what growth is differs to yours.  Are you one of those Democrats in Congress who with a straight face full of indignation can call a $10 billion budget increase a budget CUT because you had hoped for $15 billion more?

The above is a bad example.
It's not a matter of politics, it's simple math.[/color]

In your example, the game is growing even though the participation rate may not be.  No growth in my book is when # of rounds played remains largely unchanged as has been the experience for a couple of years.

In terms of growth, the number of rounds is only relevant when it's related to the total population.

If 1,000,000 rounds were played with a population of 100,000,000 your definition would declare growth when the population went to 120,000,000  but the number of rounds only increased to 1,000,010.[/color]

I am a believer that history repeats itself, so yes, if no new courses are built, I think gca will be stiffled.

This thread isn't about GCA, it's about the game.

And, as Tom Doak cited, in Scotland or the U.K. the number of rounds played and the number of existing courses has remained rather static, yet golf is as alive and well as ever.
[/color]

This may be blasphemy to some on this site, but I do believe that the average golf course being built today is far superior to its counterpart in probably any era.  I am not concerned with dilution, but the thought that new Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Wild Horses, Baronas, etc. may not be available to others throughout the country does.

I'd disagree with your statement relative to the superiority of the average golf course being built today.  I find just the opposite, mainly because of land costs, environmental restrictions and permitting problems.

As to accessability, that's been "the way it's always been, for at least a century. [/color]

I just don't see much upside to the game if it looses its vitality and becomes once again an activity for the elite.  We often talk about what a superior game golf is in Scotland.  Isn't that partially a function of golf remaining fairly democratic over there?  

NO, it's because:
1  golf is a National pastime, historically linked to the
    population.
2  most golf courses were built when land was dirt cheap
3  their legal climate is radically different.

Golf has always been an expensive sport or a sport of the elite.

What's the entrance fee to Dallas National ?[/color]

[Dan King]

Lou Duran writes:
You keep trying to type cast me as a "republican".  This will not do.  Those chaps are way too liberal for me.

I do that to make a point when you call me a leftist.

No growth means little work for new architects.  I think that this would retard innovation and the evolution of the game, factors which may not be of concern to you.

What I see happening now is design branching in two different directions. Part of it following the lead of RTJ and the other branch following more of the golden age architects. There might be a smaller pie, but the slice for the retro-designers has grown. Designers with talent (defined as designers who build courses I like :-) ) will find work, the others will scramble for a shrinking piece of the pie. I got no problem with that.

I'm reading a new book about the new journalism movement of the 1960s, The Gang That Wouldn't Write Straight: Wolfe, Thompson, Didion, and the New Journalism Revolution by Marc Weingarten. It didn't change journalism, reports still reported who, what, when, where, etc... But new journalism also opened up allowing some writers to be more creative with non fiction. Journalism in general may have shrunk since then, but opportunities for creative writers hasn't.

What would have happened if interest in golf had waned in the late 1800s and it failed to make the jump to the U.S.?

I'd be typing this on www.bocceclubatlas.com.

Matt MacIver writes:
Be careful what you wish for....football has over-taken baseball as America's favorite past-time, MLB didn't react fast enough and now it's probably too late.

Despite what Tim Finchem may want, golf is never going to, not should it ever desire to, overtake football or baseball in popularity. To make it that popular, the game first must be cheapened to appeal to such a large following. I'd rather it never did that.

Less golfers - bad; more golfers - good.

Why?

Lou Duran writes:
Are you one of those Democrats in Congress who with a straight face full of indignation can call a $10 billion budget increase a budget CUT because you had hoped for $15 billion more?

Or perhaps one of the republicans who speak of smaller government, all the while growing like gangbusters? Some day you will wake up and see both democrats and republicans are in the business of growing government. That is their ultimate goal. Big government is better for large parties than small government.

I am not concerned with dilution, but the thought that new Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Wild Horses, Baronas, etc. may not be available to others throughout the country does.

I disagree. There is a good reason why these courses far outshine everything else being built. The rest aren't very good.

Dan King

Had the gutta-percha golf ball not been invented, it is likely enough that golf itself would now be in the catalogue of virtually extinct games, only locally surviving, as stool-ball and knurr and spell.
  --Horace Hutchinson, 1899

[Lou_Duran]

Dan King,

I am glad to find you so agreeable.  We may have some concensus on the two parties, but little else.

I particularly liked the reason why good is good- that the peers aren't.  How many Dead concerts did you attend?

Pat,

I understand that for $200,000 one can purchase a membership to Dallas National from a handful of members whose circumstances have made it desirable to sell.

We are blessed in Texas to have a wide mix of courses to join or pay green fees to.  At my old club where the initiation has never been higher than $5,000, a membership can be had for $0 - $500.  The game here probably has never been as elite as in the northeast.

By definition, the additional 10 rounds you cited would constitute growth.  If per capita rounds played stayed the same without a change in the participation rate, the current over-supply would eventually be brought back into balance.  That has not been the case as rounds played have not grown with population growth.  At least, that's what I picked up from the NGF literature.

Is Tom Doak now an expert on golf in Scotland?  I don't remember the citation you made, but I do recall Alfie stating that things aren't so rosy in the mother land.

Anyways, not quite as much as Matt Ward, I have seen a nice assortment of modern courses over the last four to five years and generally liked what I found.  These may not compare to Shinny, Pine Valley, or NGLA, but not many courses of any era do, partially for the reasons you noted.  

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

Population density, combined with City and State Laws have combined or conspired to make golf expensive, ergo, exclusive in the Northeast.

When State laws mandate that clubs with more than 400 members can be subject to Public, Non-Discrimination regulations, clubs are going to limit membership for that reason along with other prudent reasons.

When you combine a limited number of memberships with high operational costs, fixed and non-fixed, it drives the initial and annual cost to belong to a club sky high.

When you combine the above with cost to acquire land in the densely populated and developed Northeast, build a golf course and a clubhouse, the cost to join and the annual operating costs are even higher.

Just look at the Sebonack property.
It was regarded as excellent land for golf.
But, it came at a price.
Approximately 43,000,000
Add to that, the cost to design and build the golf course, the cost to build a clubhouse, maintainance facilities, and accomodations, and tell me how the club can be anything BUT exclusive ?

You look at golf, or the game in total numbers, I also view it in quality numbers.

If an individual plays one or two rounds a year, are they adding to or expanding the game ?

They're random and occassional golfers.
And, if they never play again, I don't think it will hurt the game.

I'd rather see growth amongst core golfers, those that play a dozen or more rounds a year.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike_Young]

the people that make golf balls.

[Lloyd_Cole]

If an individual plays one or two rounds a year, are they adding to or expanding the game ?

Bottom line, industry wise, depends on whether they buy a set of clubs or not.

Obviously there are those here who's livelihood is dependant upon new courses being built, courses remodelled etc. To someone who has nothing to do with the industry the public spiels of T Woods and/or the USGA strike me as about as sincere as those bp commercials they are running right now.

Also, given that 90% of those working in the industry (my small 'c' conservative guess only) are believers in the great god that is the free market, it's hard to sympathise when some multimillion wannabe exclusive course falls flat on it's face because it is deemed, by it's would be target market, too difficult, or too expensive, or what seems more and more common for me - just a crass experience.

So just to re address the initial question - certainly not me.

[Tom_Doak]

Alfie (if you're still looking here):  I am saddened to hear that the game is declining in Scotland.  What are the main reasons there?

a)  too many other things to do?
b)  golf takes too long?
c)  getting too expensive because you are catering to the visitors who pay the big bucks to support the place?, or
d)  people are less social and stay in their homes more?

I still believe it's healthier there than in the US.  Most golfers there actually respect the game.

[Sean_A]

Tom D.

Many believe that clubs are struggling not because of competition from other clubs or sports, but from home.  I think the stable sort of chap who is in an area long enough to bother joining a club is the type who is married with children.  Many men are now participating in their children's weekend activities and thus have little time for a steady game.  Unless one is playing steady, it is often thought extravagent to have a membership.  If you aren't a member, it is difficult to get a steady game.  Catch 22.  

Our club in The Midlands is projecting revenue losses next year of 40 full members.  This translates to a £41 rise in subs.  While I don't particularly mind the lower numbers, I don't like the overall trend.  Also interesting is that our society and visitors green fees are down as well.  Four years ago we had a healthy wait list of over 30.  That is without any new course opening in the area and with the course drainage being dramatically improved.  Most clubs in our area and I am told in other areas are suffering the same fate.  

Ciao

Sean

[JESII]

Sean,

Would the golf in your area be "healthier" if there were about 75% of the clubs there are today?

I live just outside of the Philadelphia area in the U.S. and club revenue is down all around here. There was a golf course location map site link some time ago posted on here and within 40 miles of my course were about 100 other courses. That seems like overpopulation to me, (or maybe oversupply).

[Sean_A]

Jim

It is a shame that membership is down in the Philly area.  I don't know much about the area, but it is my impression that Philly is one of the hotbeds of US golf.  I know some clubs are struggling in the Detroit area, Michigan in general.  Do you reckon that if some clubs bite the dust all will be well again?

It is difficult to know.  My immediate area has only had about 6 or so courses built in the past 10 years and nothing in the past 5.  A few are doing quite well and a few are struggling.  

In any case, if the reason (and it is only a guess) for lower memberships is men concentrating on family more than it shouldn't matter if the clubs are reduced.  What may make a difference is price and family friendliness.  However, if the clubs which are trying to make a go of trying to bring the whole family down for the day are any indication, then I don't think even that will matter.  

Ironically, lots of people play as guests.  Typically they pay £10-£20 as a guest.  Playing 10-12 times a year as a guest is often enough golf for loads of casual golfers and it is quite cheap using your mates.  Our club is in the process of reviewing guests fees.  They will probably go up a nominal amount, probably to £12.  There is no point in raising them too much or members will stop bringing guests.  

I have lots of friends visit and they are amazed at the quality of golf to be had by a visitor at most courses in the area for under £40 (many are under £25) for the day.  Don't misunderstand, none of the courses are great, but most are interesting and in good nick.  Some are even worthy of a foreigner to visit, but they tend to be at least £40.  Courses are empty, they get around in 3.25 hours comfortably without hassle.  Unfortunately, weekday visitors are not enough to buoy many places.  

Ciao

Sean

[JESII]

Sean,

I understand the decision for a family and the pros and cons of joining a club. My dues this year were about $4,500 and I played about 20 rounds. My wife and children got some use out of the other facilities. I could certainly do much of the same for less money but the upside benefits make the decision for me.

I think if there were 70 clubs as opposed to 100 in the close surrounds of Philadelphia those 70 would be in strong financial positions. We could hold more members than we currently have because the course is rarely crowded and the other facilities are underused.

[Sean_A]

Jim

If 30 clubs were dropped and the remaining 70 were in a strong position, do you think dues would rise?  I don't know.  Do clubs your way begin to raise the initiation fee if people are knocking on the door?

I know $4500 in the States isn't a load for membership, even if minimums are added, but that would never work for the vast majority of clubs in the UK.  The idea of paying £2500 per year for 20 games (£125 a game) would cause most people over here to panic.  I think many guys LOOKING to join a club would scoff at the idea of paying £1000 dues plus an entry fee of £1000 or £1500.  I really find the differences in golf culture amazing.  

We have taken the drastic step of lowering our joining fee to £500 (despite taking the risk of pissing off recently joined members).  Taken with the £657 for dues, this is a total £1157 to pay the first year.  In addition, we also offer the option of paying the joining fee over three years.  From my perspective, £657 (which is more than a 50% increase from my first year as a member in 1999) is a fantastic bargain.  I play at least 60 times a year (remember we play all year round) plus the team matches at other clubs which are free.  Still, we won't fill our books.  

I am not sure there is a way out of this nasty cycle.  Clubs will close if this trend continues.  I find this to be a pity, but probably necessary.

Ciao

Sean

[JESII]

I think the total number of interested members in each particular region should in itself deterine the number of clubs. I am not sure of our current number of members (I think all clubs have an ideal number), but we could increase that by 10 or 15% and hardly feel inconvenienced. That increase alone would bring the books back into line.

I cannot explain the cost differential overall from the US to the UK, but my scenario would seemingly work.

[Alfie]

Tom Doak suggested possible reasons for a decline in golf in Scotland ;
a)  too many other things to do?
b)  golf takes too long?
c)  getting too expensive because you are catering to the visitors who pay the big bucks to support the place?, or
d)  people are less social and stay in their homes more?

a) IMO - a consideration, but not the main reason ;
b) an absolute / definite / YES !
c) getting too expensive to keep up with your playing buddies in the equipment stakes ! Visitors paying big bucks don't normally play the bottom end courses. Most, if not all of the big new developments in Scotland - either completed or in planning, are designed for tourism golfer. Fine for tourism ; not so great for grass roots golf in the (so called) Home of golf ? eg ; Kings Barns, Skibo ; St Andrews Bay ; Cadrona ; Loch Lomond ; Archerfield ; and a couple of multi-million£ projects in the pipeline, etc....you know better than me Tom.
and before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick - I think these facilities are great for the tourism aspect ! But they are not put there for Joe Blogg golfer !
d) new drinking laws have affected turnover in virtually every club in the country. Bar takings are way, way down.

e) too many clubs over here are now beginning to suffer thanks to their lack of encouragement of junior golf in past years ? Also some have had a pathetic attitude towards women's golf ?

f) clubs have been traditionally run by amateurs although there exists a greater awareness for professionalism in running a "business" now !

g) many of the clubs with the better course, have shunned (disgracefully) the tourism golfer over the years. The doors are now open for all and sundry !

h) any course of note would have a waiting list for entry - many can't even make up the numbers now ?

I remember harping on about some of these things about ten years back ! I suppose the R & A / SGU were too ?
Makes you wonder where the money will come from when the next phase of extention is required to each course ?


Alfie.

[Doug Siebert]

Perhaps you are right that the future growth in golf will be elsewhere.  As Asian economies continue to outperform much of the West, places like China are probably making those in the golf business salivate.  Based on the small amount of anecdotal evidence I've seen, the Asian culture- patient, long term oriented, traditional, and highly competitive, seems highly compatible with the game.

I don't think it will have anything to do with Asian culture, but with the fact that China has exactly what golf needs to thrive:  a nearly unlimited supply of cheap land, extremely cheap labor, and a very fast growing (though starting from almost zero) status-conscious middle class.  I don't know what the land is like and what sort of use restrictions they have, and the communists in charge probably aren't terribly fond of golf, but the country is large enough that there are probably more than a few undiscovered Long Islands, Monterays and probably several Nebraskas worth of sand hills.  If I had an eight figure bank account and was looking for something fun to do when I got towards retirement age, I'd be buying up some good land in China just to sit on it and figure I'll do a Bandon or two to amuse myself when I reach my 60s -- the market would be totally ready for it then.  And with my huge bank account I could just about afford the fees to have C&C and Doak do my first two courses

Shivas brought up the example of growth hurting golf in Japan, but that's a totally different situation.  Very limited land mass, with almost all of it that isn't paved used for agriculture plus expensive labor means golf would always be expensive and unavailable, so it never had a chance for any real growth there.

I think the "downturn" in golf is similar to the downturn in tech stocks in 2000 and the downturn in real estate some of the overheated markets that saw prices double or triple in just a few years are now seeing.  There was a golf "bubble" created by all the Tiger hype in the late 90s making people really believe golf was suddenly going to become cool to every 16 year old and the number of courses would need to double to accomodate them all.  The PGA tour people of course did nothing to dissuade this because they like getting larger purses, and they'd happily NASCARize the sport until its unrecognizeable if they could get an extra million per event out of it.  I'm waiting for them to have a long drive contest every Wednesday afternoon to determine seedings for the Thursday starts

[ForkaB]

Alfie

I'll agree and disagree with you vis a vis Scotland!

a--disagree.  Many more things for the golfer in prime time (e.g. 25-45) to do these days.  See Sean A's post below
b--sort of agree.  Golf does take longer (4 hours vs. 3), but I'm not sure that is keeping people away.  When you add in the pre and apres golf, most people used to expect a round to keep them away from the house for 4-6 hours.  Not a big change now, particulalry with your point d. below.
c--definitively too expensive for most people to play away at the big venues.  A bit more congestion for members of the big venues, but the overall cost of golf in Scotland is still ridiculously low for a member.
d--good point vis a vis the atmosphere of clubs (which is often dismal these days), but the financial impact of lower bar takings is minimal.
e--very much agree.  I belong to two clubs, one of which has a tremendous junior programme and another which struggles to get 8 playerws for the junior team.  At both of them, however, due to financial and demographic pressures, even those keen junior players will get into their 20's and give up or severly downsize their commitment to the game.
f--clubs are getting more "professionally" run, but I can argue that this is to the detriment of the game.  Much less soul and character to many of the clubs I know and visit.
g--most courses are recognizing the value of visitors, and I think this is a good thing, if done intelligently with regards to members needs and desires
h--the better courses still have significant waiting lists.  The middle level courses are struggling--particulalry if they are trying to "improve" their facilities.  Most courses I know have a large body of members who do not want to do anything to their club, particulalry if it involves spending money!

i--Scotland (like most parts of Europe) has a declining and aging population.  The aging bit tends to help clubs in Scotland, as the 55+ cohort are most likely to want and be able to afford golf.  The declining bit, however, is concentrated in the younger age groups.  The combination of these two facts is that the average age of most memberships is increasing rapidly, and few clubs are adequately replenishing their memberships with a broad cross-section of their community.

However, to get back to the essence of Tom Doak's original query, I fully believe that the spirit of golf is still much more alive in Scotland than in the UK.  I played in a team match yesterday at a modest club with a modest course, but the qualities of sportsmanship and etiquette and love of the game and pride in one's club (theirs and ours) were at the highest of levels.  This happens to me almost every time I play in Scotland.  In the 45+ years I lived in the States, such epiphanies were very, very rare.

[Sean_A]

Rich

I don't know about these club matches.  Standards are slipping.  

When I first started getting involved in these matters the Queen was always toasted.  Now, rarely so.  In fact, in many clubs a likeness of Her Majesty is not to be found.  

Our Scratch and A teams don't have formal meals after the matches anymore.  The B, C and Seniors (a little less competitive) are steadfast in their insistence that a meal after the match is essential.  

I would agree that the game is healthier in the UK, but neglecting the Queen takes us down a slippery slope.    

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Sean

I've declined to be "upstanding" for her majesty more times than I can count, including one where I was seated next to a Nobel prize winner and Master of Balliol.  My wife, when she was in High School, declined an invitation to meet the Queen, and my wee brother did so just last month.  I was so proud of him!

Nothing against Betty Windsor, per se, but most golfers up here in Scotland celebrate golf when we play together, and not a family of generally nice but increasingly irrelevant German immigrants who represent a country which crushes our people's aspirations under an iron fist.

Have a nice day!

Rich