[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Here's an interesting idea. Go the route of baseball. Let the players use any ball they wish, they're all basically equal across the board. But make them use wooden drivers, woods and hybrids. Keep the irons the same and wedges.

Or, make a spec ball and spec set of clubs for use in pro competition. The companies can make them however they wish, but the grooves must be identical, must be blades, all same shafts in every competition set, whatever, just make the equipment exactly the same for all, and the only fitting allowed is for length and lie.. You still have the company stamp. How much money could Titleist/Callaway/etc., make selling those "tour spec" clubs to normal golfers because this is the exact set that Tiger/Rory/whoever plays?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

I think you example is flawed.

I'll take the 340 yard drive every time.

I'll figure out how to flight the 60 yard and 120 yard wedges on 400 and 460 yard par 4's, as opposed to hitting a 260 yard drive and hitting 140 and 200 yard approach shots with more spin.

I agree that higher spin rates would help offset the gains in distance, but head size, shaft lengths and the ball are contributing factors that shouldn't be ignored

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan, as I mentioned before,
I had tried many trainers and work out programs as a player.
Finally worked with a guy that helped me increase my distances by an entire club with my irons,
and driver carry by 8 plus yards carry.  No equipment change, but these distances went up in less than 4 months!
I was never confused for Bill Glasson ripped wise back then!

Guys work out much differently.  Norman was ahead of the curve.  Faldo was huge, but not fast.
I have had students increase their distances significantly with the correct work out.
The problem of our classic courses being attacked comes from many directions.  I don't believe it is the ball, though I believe the ball is most controllable as a fix.  Fitness, lightweight longer clubs, completely different club and ball flight ideals, agronomy, and forgiveness of equipment have created speed!

Hi Pat,

My comment was a little bit tongue in cheek. I'm sure you're right. It's some combination of a lot of things, and fitness can't hurt.

But I think you're right on about speed. In every sport, speed is the thing that can't be taught. My kids, all under the age of 10, are pretty good soccer players. They love the game and have remarkably good skills. What I don't tell them, though, is that as they get older, all the skill in the world is useless unless they have speed. And I can work with them every day from now until they go to college, but they're either going to be fast or they won't. I used to play lacrosse and had friends who were absolutely dedicated to their fitness but remained brutally slow. Not much you can do about that.

Watching a guy like Quiros or Fowler or Segio, it's remarkable or fast their arms and hands get through the ball. Especially Quiros, who almost has an Allen Doyle backswing. Lots of it is technique, but most, I think, is god-given ability to generate speed.

Even if you required Tour players to consume a 12-pack of donuts and a milkshake chaser before each tournament, I don't think you'd shorten how far they're hitting it. Putting balatas in every bag might be more effective. Hard to believe the manufacturers would mind, since balatas get torn up so fast the sales would have to skyrocket.

[Jordan Caron]

  BUT, I have still not seen a great course that has been left behind by it's members due to the new equipment.  I hate to see great golf course overreact to less than 1% of golfers and their ability to bomb it.

Nice post Pat and I totally agree with what you on this point.  These courses are not obsolete for most of members and is only when the touring professionals play the course.  I find that only the low handicap players are benefiting from technology and that the majority of golfers aren't seeing any increase in distance.  They may be hitting it straighter with the large sweet spots and new golf ball but I don't see them bombing it down the fairway and making old courses that are 6800 yards or shorter pitch and putts. 

[Kalen Braley]

So the comment was made in a earlier post that its not just the extended tee boxes that are the "bad" of all these distance gains.

But the other trend we're seeing is greens being flattened on old courses so they are more "fair", in addition to new courses being built with flattish greens.

I couldn't help but think of Palouse Ridge.  It was built specifically as a college course for major DI golf play.  Its plenty long from the tips, 7500+, and the course from tee to green is pretty darn good.  But where it stumbles the most is when you get on the greens.  They are disappointedly void of interest...(ok the 18th green is at least a little interesting with a semi-bowl feature and 3 different levels).  But all the rest of em are almost dead flat with gentle back to front slope.  So I'm thinking what a missed opportunity here.  Why only challenge players from tee to green with massive distance, but then give it away with flat putting surfaces?

P.S.  After having a chat with the guy in the pro shop, I learned several college kids have already shot mid 60s numbers...from the tips.  Once again an opportunity missed to challenge players with the flat stick in hand.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   In baseball it took an era of pumped up players and age old records falling under questionable situations.  Finally it looks like the steroids are gone and all of a sudden the art of pitching has returned.  The record book will always have the *.   Will golf have a similar moment?  It's not likely. 

   The only reason courses are being lenghened is because someone wants to protect a number call PAR.   Look what Augusta did after Tigers ronp.  The USGA want Par to be a good score at the Open.  I say who cares what number they shoot.  Low number still wins, always has.  The game is only marketable if the best in the business play the best and hit it the best.  Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day.  Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?

[jeffwarne]

manufacturers and their schills would have you believe they make the game more fun with all the game improvement features.
and that they are helping "grow" the game

For years the game grew steadily while equipment remained relatively static (and arguable almost went backwards with laminated woods in the 70's) bladed irons and persimmon woods were the standard for years.

Now the equipment get better every year.
yet the game is shrinking.

If a kid feels he needs to buy a $400 driver every year to remain competitive, is that really helping to "grow" the game?

I see plenty of shanks with brand new, perfectly fit high tech equipment.
Those people look just as frustrated as the shankers I saw in 1975.......

just saying....

[JMEvensky]

   Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day.  Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?

No,it doesn't matter today,nor will it probably matter in a couple of years.

The problem,IMO,is what will happen after a couple of years.It takes a pretty strong Board or Green Chairman to keep from following the crowd.My guess would be that those unwilling to alter their classic golf courses will face more and more pressure from their younger/less "educated" members.Eventually,the guys opposed will be replaced by those in favor.

To a lot of younger members,the idea of having a "quaint" golf course has zero appeal.They'll eventually look at it as a relic which needs to be updated and improved.Ugliness will ensue.

[Kalen Braley]

   Leave the classics alone and let them shoot 60 all day.  Does it really matter as long as the classic is still there to be played by us?

No,it doesn't matter today,nor will it probably matter in a couple of years.

The problem,IMO,is what will happen after a couple of years.It takes a pretty strong Board or Green Chairman to keep from following the crowd.My guess would be that those unwilling to alter their classic golf courses will face more and more pressure from their younger/less "educated" members.Eventually,the guys opposed will be replaced by those in favor.

To a lot of younger members,the idea of having a "quaint" golf course has zero appeal.They'll eventually look at it as a relic which needs to be updated and improved.Ugliness will ensue.

+1

I too think the vast majority of courses won't be able to leave well enough alone....

[A.G._Crockett]

If I could just mention something from sort of a "Freakonomics" point of view about the growth of the game, and the relationship of equipment, course length, difficulty, cost, slow play and so on.

Golf is NOT going to "grow" any time soon in terms of the number of golfers and/or the number of rounds.  The overwhelming likelihood is that both will continue to drop for years to come.  Many here will continue to blame a lot of things that exist tangentially with the decline, but are not causative.

Very simply, golf's demographic is upside down, and is going to get moreso.  The golf boom was fueled entirely, IMO, by the Baby Boomers (and their families) taking up the game in large numbers through the 80's, 90's, and the first part of last decade.  However, at about the time the recession hit, my guess is that most of the Boomers that were going to take up golf had already done so. 

Equally importantly, as the first boomers began to reach retirement, my guess is that many simply were unable to continue to afford a very expensive game, or at least to play as much as they had in their high wage days.  Again, the beginning of the Boomers' retirement coincided with the recession to a great extent.

Now you have much, much smaller generations with less disposable income and quite possibly less leisure time as well.  This is a very bad recipe for golf, and it doesn't have anything to do with courses being too hard, play being too slow, and so on.  It is an inescapable demographic trap.  Even as the economy recovers, we will NOT see a return of rounds played to previous levels; it just won't happen.  When you look to assign blame, don't point to technology leading to longer and tougher and more expensive courses, and so on.  Those are just window dressing.

The result of all of this will be a continued reduction in new courses being built, and a slowing but continuing closing of existing courses that can't make a go of it.  Those courses and clubs will survive that for some reason(s) are able to be financially viable in the new reality of golf. 

BTW, I think that all of this has already happened to tennis, running 10 years or so ahead of golf.  The tennis boom was just Boomers taking up tennis, and as they moved from tennis to golf, there was a golf boom and a tennis decline.  As a Boomer myself, I can't bring myself to write what the next boom that we go through will be, but it will NOT be a sport...

[JMEvensky]

AG,good to meet another Little Mary Sunshine.

There's not really anything you've said that I disagree with.Golf became cool for BB's,golf bubbled,the BB's moved on to something else,the bubble burst.

I might take some issue with your idea that the difficulty of the game has/had no impact.I think more BB's would have stuck around if golf was a game that could be mastered with a few lessons.The fact that golf is borderline impossible for everyone,even those who've played since childhood,just never fit into their world of instant gratification.

I worry that clubs believe this is only a temporary dip in golf participation.Those clubs waiting for the uptick in golfers (and presumably members) are probably in for a rude awakening.

[Dan_Callahan]

One of the answers for long-term growth is probably way to risky for any investor to pursue. I can speak from experience when I say that the absolute best way to get kids into the game is to develop 9-hole par 3 courses.

I have three boys ages 6, 8 and 10. I take them up to the par 3 in NH that Atkinson opened a few years ago. It's nothing special, but it's in nice shape, there's good variety, and the holes range from 93 to 170 yards (from the tips). There are four sets of tees, but only the back two are actually tee boxes. The other two are just markers in the ground maybe 45 yards or so from the green. My kids love it there. Up until now they had just come to the range with me. We like to do things together, so the youngest is our lowest common denominator ... if he's too young for it, we don't do it. He now hits the ball well enough that I figured he was ready to actually go on the course. Each of them just has a wood, and iron and a putter. I've been waiting to see if the older two actually like it, because I don't want to buy more equipment that just sits in the garage.

That course was exactly what we needed to get all of us out there. It's perfect. An easy walk; most people who play it suck so you don't really worry about holding anyone up; and it is a good enough design so that they will learn to hit all the shots they need. Once the older two are driving all the greens, I'll move them over to the championship course.

I would love to see a few more of these well-conceived par 3s pop up around New England.

Oh, and the best part about Atkinson is that kids pay their age, so a 6-year-old is only $6. A nice way of doing it, I think.

[Jim Nelson]

AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think.  Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards.  Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications.  I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's.  Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money.  Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers.  And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation.  That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.  

To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it).  Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology.  Would the courses have been lengthened?  Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game.  I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.  

On architecture, i have never understood why golf course operators and owners have an issue with changing a short par 5 into a par 4 when the best players come to the course.  My home course in Las Vegas is par 72.   We used to have a fun, short par 5 which the owner thought was too easy.  So his solution was to move the green around the existing lake, creating a hole which will not receive a long shot in.  It was our only par 5 where a mid to high single digit player could get there in two with two good shots.  We have a major collegiate tournament at our course, so some of the best in the world play there once a year.  I still do not understand why they just didn't make it a long par 4 and leave it all alone. Who cares if it's a par 71?  Make it fun, not punitive.

Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in.  We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course.  In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight.  They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key.  Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning?  Doubt it.  But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states.  Get the kids out.  How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  After having a chat with the guy in the pro shop, I learned several college kids have already shot mid 60s numbers...from the tips.  Once again an opportunity missed to challenge players with the flat stick in hand.

Kalen:

Your quote above is one of the major things that's gone wrong here.

So what if several college kids have shot mid-60s?  They are erratic as hell, they've also shot high 70's on the same course when they don't have it all together. 

But, it's precisely those kids who scare all the club pros.  One of my best friends is a club professional at a very good course, and still holds most of the scoring records at the same course.  He never worried about the course being "defenseless" or being obsolete until his 17-year-old son and his buddies started hitting wedges into the longest par-4's.  The pro knows they are not that good, but it still worries him that the course is "defenseless" -- even though the kids never break par, because the rough and the greens take their toll.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think.  Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards.  Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications.  I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's.  Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money.  Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers.  And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation.  That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.  

To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it).  Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology.  Would the courses have been lengthened?  Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game.  I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.  


Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in.  We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course.  In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight.  They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key.  Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning?  Doubt it.  But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states.  Get the kids out.  How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?

Jim,

It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.

By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years.  The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965.  It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.

In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.  

IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf.  That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math.  My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.

I also agree with you about the technology.  I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago.  I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had.  I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.

[Jim Nelson]

AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think.  Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards.  Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications.  I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's.  Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money.  Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers.  And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation.  That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.  

To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it).  Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology.  Would the courses have been lengthened?  Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game.  I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.  


Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in.  We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course.  In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight.  They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key.  Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning?  Doubt it.  But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states.  Get the kids out.  How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?

Jim,

It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.

By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years.  The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965.  It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.

In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.  

IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf.  That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math.  My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.

I also agree with you about the technology.  I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago.  I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had.  I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.

AG, please don't confuse me with the facts! 

You clearly have a much better grasp of birthrates than I do, but some stats can be misleading.  There are a lot more "1000s" out there than there were when we were hatched (for the record, I'm 58).  When my twins were born in CA in 1979, I remember the news saying that more babies were born that year in CA than ever in its history.  So, while the birthrate might be declining or static, the overall population continues upward in this country.  More people should equal more golfers, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  BBs took up golf and as they age, their participation goes down or is eliminated which is your point and I agree.  We can discuss population stats, but we can't change them.  The only thing we can change is working to make golf more popular.  How do we get the next generations to pick up the game? 

My point on Ireland was that their population has been pretty static (I'm sure someone will correct me on this too) over the years, yet they seem to have robust youth participation.

I also agree that clubs who think that participation will increase on its own are dreaming.  I fear this will become a survival of the fittest until enough clubs have shuttered.  I know better minds than mine have pondered getting kids back into the game.  We need to get it done if we are not to lose a generation of architects and designers too.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, I'm not sure all the demographic numbers crunch out the way you think.  Overall, the population the US continues to grow and our birthrate continues to be robust, certainly by European standards.  Their populations are either static or in decline which has all kinds of ramifications.  I think that economics and over-building have as much or more to do with it than BB's.  Developers rode the wave with real estate plays and easy money.  Massive recession cut into the pool of golfers.  And the next generations do not seem to be adopting golf as sport and recreation.  That to me is the key, but I'm not sure why other than time, money and access.  

To get this back to technology, I do believe that the overall improvements in technology have increased the enjoyment of the game for all but the best (they always enjoyed it).  Imagine all of what we have now and 20 year old golf technology.  Would the courses have been lengthened?  Probably not as much, but my ability to hit a driver much further has reduced my frustration, resulted in better scores and greater satisfaction and love for the game.  I would postulate that had golf technology not advanced so much, we would have even fewer rounds and people playing.  


Dan, I couldn't agree more on the par 3 courses, be them 9 holes or executive with a couple of short par 4's thrown in.  We need to provide courses where kids can just be kids and not have an entourage of adults following them around the course.  In Ireland a couple of years ago, I saw lots of kids of all ages playing at Baltray or County Louth on a Saturday morning. Few, if any, adults were in sight.  They were having some sort of junior competition, but it seemed very low key.  Can you imagine a top 100 course in this country allowing the kids to take over the course on Saturday morning?  Doubt it.  But what was very clear was that the kids were having a blast while being very respectful of a couple of duffers from the states.  Get the kids out.  How many times does it take to get them hooked for life?

Jim,

It doesn't matter what is happening in Europe; the only thing that matters what is happening over the years here in the U.S. Our birthrate is now the lowest that it has ever been at 13.9 live births per 1000 population.

By contrast, in 1945, it was 20.4, then climbed steadily until 1954 and leveled off at around 25.0 (+/-) for several years.  The birthrate began to decline slowly in the late '50's, and dropped below 20.0 for the first time in 1965.  It has been declining more or less steadily ever since.

In other words, the current birthrate is only slightly more than half of what it was at the height of the Baby Boom, and it has been almost a third lower since 1967.  

IF you accept my premise that the golf boom is one of many effects of the Baby Boom, the implications of that are obvious for golf.  That isn't pessimism; it is just inescapable math.  My point is that we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about what is wrong with golf (expense, difficulty, slow play, etc.) when the reality may be both much MORE simple and much LESS changeable.

I also agree with you about the technology.  I'm 59, and the game is much more fun for me now that it would be if I was still playing the equipment of 20 years ago.  I have never been able to get my head around the idea that technology has hurt the game, and have always felt that anyone who didn't like a better golf club could simply opt to play the one they already had.  I would assume that golfers all the way back to Old Tom Morris were constantly looking for a better golf club, a better ball, and a better way to play the game.

AG, please don't confuse me with the facts! 

You clearly have a much better grasp of birthrates than I do, but some stats can be misleading.  There are a lot more "1000s" out there than there were when we were hatched (for the record, I'm 58).  When my twins were born in CA in 1979, I remember the news saying that more babies were born that year in CA than ever in its history.  So, while the birthrate might be declining or static, the overall population continues upward in this country.  More people should equal more golfers, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  BBs took up golf and as they age, their participation goes down or is eliminated which is your point and I agree.  We can discuss population stats, but we can't change them.  The only thing we can change is working to make golf more popular.  How do we get the next generations to pick up the game? 

My point on Ireland was that their population has been pretty static (I'm sure someone will correct me on this too) over the years, yet they seem to have robust youth participation.

I also agree that clubs who think that participation will increase on its own are dreaming.  I fear this will become a survival of the fittest until enough clubs have shuttered.  I know better minds than mine have pondered getting kids back into the game.  We need to get it done if we are not to lose a generation of architects and designers too.
 

Jim,
Let's back up. 

You are right that a small % of a big number is a big number; Sam Walton figured that out, and it has worked great. 

But golf isn't Walmart; golf is (and really always has been) a game played by affluent white males.  Everybody, rich and poor alike, goes to Walmart.  Everybody does NOT play golf, and we are seeing a fundamental demographic shift in this country in which relatively affluent middle-aged Caucasian males are becoming a smaller and smaller segment of the population.  The Caucasian % of the total population in the US has dropped by 15% in the last 40 years, and 8% in the last 20 years.  By 2050, estimates are that Caucasians will drop under 50% of the US population.

The issue for golf is not how many people there are total; it is how many people there are who can afford to play golf.  Median incomes for minority groups are increasing BELOW the rate of inflation in most parts of the country, and those groups make up the majority of population growth.  That seems to me to paint a very, very simple picture when wondering about the future growth of golf.  Of course there will be a gradual shift to more diversity among golfers as more members of minority groups become affluent, but the pace of that has been glacial to date, and I see no reason to think it will be accelerating especially soon.

So with golf's traditional constituency shrinking, unless you assume that there are ways to fundamentally change the cost of playing golf, get used to fewer rounds, which means fewer courses.  And by fundamental, I don't mean a drop from a $75 green fee to a $37.50 green fee.  I mean a price structure in which a round of golf costs what a movie costs.  I don't believe that is possible, much less likely. 

[Jim Nelson]

AG,
I think this discussion might qualify as a hijack. So, I'll try to be quick.  I fundamentally agree with your assessment.  Men play golf more than women, affluent more than middle and working class, Caucasian more than minorities, older more than young.  That said, will there be more affluent, Caucasian older men around in 10 years than there were 10 years ago?  Not as a percentage, but total.  I don't know and would be interested (really I would) to know.  You seem to have an expertise in this area and I think the gross number is important.

But let's go over those four divisions.  How can we move the needle in each of those areas.  We need to get more women, working and middle class, minorities and young people involved.  Cheaper golf does make a difference, but that's not the whole story.  I don't have the answers, but lots of people need to be working on this. 

I do have one little opinion unrelated to our discussion but one which has come up in these posts.  I firmly believe that our slavish devotion to our score and the USGA's insistence that we always post has hurt the game in our country.  Match play, ladies and gentlemen, match play.  Just play the game and forget about your score.  There I said it.  I have now succeeded in hijacking my own post.

Just to make myself feel better and reverse the hijack, I believe that golfing technology for the masses has made the game more accessible and fun.  The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch.  Not my problem.  But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us.  We pay the bills, not the professional tours.

Final comment, AG, have you been to a movie lately?  Throw in popcorn and a soda and you are getting scary close to that $37.50 number.     

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim,
I think we're ok on the threadjack because it had been suggested above that technology has led to longer, more difficult, more expensive courses, and that those had led in turn to the decline in participation.  My suggestion is that whatever the reasons for the decline, there is little likelihood of a reversal in the years to come.

And you are right about the movie comparison; not sure what I should have used instead.

[Jim Nelson]

Jim,
I think we're ok on the threadjack because it had been suggested above that technology has led to longer, more difficult, more expensive courses, and that those had led in turn to the decline in participation.  My suggestion is that whatever the reasons for the decline, there is little likelihood of a reversal in the years to come.

And you are right about the movie comparison; not sure what I should have used instead.

I agree.  I just keep wishing there were some solutions, but I think the overall trend is as you say.  There will be blood in the streets, or should I say, in the fairways.  I am also tired of commentators saying a particular star is good for the game.  Tiger did not move the needle of either minorities or golf participation in general.  What they think is good for the game really translates into good for the PGA Tour, networks, advertisers and manufacturers.  If they do not increase participation, then I really don't care how good they are for the aforementioned entities.

[Sean_A]

"The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch.  Not my problem.  But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us.  We pay the bills, not the professional tours."

This quote ties in perfectly with the knee jerk reaction to protecting par - which in and of itself is a focus on the completely wrong segment of golfers.  My only difference of opinion is that I could care less about growing the game.  In fact I think this mindset of growth could be bad for golf as a game and indeed really only meters into the business of golf - which we all should know often has little to do with the game.  From selling magazines to homes, golf has carried too many for too long.  I fear that no matter how many years of hard times fall on the industry, the bottom line will always be the same because golf is driven by rich people like no other big time sport on earth.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

"The pros play an entirely different game. Let the PGA figure out a way to make their product fun to watch.  Not my problem.  But please, please let's make sure the courses being designed and modified are done for us.  We pay the bills, not the professional tours."

This quote ties in perfectly with the knee jerk reaction to protecting par - which in and of itself is a focus on the completely wrong segment of golfers.  My only difference of opinion is that I could care less about growing the game.  In fact I think this mindset of growth could be bad for golf as a game and indeed really only meters into the business of golf - which we all should know often has little to do with the game.  From selling magazines to homes, golf has carried too many for too long.  I fear that no matter how many years of hard times fall on the industry, the bottom line will always be the same because golf is driven by rich people like no other big time sport on earth.

Ciao

I beg to differ

Tennis, Polo, Yachting, Skiing, Shooting...and one could make a Rich guy argument for any professional sport e.g. Soccer.  What the pro's do can be seen reflected on any local sports field. I live right on a big inner city  park and you rarely see kids in a kick about session now, but I do see organised training camps for youngsters by Arsenal and The Orient.

Golf was in the doldrums until the gutty ball came about at a time of enormous social change. Many courses were lost as people stopped playing. Please explain how that was good for the game.


We need to look at golf as a whole.  Trends from following the professional game have impacted all of us. That’s where the rot is greatest and sorting it out needs to happen if the future of grass roots golf is to be secured.  I'm 53 and I'm sure there will be enough courses for me to play for another 30 years.  However it's such a great game I'd like to think there will be people planting something I've enjoyed so much in 1000 years.

[Adam Clayman]

Further proof the magazine business is not the golf business.

http://www.facebook.com/GolfDigestMag

[Doug Siebert]

Sean,

Its not really about "protecting par".  I don't think anyone would object too much if some modern day Moe Norman came along who was sticking it close on par 4s with 4 irons and 7 irons and making birdies all over the place.  Its more the fact that watching a game where guys are hitting wedge to every par 4 isn't very interesting, whether or not they're making the putts.  The idea that you can just say "who cares, leave the course alone and let them shoot whatever they shoot" is a non-starter, not because its a problem if they shoot -25 in a major, but because watching guys who aren't being challenged is boring as hell.

[Sean_A]

Spangles

With the possible exception of skiing (tennis is dirt cheap to play for the folks who don't need the trappings - even at some private clubs), how are those other sports you mention considered big time?  I don't know how you can mention soccer.  Its very cheap to play.  Soccer is organized for kids for peanuts compared to golf.   

Doug

Once we get over worrying what pros do we shall all be a lot better off.  Why would I consider altering courses based on the pro product? 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()