[David Kelly]

If the golf course is incidental to the enjoyment of your game why would do spend time on a website devoted to golf architecture?

[Ben Sims]

David,

This is meant as no slight to yourself, however, I feel that views like your own are directly responsible for much of what ails our society--and golf.  Being happy with things "as they are," being willing to win at all costs, and accepting vapidity in art for the sake of convenience or shock value is what has diluted everything from golf courses to food to popular music.  Charm, subtlety and ambiance are lost on all but the most insightful of our citizenry.  Communication is short, harsh and vile.  No one has feeling.  Press releases read like mission statements and true messages are few and far between.  Yesterday I saw a man that I have known all my life as a very down to earth, simple man, post the term "LOL" on my dad's facebook page.  I almost vomited.  

What I mean to say is that only accepting golf for what it is now, and not what it could be, is to resign it to a game played only by those capable of competing at your level.  There aren't many folks out there with a +0.1.  To say that golf as you play golf is perfect and you don't think there are things worth addressing in maintenance, technology and architecture is, in my opinion, rose-colored.

I love golf too.  But for golf to be successful is not to make every 12 year old want to be a +0.1 and hit 300yd power draws and compete at the highest level.  The way to golf's ultimate success is to help them understand that being a -12, hitting a ball for fun, and enjoying a well designed walk with nature is a satisfactory result as well.  

For what it's worth.  

[Dan King]

Carl Nichols writes:
Are there empirical data that support the concept that rounds are so much longer these days?  I'm not suggesting it's not the case, and I've certainly experienced some long rounds in the last few years, but when I reflect on my experience growing up playing a mid-size town's muni in the 1980's, I remember lots and lots of waiting on weekends -- much more waiting than I do currently.

That's a good point Carl.  To me rounds seem to be getting longer. And we have people on here that feel 4 1/2 hours to play 18 holes is a reasonable time, where there are numerous stories of rounds of the past expected to finish in 3 hours. But most of my evidence is anecdotal.  I also know I'm much grouchier than I was 25 years ago.

I'd be interested in seeing any studies.

Cheers,
Dan King

Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
 --Alister MacKenzie

[RJ_Daley]

"The decline of the game as we know it...."

We are not all the same, and I don't think there is a universally known game, that 'we' all know.  We all have come to the game, and currently participate in the game, from different perspectives and for different reasons. 

I don't think the game has been terribly diminished by technology, per se, for the average golfer.  If that average golfer enjoys playing with similarly inclined companions for pleasurable friendly competition, or just exercise and fun, golf as a game is not in decline, IMHO.

However, if golf courses are designed to frustrate, penalize and provide hurdles that are targeted to challenge only the best players, and discombobulate the average players, then I can't see how it could not decline in participatory numbers of people seeking such pleasure or affording such.  Yes, as David says, there is nothing like hitting good shots with whatever equipment - old or new.  And, you can do that at a muni, range or lavish CCFAD, etc.  Access to where you go is the only limitation on that front.   If you know people that would like to play golf more in companionship, but aren't about to pay a fortune to do so, it is not conducive for you to participate either. 

But when it is a constant race of marketing technology that extends yardage, minimizes mishits, and feels less harsh on the body and hands, it tends to cost more and more to keep up.  To go along with that, the effort to provide 'more than just golf', with ancillary  things like golf assistants with mellon scented towels, non-golf related aesthetic landscape, and overly lavish clubhouse facilities,  are things that can cause the participatory decline in availability to play the game on the cost front.   Tim Weiman's old saw:  "people want to play more, not pay more" holds true, and does have a bearing on the notion of decline, if people are leaving the game due to cost. 

But that is a mixed bag.  If numbers of people are leaving golf as a game to be widely enjoyed, and if numbers of rounds per capita among golfers is declining, then perhaps cost to participate is one major cause to consider in such a definition of decline.

If decline is deemed to mean, the game as purely an activity of enjoyment is declining; then I guess it is down to your own definition of whether you are enjoying it more, or less.  If we are all saying we are enjoying it less as an activity, then there is deep serious trouble.  I don't think we are there yet, on that score. 

So, for my understanding of whether golf is in decline, I will define it by the numbers of people playing, taking it up, or playing as much of it as they always have per year, etc.  If that is declining, I'd look to Weiman's observations.

[John Kavanaugh]

I love golf too.  But for golf to be successful is not to make every 12 year old want to be a +0.1 and hit 300yd power draws and compete at the highest level.  The way to golf's ultimate success is to help them understand that being a -12, hitting a ball for fun, and enjoying a well designed walk with nature is a satisfactory result as well.  

If this is how you raise your children then wouldn't they be better off being shown the fine National Park system in our great country.  Hiking seems to be a healthy cheaper more couple friendly activity than golf.  Granola over hot dogs if that is you.

[Ben Sims]

I love golf too.  But for golf to be successful is not to make every 12 year old want to be a +0.1 and hit 300yd power draws and compete at the highest level.  The way to golf's ultimate success is to help them understand that being a -12, hitting a ball for fun, and enjoying a well designed walk with nature is a satisfactory result as well.  

If this is how you raise your children then wouldn't they be better off being shown the fine National Park system in our great country.  Hiking seems to be a healthy cheaper more couple friendly activity than golf.  Granola over hot dogs if that is you.

Pretty astute of you actually.  I would be thrilled to have children that would consider playing Cypress Point and trekking parts of the John Muir Trail to be equal in status and importance. 

All I was trying to say is that everyone is not built to be a scratch golfer.  But courses in the past few decades have been built with an ideal that everyone wants or needs to play at a very high level.  The uniquely American belief of "you can do anything" is, unfortunately, a huge detractor into the enjoyment of golf for the masses in this nation.  I wish we had a more Scottish view of enjoyment of the game.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

So is it your assertion that the -10 and above handicaps are the ones that are responsible for the decline of golf?

[John Kavanaugh]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

So is it your assertion that the -10 and above handicaps are the ones that are responsible for the decline of golf?

Yes of course.  Far fewer low handicap players quit the game.  Please note that I am only talking about people who take the game up as a child.  I understand it is a completely different ballgame for those who begin after they have children themselves.

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.

This is because you can't see beyond your competitive nature. Many of us can enjoy the game without turning into yet another American sport. The competitive part of golf is responsible for much of the damage done to golf over the last century, IMHO. The golfers over the years that have done the most to protect the game are the ones that love the game for reasons beyond trivial competition.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more exacting than racing, cards, speculation or matrimony. In almost all other games you pit yourself against a mortal foe; in golf it is yourself against the world: no human being stays your progress as you drive your ball over the face of the earth.
  --Arnold Haultain (The Mystery of Golf)

[John Kavanaugh]

Dan,

If I were not currently in a drug tested profession I too could enjoy golf without worry of result.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

So is it your assertion that the -10 and above handicaps are the ones that are responsible for the decline of golf?

Yes of course.  Far fewer low handicap players quit the game.  Please note that I am only talking about people who take the game up as a child.  I understand it is a completely different ballgame for those who begin after they have children themselves.

I actually agree with this statement.  If I had started playing golf when I was 10 years old and I was still a 12.4, I'd hate it. 

How many people that started golf as children and still play 10 rounds a year are in that category you think?

[Jim Sherma]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

So is it your assertion that the -10 and above handicaps are the ones that are responsible for the decline of golf?

Yes of course.  Far fewer low handicap players quit the game.  Please note that I am only talking about people who take the game up as a child.  I understand it is a completely different ballgame for those who begin after they have children themselves.

John

I agree with you ubt will even trim it down further. The difference I see in the game, especially amongst the public players, is not amongst the good players, nor really amonst the lousy players who have no interest in improving. What is being lost are the regular players that shoot somewhere between 82ish and 92ish and play every week. Growing up the tee sheets used to be filled with blue collar type guys that were regulars and cared about the game, but just never got down into the '70's. They played quickly, many of them walked and generally were good guys to hang out with. This is the backbone of the public game that is being lost and not replaced. The jokers that hack it around and drink beer were always there, and the good players were always there. The Eisenhower/Arnie type crowd needs to be replenished.

[John Kavanaugh]

People that only play 10 rounds per year are not golfers.  If you don't input at least $5,000 a year back into the game you don't deserve it to be around for your leisure.  Those people will be happy doing something else and never know golf went away.

[JMEvensky]

Ben,

Personally I don't see children who are introduced to golf with the notion that sucking at it is all fine and dandy will ever make the sacrifice in time and capital to keep the game alive in 2050.  You better be damn competitive, creative or a government official if you are going to belong to a private club in 40 years.

So is it your assertion that the -10 and above handicaps are the ones that are responsible for the decline of golf?

Yes of course.  Far fewer low handicap players quit the game.  Please note that I am only talking about people who take the game up as a child.  I understand it is a completely different ballgame for those who begin after they have children themselves.

I'm with JK but with a little different spin.

I don't believe it's the high handicaps' fault completely.A lot of the problems were an attempt to make the game easier for them.Plenty of low handicaps were culpable in this.

[JMEvensky]

People that only play 10 rounds per year are not golfers.  If you don't input at least $5,000 a year back into the game you don't deserve it to be around for your leisure.  Those people will be happy doing something else and never know golf went away.

True dat.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hidden behind this false logic is the fact that you have to play more to be a low handicap.  I quit playing tennis because I am no longer a "low handicap".  I would still play if I could Oberize the competition.

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
If I were not currently in a drug tested profession I too could enjoy golf without worry of result.

I got good news for you buddy, LSD, and most other hallucinogens, are not part of the standard drug test. There is a drug test for them, but it is expensive, so almost never used without cause. You could check, but more than likely you can take acid, go golfing, and still pass your drug test.

Cheers,
Dan King

"If God dropped acid, would He see people?"
 --Steven Wright

[Eric Smith]

What decline? Total # of participants? I think its safe to say that I don't give a whole lot of thought to how many folks are playing or not playing golf. What others do with their time hasn't affected my enjoyment of the game, or at least I can't remember it affecting my enjoyment of it. Changing folks minds about whether or not they play golf sounds like work and I have enough of that. The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of those having to make that decision, no? I've played golf for 34 years and love it a great deal. I live in a county with 75,000 people and we have 5 golf courses. The neighboring county where I work and grew up has about 60,000 people and 10 golf courses. A lot of folks play golf here, obviously, and none of these golf courses have closed in my lifetime. So for me - golf hasn't changed - it's still what it's always been - a game. I actually worked at several golf courses for a little more than 13 years and even though it was my "job", it was still a game. I do love this game. No more than any of you, but no less either I'd reckon. Is mine a selfish view? I certainly don't intend it to be, just don't think I can get my head around some of these views that my game is dying and will soon disappear. A fairly dramatic view in my opinion.

Edit - A few more points I'd like to make concerning my pov:  

I do care about the state of the game. In my former profession I taught folks to play golf. I don't think I brought anyone new to the game as those I taught were already in. If I am fortunate enough to bring family members into the game I will be very happy.

I trust that operators and supers and staffs are trying hard every day to make their golf courses and businesses better. We all should do that in our professions if we hope to be successful.

Another point - I misspoke - a course did close in our area - one on top of a ski mountain - Cumberland Gardens. What a place it was too.

Thanks.

[JMEvensky]

John Kavanaugh writes:
If I were not currently in a drug tested profession I too could enjoy golf without worry of result.

I got good news for you buddy, LSD, and most other hallucinogens, are not part of the standard drug test. There is a drug test for them, but it is expensive, so almost never used without cause. You could check, but more than likely you can take acid, go golfing, and still pass your drug test.

Cheers,
Dan King

"If God dropped acid, would He see people?"
 --Steven Wright

Just responding to note one of my favorite Steven Wright lines.

[Garland Bayley]

What decline? Total # of participants?...

No, technology infusement.

[RJ_Daley]

It still comes down to an almost impossible exercise of definition.  What is the game to you?  Is it playing the game as a physical activity alone or with others, the institution or cultural activity of the game, the sport of the game as a spectator, participant, competitor?  Is it an historical concept that has some point of specific, or pure definition at a given moment in history as to these aspects.  Is your game part of a future, past or only the moment you are involved?

If your definition of the game is defined as what it means to you now because it is what you can and do play now, then it will decline because eventually, YOU will decline, mentally, and physically, until the game is out of your reach as a matter of your own participation.  Will you love it less after you decline... who knows? 

If the game is merely the number of people playing it, for whatever reasons they pursue it, and the numbers or frequency of rounds played per golfer decreases, I can't then understand how one can avoid the understanding that it is in decline, on those terms. 

If you don't care about the numbers of people playing, and you don't feel any restriction to your own personal access to playing for what ever reason,  then it is down to you to define when it declines for you.  But, live long enough and it will decline for you on some level, sure as gravity. 

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
People that only play 10 rounds per year are not golfers.  If you don't input at least $5,000 a year back into the game you don't deserve it to be around for your leisure.  Those people will be happy doing something else and never know golf went away.

Do I have to spend the $5k on rounds, or can I spend some of it on books or nicknacks and such? What's the deal if I only play say 5 rounds a year, but I spend $1k on each round, would I then be a golfer?  

What if I play a lot, like 100 times a year, but it still doesn't add up to $5k, can I call myself a golfer?

We need John rules to know who is a golfer and who isn't. But your rule stated above leaves more questions than answers.

Cheers,
Dan King

There are now more golf clubs in the world than Gideon bibles, more golf balls than missionaries, and, if every golfer in the world, male and female, were laid end to end, I, for one, would leave them there.
 --Michael Parkinson

[Eric Smith]

What decline? Total # of participants?...

No, technology infusement.

Garland,

Do you see technological advances causing harm to the game of golf as you play it? How so? Thanks.

[Carl Nichols]

What decline? Total # of participants?...

No, technology infusement.

Garland,

Do you see technological advances causing harm to the game of golf as you play it? How so? Thanks.

Isn't Garland's horse good and dead by now?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()