The Battle for the Soul of Golf

[Lyne Morrison]

“Underneath the superficial debate over things like anchored strokes, the Tiger Woods trickledown effect, the relevancy of the USGA and others to name a few, there’s a more serious battle being waged with more at stake for the future of our industry…” 

taken from the Pellucid Perspective, written by Jim Koppenhaver
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pellucid/perspective_201305/

I found this article of interest. It touches on a subject I think about often. The pull between retaining the traditions and status quo of golf that we are all familiar and comfortable with - versus - a forward looking business model that seeks to maintain pace with the needs and wants of contemporary society.

I had a client share with me recently that in recognizing the 'need' to change it also takes ‘courage’ to step away from traditions. Will it be the courageous who endure in this business long term?

Lyne

[Mac Plumart]

Will it be the courageous who endure in this business long term?

Makes me glad I'm not in the 'business' of golf and that I simply play for the love of it.

[jeffwarne]

Will it be the courageous who endure in this business long term?

Makes me glad I'm not in the 'business' of golf and that I simply play for the love of it.

Those in the business of golf led us down a poor path in trying to "grow the game" at a pace faster than was sustainable.
Although Pellucid puts out some pretty interesting stuff, I'm not sure that those looking to "grow the game", care about "the game", as much as they do their survival/profit margins.

As I've said many times, golf is not for everyone.
It takes a certain personality type to put in the time and effort needed to enjoy the game at a reasonable skill level.
Ironically, it is the contraction from the explosive growth that has made golf more affordable than ever, but there still are the obstacles mentioned above.
Not sure that the game needs to put aside its traditions that make the sport unique, appealling, and character building, in order to attract more players for what could well be the wrong reasons.

Ironically, I'm arguing for keeping anchoring in because it's inclusive, although the purists would say its not traditional.
I'd rather keep a player in the game by allowing anchoring, than gain one by making golf more "cool",at the expense of such traditions as ettiquette, respect,hard work, calling penalties on oneself, respect for opponents, and learning to dress appropriately for a given situation.
(ironically we have no dress code, but kids learn a lot via example and observation, and our juniors dress appropriately for every occasion, and more importantly know why its important)

There's probably a contradiction in there somewhere

[Terry Lavin]

The game's growth tracked neatly with an era in which the one-percenters and the middle-to-upper middle classes prospered while involved in a ginned up economy driven by nearly unregulated Wall Street profiteers whose explosive success was dependent upon the huge numbers of customer/victims who bought into their giddy success. The Wall Streeters had a bad year: the rest will never be the same.  I don't think the game will ever get back to the bubble years either.  If the game is to grow, the middle-to-upper class will have to be restored to their previous affluence. I don't see that happening. I see a hot stock market "economy" and the rest just treading water.

Belly putters?  Juiced golf balls?  Killer drivers?  Not responsible for hurting the amateur game and unlikely to help grow it back.

In other words, this isn't about soul; it's just another popped bubble.

[Dan Herrmann]

As much as I love golf, I think the changing social norms that led to its decline are good for us all.

Fathers these days are spending more time with their sons and daughters at soccer, music concerts, and a myriad of other family activities.

So, yes, traditions need to change so that golf can adopt to the cultural changes.  Obviously, I want golf to adopt, but it means losing stodgy old traditions that may have worked in 1955, but will doom a club if continued

One story about a club that gets it.  Merion.  I was out there a couple of years ago - beautiful summer evening.  There must have been 20-30 young players enjoying the course.  They were having a lot of fun in a safe, family oriented environment.  From that time on, Merion cemented its place in my heart.

Conversely, I was once a member at Coatesville CC in Pennsylvania.  We were married there, but it was about the last thing I did there because they wouldn't let my then-fiancee play.  I wanted to convert to a family membership, but they wouldn't let us, even though we were getting married there (and paying for it too).  Guess who's looking for members today?

[Ronald Montesano]

Merion?

[Dan Herrmann]

Ron - yep.   

[Steve Salmen]

It's a weird thing but a large part of golf is based on two compliments: carts and beer.  If there ar roughly 18000 courses in the US, how many would there really be if there were no carts and no beer sales?  My guess is fewer than half.  Do you know what kind of car you could drive for $15/day? A very nice one.

I cite two courses recently awarded the US Open.  Erin Hills has changed owners since it's opening only a few years ago.  Chambers Bay is yet to turn a profit (according to my caddy, anyway).  

For me, the soul of golf is at Askernish.  Public welocme tough to get to, locals that love and care for their course, golf as it was over a hundred years ago, and fun to play.  I've yet to experience that in the US.

[Peter Pallotta]

Lyne - I don't envy a working professional like yourself grappling with this kind of question, as the more seriously you take the question the harder the decisions become and the more real/practical the impacts of those decisions.  And "this kind of question" is for me amongst the hardest to answer, and it takes many forms, i.e. just because we can do something does it mean we should do it?  if a choice/approach is increasingly unpopular, does that mean it's suddenly not the right choice? if the world is speeding up and changing at an ever increasing rate and bringing with it a continual state of distraction and lack of peace, should golf try to remain an oasis of focus and quiet and peace and of an unchanging and measured pace (one of the few left), or should it instead 'wake up to reality' and change to fit the times? Those are questions that are hard for me to answer, even theoretically (as my living doesn't depend on the answers), so I imagine much harder for you, given your profession.  I like - and hadn't thought of -- the idea of the courage it takes to leave traditions behind. On the other hand, it strikes me that, while we teach our children the story of the boy who alone shouted out that 'the emperor has no clothes', we rarely if ever tell them -- or even admit to ourselves -- that the shout out might very likely cost that boy a lot.

Peter   

[RJ_Daley]

I think I can change my mind 5 times in a day about my attitude on what can maintain the participation in golf to maintain the game and the industry going forward.  There are several factors working against the long term prospects.  A few that I think have to be faced and dealt with now, are:

Demographics in terms of average age of the future golfer.  By that I mean that as our population baby boomer bubble comes into full cycle of retirees, they are the sector that has the most time and disposable or available income to budget towards their recreatiion and entertainment.  However, as retirees, they almost by definition are those that are paring down their costs and income stream as they slip into retired life.  I guess I'd consider myself part of that demographic.  If courses maintain a modest or moderate cost of play and participation in the game or private club life, they may look at the aging population as a core or basis upon which to build out the rest of their customer base.  BUT, that also flirts with the time frame and window of years the aging or retiree can be a core frequent player.  New medical technology like the advance in hips and knee replacements are actually a boon for golf, in my view.

Also, in conjunction with catering to the senior set, one would think the focus has to be on the female golfer as a potential growth sector.  Combine the women and seniors (and senior women) and one aspect that needs to be understood is that 7000+ yardages are completely unnecessary for both these sets.  And, golf equipment technology to make it easier for that core demographic to play is a good thing in terms of keeping those folks playing and enjoying, rather than struggling with the difficulties.

But, that leaves the other end of the spectrum open to exagerating the effects of the ball and equipment technology to be even more extreme where yardages for competitive or vigorous golf keep bumping upwards past the 7300-7500 yard markers.  The soul of golf is also being challenged by the disparatity of what sort of golf is appropriate for different demographics.

So, a long way around the barn, I think that the traditional aspects of golf, and the slowing down of the modern advances of equipment, and the modern distractions that fit the modern young lifestyle, from younger working people needing cell phones on the course to keep up with their work and living means, to just allowing their lifestyle dress fashion (or lack thereof) has to be fit into the games culture, all suggest a bifurcation of standards and cultures within the game.  There seems to be too many forces of custom, culture, and technical advances working in opposite directions, so much so that the game may need to bifurcate standards to meet the increasing disparities of the disparate people that participate. 

[Doug Ralston]

That is indeed why we still do need the old private clubs restricted not by rule but by temperament (sp?). We even need folk like that snooty Brit who used to be here [haven't seen him since I came back, you know, the one who was decended from King Authur or someone] to have is own club of worthies. I think all interesting ideas about golf [and architecture] still need to be represented. That gives us the most precious thing of all, the liberty of choice!

"The soul is but the mind speaking dearly of itself, in full appreciation". Anyone know the quote? I cannot find it online, but remember it from my old college days.

Golf does indeed have a soul.

Doug

[Dave Doxey]

As a new participant here (long time reader), I think about golf’s “problem” a lot.  I’ve come to the conclusion that as a lover or the game, I REALLY DON’T CARE IF GOLF “GROWS” OR NOT!

“Growth” was what got the industry in the current mess.  

"Growth" meant that courses were built to sell real estate and then left on their own, economically unsustainable, once the final house lot was sold.
  
“Growth” meant driving up demand for equipment through advertising, as the cost of clubs soared (does it really cost $350 to manufacture a putter?).   Rules were changed to allow profit from the sale of GPS units (so a player who can’t consistently hit the ball 100 yards can spend 3 minutes to know for sure whether it’s 173 or 176 yards to the pin)

Televised golf contributed a lot to the problem. “Growth: meant attracting viewers while encouraging more difficult (& costly) courses, and showing pros playing terribly slow (for weekenders to copy - note how play is always slower on a weekend where a major is on TV…).

To fuel the demand for participants and their disposable income, “growth” meant people drawn to play who were not dedicated to the game.  Little patience for practice and learning. Little appreciation of golf history, architecture, or subtleties. They were unable to simply enjoy a round with friends. People watched it on TV, read a golf magazine (for the random monthly way to cure a slice), went out and spent $2000 on equipment and $150 on greens fees for a round, and added up their score every week, only to find it less rewarding than they envisioned.

So, what did “growth” get us?  

An overbuilt supply of courses that are too costly to maintain and too difficult to play and need to charge 3 figure greens fees to break even.  

A crop of new participants who found the game too difficult and are dropping out.  

Over-priced equipment (where changing the color of a driver promises 10 more yards).  

Six hour rounds, as players look for lost balls on the difficult courses, or emulate the pre-shot routines they saw on TV.

The solution is to “SHRINK GOLF”!   Make the game smaller!

Prune out overly difficult, overly expensive courses.  Lose players who don’t love the game.  Stop rewarding equipment manufacturers that charge exorbitant prices.

The economic law of supply & demand will go a long way to effectively shrinking golf, and that those of us who are dedicated players and appreciate the game will continue on.

I plead guilty to selfishness as a golfer who makes my living elsewhere.  It’s sad that many good courses will be lost (perhaps appreciation of course architecture can influence choices).  It’s also sad that many will lose their livelihood in the industry.  Such is the way of evolution.

[Mike Sweeney]

The solution is to “SHRINK GOLF”!   Make the game smaller!

Beautiful post. I sometimes wonder if I am the last person here that loves golf for the game/spirit of the game (because I stink now) and not the money/access. Honestly, a "Pizza Man" style post:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=12142

[jeffwarne]

Nice post indeed.

However, a "Shrink the game" thread has already been done by Mike Young in Dec 2011.

[Mike Sweeney]

Nice post indeed.

However, a "Shrink the game" thread has already been done by Mike Young in Dec 2011.

Yes but that is only because Mike Young is smarter than all of us (not falling for the dumb Southern routine  ) and he figured out first how to profit from shrinking the game. 

[jeffwarne]

Mike has a southern routine?

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike has a southern routine?

sometimes with a South American accent!  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Doxey,

Excellent post!

I was fortunate several years back when Geoff Shackelford invited me to review draft of his book on the future of golf and quite honored that he included my one liner "golfers want to play more, not pay more".

That is what playing across the pond in Ireland and Scotland taught me.

I was fortunate also to be invited by the Melbourne boys to captain a match played at Barnbougle featuring Australia vs the Rest of the World ( of course the Aussies won, good for them!).

But, what I didn't expect was being asked to give a speech. What was an American supposed to say to a bunch of Aussie golfers from Melbourne?

Honestly, the answer came to me rather quickly and I had only one message "be proudly Australian, you have something special here, don't let the American influence become too strong".

So, yes, we have lost our way and I share your view that not all about the "growth of golf" in AmericA in recent years has been so good.

[Steve Lang]

  I never considered golf as industry till i read one day in early 90's how the great Eli Callaway was taking a $5 head, $2 shaft, and $1 grip, assembling it in china or somewhere and selling it as Big Bertha for $400.  I've never bought anything labelled Callaway since... and never will!

To me the soul of golf was cutting lawns to get money to play local muni in gradeschool and highschool, skipping class as needed on nice days in college & grad school, and taking a sick day as needed during my working years, and travelling to destinations for a week of golf annually,  with the buds..

I don't need an industry trying to sell me new clubs each year, or charging me CCFD rates with faux service, .. +  my CC rates are far lower .

[Rich Goodale]

Great post, Lyne, but I would argue that there is not, nor has there ever been "a" Soul of Golf.  Rather, there are and continue to be many separate "souls" of golf, including but not limited to:

--"grass roots" local play on land acquired and improved for local people and operated inclusively
--local play on land acquired and improved for local people but operated exclusively
--commercial operations with a business model based on both repetitive and transient players

--golf as a sport, played with a relatively minimal focus on outcomes
--golf as a game, played with a significant focus on outcomes
--golf as an adjunct to commerce

--golf as a pleasurable pastime
--golf as a life style
--golf as a passion
--golf as a living
--golf as one of many things people with multiple interests can enjoy from time to time

I've experienced all of these phases (and more) in my golfing life, to varying degrees, and I know that thee is no golf course or golfing experience that will cater to all of these souls at all times.  I pity anybody dependent on the growth of golf as an "industry," given this fragmentation and consequent uncertainty, unless they recognise the need for specialisation and agility, as "consumer" demands continue to fragment and change.

A final word--anybody who thinks that the substance of the opinions of this forum is anything more than a reflection of a very small minority of golfers will never "win" that "battle of souls."

Good luck

Rich

[Dan Herrmann]

Steve Lang - well said.  My "Soul of Golf" was going into some cruddy water at night to pick golf balls so I could play the next week.   Great times, indeed.

I really think golf needs to get over itself.  Whether it's the "sock police" in Australia, the "length of shorts" police in the USA, or similar stuff elsewhere.

Be respectful to the club/course is all that's really needed.

Here's an example.  I was playing at Bulle Rock (a CCFAD in Maryland) a few years ago.  Cost was about $150.  Guy shows up in the pro shop to play with jeans on.   The assistant pro treated this guy like he was dirt - made fun of him, laughed at him behind his back, and offered to get him proper clothes for a ton of money.    It disgusted me on so many levels.  And I shared my opinion with the course's management, who couldn't care less.

The guy left, perhaps never to return to another golf course anywhere.

Unfortunately, idiots like that asst. pro are also currently the soul of golf.

[Mac Plumart]

Rich...

Good post.  Kind of touches on the question of "Why do you play golf?". Which builds up to "How do you view what the game is supposed to be?"

[Brad Isaacs]

Times are changing, You can be causally attired and come in the front door at the downtown  Olympic Club now. That being said,  I don't think their will ever be mass appeal for golf. I love it for the combination mental, physical challenges and also the history and traditions. I am not sure that plays well with more than 1%of people.  The social golfer probably is more important to keeping golf alive(as that is the area where greatest amount of growth can occurr, and hence the need for emphasizing the social aspects of the game), that is 10% at most(35,000,000 million is a lot of golfers and maximum potential market) and I am sure they don't care about long putters. The reaction of the guy in the shop is more a representation of bad in society rather than unique to golf. Golf probably is in less of a position to afford this boorish behavior.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There are multiple 'souls of golf' -  there is no need to anoint any one of them, there is a need to be flexible and accommodating to them.

Adopt that attitude and it 'works' for everyone.

[Mac Plumart]

There are multiple 'souls of golf' -  there is no need to anoint any one of them

I agree.  This is why different clubs, courses, and models work.  Go where they play and behave the way you want prefer.

[Tags:]

Tags: