[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

While I may not care all that much about growing cheez whiz golf either, it occurs to me that it might just very well happen in some circles.  Like I say, we can't force the next generation to be like us. 

If somehow, someone comes up with a variation of golf that fits the 3 hour time frame and other criteria that would make it more popular with Gen X (or Y, Z, etc.) and it catches on, it catches on.  The USGA might still never endorse it, and that is their choice.

And whatever happened to the old saying "If you love something.....let it go......"?

Jeff,

That saying is apt in a one on one situation and not when it comes to lowering the bar, which, once lowered, is almost impossible to raise.

I understand what you say, but WHY at this point in time ?

The game is virtually unchanged over the last century with the USGA rejecting non-conforming I&B which attempted to make the game easier.

WHY THE NEED OR DESIRE TO DUMB THE GAME DOWN NOW ?

It's for one reason only, sales

[Mike Sweeney]

The game is virtually unchanged over the last century with the USGA rejecting non-conforming I&B which attempted to make the game easier.

WHY THE NEED OR DESIRE TO DUMB THE GAME DOWN NOW ?

Seriously, it could make the game more interesting. The game is about shooting the lowest score on the course. By making the game easier on the green, it actually shifts pressure back to the fairway and back to the tee.

One putts are now expected on the green.

Thus, the pressure to hit the green increases. The pressure to hit a fairway increases.

Maybe someone can post data but widening the hole may put more interest in shotmaking, and it may bring a higher level of match play where the interest in the match is not focused on putting.

You will dismiss it, but without trying how would we know?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

In the broader picture, you have a society that dumbs everything else down, so the question is, does golf have to do it too to remain relevant?  I understand hating that notion, but sometimes wonder if it inevitable.  

I am not sure I agree golf is unchanged.....most would say that technology, turf over heather (or poorer turf) etc. have all slowly contributed to at least an attempt at making the game easier and easier for the masses.  I also understand the traditions mentality and keeping it old school, but things just change, and usually, things that don't change die a slow natural death.  Could it happen to golf, if it holds on to old school as society changes?

Maybe its for sales, maybe its for the long term viability of the game.  I don't like the thought any more than the rest of you, but as mentioned earlier, am aware it might come to that.  Maybe not 15" holes, but maybe something else that combines the essence of golf (that will never go away as a fun thing) with modifications to make it fit a faster paced society that may not be as economically advantaged as previous generations, may not have the time, may have more options for that limited recreation time, etc.

Survey after survey show that cost, time of play and difficulty are the big deterrents to more folks playing golf.  Does it no make sense to tinker a bit to see if we can eliminate those problems?  Or (as mostly been the case so far) stick our head in the sand and say "no change?"

It would seem to me that this will limit golf back to the rich, so some would view it as a matter of "fairness" in keeping a great game more available to all.  It didn't start out as a rich game, until it got to America, and then, we have been trying to find ways to get it available to the general public ever since.  The recent downturn in play may suggest we have hit a few stumbling blocks the traditional methods of attracting golfers just doesn't help.  Wouldn't this just be a continuation of a long term trend?

As I mentioned on the last thread, it is always difficult to force someone to love you YOUR way, rather than their way.  Accepting their limitations is usually key to a long term relationship.  If in golf, that limitation is time, money, or skill, then maybe we make accommodations?

I am just trying to (debate team style) layout the argument from the other side of the coin.

[BCowan]

I used to be a basketball fan (college and pro).  Don't watch it anymore, and there is nothing either organization could do to make me watch it again.  Golf just like baseball takes forever to watch a professional game, it has slowed down.  

I believe everyone or most are in agreement par 3 courses or 9 hole courses are being built and money is being put into existing ones and that will keep the game rejuvenated.  With your ideas, I would definitely stick my head in the sand.  One could argue that your ideas could push people away from the game, those 8 million white guys you make fun of, could quit.  Golf in America is about as cheapest or accessible as it ever has been.  Why do you hate America, Jeff? 

  

[Jeff_Brauer]

BCowan,

Where to you come off with that "Hate America" crap?  Hope you meant to include a smiley.  In any case, hurling names and insults versus any real discussion certainly isn't helpful to anyone.

I agree you could argue it would drive folks from the game.  Doesn't mean the argument would be right!  Of course, no one knows, which is why I am not against a course trying something new if it is already in financial trouble.  Unlike Obamacare, if you like your golf course, in most cases you can keep it!  I have only suggested 150 struggling courses (or as much as the market would bear) try something new for a while to see if it catches.  How could that possibly drive you from the game?  You wouldn't play on principle that some folks are enjoying a slightly different form of golf somewhere else?

Please tell me where nine hole and par 3 courses are being built?  I haven't heard of any, but as I mentioned before (one thread or another) I learned on a 9 hole adjunct course, and think they would be a great benefit for getting new folks in the fame (i.e. a course designated for them would at least relieve the pressure most feel on the "big course." Also, cuts time in half.  As someone stated, when golf was going great, no one was thinking of developing future golfers, and focused only on upscale clubs and publics to max out dollars in greens fees. 

And, the problem is the economics are still tough for par 3 courses since you generally have to charge lesser fees, unless you have a blockbuster market with no where else to play, and then par 3, exec courses, etc. have done well - same rounds, reduced expenses due to smaller course.  In this market, very little chance of someone building a new course down the street, so it might be a perfect time to try downsizing your course to a cheaper alternative and see who comes.  In some cases, it can't hurt.

Maybe that is all we are lacking right now, seeing the effects of twenty years of ignoring new golfers?  Only problem is, the PGA and what not have tried a few programs and don't seem to stick with them.  I am of no illusion that design alone can make huge changes.

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    Your comments about 8 million white people was very derogatory.  You have a handful of insults. 

We have a par 3 course in Plymouth,MI.  In NW Ohio we have a ten hole course with a driving range, another range with 4 short holes on it.  They have put money into their facilities.  Could it be the 150 courses were put up half haphazardly? I also want to see photos of you playing street ball on 8 ft hoops.

Most people learn on a muni.  I forgot to ask people 2 weeks ago when I played a couple muni's what their thoughts were of a 15 inch hole.  18 hole courses can be converted to 9 hole courses. 

The last 15 years of artificial economics has ruined golf, golf is getting slower, and you keep focusing on people who aren't committed to the game.  PGA doesn't grow the game, sound economics/currency with friends telling friends about the game grows the game.  Money is tight, and purchase power isn't there. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

In the broader picture, you have a society that dumbs everything else down, so the question is, does golf have to do it too to remain relevant?  I understand hating that notion, but sometimes wonder if it inevitable.  

It will be if you don't resist the effort to dumb it down


I am not sure I agree golf is unchanged.....most would say that technology, turf over heather (or poorer turf) etc. have all slowly contributed to at least an attempt at making the game easier and easier for the masses.  I also understand the traditions mentality and keeping it old school, but things just change, and usually, things that don't change die a slow natural death.  Could it happen to golf, if it holds on to old school as society changes?

I feel just the opposite, that golf would stand out as a game of integrity, not a game that morphs on the whims of those trying to dumb down the game

Maybe its for sales, maybe its for the long term viability of the game.  I don't like the thought any more than the rest of you, but as mentioned earlier, am aware it might come to that.  Maybe not 15" holes, but maybe something else that combines the essence of golf (that will never go away as a fun thing) with modifications to make it fit a faster paced society that may not be as economically advantaged as previous generations, may not have the time, may have more options for that limited recreation time, etc.

Getting golfers to play faster has nothing to do alterations to the field of play, it's a cultural issue.

It's an interesting dichotomy, everything in society seems to have sped up, yet the game has slowed down, while most courses have been softened, which would tend to speed up play.

If golf was played in 3:00 to 3:30 at the most, it would be a better game.
It would attract and retain more golfers

Survey after survey show that cost, time of play and difficulty are the big deterrents to more folks playing golf.  Does it no make sense to tinker a bit to see if we can eliminate those problems?  Or (as mostly been the case so far) stick our head in the sand and say "no change?"

Surveys of whom ?
They didn't contact me  
I agree about "time of play" and cost.
Time of play is EASY to fix.
The problem is that everyone talks about it but no one has the will and the moxie to take the steps to fix it.
There's been a blanket acceptance of slow play.
4.5 hours has been accepted as a standard.

"Cost" is a more difficult fix.

Do putters really cost $ 300 to make ?
Drivers $ 500

Yet, many golfers are paying those prices only to have that driver deemed obsolescent by the company that sold it to them only a year earlier.

Acquisition of suitable land is an issue as are costs to remediate and comply with regulations.

It would seem to me that this will limit golf back to the rich, so some would view it as a matter of "fairness" in keeping a great game more available to all.  It didn't start out as a rich game, until it got to America, and then, we have been trying to find ways to get it available to the general public ever since.  The recent downturn in play may suggest we have hit a few stumbling blocks the traditional methods of attracting golfers just doesn't help.  Wouldn't this just be a continuation of a long term trend?

I've said that the economy is "the" factor in terms of utilization patterns.

Now ask yourself, on Municipal golf courses, is it cost or time to play that's the impediment ?
And, with the unfunded pension liabilities facing municipalities, how long before they Jack up the cost of a round ?

As I mentioned on the last thread, it is always difficult to force someone to love you YOUR way, rather than their way.  
Accepting their limitations is usually key to a long term relationship.  If in golf, that limitation is time, money, or skill, then maybe we make accommodations?

Being loved by everyone is an unrealistic objective for anyone or anything, including golf.
Skiing, Tennis and golf are niche sports, not universal sports.

I'm not interested in mongrelizing the game in an effort to attract marginal golfers

I am just trying to (debate team style) layout the argument from the other side of the coin.

I understand the other side and am opposed to it in principle.

Some things are worth preserving rather than mongrelizing and golf is one of them.

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

I play in an outing every year at Mountain Ridge. Why don't you come out and spend a day watching all the players? I bet you can identify 20 or 30 who should be playing with 15 inch cups. (Or maybe 8 inch cups.) These are the people who play maybe 3 or 4 times per year and are only playing because they support the chairty. It would get them off the course faster and probably make their day more enjoyable.

And I bet a number of women would use the larger cups the next day.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I play in an outing every year at Mountain Ridge. Why don't you come out and spend a day watching all the players? I bet you can identify 20 or 30 who should be playing with 15 inch cups. (Or maybe 8 inch cups.) These are the people who play maybe 3 or 4 times per year and are only playing because they support the chairty. It would get them off the course faster and probably make their day more enjoyable.

Bill,

That's a special event akin to a little league "tee" ball game

I wonder how many of those would object to being deprived of playing the regular course.

It's like scrambles and shambles, most "golfers" want to play THEIR ball.

And I bet a number of women would use the larger cups the next day.

I've always enjoyed women in larger cups 

 

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,

I play in an outing every year at Mountain Ridge. Why don't you come out and spend a day watching all the players? I bet you can identify 20 or 30 who should be playing with 15 inch cups. (Or maybe 8 inch cups.) These are the people who play maybe 3 or 4 times per year and are only playing because they support the chairty. It would get them off the course faster and probably make their day more enjoyable.

And I bet a number of women would use the larger cups the next day.

"Tee it Forward" has given way to "Make it Bigger"

Put the tees on the fringe and carve out the green into a 60 x 40 foot cup.
That'll get them around even quicker.

Don't assume that just because you think they should be playing with larger cups that they want to play with larger cups.

Let's go the other way-shrink the distance the ball goes, restore the size of the playing field, stop growing knee high rough to combat distance
and shockingly people will walk 3-4 miles faster than they do 5-7 miles.

[BCowan]

Jeff,

 I just feel bad for the poor asst. keeper that has to dig these monstrosities out of the ground!

[David Kelly]

Is there any research anywhere at all that indicates that people would play more or spend more money with 15" cups? 

[Garland Bayley]

If you go to the pro shop at a municipal golf course, and ask about buying a set of clubs, what is the PGA professional there going to sell you?
It seems some of them are going to sell you Tee it Forward, and 15 inch cups, but what clubs are they going to sell you? Or, what club buying advice are they going to give you? I don't get to such places very often, but it seems to me from what I've seen in those places they are going to sell you premium brands, because that's all I remember seeing there. If you go to Golfsmith, what are they going to sell you? All I recall seeing there are premium brands.

How hard is it for the uninitiated to just outfit themselves with inexpensive, but serviceable golf clubs? It seems to me that a public course pro shop selling half set starter sets for $100, would do more to grow the game than putting 15" cups into the greens.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  I am cracking up reading BCowan's comments to you. I'll bet you didn't know you were anti-American or, worse still, a progressive.  How's it feel to be a left wing nut job?   When speaking of the Sterling debacle, your progressive President mentioned something which seems applicable to much of what Mr. Cowan writes: "When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything.  You just let them talk."


As for your thoughts on this innovation and innovation in golf generally, I think we disagree on just what is at issue here.  For those like you who are in the golf business, it is about survival of the golf business.  For those like me who are in it for the love of the game, it is about preservation of the game we love.  Sometimes those two perspectives go hand-in-hand, sometimes they don't.  I'm not willing to sacrifice the game of golf to keep the business of golf afloat.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, its a NEW experience for me, I can tell you that!

And, I think we can agree to disagree. I don't want the traditions of golf to go away, but again, have simply mused that alternative forms of golf might be applicable in a limited number of situations, so I don't fear that implementation of those would hurt golf at all. In fact, it might even increase casual interest and reverence for it among marginal golfers, as they watch the Masters, US Open, etc. after playing a round of golf mostly as an excuse to drink beer, get out of the house, and generally carouse, with about 1% care about what he shoots.  It would give new meaning to the phrase "These guys are good!"....

As to BCowan's comments, all is good.  He is right, I sure included a stereotype of "8M old white guys" in my posts.  My bad, I thought it was still possible, under politically correct guidelines to diss a group I am squarely middle of......

[Paul Gray]

While the debate continues, one final thought:

What is, by far, the most popular sport on the planet?

Answer: Football (soccer to many of you)

Has anyone introduced wider goals, extra balls or anything else which fundamentally bastardises the game?

Answer: No (except perhaps in the USA where it consistently fails).

Consistently you find, rather than tweaking a game where no score at all in a game is commonplace, you find that football has prospered by successful promoting the core product to its potential market. No gimmicks, no tricks, just a lot of promoting things which smell a little bit like the Ryder Cup.

And it's the same promotion of the fundamental product which still sees millions of Brits searching for their tennis rackets for two weeks of the year. Argue all you like about tennis moving away from ordinary participants and in many ways you'd probably be right. But, nonetheless, the core product still offers far more allure than 'multi ball hexagon court max out tennis extreme' ever will.
 
The US Open (back to golf now), in its current state, is hardly likely to have people reaching for their old sticks. You want more golfers? Address that, not the size of the cup.

[Mike Sweeney]

What is, by far, the most popular sport on the planet?

Answer: Football (soccer to many of you)

Has anyone introduced wider goals, extra balls or anything else which fundamentally bastardises the game?
 
The US Open (back to golf now), in its current state, is hardly likely to have people reaching for their old sticks. You want more golfers? Address that, not the size of the cup.

Paul,

The USGA is an easy target, but these pictures from the 2014 USGA meeting at Pinehurst signal why we will never see innovation at the USGA in my life:

http://www.usga.org/photohubgallery.aspx?page=2#21474865895 (see 2014 meeting at the link)

Compare with FIFA development offices picture:

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/developmentoffices/index.html

IMO, change here in the US will only come from the outside, and reality is that probably means corporate money. I doubt the CEO of Taylor Made really wants 15 inch cups in more than the 6 or so courses that he mentions here:

He will announce the names of a half-dozen courses that are ready to experiment with a 15-inch hole. He's going to talk about the game as if it is on life support. He's going to get in your face and ask you a few pointed questions: Do you like holing 30-footers? Do you like playing in three hours? Do you like breaking 80? If so, then get on board with the 15-inch hole!

I plan to be disruptive," King told me. The d word. He uses it hourly.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/taylormade-ceo-mark-king-talks-about-his-vision-grow-game#ixzz30NvpRByy

I recognize that many will see issues with the "disruptive" statement, but I personally see that golf needs him. When you read the article, sure he is in it for profit, but I came away liking the Midwester Packers fan (real football ). Being disruptive is needed when you look at those USGA pictures. My impression is the 15 inch cup is just a starting gun for the disruption that he wants to bring, not the end goal.

For me if it means a walking culture where people play in 3 hours at the courses I play, I am in.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A co-worker of mine, his wife, and their 4 rug rats, will once again be vacationing at Kiawah Island this summer. One of the draws at the resort is the family golf program which allows the six of them to play on four of the courses in the early evening, and from 'family' tees, for the whopping sum of $50.00.

4.25" cups, and everyone has a blast. Mark King should stick to his business plan of making your newly purchased TaylorMade clubs obsolete every 3 months and leave the structure of the game alone. 

 

[Stephen Davis]

Mike,

You can always make the game easier.

But here's the rub.

The prevailing trend for decades has been to make courses harder.

And golfers seemed to have embraced and been proud of that trend.

At what point does dumbing down the game eliminate the challenge to the degree that the game loses it's appeal ?

Why not a 30 inch cup ?

I believe that the downtrend is strictly due to the economy.
Fix the economy and the game will grow.

Continue to demonize hard work and success in a quest to eradicate the accumulation of wealth and the game will continue to shrink.

I know that I am late on this, but I found this comment to be very insightful. I think you are right on Pat!

[Paul Gray]

Sound reasoning, Mike. Can't argue with that. And those pictures really do say it all.

If this is really just a means to a positive end, fine. I'm always a fan of anyone that has the balls and intelligence to shake things up when needed and challenge the status quo. My problem remains though that all I can see 'big cup' achieving is the promotion of a game most of us wouldn't consider to be golf.

And that point is important because what you and I consider to be golf is a reflection of how the core client base feels. Let me just throw out this hypothetical:

You have an 18 hole course situated on a decent amount of land. You want to bring in more revenue as costs are, well, as they are.

Do you -

A) Consider 'big cup' golf, much to the disgust of your core demographic

or

B) Consider a nine hole par 3 course which can be used by all and sundry

Option B is of course more ballsy, since it requires you to have real faith in your own judgement, but it's probably not the choice of the semi-experienced middle manager that's been put in charge of a golf operation for the first time in his or her life with no background in the game. So, Option A prevails and we all have a moan on GCA.  

But seriously, they knew what they were doing at St.Andrew's when they built the putting green. Grandma doesn't need 'big cup' to enjoy golf with the family.

[George Pazin]

A co-worker of mine, his wife, and their 4 rug rats, will once again be vacationing at Kiawah Island this summer. One of the draws at the resort is the family golf program which allows the six of them to play on four of the courses in the early evening, and from 'family' tees, for the whopping sum of $50.00.

4.25" cups, and everyone has a blast. Mark King should stick to his business plan of making your newly purchased TaylorMade clubs obsolete every 3 months and leave the structure of the game alone. 

 

  Wonderfully said, Jim.

[Mike Sweeney]

A co-worker of mine, his wife, and their 4 rug rats, will once again be vacationing at Kiawah Island this summer. One of the draws at the resort is the family golf program which allows the six of them to play on four of the courses in the early evening, and from 'family' tees, for the whopping sum of $50.00.

Jim,

Speaking as a guy that has had Disney suck ALOT of money out of, THAT IS DISNEY 101 marketing!

Let's see, we have a bunch of empty houses in August, how can we fill them up with golf junkies from Connecticut. We offer the $50 Family Golf package!

My wife buys the Disney Annual Pass every year for the holiday season, where we just break even after 5 days. So of course we have to go back at Labor Day to save money!!

[Keith Grande]

If the USGA were to be "disruptive' and roll back the balls and clubs, what would TM-Adidas do?  What recourse would they have?

[Jim_Kennedy]

A co-worker of mine, his wife, and their 4 rug rats, will once again be vacationing at Kiawah Island this summer. One of the draws at the resort is the family golf program which allows the six of them to play on four of the courses in the early evening, and from 'family' tees, for the whopping sum of $50.00.

Jim,

Speaking as a guy that has had Disney suck ALOT of money out of, THAT IS DISNEY 101 marketing!

....and in the high season no less! 


There's something irksome about a golf equipment manufacturer tampering with a centuries old game, especially when said manufacturer is basically employing the same churning tactics to hawk their wares as those used by unscrupulous Wall St. stockbrokers.

And we should listen to this guy why?   

[Keith Grande]

Are there any restrictions for executives of the USGA and R&A against holding positions, managerially, or financially, of equipment manufacturers?
Have there been proven instances of confilcts of interest?
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()