Golf Numbers.....

[Mike_Young]

Let's talk numbers.  Supposedly there are 480 million rounds played in the US each year.  If we were to take the top 100 courses discussed on this site each year and say that each could take an average of 20,000 rounds each that would be 2 million rounds leaving 478 million rounds to be played.  If we assumed that each member of this site averaged50 rounds per year that would be 75,000 rounds and if just 20 percent of those rounds were on the 100 courses discussed here that would be 15,000 rounds played by members of this site on the courses discussed here. 

So:
We discuss courses where less than one tenth of one percent of the golf played in this country takes place.  They are fantastic places no doubt but can one discuss the overall game intelligently if they never realize or accept how many golfers actually get to appreciate these courses?

If we assume that 15,000 of the rounds out of the 2 million rounds played on these top 100 courses are played by members of this site, should we assume that the 1,985,000 rounds played by members and guest of these clubs should influence the preference of these clubs more?

Should this site care or does it need to care about this?

I think it critical to realize that as more people come to the game the percentage playing these courses will become even smaller? 

I'm 100% behind this site...great entertainment for most of us and is a learning tool .  But just as Burger King munchers can't really critic Peter Lugars as well as a regular patron,  are we guilty of such when it comes to golf? 

Asking because I ran into a really big golf nerd today....had an interesting take on things....

[jeffwarne]

There's a hundred courses discussed here?

[Mark Pavy]

Good points Mike.

This site is about architecture and after Ran's recent posts, I guess he wants it to remain about architecture. The reason why only "100" courses seem to be discussed is because they are the most "in common" courses played by the forum participants, hence the more likelihood of a thread or conversation taking place.

Perhaps this site needs a couple of other forums: Participation and State of the Game, History and Off Topic would be a good start.

[John McCarthy]

There are three ways to answer the question.

The first way is the flippant way - does Beer Advocate spend their time discussing the relative merits of Hamms v Old Milwaukee? 

The second way is to realize we are the outliers, as any self selected group is by definition.  I have friends who are members at the 100 clubs discussed here and when I get ti talking about the history of their very own club the wisely tell me to shut up. 

The third way is to realize golf is recreation.  I play once a year in a bar's tournament at a terrible course.  The funny thing is there are a few good holes in the nine.  There is a real, interesting history to the course.  And no sand in the bunkers - thus is the life of playing muni golf in Chicago.  But the fellas in the bar league play at least once a week all summer.  They have a blast.  Money changes hands, lies are told...the stuff of life.  I suspect most rounds are played like  this league, they take what they get because that course is in the neighborhood . 

Should we talk about raising the median?  Sure.  But most people do not care.

[Sean_A]

Mike

Its tough to get people to talk about the other because people generally aren't gonna travel to see these courses and as a consequence, few on this board have seen these courses    Then add in the fact that a huge percentage of these courses aren't really worth talking about even if they are worth playing...most don't bring anything new or different to the table.  It takes some oddball shaping, super scenery or something else to draw a crowd.  Sometimes gcaers bite on the wee courses with absolutely no rep...even no local rep, but its a very hard sell.  Just checking on hits, I am flabbergasted Cleeve Cloud has over 30,000 views...so people are willing to at least look if not discuss the lower echelons of golf.

Ciao

[Jonathan Mallard]

If you take the 480,000,000 rounds and divide them by the 15,500 courses (in 2012 per http://golf-info-guide.com/golf-tips/golf-in-the-usa/by-the-numbers-usa-golfers-and-golf-courses/) I get 31,000 rounds per course.

That's a little optimistic in my opinion. I defer to others who know more than I do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - the reason that Cleeve Cloud has 30,000 views is because YOU started the thread.

Mike - sometimes numbers don't lie. What they suggest here is that most of us don't really care about the GAME, and in fact don't much care for GOLF COURSES either, at least not in general. What we care about instead is mostly the exclusive and prestigious and expensive examples of EXCELLENCE that we have -- or hope that we one day might have -- a chance to play OURSELVES.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

If the vast majority of the golf people actually cared about the courses they play, where is THEIR internet discussion group?  According to your numbers, it should be teeming with life.

There are thousands of courses that would be assigned 5's or 4's or 3's or 2's on the Doak scale.  I could go and see some more of them, but I don't know that they would provide me a lot to write about.  Most of them provide a pleasant place to spend four hours relaxing, but they aren't worth taking a special trip to see, because you could find another one just like them closer to home.

[Jason Way]

I'm not sure that I buy that we don't care about the game here.  We've been asked to stick to discussions of one narrow aspect of the game, and so that is what we do (mostly  ).

It happens to be an aspect that, although narrow, is quite complex and deep, and therefore provides a rich discussion for us.  It is also an aspect that, like the game itself, is equal parts art and science, which it even more fertile ground for opinionated and substantive discussion.

I suspect that there is a great deal of care for and love of the game among the members of this site, and perhaps even more so among the non-member visitors to this site, who are a much greater numbers than us.

As for the impact/influence on the narrow aspect of GCA in particular, and the game in general, that remains to be seen.  But I don't think that impact is lessened because we choose to spend our time talking about the courses we find to be the most interesting.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

We discuss courses where less than one tenth of one percent of the golf played in this country takes place.  They are fantastic places no doubt but can one discuss the overall game intelligently if they never realize or accept how many golfers actually get to appreciate these courses?
Yes  - How else would we have topics like "Hidden Gems", "Sh**ty Course You Love. "The Reverse Jans", "Interesting Courses That Have Never Been Mentioned On GCA", etc.. It would be interesting to know just what percentage of folks here aren't members of the "Top 100 club"
   
If we assume that 15,000 of the rounds out of the 2 million rounds played on these top 100 courses are played by members of this site, should we assume that the 1,985,000 rounds played by members and guest of these clubs should influence the preference of these clubs more? Should this site care or does it need to care about this?
I don't think about it, mainly because these " Top 100 club" all let themselves be rated by GW, GM, and GD, so they've already opened up that can of worms.   

I'm 100% behind this site...great entertainment for most of us and is a learning tool .  But just as Burger King munchers can't really critic Peter Lugars as well as a regular patron,  are we guilty of such when it comes to golf? 
No - on this site there is usually someone involved in the conversation who is or was a regular patron of the course being critiqued, be it a BK or a PL.

[Mike_Young]

Jonothan,
480,000,000 is the number reported and you are correct on the round count per course.  I have had the same question as you.

TD,
Exactly.  The people playing don't care abut this aspect enough to have a website and there are so many 5's and below that you could see them but here would be nothing to write about.    So, this site should be more careful to make sure those thousands of courses are not made to feel as though they have to have the same standards as so many of those discussed here.    For example cart paths or maybe even catch basins are a completely different animal on those thousands of courses.  We are talking two completely different animals here.  
The golf architecture student I was with today could not enjoy seeing a country course in Georgia with an almost full tee sheet because of the vast amount of knowledge he had assumed and which was based on the 100 courses usually discussed here.  Really sharp kid but one or two misplaced trees, a cartpath placed across a fairway for a maintenance purpose, a couple of unlevel tees and other things just would not allow him to accept or enjoy the place.  
I don't know if I am explaining myself or not but we need to be thankful for all of the 5', 4's and 3's and they need to feel wanted....they are not asking for blogs, or ratings or even discussion.  JMO

[Ken Moum]

The golf architecture student I was with today could not enjoy seeing a country course in Georgia with an almost full tee sheet because of the vast amount of knowledge he had assumed and which was based on the 100 courses usually discussed here.  Really sharp kid but one or two misplaced trees, a cartpath placed across a fairway for a maintenance purpose, a couple of unlevel tees and other things just would not allow him to accept or enjoy the place.  
I don't know if I am explaining myself or not but we need to be thankful for all of the 5', 4's and 3's and they need to feel wanted....they are not asking for blogs, or ratings or even discussion.  JMO

That's just sad... and completely unnecessary.

Although my wife accuses me of the same behavior because I often talk about courses we play from the point of view, "What would make this better?"


But I don't (usually) let that spoil my day.  In fact, it's more a matter of me enjoying a little game-playing.

I've hardly played any Top 100 course and probably wont add many more. For me the exercise is more about understanding what it is that makes me like a course.

K

[Jason Topp]

In my experience, a major barrier to having an interesting discussion about a golf course is having a sufficient number of people here who are familiar enough with that course to have a discussion.

Most courses that meet the bill are noteworthy, relatively easy to access and relatively inexpensive.  A few can be discussed because they host tournaments and we see enough of them to have some idea how they play. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jonothan,
480,000,000 is the number reported and you are correct on the round count per course.  I have had the same question as you.

TD,
Exactly.  The people playing don't care abut this aspect enough to have a website and there are so many 5's and below that you could see them but here would be nothing to write about.    So, this site should be more careful to make sure those thousands of courses are not made to feel as though they have to have the same standards as so many of those discussed here.    For example cart paths or maybe even catch basins are a completely different animal on those thousands of courses.  We are talking two completely different animals here.  
The golf architecture student I was with today could not enjoy seeing a country course in Georgia with an almost full tee sheet because of the vast amount of knowledge he had assumed and which was based on the 100 courses usually discussed here.  Really sharp kid but one or two misplaced trees, a cartpath placed across a fairway for a maintenance purpose, a couple of unlevel tees and other things just would not allow him to accept or enjoy the place.  
I don't know if I am explaining myself or not but we need to be thankful for all of the 5', 4's and 3's and they need to feel wanted....they are not asking for blogs, or ratings or even discussion.  JMO

This is dead on and I for one would like to see a lot more discussion around these types of courses, particularly in relation to design and construction challenges and priorities.

[Josh Stevens]

How many people on this site actually play those 100 courses on a regular basis.

I often wonder how people observe decent architecture when they are exposed to it day in day out.  I was in Melbourne before Christmas and popped out to RM to join in a Saturday comp.  Played with a few members, who  had done nothing but play RM twice a week for the last 30 years but could not the life of them explain why it was a good place to play, other than the wine list.

To them it was just a nice course.  They could not understand why anyone would gush over the place and be prepared to pay $300 for a round.  I wonder how many member of the GCA 100 courses are in the same boat. Just don't know what they have.

[Mike_Young]

How many people on this site actually play those 100 courses on a regular basis.

I often wonder how people observe decent architecture when they are exposed to it day in day out.  I was in Melbourne before Christmas and popped out to RM to join in a Saturday comp.  Played with a few members, who  had done nothing but play RM twice a week for the last 30 years but could not the life of them explain why it was a good place to play, other than the wine list.

To them it was just a nice course.  They could not understand why anyone would gush over the place and be prepared to pay $300 for a round.  I wonder how many member of the GCA 100 courses are in the same boat. Just don't know what they have.

Or maybe they do know what they have....

[Niall C]

Never played Pine Valley, never seen NGLA although I did once look over the 18th green at Pebble Beach. I have however played loads of courses that are less than "great" but nonetheless have great holes or great features or some worthwhile design. I'd contend that these types of courses inform the discussions on architecture as much as the top 10 courses, however you want to rank your courses in order of preference. So I really don't think this site is as restricted as Mike makes out.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

How do you know what good or great are unless at some stage you've played some of a lesser calibre? Comparison both up and down is surely necessary.
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

If you are a member, owner or architect of a course you better not be discussing that. We had a fun little surge in Rustic discussion recently that died on the third hole. What we are left with are a bunch of guys who have seen a course once or twice through the lens of a camera leading our way. There's no turning back.

Oh, most of us raters or not pay less to play 8's and above than 5's. We play great courses because we can. Until that changes it ain't gonna stop.

[Mike_Young]

How many people on this site actually play those 100 courses on a regular basis.

I often wonder how people observe decent architecture when they are exposed to it day in day out.  I was in Melbourne before Christmas and popped out to RM to join in a Saturday comp.  Played with a few members, who  had done nothing but play RM twice a week for the last 30 years but could not the life of them explain why it was a good place to play, other than the wine list.

To them it was just a nice course.  They could not understand why anyone would gush over the place and be prepared to pay $300 for a round.  I wonder how many member of the GCA 100 courses are in the same boat. Just don't know what they have.

Josh,

I think it's great that they see their club that way.  They enjoy it and don't clutter their minds with why?  They know it's good.  Take as an example the IBM building in Atlanta.  It's a Philip Johnson building and I am quite sure the board at IBM and the other executives working there enjoy and appreciate the building but they don't really know why.  They know who they had design the building and they know it possesses a uniqueness and quality.and that's enough for them.  A person purchases a piece of Stickley furniture and knows it has quality and he enjoys it but yet most don't know what quartersawn oak is or a through mortise and tenon.  There is no need. 
I keep seeing firsthand and sensing that so many have worked themselves into such a frenzy over golf architecture that they can't enjoy the courses they play.  So many members of the top clubs know what they have but they are used to sitting the ball down in the end zone and then the rater types and others come in and want to spike it.  As TD mentions in his post, there are only so many courses worthy of discussion and capable of generating a large interest.  We all know that and I enjoy reading quality informative post about those places.  But the other is just getting old and sometimes it is drifting into green committees etc as gospel.   

[jeffwarne]

How many people on this site actually play those 100 courses on a regular basis.

I often wonder how people observe decent architecture when they are exposed to it day in day out.  I was in Melbourne before Christmas and popped out to RM to join in a Saturday comp.  Played with a few members, who  had done nothing but play RM twice a week for the last 30 years but could not the life of them explain why it was a good place to play, other than the wine list.

To them it was just a nice course.  They could not understand why anyone would gush over the place and be prepared to pay $300 for a round.  I wonder how many member of the GCA 100 courses are in the same boat. Just don't know what they have.

Mike Young's response

So many members of the top clubs know what they have but they are used to sitting the ball down in the end zone and then the rater types and others come in and want to spike it.  

early leader for post of the year

[Tom_Doak]

So many members of the top clubs know what they have but they are used to sitting the ball down in the end zone and then the rater types and others come in and want to spike it. 

So true, and yet the most frightening aspect of the whole business to me is going back to some of those very courses and hearing the members talk worriedly about their course having slipped from #14 to #18 in the rankings as if there were any real difference.  [A recent visit to Seminole was a welcome exception to this rule.]

Still, it seems to me that the main culprit in changing the game were the 1000+ high end courses built since 1990, whose owners and designers all wanted to get in the end zone and do the Ickey Shuffle.  They're the ones who ruined it for the rest, by trying to make them seem small and insignificant.  Golf Club Atlas was more of a reaction to that phenomenon than leading it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RE spiking, I wonder if the golf rating panels explain to the raters, as my football coaches explained to me, "when you score, act like you've been in the end zone before?

RE the Icky Shuffle...."Got some cold cuts....got some cold cuts......"

And OT, but I got a guy in the biz a free round last week, and played with him.  He starts the day trying to hit the ball picker on the range, and later slows play picking old golf balls out of the pond, etc.  I asked him what part of that behavior he thought was going to get him more business in the golf industry.......I guess some guys will never understand the grand traditions of golf.

[Mike_Young]

So many members of the top clubs know what they have but they are used to sitting the ball down in the end zone and then the rater types and others come in and want to spike it. 

Still, it seems to me that the main culprit in changing the game were the 1000+ high end courses built since 1990, whose owners and designers all wanted to get in the end zone and do the Ickey Shuffle.  They're the ones who ruined it for the rest, by trying to make them seem small and insignificant.  Golf Club Atlas was more of a reaction to that phenomenon than leading it.

Good point....agree...plus those projects had the marketing dollars to promote such....

Jeff B,
Did he give you any of the balls he found?  Aw..he probably kept the ProV's....

[Sean_A]

More and more these days I am getting comfortable with "good enough".  Mind you, good enough is a fairly high standard that I believe most courses should have achieved from day 1...unfortunately a high percentage of moern courses didn't hit this bar (which I find very bewildering).

I for one would like to see a lot more discussion around these types of courses, particularly in relation to design and construction challenges and priorities.

Yes, Ally.  I would find conversations like this fascinating if only because many of the courses people don't discuss face a lot of tough real life issues which can inherently limit the quality of the design.  The problem is, we would need the archies to lead these discussions and I am doubtful many wold want to on a public site where the outcome is unknown.  All it takes is one or two crackpots to lead a thread down a destruction path...we have seen umpteen times previously.  All that said, you could try to describe your design decisions and limitations  concerning Carne.  

Ciao