Grow The Game

[gvogel]

I agree. Golf is a difficult game, and it should be a difficult game. That is allure for those who stick with the game.

I like people who stick to it. Grow the game? Who cares?

[Dpavs]

I'd be more of a fan in growing quality in the game then simply growing the game. I already have enough goofiness to have to deal with on the course after the last burst of "growing the game."

[Catty]

To the op. We should just copy and paste your first paragraph of your post in Wikipedia under “virtue signaling “. There will be no misunderstanding on what that term is then

[davep043]

"Just seems that the time is right for the bottom line to be reconsidered a little bit"

There's the problem, people all up and down the line, from stockholders to program managers to on-air talent are all evaluated based on viewers and advertising, on the bottom line. To suggest that NBC Universal sacrifice the value of my stock (I don't know if I own any, really) for the sake of growing the game, I'm not so sure I'm on board with that. And I'm really not sure that a program director would want to risk his bonus for the sake of growing the game.

[Soloman1]

For heaven's sake. There should be some kind of test before people are allowed on the internet.

[Man_O_War]

that's an ideal that does not exist.

[jonsnow]

I don't disagree with OP about attractive commentators being good for the game, although I think Maria Taylor is a better choice. An attractive lady of color who was a terrific college athlete though not a golfer. But she has proven herself as a sports commentator. If we really want to grow the game we should be building more quality 9-hole courses instead of $200+ resort courses. Think Sweetens Cove light. Just my .02 worth.

[James the Hogan Fan]

If you want to grow the game, do what Disneyland does: Make it cheap/free/fun for kids, but fleece the parents. A week long trip to Disneyland, staying at a Disney property, is $350/person for 5 days of Disney, with the hotel running in the multi-hundreds per night. But its for the kids, so mom and pop pay the cash, the kids have fun and are never the wiser. No one seems up in arms that Disneyland is an exclusive, rich-people thing to do, and Disneyland is not losing popularity any time soon.

My course (in Finland) offers the following deal: 15€ per year of age = annual pass, up to age 30. So a ten-year-old (or his parents) pay 150€ and the kid gets to golf for free. Throw on 80€ more for unlimited range balls. And if you're over 30, the annual pass is still only 799€; not bad right? Beats the heck out of $15000 initiation, $1000/month in dues with $500 restaurant minimum, doesn't it?

And what about the equipment cost? There are cheap options out there, they just need to be marketed. The rankings of the SIM, Maverik, TS3, etc. are fantastic, but for the guy who is just taking up the game, or a parent picking out clubs for Junior, he sees $499 for a single club and wonders what he's gotten himself into. We need more articles on "How to pick clubs at the garage sale" and "Yesterday's GI classics that can help your game for cheap today!" It is possible to assemble legitimate bags of used equipment for less than $200, 150, maybe even 100, so why not. A newcomer to the game reading a GD article that says "If your driver is more than 2 years old, you're leaving yards on the table", "Why you can't putt with a blade, MOI is king", etc. is reinforcing the stigma and turning away the newcomer. Sure it makes us feel good about ourselves, but we are already hooked.

The biggest impediment to growth, in my opinion, is the fact that the learning curve for beginners is incredibly steep. Like piano steep. Making any contact is exceedingly difficult on the first couple full swings. Unless that can be changed (and it can't be), we will be debating how to grow the game ad nauseum for eons to come.

[tiderider]

i think that's the only way to grow it ... 9 hole courses ... couple of hours ... wide fairways/etc ...

[gvogel]

I agree about nine hole courses.

And then there is this: playing a 9-hole par 3 course with a reduced distance ball, such as the Point Five. Is it golf? Same clubs, the ball just doesn't go as far. Play faster? Of course, par 3 courses are much easier to get around. It could be a great way to get young golfers involved in the game. (And old f$$ts like me.)

[smashdn]

I don't disagree with 9 hole courses opening the game to more people who are already interested in playing or in the game already. But how do you diversify more intensely the golfer population? Sort of what RBI Baseball was supposed to do for baseball in cities where it used to flourish. Availability is only one piece of the puzzle. Attraction is the other that seems less addressed.

[tiderider]

?? ... people who are "already interested" are already playing and don't need a baited hook to convince them to play ...

 

golf is unappealing to people of all stripes, not just one group ... the only way to 'grow the game' for specific groups is to grow the game for all groups ... shorter time required is one of the changes that might make it appealing for all groups ...

[Barnacle]

You: "I think we should work on growing the game to be more inclusive of a more diverse group of people."

Me: "Here is a solution that may attract a different group of people that could work in growing the game overall by adding in a different style of play."

You: "No I don't want someone else to suggest a solution, I want to use my solution because I've thought about how to be more inclusive for the past week, but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with current events. Preferably I would like everyone here to tell me how virtuous I am by announcing my idea. Also I don't want to make this political."

 

Do I have that summed up about right?

[oikos1]

Golf is exclusive. It requires time and money, two things that many people, in the U.S. at least, struggle with on a daily basis.

There are so many more less expensive and less time consuming recreational activities available. When the overall quality of life grows, the game will grow with it.

[c7015]

very valid points on growing the game in the right way, our clubs have made it dirty cheap to join as a younger professional but the dues just keep going up as you get older. We have picked up a lot of really good young players and the clubs demographic has defiantly changed for the better, once those members mature they are not going to want to leave "their" club and will pay the higher fees. Presumably grow their network and make more money as a result so win win.;

[smashdn]

What part of what I said do you want me to clarify?

 

Yes, people who already have the slightest interest to "see what golf is all about" will take the expanded opportunity made available to them. Folks, "of all stripes," who don't know what golf is all about or perceive some sort of barrier would need reaching out to if there is interest in growing the game in that fashion. My wife is an example of one of those people with a slight interest but needed a "push" to actually explore the interest.

 

I don't fully agree that "the only way to 'grow the game' for specific groups is to grow the game for all groups." Golf (in general) could make a concerted effort to go to places that are underserved. Does that indirectly help everyone, I guess so.

Here is the example I thought up to back up my last position. You can build a new 18 hole course, say a municipal course, that makes golf more affordable and more available to every golfer. But if you don't get out and beat the bushes a bit and tout golf for all its virtues and its ability to be inclusive I doubt you attract current non-golfers to use that facility. If instead you created a short course/driving range type thing and implemented a First Tee type program targeted where minorities are and to be used by minorities you would come closer to expanding the demographics of golfers.

 

Full disclosure I am not a minority (big shock right?) and also fall more on the side of "if you want to play the opportunities are there." The last bit of thinking seems to be a bit dangerous (blind? oblivious? ignorant?) here lately so I am a bit unwilling to profess that particular belief. Without getting political (and as I am not endorsing or renouncing any government or party in this statement I don't think I am) the US in general, and golf in particular, rewards you largely based upon the amount of effort you put towards making your goals a reality. I personally have never felt that I couldn't do something in my country if I was willing to work to do it. There are plenty of examples of professional golfers in particular and people within the golf industry in general, who came from nothing or other varied backgrounds that are not "traditional" ways to get there.

[ATLgopher]

Original post is a position.

 

[airjammer]

The only way to grow the game is to do it slowly and organically. Like many things in modern society everyone wants to leverage the snot out of any business or idea. It’s never sustainable and at some point leads to a trail of tears.

imo the goal should be allow anyone to try the game out to see if it fits their personality. Then they can decide if they want to make the sacrifices to continue.

Anything more than that is corporate entity trying to maximize shareholder wealth.

[disco111]

Just to add to the aforementioned, Our little slice of the golf world has lost 5 course in the past 2 years and there are at least 2 more closely to the fault line of economics. So the remaining courses of course raised their rates to accommodate the fall out of golfers from those venues. So yeah!!...........their growing the game.......Not!!!

Now 4 of the courses are now housing developments and 1 course was offered to a municipality at a more than decent price and of course it was turned down. After all, there's more tax revenue from homes than a golf course.

[NoTalentLefty]

I know one thing that doesn’t grow the game and that is sex. Paige included and especially. The LPGA players has the skill to merit it on that not sexy calendar poses.

growth will be hard due to the trend of kids having year round options for club sports such as soccer, baseball, softball, volleyball, etc.

USGA and PGA will have to be more aggressive with reaching out to children to compete with those activities. They will need to reach out to lower middle class and poverty stricken areas somehow, maybe start with the existing boy and girl clubs . First Tee was a good start but it’s been hit and miss.

[bscinstnct]

Actually, a company like Nike, when they sold clubs, or are there any big apparel/general sports brands/holding companies who also sell clubs left?

 

The could invest the scope of money, cross selling/promoting golf in schools, to impact how many kids take it up. Access would still be an issue but perhaps involve/incentivize courses to give a break to kids.

 

Be a huge complex effort but they could try it in a certain market and see if it works.

 

Otherwise, Sports are hand down generation to generation and are culturally based in that respect. So, only way to grow it is really to get kids to play and stick with it and then they get their kids to play.

[OldCuss]

I golf given my father introduced me to the game and invested time in my development and he was introduced to the game by a friend that invested time in him, which was the same for my father's friend as well. Relationships seem primary.

[Outpost31]

Pretty racist/sexist statement. Because handing spots over to someone based on their skin color isn't racist at all. That is exactly what systemic racism is......thinking people of color cannot just do it for themselves so whites need to give them things... Same applies to gender.

[Outpost31]

You're right. Also, all of the "Let's grow the game people" who play behind the "kids & beginners" would be hitting into them, yelling, bitching about pace of play, "Our 4 some plays in 2 hr 20 min!". Then "kids & beginners" never come back and, GTG people be like, "Why can't we grow the game?" LMAO

[OldCuss]

My first post on this subject was as far from political as I could make it and in line with the widening trajectory of the conversation but this one is more central to the original question. Agree on many points made, notably the concern for profits, growth, inclusion, and political implications, however I would like to frame a response around corporate social responsibility (CSR), that is, a company's perception that it has a responsibility to more than those with a financial stake in the organization.

I would not fault any for thinking that business is about shareholder wealth given a Nobel was given to an economist who touted such, but Nobels have been given to those holding to a broader conception of corporate behavior, thus those holding to such are also standing on some pretty broad shoulders. But the thing is this: CSR is good for business, not to mention that philosophy of business has been moving from a shareholder perspective to a stakeholder perspective for some time, not that practice is sometimes uneven or a head-scratcher.

Whereas it can call into question the power of corporations, a legitimate concern, business can use some of its resources to get ahead of a curve and can help make the hard or underfunded places of community/society easier to accept or viable, respectively, thereby advancing quantitatively and qualitatively community effectiveness in its varied manifestations.

If golf is an old white man's game, it has at best a smaller future. Forget the old, just say white, male or female. We ignore demographics at our peril. There is only one ethnicity in the US that is replenshing its people with growth (and just barely): Hispanic. The median age of white women is past child bearing age and with one group producing growth and all others not, to be competitive we are going to need people: we need immigrants, that is, the future of this country is greater diversity and greater immigration if we wish to be competitive among the nations.

If we wish growth, we wish diversity, but like anything else, we need to leverage role models to better ensure attracting a good number of all ethnicities. We need not think that these role models do not exist nor have the skills to represent themselves and the sport, they do, some more polished, of course, than others, but like, again, other enterprises, people need encouragement, investment, and development and from such we can expect a fine return in representation and participation. A part of the solution for growing the number of sport participants (and the greatest potential for growth is among non-whites) is growing the diversity of those who are placed out front in leading the sport's various enterprises (e.g., teachers, broadcasters, program directors, writers, commentators).

PGA, USGA, media broadcast and print. Personal relationships. All are needed for growth, perhaps doing things more intently or simply differently. Golf, not necessarily a vehicle for change, is changing; it's work with charities is very laudable, thus to consider a bit more diversity in its own ranks, in addition to the diverse populations the charities serve, is not a huge stretch given the ground is growing more fertile for such. 

One thing economist on both sides of the divide agree upon is that healthy businesses and healthy communities go hand in hand. Healthy, however, is not the same as normal, although it could be. Sometimes to be healthy, that which is normal must he confronted, thus expect a bit of resistence in the beginning, which itself is a sign that once change has occured, it, too, will be hard to change back to old forms. Actually for newer forms to come after change has been institutionalized as well, but such is not our problem at the moment.

Old Cuss

[oikos1]

Golf has so many limiting variables it already has a natural cap built in. More people with more money means the game sees growth (see over building of golf courses in the 90's). More people with less money, well, you get the point.

Look at the economic trend in the U.S. in it's current state. 69% of adult U.S. citizens have less than $1,000 in savings. "Grow the game" is a joke of an idea.

[OldCuss]

I would agree that golf has a particular mix of attributes that would need to be considered and they raises questions of which are sacrosanct, changeable, and which are sacrosanct when in fact they are not. Surely at some point if we are not careful the game could become 'not golf', but let's be sure that what we label 'not golf' is truly 'not golf' instead of actually being its next evolutionary step. That is, whatever we do, we must respect the deep tradition of golf and not confuse the practices of such with the tradition itself. Many words to say that golf has taken many forms over its history, but its essence is still intact (yet even essence is not beyond improvement or its need, too). 

But, the point, nonetheless, is well-taken, however I hope more as a challenge than as a fate the game must endure. It's the endure part that concerns me. Tiger is going to have a place as will Peyton and others in said social class and those a decile or two below, but will Everyman/Everywoman have a place?

For demographics alone, rough waters are ahead absent change. Augusta National, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, and Bethpage are going to be fine, possibly even better, but the vast number of courses below this level are my concern. Muni and private courses will likely suffer, and it is not improbable, absent attention to demographics, that once secure enterprises will cease to exist. Golf will become more expensive and less available, thereby exacerbating affordability and access issues. 

Players like me, if I live long enough and remain healthy, will play less and less well in all likelihood notwithstanding age. Fewer will be taking up the game. Golf will remain, of course, but it will await the second coming of Arnold Palmer, and at that point some will look back and say, "why did we lose our religion for so long; why didn't we take it more seriously?" 

That questions are being raised and people are passionate on both sides of this issue is good, for there is passion, which from one philosophical perspective is necessary for greater cognitive and behavioral involvement. We don't yet know what is the best way forward but if we continue to listen as we speak, we have a pretty good history, not perfect by any assessment, suggesting that we will find a way to energize the game and ensure its experience, and the values derived and expressed from such, will be widely realized in the country.

I am optimistic, given to cynicism, which I then try to temper with idealism, the latter bathed in hope seeking realism. I call foul on myself and that fact alone gives me hope and knowing I am not alone doing so. I thank golf, too, for that.

Old Cuss

[The Pearl]

Wasn't the First Tee program supposed to address some of these issues?

[OldCuss]

Yes, and to a degree it is working but there is still hesitancy among some to avail themself of such and some likely are unaware, but aware enough of how things have been in the past; and unfortunately there are those who know better but won't or are unable to reinforce USGA messaging: club management.

My experience is an n of 1, but the percentage of courses I have played, the problem is not insignificant. Forward tees still referred to as senior and/or ladies tees and some courses discourage some tees unless one is of a certain age.

Scorecards are not always helpful, but that is tough to do anything about given some need to know slope and rating. Dual set of cards, one with, one without? Or simply a statement on the cards?

Although the initiative appears to be uneven, such is not unexpected, rather it is expected in my estimation. Changing norms, long held norms that were developed for competition, not development or recreational flexibility, will take time, perhaps a couple of generations before the Tee it Forward initiative is a "but, of course" initiative.

Old Cuss

[Rob G 89]

Covid 19 helped grow the game as a lot of youth baseball players took it up as they weren’t allowed to play their primary sport.