Golf is dying: "lost 5 million players in the last decade... another 5 million will quit in the next

[fore]

[b] Golf is dying: "lost 5 million players in the last decade.[/b]


Actually they're just in the woods looking for balls.

[596]

The article states, they are "apt to quit". Never states that they WILL quit. Besides, the 5 million that are "apt to quit", are 5 million of the existing 25 million. The artical does not address the numbers of golfers that will start up the game, thus adding to the 25 million already playing. So consequently you are not losing 20% of the people playing golf over the next number of years. You can make stats say anything you want, it may or may not be accurate or relevant without an explanation.

Golf will not lose 1 out of every 5 players over the next number of years, since people will be joining the game as well. Where do those people fit into the authors statistics? Oh, my bad, he forgot about those people.

[Yellow Jacket]

[quote name='596' timestamp='1400876890' post='9356023']
The article states, they are "apt to quit". Never states that they WILL quit. Besides, the 5 million that are "apt to quit", are 5 million of the existing 25 million. The artical does not address the numbers of golfers that will start up the game, thus adding to the 25 million already playing. So consequently you are not losing 20% of the people playing golf over the next number of years. You can make stats say anything you want, it may or may not be accurate or relevant without an explanation.

Golf will not lose 1 out of every 5 players over the next number of years, since people will be joining the game as well. Where do those people fit into the authors statistics? Oh, my bad, he forgot about those people.
[/quote]
The 5 million is a net loss, and you're arguing semantics. They used the phrase "apt to quit" and not "will quit" because it's a conditional statement, and it has to be because the golfers haven't promised to quit. But that doesn't mean the forecast is somehow completely wrong and millions of golfers magically won't leave the game.

[cloozoe]

Actually, I called them all and got them to promise.

[596]

[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1400917082' post='9358865']
[quote name='596' timestamp='1400876890' post='9356023']
The article states, they are "apt to quit". Never states that they WILL quit. Besides, the 5 million that are "apt to quit", are 5 million of the existing 25 million. The artical does not address the numbers of golfers that will start up the game, thus adding to the 25 million already playing. So consequently you are not losing 20% of the people playing golf over the next number of years. You can make stats say anything you want, it may or may not be accurate or relevant without an explanation.

Golf will not lose 1 out of every 5 players over the next number of years, since people will be joining the game as well. Where do those people fit into the authors statistics? Oh, my bad, he forgot about those people.
[/quote]
The 5 million is a net loss, and you're arguing semantics. They used the phrase "apt to quit" and not "will quit" because it's a conditional statement, and it has to be because the golfers haven't promised to quit. But that doesn't mean the forecast is somehow completely wrong and millions of golfers magically won't leave the game.
[/quote]

All I'm saying is you have to take the actual stated numbers with a grain of salt. The results may be that only 1-2 million quit, or maybe even 7 million. They have no real way to tell. I'm not saying they are completely wrong but lots of people will take his statements and state that 20% of the golfers will quit over the next few years, and that is not an accurate statement and can be misleading in either way, many more or less then.

I'm not sure where you got the "net loss" from? All he stated was 5 million "apt to quit" of the 25 million currently playing. That would be a very argueable statement without facts/statistics to back up his claim. And he never states how many new golfers we will see over the same time, making his statement self serving to support his article.

I'm not normally one to complain or comment on an article from any source, because I really don't care, but his article has caused a huge thread on this forum, and his facts and figures are lacking at best, with no support mentioned and we are supposed to believe him, period? I don't think so.

[Yellow Jacket]

[quote name='596' timestamp='1400943444' post='9359699']
[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1400917082' post='9358865']
[quote name='596' timestamp='1400876890' post='9356023']
The article states, they are "apt to quit". Never states that they WILL quit. Besides, the 5 million that are "apt to quit", are 5 million of the existing 25 million. The artical does not address the numbers of golfers that will start up the game, thus adding to the 25 million already playing. So consequently you are not losing 20% of the people playing golf over the next number of years. You can make stats say anything you want, it may or may not be accurate or relevant without an explanation.

Golf will not lose 1 out of every 5 players over the next number of years, since people will be joining the game as well. Where do those people fit into the authors statistics? Oh, my bad, he forgot about those people.
[/quote]
The 5 million is a net loss, and you're arguing semantics. They used the phrase "apt to quit" and not "will quit" because it's a conditional statement, and it has to be because the golfers haven't promised to quit. But that doesn't mean the forecast is somehow completely wrong and millions of golfers magically won't leave the game.
[/quote]

All I'm saying is you have to take the actual stated numbers with a grain of salt. The results may be that only 1-2 million quit, or maybe even 7 million. They have no real way to tell. I'm not saying they are completely wrong but lots of people will take his statements and state that 20% of the golfers will quit over the next few years, and that is not an accurate statement and can be misleading in either way, many more or less then.

I'm not sure where you got the "net loss" from? All he stated was 5 million "apt to quit" of the 25 million currently playing. That would be a very argueable statement without facts/statistics to back up his claim. And he never states how many new golfers we will see over the same time, making his statement self serving to support his article.

I'm not normally one to complain or comment on an article from any source, because I really don't care, but his article has caused a huge thread on this forum, and his facts and figures are lacking at best, with no support mentioned and we are supposed to believe him, period? I don't think so.
[/quote]
The numbers are from the National Golf Foundation. Maybe it's because I've seen the story elsewhere, but the use of "apt to quit" is just to offer variation in language. The article means that we had a net loss of 5 million and we'll have a net loss of another 5 million.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='596' timestamp='1400943444' post='9359699']
[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1400917082' post='9358865']
[quote name='596' timestamp='1400876890' post='9356023']
The article states, they are "apt to quit". Never states that they WILL quit. Besides, the 5 million that are "apt to quit", are 5 million of the existing 25 million. The artical does not address the numbers of golfers that will start up the game, thus adding to the 25 million already playing. So consequently you are not losing 20% of the people playing golf over the next number of years. You can make stats say anything you want, it may or may not be accurate or relevant without an explanation.

Golf will not lose 1 out of every 5 players over the next number of years, since people will be joining the game as well. Where do those people fit into the authors statistics? Oh, my bad, he forgot about those people.
[/quote]
The 5 million is a net loss, and you're arguing semantics. They used the phrase "apt to quit" and not "will quit" because it's a conditional statement, and it has to be because the golfers haven't promised to quit. But that doesn't mean the forecast is somehow completely wrong and millions of golfers magically won't leave the game.
[/quote]

All I'm saying is you have to take the actual stated numbers with a grain of salt. The results may be that only 1-2 million quit, or maybe even 7 million. They have no real way to tell. I'm not saying they are completely wrong but lots of people will take his statements and state that 20% of the golfers will quit over the next few years, and that is not an accurate statement and can be misleading in either way, many more or less then.

I'm not sure where you got the "net loss" from? All he stated was 5 million "apt to quit" of the 25 million currently playing. That would be a very argueable statement without facts/statistics to back up his claim. And he never states how many new golfers we will see over the same time, making his statement self serving to support his article.

I'm not normally one to complain or comment on an article from any source, because I really don't care, but his article has caused a huge thread on this forum, and his facts and figures are lacking at best, with no support mentioned and we are supposed to believe him, period? I don't think so.
[/quote]

I'm guessing if you polled everyone leaving a course on a given day, that maybe 2 of 10 are so frustrated with their game that day that they say they are going to quit! But we know the truth that they'll be back again soon to golf another day. That is the addiction

I too re-read the article and didn't see that it was a net loss of 5M. I also don't know how they could draw such conclusion from the existing populous of golfers that they "plan to quit in the next 5 years."

As for some of the excuses they use such as; it's too hard, too many rules or takes too long -- that is an easy one to solve.
- encourage 9 holes or even less would save time. Have a 6 hole rate like a course by me does.
- Courses need to do a better job setting the pace expectation and then they need to manage it.
- As for the rules, as long as you aren't playing in a tournament or keeping handicap, then who cares about the rules. Hit the ball and have fun.
- As for being too hard, sure it isn't an easy game. Encourage people to tee it forward.
- instead of modifying the course by making bigger holes, give people a string and tell them you need to putt to within string distance of the cup.

Lets not over complicate things.

[Soloman1]

Here are some uncomplicated numbers for the U.S.:

650,000 men quit playing golf last year.

260,000 women took up playing golf last year.

200,000 golfer under the age of 35 quit abandoned golf last year.

Callaway hasn't reported a profit since 2008.

160 courses closed last year. 14 new courses opened.

My opinion is that the popularity of golf in the U.S. is inversely proportional to social media popularity. More smartphone content = less golf. Your children are going to look like ET - flabby little bodies with a big finger for swiping and texting.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1401064312' post='9366097']
Here are some uncomplicated numbers for the U.S.:

650,000 men quit playing golf last year.

260,000 women took up playing golf last year.

200,000 golfer under the age of 35 quit abandoned golf last year.

Callaway hasn't reported a profit since 2008.

160 courses closed last year. 14 new courses opened.

My opinion is that the popularity of golf in the U.S. is inversely proportional to social media popularity. More smartphone content = less golf. Your children are going to look like ET - flabby little bodies with a big finger for swiping and texting.
[/quote]I wonder how the numbers you stated would compare to the numbers before the "Tiger era" began?

[Soloman1]

Your chart looks a little off. The number of golfers has declined every year for the past 11 years.

So, I guess you could say that the "Tiger era" caused the decline of golf? Or, the retirement of Jack Nicklaus caused the decline of golf?

The answer is that "other things" are contributing to the decline of golf. We don't know the weight of each of those things because I don't think anyone has taken the time to poll non-golfers and ex-golfers.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1401077213' post='9367173']
Your chart looks a little off. The number of golfers has declined every year for the past 11 years.

So, I guess you could say that the "Tiger era" caused the decline of golf? Or, the retirement of Jack Nicklaus caused the decline of golf?

The answer is that "other things" are contributing to the decline of golf. We don't know the weight of each of those things because I don't think anyone has taken the time to poll non-golfers and ex-golfers.
[/quote]Funny, from the looks of the chart, it was just thrown together without too much exactness. It does give an idea to what has fueled the PGA over the last 20 years or so. Tiger has injected life into the PGA that few others have done. To me, Tiger had changed the PGA like none other.

[Soloman1]

Oh, there's no doubt he changed the PGA Tour. He elevated TV rights, which elevated purses for everyone, filling his bank account and the accounts of others on tour along the way.

He had no effect on the number of players, the number of rounds played or the business of golf in the U.S.

[Evolved]

[quote name='Tom Gski' timestamp='1401113075' post='9368193']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1401077213' post='9367173']
Your chart looks a little off. The number of golfers has declined every year for the past 11 years.

So, I guess you could say that the "Tiger era" caused the decline of golf? Or, the retirement of Jack Nicklaus caused the decline of golf?

The answer is that "other things" are contributing to the decline of golf. We don't know the weight of each of those things because I don't think anyone has taken the time to poll non-golfers and ex-golfers.
[/quote]Funny, from the looks of the chart, it was just thrown together without too much exactness. It does give an idea to what has fueled the PGA over the last 20 years or so. Tiger has injected life into the PGA that few others have done. To me, Tiger had changed the PGA like none other.
[/quote]
Except that's not true. People watching tiger on tv doesn't equal more people playing golf. And people who only watch golf when tiger is in contention are front runners, not golf fans. Tiger has increased prize money and endorsements for players.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='Evolved' timestamp='1401114148' post='9368259']
[quote name='Tom Gski' timestamp='1401113075' post='9368193']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1401077213' post='9367173']
Your chart looks a little off. The number of golfers has declined every year for the past 11 years.

So, I guess you could say that the "Tiger era" caused the decline of golf? Or, the retirement of Jack Nicklaus caused the decline of golf?

The answer is that "other things" are contributing to the decline of golf. We don't know the weight of each of those things because I don't think anyone has taken the time to poll non-golfers and ex-golfers.
[/quote]Funny, from the looks of the chart, it was just thrown together without too much exactness. It does give an idea to what has fueled the PGA over the last 20 years or so. Tiger has injected life into the PGA that few others have done. To me, Tiger had changed the PGA like none other.
[/quote]
Except that's not true. People watching tiger on tv doesn't equal more people playing golf. And people who only watch golf when tiger is in contention are front runners, not golf fans. Tiger has increased prize money and endorsements for players.
[/quote]So you don't think that the Tiger era didn't produce more golfers? Maybe there has been a decline, but it would have been much worse without Tiger.

[fore]

Golf certainly doesn't appeal to everyone, but when someone like Arnold Palmer or Tiger comes along a lot of people will at least be inspired to give it a try.

Of those that try some will stay with it and some won't. Overall I think there is some longterm growth as a result. The sort term though will show some spikes up and down.

[Soloman1]

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain

[njlam]

It is worth noting that in most professional sports (football, basketball, baseball, tennis etc), the overlap between the people who like to watch and the people who like to play is not always that large.

Most non-golf advertisers and sponsors ( the big bucks) are more trying to reach people who watch golf, with those who play golf an incidental and incremental benefit.

I find it ironic that while the number of non-professional golfers is on the decline, the purses on the PGA Tour have never been higher. The shirts of PGA Tour pros look like NASCAR firesuits.

In many ways , the additional marketing focus on professional golf may have gotten the game of golf in trouble.

The overbuilding of golf courses (there are too many, which hurt all the courses), the proliferation of new product introductions (the recent equipment is not really much better, just newer), the consumer focus on products rather than instruction, along with the time requirements of playing a full 18 are contributing factors that make the prospects for the game and business of golf less favorable than the prospects for those who want to capitalize of the popularity of watching golf. Tiger has been the most helpful to those who wanted to capitalize on golf spectators. Why is it more about hero worship and not more about the game itself?

With all that being said, the game of golf will survive and reach a sustainable equilibrium level. This level is likely to be smaller than it is today. Why is bigger necessarily better?

Golf will continue to be a great game for those who can afford the financial costs and time commitment. For those who don't have the time and/or money, perhaps golf is not for them at this time.

There should be fewer golf courses. Weaker courses should go under so stronger courses can build more sustainable businesses.

The governing bodies need to be more independent and less influenced by equipment manufacturers. The improvements in equipment (from a distance perspective) have made many great courses irrelevant. Other sports (such as baseball) have limited equipment improvements (bats and balls), so they do not need to build new stadiums to accommodate new equipment technologies. Golf should learn from this. It should be about the game, not the tools.

Equipment introductions need to slow down. Golf equipment is so good right now (and has been for the last 5 years), players should focus on playing more than anything else. If you have an extra $500 lying around, don't buy a new driver; play Pebble, or take some lessons. If new equipment improves your game, you probably weren't that good to begin with.

Anyway, I have no problem with the participants in the game not growing, I just don't like how commercial interests have made the game less pure.

Tiger aside, has the money Nike has paid Rory or Michelle Wie benefited the game, or just gotten Nike more swoosh exposure on TV?

[Startzel]

[quote name='njlam' timestamp='1401130955' post='9369421']
It is worth noting that in most professional sports (football, basketball, baseball, tennis etc), the overlap between the people who like to watch and the people who like to play is not always that large.

Most non-golf advertisers and sponsors ( the big bucks) are more trying to reach people who watch golf, with those who play golf an incidental and incremental benefit.

I find it ironic that while the number of non-professional golfers is on the decline, the purses on the PGA Tour have never been higher. The shirts of PGA Tour pros look like NASCAR firesuits.

In many ways , the additional marketing focus on professional golf may have gotten the game of golf in trouble.

The overbuilding of golf courses (there are too many, which hurt all the courses), the proliferation of new product introductions (the recent equipment is not really much better, just newer), the consumer focus on products rather than instruction, along with the time requirements of playing a full 18 are contributing factors that make the prospects for the game and business of golf less favorable than the prospects for those who want to capitalize of the popularity of watching golf. Tiger has been the most helpful to those who wanted to capitalize on golf spectators. Why is it more about hero worship and not more about the game itself?

With all that being said, the game of golf will survive and reach a sustainable equilibrium level. This level is likely to be smaller than it is today. Why is bigger necessarily better?

Golf will continue to be a great game for those who can afford the financial costs and time commitment. For those who don't have the time and/or money, perhaps golf is not for them at this time.

There should be fewer golf courses. Weaker courses should go under so stronger courses can build more sustainable businesses.

The governing bodies need to be more independent and less influenced by equipment manufacturers. The improvements in equipment (from a distance perspective) have made many great courses irrelevant. Other sports (such as baseball) have limited equipment improvements (bats and balls), so they do not need to build new stadiums to accommodate new equipment technologies. Golf should learn from this. It should be about the game, not the tools.

Equipment introductions need to slow down. Golf equipment is so good right now (and has been for the last 5 years), players should focus on playing more than anything else. If you have an extra $500 lying around, don't buy a new driver; play Pebble, or take some lessons. If new equipment improves your game, you probably weren't that good to begin with.

Anyway, I have no problem with the participants in the game not growing, I just don't like how commercial interests have made the game less pure.

Tiger aside, has the money Nike has paid Rory or Michelle Wie benefited the game, or just gotten Nike more swoosh exposure on TV?
[/quote]

I'm not sure the equipment cycle has really hurt the game. You can tell some of the posters on here enjoy buying new equipment more than they enjoy actually playing.

I really believe all the game needs is for guys to not play their weekly foursome with their buddies and instead bring out their wife and children for a round. Adding more women and young children will go a long way in adding new players.

Just read the forum and you will see so many complaints about other golfers, you realize why golf is so exclusionary.

[esketores]

The change in the golf climate has nothing to do with slow play. How hard the game is. Of any other sinister incantation. It is all about the $$$.
Middle class America simply has less disposable income. Plus they are working more hours to add $$ to their coffers.
Kids are now playing all these travel sports taking away from mom and dads leisure time.
And... people's wants, needs, and desire's have evolved during the electronics age.
On a side note;
[url="http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--where-have-all-the-golfers-gone"]http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--where-have-all-the-golfers-gone[/url]

The affluent will always have golf. Remember at one time (not so long ago) golf was strictly in the bailiwick of the upper middle class and above.

[Wknd_Warrior]

The "game' of golf is already dead. It's become a sport focused on hitting the ball as far as you can off the tee. Sure the pros play "a different game" where they actually have to golf, on our courses we don't.

Roll back driver distance, I don't care how, and take the grooves another step back. The game will be friendlier and more interesting to the average golfer. Better still shorter courses are quicker to play and cheaper to maintain. It's a win win win scenario. There will be some bruised egos in the transistion, who cares, golf has always been an ego shredder anyhow.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='Wknd_Warrior' timestamp='1401148571' post='9370771']
The "game' of golf is already dead. It's become a sport focused on hitting the ball as far as you can off the tee. Sure the pros play "a different game" where they actually have to golf, on our courses we don't.

Roll back driver distance, I don't care how, and take the grooves another step back. The game will be friendlier and more interesting to the average golfer. Better still shorter courses are quicker to play and cheaper to maintain. It's a win win win scenario. There will be some bruised egos in the transistion, who cares, golf has always been an ego shredder anyhow.
[/quote]

Ok, you go first and set an example. Get an old driver, some old balls.
a few worn out wedges and hit the ladies tees.

[Wknd_Warrior]

I actually play an old T=Zoid driver and pre 90s irons, but I don't play from the ladie's tees. It was fun teeing off with an FT-Tour for half a season, but I was kind of glad when it broke.

[esketores]

[quote name='Wknd_Warrior' timestamp='1401148571' post='9370771']
The "game' of golf is already dead. It's become a sport focused on hitting the ball as far as you can off the tee. Sure the pros play "a different game" where they actually have to golf, on our courses we don't.

Roll back driver distance, I don't care how, and take the grooves another step back. The game will be friendlier and more interesting to the average golfer. Better still shorter courses are quicker to play and cheaper to maintain. It's a win win win scenario. There will be some bruised egos in the transistion, who cares, golf has always been an ego shredder anyhow.
[/quote]

Probably 90% of the golfing public would benefit from playing courses that play 5,800 - 6,200 yards. With no sand traps. The rough mown short enough to easily find a ball.
The easier to maintain courses would allow for lower green fees and allow the owners to make a profit with increased play.
Funny how the old short courses where I live enjoy more play than the hard long courses.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='esketores' timestamp='1401156912' post='9371585']
[quote name='Wknd_Warrior' timestamp='1401148571' post='9370771']
The "game' of golf is already dead. It's become a sport focused on hitting the ball as far as you can off the tee. Sure the pros play "a different game" where they actually have to golf, on our courses we don't.

Roll back driver distance, I don't care how, and take the grooves another step back. The game will be friendlier and more interesting to the average golfer. Better still shorter courses are quicker to play and cheaper to maintain. It's a win win win scenario. There will be some bruised egos in the transistion, who cares, golf has always been an ego shredder anyhow.
[/quote]

Probably 90% of the golfing public would benefit from playing courses that play 5,800 - 6,200 yards. With no sand traps. The rough mown short enough to easily find a ball.
The easier to maintain courses would allow for lower green fees and allow the owners to make a profit with increased play.
Funny how the old short courses where I live enjoy more play than the hard long courses.
[/quote]

I played a course in Eloy, Az with no sand traps. There is open
desert if you are wild, though. It's kinda funny, I played the whole
course and didn't notice. Mentioned to a friend the course seemed
pretty easy. He said "ya, no sand traps".

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='Wknd_Warrior' timestamp='1401152383' post='9371099']
I actually play an old T=Zoid driver and pre 90s irons, but I don't play from the ladie's tees. It was fun teeing off with an FT-Tour for half a season, but I was kind of glad when it broke.
[/quote]

Mainly, it's the ball. I was joking with you about the rest, lol.

A lot of people don't realize today's balls go further by multiples
as swing speed increases beyond about 110 or so. Dial back the
balls and it will affect the fast swingers by a lot but the rest of us
by just a little. Fine with me.

[Wknd_Warrior]

For me the FT-Tour was notably longer than anythng else I'd ever hit. Part of that it because of the extra forgiveness. Still I've owned a few 460 drivers. My first two rounds with the Tour I tied or broke almost every long drive record on my home course. It's silly stupidly long, and hard to miss big.

[njlam]

Like baseball, basketball, soccer, football and tennis, I think the golf ball needs to be standardized.

At that time, the golf ball should be dialed back with regard to distance as someone else had suggested.

With today's technology, balls of all sports (basketball, soccer, football and tennis) could be made to fly further, spin more/less, etc.

The governing bodies of these sports did not pander to their respective equipment makers and kept a high level of integrity to their sports.

It is shameful how so much of golf's policies are dictated by the equipment makers.

[cloozoe]

[quote name='njlam' timestamp='1401165088' post='9372227']
Like baseball, basketball, soccer, football and tennis, I think the golf ball needs to be standardized.

At that time, the golf ball should be dialed back with regard to distance as someone else had suggested.

With today's technology, balls of all sports (basketball, soccer, football and tennis) could be made to fly further, spin more/less, etc.

The governing bodies of these sports did not pander to their respective equipment makers and kept a high level of integrity to their sports.

It is shameful how so much of golf's policies are dictated by the equipment makers.
[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree, but without the (mostly false) hope the average lousy golfer gets from the notion that "at last, this is the set of irons (or driver, or putter, or ball) that will finally allow me to play the game well", another [i]ten[/i] million would quit.

[SurfDuffer]

The biggest problem golf faces is demographics. The baby boomer generation is aging and beginning to die off. Young people aren't taking up the game at anywhere near the pace needed to replace the older generation. The second biggest problem is this sheet economy.

[mjtoal]

Golf isn't dying. It is just losing some weight. Weight loss is often healthy.