What would rejuvenate the golf equipment industry?

[JD F57]

Frankly, the market is too expensive. Clubs for younger golfers with less money are just too out of reach. $500.00 for a new driver? There simply needs to be less expensive options. For a new set of clubs (say one year removed driver/fairway and inexpensive game improvement irons) you're looking at 300 for a driver, 200 for wood, 200 for hybrid, 600 for irons, 100 per wedge and you're probably gonna spend 100 on a putter, that's $1,600.00 for clubs alone. That doesn't include bags, balls, let alone green and cart fees or lessons. $1,600.00 would go a long way for a young adult.

 

Sure there are inexpensive clubs out there (top-flite), but frankly, they're absolute garbage and a poor representation of what golf is compared to playing a nicer set of sticks. I'm sure companies like Titleist and TaylorMade don't want to compromise their image by reducing prices, and PXG obviously wouldn't as they're not billing themselves that way. But if you don't create a reasonable entry point for younger golfers, they'll never get into it when they are working adults and raising children.

[JD F57]

1. drop in price

2. free beer with every purchase

 

...problem solved

 

You've discovered the path to world peace!!

[phealey]

I think equipment prices are a huge issue now. They have gone up relatively drastically in the last couple years and I think 500 bucks for a driver is too difficult of a sell. The mental difference between 4 and 5 hundred is huge. And paying over 1000 dollars for a set of irons is a little ridiculous too. A couple years ago the most expensive irons were 900, and now they are 1200. How can a weekend golfer, or even a serious golfer, justify spending almost 2 grand on a driver and irons? More people are buying used, the prices are just getting out of control and I think they will hit a ceiling soon. I am just as addicted to golf equipment as anyone, but I cannot even justify 500 for a driver that is going to give me a marginal improvement from my previous driver. Golf has always been a sport for people with at least a little money, but if you want to buy new equipment nowadays, you pretty much have to be rich.

[sabr686]

Bottom line, lower prices.

 

Especially on drivers/putters as more people change these out than irons, generally.

 

$500 for any driver is ridiculous imo, since a stock offering probably costs the company under $75 to make it.....

 

The stockholders have become more important than the customer. Not to say the technology is bad,it's just not cost effective for the average joe which affects sales numbers.....

I agree with SCOT4099. I feel like the major manufacturers have completely lost touch with the average customer's budget. In real life, the majority of us can't afford to replace our 5-10 year old driver with a new one (let alone every year or two), because the new drivers are half a mortgage payment! To buy something like that requires budgeting and thinking ahead.

I can appreciate the latest and greatest technology they're putting into these products, but the best thing the manufacturers could do for their sales is to slash their retail prices in half. So much of this product is just inaccessible to cash-strapped golfers. I wish they would take a look at the overall state of the economy and adjust accordingly. Five hundred dollars for new driver?!? Minimal performance gains aside, the cost is sucking the enjoyment out of the game for me.

If the cost of offering different colors (this is "customization"?) and club fitting is a $500-$600 driver, then just go back to mass producing decent products at one or two lofts, with an all black paint job, and I'll decide how much more money and effort I want to sink into that big stick.

[baller7345]

Get kids off their damn iPads, iPhones, Xbox's, Facebooks, Tinders, SnapChats etc.

 

If we are going to go this route it's probably better to find ways to incorporate the technology instead of trying to get the younger generation to quit using it.

 

Things like GPS apps, ball flight monitors, etc. do do that in some degree, but I'm sure there are other ways to incorporate today's mobile tech into the game.

[blackbeargolf]

Consumers have lost trust in the equipment companies. Every other month, every year there is a new claim for more distance. Its a joke. And the only thing making irons longer are stronger lofts and longer shafts. The only reason your 7-iron is longer is because it now has 6-iron specs with a 7 stamped on the bottom. At some point the madness has to end. Golf needs to simplify, not create confusion.

 

Get back to basics. Make the game easier by making clubs shorter and adding loft back to the irons. And play from a shorter distance.

[glenk69]

This should not be our emphasis. Growth, or at least sustainability, of the game is what's important - not growing an industry that just drives up prices and makes the game less accessible. The golf eqipment industry as it is, is dying - and we should let it die. Hopefully, the companies and retailers left will focus on getting people quality, properly fit clubs at a fair price. Occassionally, on the way home from work I stop at Golf Galaxy. Usually, i'm in there with one or two other customers and about 7 employees - six of which are doing nothing. That's what we are paying for: stores that are too big with too many products that are over priced and not that much different than any other club.

[sugarfreejeff]

I believe better scores are going to make consumers happier than hitting 7 iron 220 yards

lol. There is no way this is true. They'd much rather hit it 220 yards. Most golfers don't post real scores anyway man (play OB like water, ground club in bunkers, don't mark ball on green, etc...)

Mods, please move if necessary! I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on what would bring more stability back to the equipment industry. Personally, here are a few things I have noticed, and things I think manufacturers should do: 1. More personalization/customization. Let's be serious here, I cannot stand the way certain companies drivers/clubs look from a color aspect (and overall design scheme, but that's something you can't really change). I really dislike the flat black finish on Callaway and Ping clubs, (However the PXG has a little "something" to it that makes the flatter gray look nice). I'm not ditching TM drivers any time soon, but if brands offered more color customization, it would definitely at least get me interested. Just look at Cobra, I've seen more Cobra drivers in bags over the last year than I've ever seen. Sure, if you're are die-hard brand loyalist, you probably don't care, but 90% of the golfing community wants more than one color option, ESPECIALLY the younger generation. I also love how Cleveland, Titleist to an extent, and now Callaway are offering wedge customization. I believe this is something all manufacturers should do, just how Scotty Cameron has their custom putter shop. Completely makes the clubs your own, and allows you to throw personal flare into each club. Heck, you could even expand that into total iron personalization too. I understand the more GI irons you could probably only do paint-fill due to the design of the club, but if I'm dropping $1000 on a set of blades, I think it's more than fair to be able to stamp my initials, alma-mater, or favorite Bible verse on the backs. 2. Cut the nuclear iron garbage. Sure, for the weekend player it's nice to be able to take 1 less club than your buddies and let them know you carry a bigger stick, but overall, I believe better scores are going to make consumers happier than hitting 7 iron 220 yards. Sure, high and even mid-handicappers usually don't strike the ball consistent enough to make too much of a difference, but hear me out: Say you know your 9 iron goes 130 ish give or take on a somewhat decent strike. You hit your 9 iron, flush it, and it goes 155 yards over the green and into trouble because you hit the "hot spot" (I'm looking at you, Callaway and Ping). That would really grind my gears. The best example of what I would like to see from companies is how Titleist markets the AP1s. They are forgiving yes, have strong lofts, but they aren't designed to be 2 clubs longer than the number on the sole. They're designed to be FORGIVING. So same scenario, you hit that 9 iron from 130, flush it on that rare occasion, and it goes 138. You're still on the back of the green, birdie putt. 3. Manufacturer demo clubs that you can take to your course and test. Will make it much easier for consumers to justify hundreds if not thousands of dollars in clubs if they can visually see what they will do on the course. I know some stores will allow you to demo a 6 iron, and in some cases a driver, but that's very uncommon and just hitting a 6 iron won't tell me how the whole set will perform. Here's how they could do it: Provide each retailer with a number of iron sets, wedges, and woods subject to the amount of revenue generated (Large stores will have more demo sets). Have regular, stiff, and x-stiff available for demo. Require a deposit that covers the cost of the demo in case they are stolen or broken. That way, people can play a round or two with the clubs they are thinking about buying and if they decide they like them, they can go back and put the deposit towards a new set. If they don't, get their deposit back and try again. What are some other suggestions you guys have?

I think all these ideas and posts would be fine if the question was "how do we make the golf industry more responsible" but none of this is going to actually sell more clubs. This is a billion dollar industry. "Realizing" that consumers want more colors isn't going to move a six billion dollar needle. It might generate another 2%, but you guys seem to think this is like boosting sales at the local GolfSmith. It requires drastic (and dramatic) change. The demo idea will never happen, ever. People will give you bum cards every day and sell the clubs on ebay. They'll dispute the charges. This is basically an invitation to have clubs stolen. Unfortunately, there is no way you could do this. Maybe if the equipment gets expensive enough you could put a GPS device in a shaft or something, but as it stands now there is no way a golf shop is letting anyone who walks in walk out with a $1500 set of irons with zero supervision. For your ideas: More personalization is a good idea, but won't move the needle at all. Less nuclear irons would sell less clubs, not more (sad but absolutely true). Demo is not feasible because they'd all get stolen instantly. I think Three things could move the needle: 1. USGA rule changes - if the USGA seperated the professional rules from the amateur rules and allowed higher COR and more hot equipment, they would sell like crazy and people would have more fun with the game. They could do it with clubs or balls, whatever. If they don't, then we're not going to see much of an upgrade from the R1-R11-M1-M2 chain. In fact, I'm pretty long and I hit my 10.5* SQ from a while back about as far as my G30. its 6-8 yards back, but the G30 doesn't destroy it. Its because both very near the rules limit. I think there should be three rules levels: professional, amateur, and casual. Tournaments could be run under any of them. It would make the industry explode back to life with new designs and ideas for casual golfers. The insistence on one set of rules from the USGA is infuriating. A good example is hurting me - this forum helped me put together a bag despite a medical condition with shaky hands that lets me play well. I can take medication for it, but its considered a banned substance by the USGA (it stops tremors in the extremeties). Since I play in some events every year trying to qualify for stuff (never have) I can't take the medicine. This is stupid. I should be able to take it and play in tournaments of a certain level like my club championship, for example which could be run under amateur or casual rules, etc. If i try for the PGA Tour then fine, but this one set of rules for all is *STRANGLING* the game of golf in a lot of ways IMO. For example, you could tweak the rules under casual rules level to make rounds much, much faster (OB like water, only 2 mins to find ball not 5, etc...) but leave professional the same. As a 2 cap, I'm a good player. One of the best at my club. However, based on shotlink data, I am closer to a 20 cap in ability than a tour pro. There is zero reason for us to be playing by the same rules as they play by. Every other sport does this. Could you imagine a 24 second shot clock at elementary levels of basketball? Could you imagine a high school referee trying to interpret the NBA rule of verticality? Could you imagine high school football players being able to hit exactly like their professional counterparts? Every sport creates slightly different rules to maximize fun, speed and safety at different levels of play. Golf doesn't. And its really silly. 2. Growing the game - Its a billion dollar industry guys. Making Callaway drivers yellow isn't going to do anything. The only other way i see is to grow the game. The more people who play, the more people who buy stuff. Unfortunately, for some reason, golf was hockey and not basketball. Hockey had its Jordan (Gretzky), was hugely popular while he played, and has declined since. Jordan grew the NBA like crazy, and the league just didn't stop after he left to the point its the biggest its ever been today. Golf had a Jordan (Woods) that made it massively popular, but he's gone and golf is shrinking. Unfortunately having the same ten or twelve tall, thin, long-driving white guys in titleist caps competiing every Sunday isn't interesting to anyone except us. You think someone who doesn't play golf is going to watch Kevin Chappell battle some other whitebread dude down the stretch to see who can be slightly more precise with a 55* wedge?! Nope. But millions tuned in to see Tiger Woods yell and fist pump and dominate. Right now its garbage and its a huge issue for the equipment industry. When Woods made the "better than most" chip I called my wife in to watch it. I can't imagine doing that with anyone on the current tour ("You've gotta see Rickie Fowler play safe to the middle of the green here!! Awesome!!!"). 3. Make the PGA Tour more interesting - The PGA Tour is incredibly dull compared to other sports. The courses are all the same. Long, green, tree-lined. With one or two exceptions, the players all look exactly the same (white, tall, golf company cap, no personality, corporate as can be). Look at what a big deal they make about the "stadium par 3" because the caddies run to the green. Think about that. Think about an NFL game thats on at the same time and when you flip to golf its "look at Fluff run to the green". The PGA Tour with Woods was awesome. The PGA Tour now is not bringing in fans and the golf industry needs it to. Like it or not, its the face of golf. People get into basketball because of the NBA. Nobody plays golf because of this current tour (but they did with Woods). Maybe do some things like make the cut for a particular tournament down to 8 guys and then match play. Maybe play a course that has some insane Mountain holes (I played a course on vacation in New Hampshire that had an approach shot that was literally 300 feet straight up a mountauin. I'd love to see the pros compete on that). Right now, the Tour sucks. "Oh, some white guy drove it 330 and then hit a wedge and slid a biride putt by? Thats odd. That never happens!". When the most interesting facet of a course is a false front on 14 that slopes five degrees maybe don't play an event on that course. Maybe find more interesting courses to play on - there are a ton of them out there. I don't know the answer exactly, but if the PGA Tour doesn't get more interesting fast golf is in trouble. Golf equipment to pga tour is the same as basketball shoes to the nba. The health of one is the health of the other. And right now they're in an ambulance headed to the hospital. They need to do *something* to make it super exciting like when Woods was around. Think about how much different the Bob May - Wood duel felt than the Jason Day - Johnson duel at last year's PGA. They were virtually identical, but one was insanely compelling and I fell asleep during the second one. Oh, he showed no emotion, won, thanked his sponsors, his coach and his family, and then Jim Nantz signed off? Sweet. See you next week. Just my thoughts. You have to remember this industry is massive. None of these suggestions will move the needle. They are all 10-100 million ideas, not billion dollar ideas.

 

 

 

That is a lot to digest. Great post

[melo]

I have not read every response, but the simple answer is - you cannot grow the game.

 

I learned the game as a child when my parents were in their 30's. Now, people arent even having kids until their mid 30's, and people in their 30's are living in their parents basements.

 

Problem 2, millenials dont have the attention span to enjoy golf. They want everything immediately, they want technology, and they are unbelievably introverted and indoorsy. They arent doing anything outdoors with spotty 4g for 5 hours.

 

Problem 3. It is absurdly expensive. It always has been and it always will be. We have tons of empty golf courses, struggling country clubs, bankrupt stores, and disappearing equipment companies. There arent enough people with the means to play golf to grow the game. Health insurance just spiked 44% in some places. That means that some family that used to spend 150 per month on golf is now going to be spending that money on health care.

 

We need less equipment companies, less golf courses, less stores, etc.

[jeff1727]

I've played for a long time (nearly a half century) and through the growing years with my two oldest my rounds decreased dramatically. But no decrease in the amount of time a round takes would have changed my rounds played during those years.

I wasn't willing to give more than what I did. I played 18 sparingly and that was that. Those were the days I had committed, whether it was a 3 hour round or a 4 1/2 hour round it mattered none.

 

And I don't see any first hand evidence that a round of golf today takes any longer than it did in the 70's.

 

It takes what it takes.

 

I think the biggest difference is more women work now, and they want their weekends too. I'm sure rounds take the same amount of time i don't disagree. I just know so many guys who have a hard time getting away for that long on the weekend. Their wives work all week too and don't want to watch the kids alone from 8:30 to 3pm or something (assuming a post round beer or something). Often they want to get to the gym, see friends ...etc aswell.

 

I think there's a lot more dual income families then they're used to be. And that means less time for women to enjoy their hobbies or see friends, at least compared to the past. So it's hard for a guy to take prime saturday hours at the club every weekend

 

that's just my opinion

 

Agree with this 100%. That's why I like to get out early so I am home before noon. I cringe when I am stuck behind slow moving groups.

[baloo]

I feel like we're sitting around focusing on changing equipment with the hopes of selling more equipment.

The equipment is fine, in fact it's better than it's ever been. To sell more equipment, there needs to be more golfers.

Sure you can pick up a few sales from offering something exciting here and there, but growing the market would be the real long term solution.

 

Honestly, many people find golf is too long and expensive. People with busy lives in a tough economy aren't going to buy golf equipment just because there are demos available in attractive colors.

 

People are being asked to pay $400 for a driver, plus who knows what for the other 13 clubs. Then they need 5 hours to get around the course to use said clubs. Btw, if we had kept the gear where it used to be courses wouldn't have to be so freaking long. Shorter courses means cheaper to maintain, faster to walk, and lower environmental impact.

[Rengolf]

What if the big companies got together and diverted some of the massive marketing funds and put it towards vouchers for lessons when you buy a set of their sticks. You improve the game, maybe expand the game, and give PGA teaching Pro's some extra business and get more golfers out on the course they work at.

[tascot]

Bifurcate the game, make the hole bigger for amateur non hcp events, that don't count towards amateur status.

[Mudguard]

Bifurcate the game, make the hole bigger for amateur non hcp events, that don't count towards amateur status.

 

Oh come on. You don't like the cup size? I agree on bifurcation, mainly around equipment, but golf will never be cheap. Look at the costs to maintain a course versus a tennis court, or football field. The bulk of juniors that come through, will have had parents that have played, and the odd one that doesn't.

[tascot]

Bifurcate the game, make the hole bigger for amateur non hcp events, that don't count towards amateur status.

 

Oh come on. You don't like the cup size? I agree on bifurcation, mainly around equipment, but golf will never be cheap. Look at the costs to maintain a course versus a tennis court, or football field. The bulk of juniors that come through, will have had parents that have played, and the odd one that doesn't.

 

Bifurcate the game, make the hole bigger for amateur non hcp events, that don't count towards amateur status.

 

Oh come on. You don't like the cup size? I agree on bifurcation, mainly around equipment, but golf will never be cheap. Look at the costs to maintain a course versus a tennis court, or football field. The bulk of juniors that come through, will have had parents that have played, and the odd one that doesn't.

 

They equipment is maxed out within the rules. Courses can be made shorter, or less holes, 6..6..and 6 is looking like it might be a future design trend with the 9th hole near the clubhouse . What's left is the ball or hole. Why not bring back the small ball 1.62 for this as a well.

[Mudguard]

They equipment is maxed out within the rules. Courses can be made shorter, or less holes, 6..6..and 6 is looking like it might be a future design trend with the 9th hole near the clubhouse . What's left is the ball or hole. Why not bring back the small ball 1.62 for this as a well.

 

Last time I looked the average handicap hasn't changed in 30 years. So it would suggest despite technology and longer courses, the game has got no easier. Or harder.

[Bob57]

Tiger Woods buying TM would rejuvenate the equipment industry. He still moves the needle in the golf industry.

 

Tiger moved the needle in purses increasing, temporary increase in interest by people who never were interested in golf but that has receded, moved the needle in apparel sales, but never moved the needle in equipment sales. Due in part to the fact the equipment he used was never for sale to the public at retail (short exceptions for a couple of drivers early in his career). Nike leaving equipment segment is another indication he never moved the needle in equipment sales. Everyone was interested in what he used but nobody could buy what he played (forgings while the company only offered cast clubs, fairways that had never been produced, forgings that were not made by the company selling them, always different sized and glued drivers, GSS putter). In a couple of cases Titleist hurried up and produced junk facsimiles as he was leaving to try and garner some sales (which didn't occur due to lousy quality since the real manufacturer didn't produce the club).

[The Pearl]

I've played for a long time (nearly a half century) and through the growing years with my two oldest my rounds decreased dramatically. But no decrease in the amount of time a round takes would have changed my rounds played during those years.

I wasn't willing to give more than what I did. I played 18 sparingly and that was that. Those were the days I had committed, whether it was a 3 hour round or a 4 1/2 hour round it mattered none.

 

And I don't see any first hand evidence that a round of golf today takes any longer than it did in the 70's.

 

It takes what it takes.

 

I think the biggest difference is more women work now, and they want their weekends too. I'm sure rounds take the same amount of time i don't disagree. I just know so many guys who have a hard time getting away for that long on the weekend. Their wives work all week too and don't want to watch the kids alone from 8:30 to 3pm or something (assuming a post round beer or something). Often they want to get to the gym, see friends ...etc aswell.

 

I think there's a lot more dual income families then they're used to be. And that means less time for women to enjoy their hobbies or see friends, at least compared to the past. So it's hard for a guy to take prime saturday hours at the club every weekend

 

that's just my opinion

 

There is a whole lot of good points here. I agree that there seems to be this nostalgic illusion that golf in the 70s and 80s had everybody merrily whipping around in 3 hours all while experiencing low cost rounds. This is a complete made up fable. Although the pace of play has probably not materially changed over time, what has changed is golfer's WILLINGNESS to put up with it. The reason they are not willing to put up with it is because of the significant evolution of the domestic relationship.

 

 

Prior to the Tiger ramp up in participation, golf in the 70s and 80s was almost exclusively played by the wealthy (mostly white) and to a lesser extent, up and coming young professionals rising through the corporate ranks. For the most part, these golfer's (overwhelmingly men) worked and their wives stayed home. My dad and his golfing buddies, worked their behinds off. Their duty was to work, mow the lawn, shovel the driveway, and tend to repairs in the home or on the cars. Period. If your dad coached Little League, cool. If not, you did not see him at games or school functions. They played golf on League night and Sunday morning. Saturday's also if there was a tournament.

 

The rest of the week the courses were filled with retired white guys, a few ladies, and a few kids playing in the summer.

 

And the overwhelming majority of golfer's walked. Usually, the only people that rode where retirees.

 

The marriage and family dynamics have all changed. As Jeff said, mom's now all work. No way they are sitting home on the weekends taking care of the kids and doing domestic chores why the hubby strolls around the golf course. And kids can't take a crap anymore without out their parents there to wipe their butts and solve every problem for them. So you are seeing the results in the golf participation and reaction to slow play.

 

Young guy wants to play desperately because he loves the game and needs something to decompress so he doesn't feel like driving his Camry off a cliff, try's to find a tee time where he can get around and rush home to ease his guilt and not piss off the wife, so he always rents a cart ( the only walkers I see are men 45+ trying to stay in shape and high school kids), and than complains about the total cost of the round and about how long it takes. Wife still complains, guy slowly stops playing.

 

Forget playing during the week as the little Kings and Queens need to be carted around to their scheduled organized activities and than try to slam homework in under the watchful eyes of mommy and daddy.

[pinestreetgolf]

I've played for a long time (nearly a half century) and through the growing years with my two oldest my rounds decreased dramatically. But no decrease in the amount of time a round takes would have changed my rounds played during those years.

I wasn't willing to give more than what I did. I played 18 sparingly and that was that. Those were the days I had committed, whether it was a 3 hour round or a 4 1/2 hour round it mattered none.

 

And I don't see any first hand evidence that a round of golf today takes any longer than it did in the 70's.

 

It takes what it takes.

 

I think the biggest difference is more women work now, and they want their weekends too. I'm sure rounds take the same amount of time i don't disagree. I just know so many guys who have a hard time getting away for that long on the weekend. Their wives work all week too and don't want to watch the kids alone from 8:30 to 3pm or something (assuming a post round beer or something). Often they want to get to the gym, see friends ...etc aswell.

 

I think there's a lot more dual income families then they're used to be. And that means less time for women to enjoy their hobbies or see friends, at least compared to the past. So it's hard for a guy to take prime saturday hours at the club every weekend

 

that's just my opinion

 

There is a whole lot of good points here. I agree that there seems to be this nostalgic illusion that golf in the 70s and 80s had everybody merrily whipping around in 3 hours all while experiencing low cost rounds. This is a complete made up fable. Although the pace of play has probably not materially changed over time, what has changed is golfer's WILLINGNESS to put up with it. The reason they are not willing to put up with it is because of the significant evolution of the domestic relationship.

 

 

Prior to the Tiger ramp up in participation, golf in the 70s and 80s was almost exclusively played by the wealthy (mostly white) and to a lesser extent, up and coming young professionals rising through the corporate ranks. For the most part, these golfer's (overwhelmingly men) worked and their wives stayed home. My dad and his golfing buddies, worked their behinds off. Their duty was to work, mow the lawn, shovel the driveway, and tend to repairs in the home or on the cars. Period. If your dad coached Little League, cool. If not, you did not see him at games or school functions. They played golf on League night and Sunday morning. Saturday's also if there was a tournament.

 

The rest of the week the courses were filled with retired white guys, a few ladies, and a few kids playing in the summer.

 

And the overwhelming majority of golfer's walked. Usually, the only people that rode where retirees.

 

The marriage and family dynamics have all changed. As Jeff said, mom's now all work. No way they are sitting home on the weekends taking care of the kids and doing domestic chores why the hubby strolls around the golf course. And kids can't take a crap anymore without out their parents there to wipe their butts and solve every problem for them. So you are seeing the results in the golf participation and reaction to slow play.

 

Young guy wants to play desperately because he loves the game and needs something to decompress so he doesn't feel like driving his Camry off a cliff, try's to find a tee time where he can get around and rush home to ease his guilt and not piss off the wife, so he always rents a cart ( the only walkers I see are men 45+ trying to stay in shape and high school kids), and than complains about the total cost of the round and about how long it takes. Wife still complains, guy slowly stops playing.

 

Forget playing during the week as the little Kings and Queens need to be carted around to their scheduled organized activities and than try to slam homework in under the watchful eyes of mommy and daddy.

 

If this is true, why don't we see other typical weekend activities (like hunting and fishing, for example) dramatically decreasing as well? We haven't seen a huge decline in any typically male weekend activity except golf. That doesn't make sense to me. Why arn't they all going down?

 

Its very difficult for people to accurately describe and predict broad demographic trends. I would humbly suggest there is zero data for any of this.

 

For example, several people have said that golf equipment is too expensive. Actually, its the cheapest, adjusted for inflation, it has literally ever been. A set of top line irons in the late 1960s adjusted for inflation is about $2500. The first big bertha driver, adjusted for inflation, cost about $725. An M2 is $400. The only piece of equipment that is more expensive is premium putters (the bulls-eye didnt really move the price needle like a Cameron). Everything else is way less expensive now than it used to be.

 

This is my point. Many people have said that the equipment is "too much now" and they are just full of it. They just made it up. No statistics, no research, no nothing, just whining.

 

Unless you have data you are almost certainly wrong about demographic trends. People are way too biased to have opinions based in fact.

 

I think golf is declining because its simply reverting to the pre-Tiger mean (see my earlier post) not because of equipment prices (they are really low right now, historically speaking) or because of some insane new thing where males care about their kids now and didn't before.

[The Pearl]

I've played for a long time (nearly a half century) and through the growing years with my two oldest my rounds decreased dramatically. But no decrease in the amount of time a round takes would have changed my rounds played during those years.

I wasn't willing to give more than what I did. I played 18 sparingly and that was that. Those were the days I had committed, whether it was a 3 hour round or a 4 1/2 hour round it mattered none.

 

And I don't see any first hand evidence that a round of golf today takes any longer than it did in the 70's.

 

It takes what it takes.

 

I think the biggest difference is more women work now, and they want their weekends too. I'm sure rounds take the same amount of time i don't disagree. I just know so many guys who have a hard time getting away for that long on the weekend. Their wives work all week too and don't want to watch the kids alone from 8:30 to 3pm or something (assuming a post round beer or something). Often they want to get to the gym, see friends ...etc aswell.

 

I think there's a lot more dual income families then they're used to be. And that means less time for women to enjoy their hobbies or see friends, at least compared to the past. So it's hard for a guy to take prime saturday hours at the club every weekend

 

that's just my opinion

 

There is a whole lot of good points here. I agree that there seems to be this nostalgic illusion that golf in the 70s and 80s had everybody merrily whipping around in 3 hours all while experiencing low cost rounds. This is a complete made up fable. Although the pace of play has probably not materially changed over time, what has changed is golfer's WILLINGNESS to put up with it. The reason they are not willing to put up with it is because of the significant evolution of the domestic relationship.

 

 

Prior to the Tiger ramp up in participation, golf in the 70s and 80s was almost exclusively played by the wealthy (mostly white) and to a lesser extent, up and coming young professionals rising through the corporate ranks. For the most part, these golfer's (overwhelmingly men) worked and their wives stayed home. My dad and his golfing buddies, worked their behinds off. Their duty was to work, mow the lawn, shovel the driveway, and tend to repairs in the home or on the cars. Period. If your dad coached Little League, cool. If not, you did not see him at games or school functions. They played golf on League night and Sunday morning. Saturday's also if there was a tournament.

 

The rest of the week the courses were filled with retired white guys, a few ladies, and a few kids playing in the summer.

 

And the overwhelming majority of golfer's walked. Usually, the only people that rode where retirees.

 

The marriage and family dynamics have all changed. As Jeff said, mom's now all work. No way they are sitting home on the weekends taking care of the kids and doing domestic chores why the hubby strolls around the golf course. And kids can't take a crap anymore without out their parents there to wipe their butts and solve every problem for them. So you are seeing the results in the golf participation and reaction to slow play.

 

Young guy wants to play desperately because he loves the game and needs something to decompress so he doesn't feel like driving his Camry off a cliff, try's to find a tee time where he can get around and rush home to ease his guilt and not piss off the wife, so he always rents a cart ( the only walkers I see are men 45+ trying to stay in shape and high school kids), and than complains about the total cost of the round and about how long it takes. Wife still complains, guy slowly stops playing.

 

Forget playing during the week as the little Kings and Queens need to be carted around to their scheduled organized activities and than try to slam homework in under the watchful eyes of mommy and daddy.

 

If this is true, why don't we see other typical weekend activities (like hunting and fishing, for example) dramatically decreasing as well? We haven't seen a huge decline in any typically male weekend activity except golf. That doesn't make sense to me. Why arn't they all going down?

 

Its very difficult for people to accurately describe and predict broad demographic trends. I would humbly suggest there is zero data for any of this.

 

For example, several people have said that golf equipment is too expensive. Actually, its the cheapest, adjusted for inflation, it has literally ever been. A set of top line irons in the late 1960s adjusted for inflation is about $2500. The first big bertha driver, adjusted for inflation, cost about $725. An M2 is $400. The only piece of equipment that is more expensive is premium putters (the bulls-eye didnt really move the price needle like a Cameron). Everything else is way less expensive now than it used to be.

 

This is my point. Many people have said that the equipment is "too much now" and they are just full of it. They just made it up. No statistics, no research, no nothing, just whining.

 

Unless you have data you are almost certainly wrong about demographic trends. People are way too biased to have opinions based in fact.

 

I think golf is declining because its simply reverting to the pre-Tiger mean (see my earlier post) not because of equipment prices (they are really low right now, historically speaking) or because of some insane new thing where males care about their kids now and didn't before.

 

Pinstreet,

 

I don't disagree with much that you said. I think maybe you read too much into what I posted. I completely agree with your assessment that we are simply reverting to the mean in terms of participation. And I also agree, totally, in terms of cost of the game in inflation adjusted terms. I have argued on your side in other threads. The only cost I referenced in my post was the cost of the cart in terms of factoring it into the total cost of the round when that is a factor that can be controlled (on most courses).

 

I didn't say father's of the 70s and 80s didn't care about their kids, just that the nature of the relationship has changed significantly.

[ldchristopher]

I think a lot of golfers fondly remember the Tiger era and think it's realistic for that once-in-lifetime situation (a non-country club minority who dominates the field and has a marketable personality) to replicate itself. It's called "once-in-a-lifetime" for a reason guys. Golf is settling back into what it was for the decades prior to the Tiger era: a niche sport with some very elitist tendencies. Hence, OEMs have continued with a high-priced approach. That won't change in the foreseeable future because, as Nike's exit proved, R&D is too expensive for manufacturers to charge low prices and still turn a profit. That said, the only way to truly grow the golf equipment industry is via marketing. As an above poster mentioned, loud colors and personalized items are hundred dollar ideas for a billion dollar industry. Also, these are quick fixes and not long term solutions. However, in order to truly grow both the game and the equipment that comes with it, don't bother targeting Millenials. They lack the necessary attention span and willingness to start at the bottom and gradually improve. My brothers are all Millenials and they can't stand the repeated struggling that comes with improving at golf. Instead, target the generation after Millenials. They still live with their parents and their parents still pay for things like clubs, lessons, etc. If I operated a course and my primary focus was growing the game rather than making money, I'd be pushing as many father-son, father-daughter, mother-son and mother-daughter buy one get one events as the club's accountant would let me.

[The Pearl]

The Pearl ^^^ has plotted out what has happened to golf. But the discussion is how to rejuvenate the hard goods industry. Nike tried to make clubs look cool. Didn't work. All strengthened lofts on irons. Hasn't worked for long. Golf equipment is mainly used to golf, so with The Pearl's model, how do you get more golfers? The Pearl says the Kings and Queens are now the kids. But we all know that the wealthy and the business men don't want to be on the same course with Kings and Queens. I see golf going in two directions to survive. The first is to get even more exclusive. Prices on the game and the equipment keep going up. After all, golf can't be a status symbol for the rich until it is out of reach for the average person. Hello $1500 drivers. The second is to create small golf courses. Like 6-9 hole executive courses. Exclusively for the Kings and Queens. If you could get kid's golf to take the same time to play as a soccer game, organize youth golf teams, and treat it the same as youth soccer, you might be on to something. But these courses would have to be away from the courses of the rich and the business folk as these would be two very different games. The attempt to put the youth, the rich, the business person, the retired person, and the professional on the same course with the same rules and the same equipment is at the heart of today's game, and it is exactly what is harming it for so many...

 

Some good points. There is only two ways revive golf sales. Add more demand or create a far superior product in terms of performance or cost. See the Kirkland ball thread. Too many manufacturers chasing too few customers. If the USGA does away with the equipment restraints than it just becomes an arms race with massive unintended consequences.

 

I do think you have struck something interesting that nobody talks about in that one's enjoyment and positive experience with the game is dependent on segregation. Obviously, not in terms of race, but in terms of skill level or maybe a better way is to say "Golf IQ." The golf industry has failed miserably in that their focus is trying to make people better. They need to make people smarter and more aware. Increase their "Golf IQ."

 

I live in an area with many different options like you talk about above. Every type of golfer tends to gravitate to their comfort zone in terms of courses that they play. The problem with golf is that you get golfers with low "Golf IQ" mixed in with golfer's with high "Golf IQ."

[TollBros]

I really think this thread is ignoring the PGA Tour being awful, which is the face of golf, like it or not. Virtually all the suggestions in this thread require that someone be trying golf already (cheaper equipment, non-conforming equipment, faster rounds, cheaper lessons, etc.. etc... etc..). All of these require someone to say "you know what? i want to check out this golf thing".

 

Like it or not, the PGA Tour is the face of golf, and it is awful. Like i said in my earlier post, its just a bunch of interchangable whitebread dudes with virtually identical swings competing to see who can be slightly more precise with their 50/55/60 degree wedges.

 

Sports get to a point where they get solved and need to be changed. Football experienced this and drastically loosened the pass interference rules after Lovie Smith's bears defense made games insanely boring - after the rule change the "Tampa 2" didn't work anymore. Basketball did this when the post-Jordan era turned into a post up slugfest by disallowing the hand check on the perimeter and instituting defensive 3 seconds so nobody could clog the paint - and it worked, perimeter players became relevant again and drives and 3s exploded. When the Red Wings destroyed everyone by playing incredibly boring dump-and-forecheck, they changed the rules. *all* sports eventually get solved and have to change. Note, they can split the rules for pros and us.

 

Its time to do something. People like Broadie (love his work) have basically proven the "best" way to play golf, and the guys on Tour these days are clones of each other. Think about Day versus Johnson. They have slightly different grips and Johnson outswings him by about 3 mph on average but they are basically the same player. Palmer and Player were completely different because nobody had yet figured out the best way to play golf is to be incredibly long, have clock distances with wedges, and line-on-ball putt. Watching the PGA tour is like watching the late 90s knicks. Its basketball, but its boring and awful.

 

The PGA Tour desperately needs a shakeup. People loved Tiger because he shook it up - super long, sulper different, tons of emotion. Now? Kevin Chappell battling Kevin Kisner and some other whitebread dude on a tree-lined course week after week after week playing driver/wedge/putter. It sucks and its killing people coming into golf.

 

IMO of course. Unless you get into golf via family member or friend, its because you see it on TV. And the PGA tour is the most vanilla and boring its been, well, ever.

 

Basketball shoes are to the NBA what Equipment is to the PGA Tour. If the tour doesn't get way more exciting really fast its going to keep shrinking.

 

Thanks for the anti Caucasian racist post. Just what we needed.

[jslane57]

The Pearl ^^^ has plotted out what has happened to golf. But the discussion is how to rejuvenate the hard goods industry. Nike tried to make clubs look cool. Didn't work. All strengthened lofts on irons. Hasn't worked for long. Golf equipment is mainly used to golf, so with The Pearl's model, how do you get more golfers? The Pearl says the Kings and Queens are now the kids. But we all know that the wealthy and the business men don't want to be on the same course with Kings and Queens. I see golf going in two directions to survive. The first is to get even more exclusive. Prices on the game and the equipment keep going up. After all, golf can't be a status symbol for the rich until it is out of reach for the average person. Hello $1500 drivers. The second is to create small golf courses. Like 6-9 hole executive courses. Exclusively for the Kings and Queens. If you could get kid's golf to take the same time to play as a soccer game, organize youth golf teams, and treat it the same as youth soccer, you might be on to something. But these courses would have to be away from the courses of the rich and the business folk as these would be two very different games. The attempt to put the youth, the rich, the business person, the retired person, and the professional on the same course with the same rules and the same equipment is at the heart of today's game, and it is exactly what is harming it for so many...

 

Some good points. There is only two ways revive golf sales. Add more demand or create a far superior product in terms of performance or cost. See the Kirkland ball thread. Too many manufacturers chasing too few customers. If the USGA does away with the equipment restraints than it just becomes an arms race with massive unintended consequences.

 

I do think you have struck something interesting that nobody talks about in that one's enjoyment and positive experience with the game is dependent on segregation. Obviously, not in terms of race, but in terms of skill level or maybe a better way is to say "Golf IQ." The golf industry has failed miserably in that their focus is trying to make people better. They need to make people smarter and more aware. Increase their "Golf IQ."

 

I live in an area with many different options like you talk about above. Every type of golfer tends to gravitate to their comfort zone in terms of courses that they play. The problem with golf is that you get golfers with low "Golf IQ" mixed in with golfer's with high "Golf IQ."

I had actually deleted this post, because after I posted it, I re-read it and felt I came off looking like a dork for picking on you, which wasn't the idea because I liked your King and Queens reference. Anyhow, yes, "golfer IQ" is a fine way to put it. I could even see golf for the 5-7 year old age group being played on a soccer field, or in a gymnasium, with a couple of roll out putting greens from turf or something of the like. It would take an hour or two, and wouldn't interfere with the adult game. I know when my kids were young, I didn't want to bring them to my golf world to play golf. So it was either I golfed with my friends the way I golf, or I brought them to a small course and they golfed. To your point, the segregation of "golfer IQ" is kind of done with price these days, but that is actual segregation of economic realities rather than different venues for different levels...

[thejuice]

I really think this thread is ignoring the PGA Tour being awful, which is the face of golf, like it or not. Virtually all the suggestions in this thread require that someone be trying golf already (cheaper equipment, non-conforming equipment, faster rounds, cheaper lessons, etc.. etc... etc..). All of these require someone to say "you know what? i want to check out this golf thing".

 

Like it or not, the PGA Tour is the face of golf, and it is awful. Like i said in my earlier post, its just a bunch of interchangable whitebread dudes with virtually identical swings competing to see who can be slightly more precise with their 50/55/60 degree wedges.

 

Sports get to a point where they get solved and need to be changed. Football experienced this and drastically loosened the pass interference rules after Lovie Smith's bears defense made games insanely boring - after the rule change the "Tampa 2" didn't work anymore. Basketball did this when the post-Jordan era turned into a post up slugfest by disallowing the hand check on the perimeter and instituting defensive 3 seconds so nobody could clog the paint - and it worked, perimeter players became relevant again and drives and 3s exploded. When the Red Wings destroyed everyone by playing incredibly boring dump-and-forecheck, they changed the rules. *all* sports eventually get solved and have to change. Note, they can split the rules for pros and us.

 

Its time to do something. People like Broadie (love his work) have basically proven the "best" way to play golf, and the guys on Tour these days are clones of each other. Think about Day versus Johnson. They have slightly different grips and Johnson outswings him by about 3 mph on average but they are basically the same player. Palmer and Player were completely different because nobody had yet figured out the best way to play golf is to be incredibly long, have clock distances with wedges, and line-on-ball putt. Watching the PGA tour is like watching the late 90s knicks. Its basketball, but its boring and awful.

 

The PGA Tour desperately needs a shakeup. People loved Tiger because he shook it up - super long, sulper different, tons of emotion. Now? Kevin Chappell battling Kevin Kisner and some other whitebread dude on a tree-lined course week after week after week playing driver/wedge/putter. It sucks and its killing people coming into golf.

 

IMO of course. Unless you get into golf via family member or friend, its because you see it on TV. And the PGA tour is the most vanilla and boring its been, well, ever.

 

Basketball shoes are to the NBA what Equipment is to the PGA Tour. If the tour doesn't get way more exciting really fast its going to keep shrinking.

 

Thanks for the anti Caucasian racist post. Just what we needed.

 

You totally missed the point of the post. It wasn't anti-Caucasian, but anti-boring.

[MtlJeff]

I really think this thread is ignoring the PGA Tour being awful, which is the face of golf, like it or not. Virtually all the suggestions in this thread require that someone be trying golf already (cheaper equipment, non-conforming equipment, faster rounds, cheaper lessons, etc.. etc... etc..). All of these require someone to say "you know what? i want to check out this golf thing".

 

Like it or not, the PGA Tour is the face of golf, and it is awful. Like i said in my earlier post, its just a bunch of interchangable whitebread dudes with virtually identical swings competing to see who can be slightly more precise with their 50/55/60 degree wedges.

 

Sports get to a point where they get solved and need to be changed. Football experienced this and drastically loosened the pass interference rules after Lovie Smith's bears defense made games insanely boring - after the rule change the "Tampa 2" didn't work anymore. Basketball did this when the post-Jordan era turned into a post up slugfest by disallowing the hand check on the perimeter and instituting defensive 3 seconds so nobody could clog the paint - and it worked, perimeter players became relevant again and drives and 3s exploded. When the Red Wings destroyed everyone by playing incredibly boring dump-and-forecheck, they changed the rules. *all* sports eventually get solved and have to change. Note, they can split the rules for pros and us.

 

Its time to do something. People like Broadie (love his work) have basically proven the "best" way to play golf, and the guys on Tour these days are clones of each other. Think about Day versus Johnson. They have slightly different grips and Johnson outswings him by about 3 mph on average but they are basically the same player. Palmer and Player were completely different because nobody had yet figured out the best way to play golf is to be incredibly long, have clock distances with wedges, and line-on-ball putt. Watching the PGA tour is like watching the late 90s knicks. Its basketball, but its boring and awful.

 

The PGA Tour desperately needs a shakeup. People loved Tiger because he shook it up - super long, sulper different, tons of emotion. Now? Kevin Chappell battling Kevin Kisner and some other whitebread dude on a tree-lined course week after week after week playing driver/wedge/putter. It sucks and its killing people coming into golf.

 

IMO of course. Unless you get into golf via family member or friend, its because you see it on TV. And the PGA tour is the most vanilla and boring its been, well, ever.

 

Basketball shoes are to the NBA what Equipment is to the PGA Tour. If the tour doesn't get way more exciting really fast its going to keep shrinking.

 

Thanks for the anti Caucasian racist post. Just what we needed.

 

Taking from that body of text that the writer is a racist would be like asking that Kelly Tilghman be suspended for saying players could only beat a guy by lynching him in a back alley, when even the player in question says she meant nothing by it.

 

Maybe we should stop being so sensitive

[starrman77]

I would like to see the industry get back to reality and quit putting 99% of their marketing on distance. Start making drivers shorter again so we can actually control them without having to cut down shafts, re-weight heads and change shaft flexes. Start marketing accuracy first, forgiveness second and distance third.

[tyorke1]

kids, kids kids, ladies ladies ladies. We need these groups to survive. Junior lessons were once free , I still struggle with kids paying . We need more lady members, what ever it takes to get them to play. there could be one afternoon or evening where ladies and new golfers can go out and not feel pushed . I love fast rds more than most but I also understand how difficult it is for new golfers to play fast.

As the price goes up for golf clubs and equipment we start to loose lower income families. Even middle income struggle with the cost of golf now we are going back to an elitist sport.

Tournaments are way down this is a tough one to improve. Great thread with lots of good ideas.

[andrew_m]

I have a few thoughts on pace of play. First, I think that some of the posters above are right about "high IQ" golfers and "low IQ" golfers--in the past, it seems like many of the high IQ golfers were at country clubs and many of the low IQ golfers were at public courses. Not to say that the two were mutually exclusive. It's just that if you were really passionate about the game, you joined a club to be with other like-minded people and you were happy. If you just wanted to throw a few top flites around a muni course with the guys and drink a few too many beers, you went public and you were happy.

 

The biggest issue with playing today is that these two groups have mixed, and they frustrate each other. I know plenty of serious players, young and old alike, for whom joining a club, or maintaining membership, just doesn't make financial or social sense anymore. Maybe it's because the club made one too many assessments to try and keep up with other clubs, maybe it's because the golfer is young and buying a house (if they can even afford that) and starting a family, and joining doesn't make sense. Maybe it's that finding a club with good guys and good matches is hard with so many private clubs out there. So they just don't join, and decide that public golf is better than no golf.

 

Low IQ golfers never thought about joining a club, maybe because they think it's stuffy, or they're not serious enough to justify the cost, or they simply can't afford it. These are golfers who just want to go out and have fun and knock a few balls around on a Sunday morning. They just have a different view of the game--not that it's wrong, just different. The etiquette that serious golfers hold in such high regard, and which makes rounds take less than 4 and a half or 5 hours, just isn't part of the game for this segment of the population.

 

The problem, then, is when a group of high IQ ends up behind a group of low IQ golfers. I think this has happened more and more, as fewer and fewer younger player have the means to go private, the average age of the private club increases, and more serious golfers get pushed onto fewer public courses with the less serious golfers. It's an immensely frustrating experience, and one that, if I'm honest, happens to me nearly every time I play on a public course. Guys on private courses get it--they get that they signed up for a quick pace of play, and it's a little community, so they're less likely to break from that expectation (or if they don't agree, they don't sign up in the first place). In short, members of private courses are accountable to one another. That isn't the case at a public course. The people in front of you are strangers, the people behind you are strangers--you may even get paired up with strangers if you're a twosome or a walk-on (which I nearly always am). There's simply no accountability to each otheron the public course, and that, I think, is the crux of the issue.

[mosesgolf]

.860 COR would be a great place to start. We're always looking for those magical unobtainable 10 yards every year. Give us those yards with .860.