The Future of Golf in America

[profsmitty]

Has anyone read The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back

by Geoff Shackelford ? I have only read the preface and some of the first chapter on Google Books but from what I have read, the author's hypotheses seem very provocative. Shackleford's credentials are substantial so his criticisms of the golf establishment should be discussed.

 

This is the Google link

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GhbflekyW...=result#PPA3,M1

 

What do you think?

[Ridgecrest18]

Let me first say thank you for posting a topic of real substance........ It is truly a pleasure to see the Senior Talk section finally stand up to actually talk about Golf, rather than trying to match one's belt color to their shoes. Well done.

 

As for the OP, I must say that I haven't yet read this text in it's entirety. However, in what I have read, this author makes several a valid points........ not the least of which is the suggestion [if not the actual statement], that the only real beneficiaries of Golf's current posture are the PGA of America, the PGA Tour and large OEMs...... And further, that this has come at the real expense of the game itself.

 

I tend to agree w/ many of Shackelford's contentions and feel strongly, that the USGA [at least to some degree] has sold-out some of the soul of the game, in favor of the all mighty dollar.

 

I am quite sure that such a supporting position will meet w/ opposition..... and that is fine. However, it is my sincere hope that, by posting your thread in the Senior Golf Talk Section, you will get both thoughtful and literate responses from both side of this topic........ Rather than the dismissive juvenile retorts, that seem so prevalent in other areas.

[teespoon]

I will read with interest and reply often to this thread.

 

I am a retired Engine builder from the professional sport called NASCAR. I live on an old golf course and am one of the retired volunteers who work to keep it going. I am responsible for 32 EZ Go golf carts, and am on my way to work.

I am also a stockholder and hope to remain involved in restoring the couse to what it was, and what it can be. A fine golf course, open to all who wish to play the game.

 

Great thread!

 

BBL

[profsmitty]

For anyone who is interested, this is the Amazon link to the book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570614563

 

Ridgecrest - I, too, find it sad that we denizens of this forum, are so preoccupied with the minutia of our favorite pastime, that we ignore the elephant in the room. I can certainly understand the preoccupation that so many GolfWRXers have with the mechanics of our sport. I hope I don't seem dismissive of their interests or unmindfull of their right to discuss them. With that said, however, it is my view (and I think of Shackleford and others, as well) that golf is in great peril. The numbers that he cites in the second chapter should be frightening to us all. They indicate that we are in grave danger of losing the critical mass that is necessary to support public-access golf and all that goes with it. I don't want to look back in ten years and find that we, the golf community, have sacrificed our inheritance at the altar of corporate greed. We need to understand what is happening now, before it is too late to effect meaningful change.

 

I promise that after I have read all of the book, I will be back in this forum to discuss it. I hope that there are at least a few of us senior statespeople that will do the same.

[HackerD]

I read through chap 1 on google. Author's main point is hard to argue with. Allowing the equipment changes that force courses to be redesigned is bad for the sport.

[Marrrk]

i am very happy this was posted. and very happy that google has allowed me to read this book without paying. i cant put it down.

 

i cant say i agree with EVERYTHING i've read in the first few chapters but i do agree with the author's overall point of view. for now, i am going to refrain from giving my own opinions, but i do hope to read some good replies and rebuttals in this thread. keep it up!

[profsmitty]

Funny, it's amazing the things you begin to notice when you look for them. My favorite course is a very new public access course, opened by a nearby city to attract customers to a new housing development they are promoting. The "standard" green fee includes the cost of a cart. It was somewhat understood that there was a slight reduction if you walked but in 2+ years of playing the course, I have never seen a walker. I decided to walk the course today (I almost always walk the other courses I play) and I quickly came to understand why. Since there was a MLK "special" they charged me full cost, even though I was walking. It was clear they thought I was deranged for even trying to walk. The course is about 7400 yards from the tips but I discovered (actually was told my a marshal who I swear followed me all day to make sure I wasn't slowing play - I wasn't) that the "walking loop" is a minimum of 7 miles. If my calculations are correct, that means that at a minimum there is almost 5700 yards between holes! This is obviously a course that has never been meant to be walked.

 

Next time you play a "modern" course, take a critical look. Try walking it if physically possible. I think you'll find that Shackleford has some valid points. Very long courses, not meant to be walked, green fees inflated by the assumed cost of a cart, etc. I haven't gotten the book yet but I am already getting an education.

[Ridgecrest18]

Having finished Shackelford's treatise (and agreeing w/ a significant portion of it..... with the special exception of bringing back the “stymie”), I can’t help but to ask...... What role contemporary culture has played in helping to bring our sport to this tipping point? While the author touches on what he calls "the expectation of equatability ", he stops short of any real address of what could be termed, our near pandemic Cultural Attention Deficit Disorder........ That seeming need too many share for ever increasing thresholds to stimulate and/or keep our attention...... The collective compulsion toward the “bigger”, the “better” and the “new”........ Our desire to experience joy of succeeding, as long as it doesn’t require too much effort.

 

The USGA has, without a doubt, acquiesced to many of the self-serving interests of the large OEMs, professional organizations and ever advancing technologies......... But does the USGA stand as solely, or even preponderantly, responsible for the current state of affairs. Aren’t our personal and collective demands for “success”, or “better”......... and more importantly, our seemingly transient definitions of those terms, .........equal contributors to this morass.

 

I seems to me that, for a critical number of golfers, the resonance and satisfaction of well struck and well shaped shots, is no longer the allure of Golf. For too many of them, it has simply become the number that they can post at the end of the 4+ hours. Purposeful shot making has been abandoned in favor of a “two shot repertoire” consisting of smashing the driver as though it owed you money, followed by then flipping a wedge to well watered dartboards.

 

I would be first in line to sign the petition supporting the author’s suggestion for a “rollback” of the golf ball........ it’s only prudent. It would not only bring back the merits of traditional course architecture, it would invariably prompt every player to improve in one way or another. Sadly however, one only needs to look to the most recent USGA “groove”amendment, to see the mind set of the “populace golfer.” Given the postings on this and other forums, the most common sentiment seems one of simple circumvention. The popular response......... “stock up on the ultimately non-conforming clubs and wait it out.” With such mutinous public reaction to this nominal intrusion to the status quo, I fear the author’s suggestion of any “grassroots” initiatives are little more than pipe dreams.

 

I would again than Smitty (the OP) for this thread, Shackelford was definitely well worth the read........ he presents fundamentally sound arguments that are worthy of broad support. However, I fear that this is an instance of the “Preacher, preaching to the choir”, as it would seem that most of the golfing congregation has already left the church.

 

JMHO........... and as my good Scottish friend likes to say...... Cheers!

 

 

edited for syntax:

[Ridgecrest18]

Just finished reading through another thread in Senior Golf Talk that seemed salient to the OP. In it, the originator referenced an instance where a teaching pro confronted him for giving his friend's son some pointers at a practice range, suggesting [in essence] that he take the youngster... and his business... elsewhere. Several of the interspersed subsequent posts, though condemning the pro's approach, seemed oddly supportive of the the facility's seeming intent.... offering selective criteria that would have warranted their, or staff, intervention.

 

Are you kidding me........... Since when should anyone, most importantly youngsters, be precluded from learning unless they pay for the privilege, regardless of where that learning takes place. This is, without question, one of the most presumptive and absurd acts that I have ever heard of.

[profsmitty]

Let me toss another thread on the fire of this thread

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?sh...=218591&hl=

 

I am not denigrating any of the posters to this thread. However, I do find it very suggestive that the question - "Why, with the same equipment, launch angle, club and ball speed, etc, does a US open champion hit the ball farther than I? Is professional equipment somehow different that the equipment generally available to the public?" On the first page of the thread, one poster suggests that the underlying reason may be the relative skill of the ball strikers involved. While I admit that I decided that reading the rest of the thread wasn't in my current list of things to do, it seems that this position was not holding the day. The majority of posters (as far as my admittedly limited reading of the thread indicates, anyway) seemed more suspicious of the testing equipment, equipment fitting, etc.

 

It would seem that the segment of the golf community represented in this limited sample leans to a strong technological bias towards at least one aspect of golf success - namely how far can one hit a driver. I would contend that this is entirely consistent with the dominant paradigm of golf as a technologically-driven undertaking. Defining that paradigm in a few sentences would not do it justice. But I would contend that at least one element of this paradigm is a fundamental assumption that technololgy and access to technology can be equated to dominance in it socially or athletically. To be accepted into the golf community as a serious player requires the perception, by others, of a serious commitment to the tools of the sport (read most current, most technologically sophisticated, and most accepted) possibly to the exclusion of other considerations.

 

A careful reading of the subsequent comments to the one or two posters suggesting an skill-centric explanation is, again, very suggestive. The difficulty in dealing with the underlying positivist theoretical foundation of this paradigm is very similar to dealing with any other positivist theory. "The theory can't be wrong", its proponents will argue. "There is something wrong with the measurement tools." "The sample is not large enough." "There are missing variables not yet accounted for."

 

A more normative approach - that to be a true sport, success should be linked only to the skill of the participant - is much less satisfactory to the current, narcissitic bias of modern society in general and, I would content, to the golf community in particular. If equipment is a significant variable in golf success, the "sport" would be in grave danger of importing into itself a similar phenomenon to the "digital divide" that many critics content condemn an economically disadvantaged community to permanent second-class citizenship. In golf terms, this "technological divide" would equally condemn the same group to permanent alienation from the sport as serious participants. How much commitment would anyone have to a diversion that by its nature denies an equal opportunity for success based on unreasonabe and unnecessary technological barriers?

[Marrrk]

Let me toss another thread on the fire of this thread

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?sh...=218591&hl=

 

I am not denigrating any of the posters to this thread. However, I do find it very suggestive that the question - why, with the same equipment, launch angle, club and ball speed, etc, does a US open champion hit the ball farther than I? Is professional equipment somehow different that the equipment generally available to the public? On the first page of the thread, one poster suggests that the underlying reason may be the relative skill of the ball striker. While I admit that I decided that reading the rest of the thread wasn't in my current list of things to do, it seems that this position was not holding the day. The majority of posters (as far as my reading of the thread, anyway) seemed more suspicious of the testing equipment, equipment fitting, etc.

 

It would seem that the segment of the golf community represented in this limited sample leans toward a strong technological bias towards at least one i9mportant aspect of golf success - how far can I hit a driver. I would contend that this is entirely consistent with the dominant paradigm of golf as a technologically-driven undertaking. Defining that paradigm in a few sentences would not do it justice. But I would contend that at least one element of this paradigm is a fundamental assumption that technololgy and access to technology can be equated to dominance. To be accepted into the golf community as a serious player requires a serious commitment to the tools of the sport (read most current, most technologically sophisticated, and most accepted).

 

A careful reading of the subsequent comments to the one or two posters suggesting an skill-centric explanation is, again, very suggestive. The difficulty in dealing with the underlying positivist theoretical foundation of this paradigm is very similar to dealing with any other positivist theory. "The theory can't be wrong", its proponents will argue. "There is something wrong with the measurement tools." "The sample is not large enough." "There are missing variables not yet accounted for."

 

A more normative approach - that to be a true sport, success should be linked only to the skill of the participant - is much less satisfactory to the current, narcissitic bias of modern society in general and, I would content, to the golf community in particular. If equipment is a significant variable in golf success, the "sport" would be in grave danger of importing into itself a similar phenomenon to the "digital divide" that many critics content condemn an economically disadvantaged community to permanent second-class citizenship. In golf terms, this "technological divide" would equally condemn the same group to permanent alienation from the sport as serious participants. How much commitment would anyone have to a diversion that by its nature denies an equal opportunity for success based on unreasonabe and unnecessary technological barriers?

 

 

i'm not a huge fan of that thread you linked to either. not saying there isn't interesting and valuable information inside of it, there definitely is. but the title itself and the original motive behind it is just silly, as you've explained. if i had to caution against you one thing, it would be to give a break to people on this site, for example, who obsess over these more "fringe" aspects of the game. when it's cold outside, or when i'm stuck at work, i can definitely work myself up into a tizzy over where to find a belt to match my hat and my shoes. now, that's something i never do in my normal life, only in golf. but, if thinking about clothes, or shafts, or launch angles, or 2010 OEM releases, or Tiger's breakfast cereal of choice gets me closer to golf while i cant be playing it, then i'm ok with that.

 

but as a i mentioned on this post a few days ago, this is a great thread.

[profsmitty]

Marrk, thank you for your contribution to this effort. I hope that this discussion doesn't come off as dismissive of anyone's interests and/or obsessions. I'm sure that many of the people who post here do as you describe (and as I do for that matter), live an electronic version of summer in the midst of winter by loitering here. Reading these fora is more than even that - it is a unique educational opportunity. For my self, I have been enriched in surprising ways. By reading threads on this website,, I have discovered the emerging (and utterly beautiful) art form of refinished putters. You can bet that I would (and will, I hope) be honored to have one of these craftspeople produce a work of art that I can pass down to my children. Less seriously, I'm currently hung up on the relative merits of golf tees as some of my previous posts indicate because of one of the threads.

 

With that said, this and other fora for those devoted to the sport can and should be even more educational. We should take every opportunity to explore in a meaningful, serious way the future of the sport - uncluttered by what are at best temporal concerns. A mature discussion of the meta-state of the sport should not be threatening to anyone. Moreover, it is not merely a diversion, in my view. It is our responsibility. Golf has stood the test of time because of the dedication of thousands, if not millions of adherents who refused to be sidetracked by expediency. Their actions have been maddening at times but what other endeavor has a more wonderful trackrecord of maintaining the purity of a sport? Those of us who love golf must continue to protect it. To protect it we must understand it. To understand it, we must understand ourselves. Than is what I hope this thread is - an opportunity for all of us to understand ourselves better. I hope others will contribute to what we have started here. Please join in.

[Marrrk]

Marrk, thank you for your contribution to this effort. I hope that this discussion doesn't come off as dismissive of anyone's interests and/or obsessions. I'm sure that many of the people who post here do as you describe (and as I do for that matter), live an electronic version of summer in the midst of winter by loitering here. Reading these fora is more than even that - it is a unique educational opportunity. For my self, I have been enriched in surprising ways. By reading threads on this website,, I have discovered the emerging (and utterly beautiful) art form of refinished putters. You can bet that I would (and will, I hope) be honored to have one of these craftspeople produce a work of art that I can pass down to my children. Less seriously, I'm currently hung up on the relative merits of golf tees as some of my previous posts indicate because of one of the threads.

 

With that said, this and other fora for those devoted to the sport can and should be even more educational. We should take every opportunity to explore in a meaningful, serious way the future of the sport - uncluttered by what are at best temporal concerns. A mature discussion of the meta-state of the sport should not be threatening to anyone. Moreover, it is not merely a diversion, in my view. It is our responsibility. Golf has stood the test of time because of the dedication of thousands, if not millions of adherents who refused to be sidetracked by expediency. Their actions have been maddening at times but what other endeavor has a more wonderful trackrecord of maintaining the purity of a sport? Those of us who love golf must continue to protect it. To protect it we must understand it. To understand it, we must understand ourselves. Than is what I hope this thread is - an opportunity for all of us to understand ourselves better. I hope others will contribute to what we have started here. Please join in.

 

i couldn't agree more. and i think a lot of your (our) concerns have been greatly propelled by the advancement of the internet age, more than anything else. having every bit of information we could possibly desire at our fingers, in a sense, gets us closer to god. so, in golf, we are closer to Tiger, closer to Hank, closer to Miura; closer to the million little details that amateur golfers once did not concern themselves with as much. back in the day, most people's only connection to the holiness of golf was through TV broadcasts and the occasional magazine. now, each and everyone of us has the ability to become an expert on every aspect of the game, from the physics to the fashion.

 

for better or for worse? well, i think we both agree that there are many threads on this board that are very much for the better ("an electronic version of summer in the midst of winter"). i think we also agree, in conjunction with Shackelford's thesis, that this detailed obsessiveness has done nothing if not enabled the OEM's and Country Clubs to... rape us all.

[mdgboxx]

Let me toss another thread on the fire of this thread

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?sh...=218591&hl=

 

I am not denigrating any of the posters to this thread. However, I do find it very suggestive that the question - "Why, with the same equipment, launch angle, club and ball speed, etc, does a US open champion hit the ball farther than I? Is professional equipment somehow different that the equipment generally available to the public?" On the first page of the thread, one poster suggests that the underlying reason may be the relative skill of the ball strikers involved. While I admit that I decided that reading the rest of the thread wasn't in my current list of things to do, it seems that this position was not holding the day. The majority of posters (as far as my admittedly limited reading of the thread indicates, anyway) seemed more suspicious of the testing equipment, equipment fitting, etc.

 

It would seem that the segment of the golf community represented in this limited sample leans to a strong technological bias towards at least one aspect of golf success - namely how far can one hit a driver. I would contend that this is entirely consistent with the dominant paradigm of golf as a technologically-driven undertaking. Defining that paradigm in a few sentences would not do it justice. But I would contend that at least one element of this paradigm is a fundamental assumption that technololgy and access to technology can be equated to dominance in it socially or athletically. To be accepted into the golf community as a serious player requires the perception, by others, of a serious commitment to the tools of the sport (read most current, most technologically sophisticated, and most accepted) possibly to the exclusion of other considerations.

 

A careful reading of the subsequent comments to the one or two posters suggesting an skill-centric explanation is, again, very suggestive. The difficulty in dealing with the underlying positivist theoretical foundation of this paradigm is very similar to dealing with any other positivist theory. "The theory can't be wrong", its proponents will argue. "There is something wrong with the measurement tools." "The sample is not large enough." "There are missing variables not yet accounted for."

 

A more normative approach - that to be a true sport, success should be linked only to the skill of the participant - is much less satisfactory to the current, narcissitic bias of modern society in general and, I would content, to the golf community in particular. If equipment is a significant variable in golf success, the "sport" would be in grave danger of importing into itself a similar phenomenon to the "digital divide" that many critics content condemn an economically disadvantaged community to permanent second-class citizenship. In golf terms, this "technological divide" would equally condemn the same group to permanent alienation from the sport as serious participants. How much commitment would anyone have to a diversion that by its nature denies an equal opportunity for success based on unreasonabe and unnecessary technological barriers?

 

When you mention skill are you thinking of Moe Norman?

Only He and Ben Hogan have a SWING named after them. Moe Norman had a special GIFT and yet, he wasn't glamorous

enough to be on tour because he was camera shy.

[arkstorm]

I read the free excerpt from google and couldn't help but picture Shackelford as the guy in the picture below. If long, tricked out courses are the problem, how does he account for the decline in rounds played on older, shorter courses. Reading his book (the few chapters that were available) you may think that the equipment is so good that the club practically hits the ball for you. But most amateurs know this is not true. As a 9-12 handicap I know that I'm not going to beat up a course just because its short (less than 7,000). Most of the courses I play, from the tee boxes that I play, are in the low 6 thousand yards. Shackelford even cites advances in instruction and fitness as detracting from what the sport once was, as if lessons or a trip to the gym are a bad thing.

 

I'm all for maintaining the soul of the game, but suggesting that the OEM's are to blame for recent declines is bordering on laughable because it presupposes the notion that if we were all still hitting persimmon woods the game would be, somehow, more inviting to more people. Not to say that the big OEM's are not greedy, they are, but no more than is acceptable in business. And after all, golf is a business. If there was no money to be made, there would be no golf clubs, no golf balls and no golf courses. In that regard Shackelford borders on naivete.

 

Just like in any other business, golf has cycles. If golf has been in a state of decline it is quite dubious to blame it on the ball or the power of the top players. Shackelford draws the comparison between golf and tennis as if the situation is identical, but there are huge differences. Despite some very popular athletes, the game of tennis never had a Tiger Woods.

 

Where Shackelford really steps over the line in my mind is where he suggests a sort of conspiracy of silence between OEM's and the USGA where the latter overlooks the former's sidestepping of the rules with the mutual interest of transforming golf from a game of finesse into a game of power.

 

The fact is, from any R & D perspective, you go where the technology takes you. Golf has certainly been transformed, even since I started playing in 1996. But to suggest that modern courses are brutal, punishing and painful, all in the interest of accommodating the new technology, and that is why rounds played are in decline, defies conventional wisdom that golfers seek out long and difficult courses and are typically willing to pay a premium to play them. If Shackelford was right, then we would see the older designed courses getting more play, but he's simply wrong.

[profsmitty]

Ark, you have made several good points. I would suggest however, that GI and SGI clubs are sold based on the presumption that they are (while not hitting the ball themselves) at least significantly easier to hit balls successfully than less "forgiving" clubs. GI and SGI clubs reflect a significant price premium based on the anticipation of this. Players who cannot afford the technology supporting the claims of OEM's would be at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis those who could.

 

You are correct also in pointing out that older courses, especially municipal courses are losing rounds. This indicates, in my view, a significant loss in the economic lower and middle class players necessary to grow the sport. I would also suggest that the comparison with tennis is valid. I am not sure what a "Tiger Woods" would have meant to tennis. It hasn't seemed to have meant much to the growth of golf.

 

Technology is only a problem if it threatens the fabric of the game. It has. Neither Sackleford or I are shaking our fists at the clouds. Only at the unintended consequences of golf's continually worshiping at its altar.

[rapriebe]

A brief comment after just beginning to read the portion of the book that's available. I think there is just a touch of Chicken Little in Mr. Shackleford's ranting. I don't see modern equipment as a detriment to the expansion of the game, but as a boon. I think that more beginners stay with the game because it's easier to pick it up than it was when I was starting out with forged blades as the only clubs available.

 

People leave the game for 2 reasons. One it's still costly, although I don't see it as more in percentage of spendable income than it was 20 years ago... golf has always been expensive. Secondly, it's still a hard game to learn, even with the GI clubs. It takes time and dedication. One big reason for the radical decline in the last few years is more because of the inflated numbers of people taking up the game during Tiger's rise to prominence. Many of those have learned that it's a difficult and expensive game to learn it well enough to start to have some fun with it. Those people came in fast and dropped out just as quickly. During the boom developers overbuilt courses and many of those courses are now having a hard time of it, or they have created hard times for previously successful courses.

 

My one other comment on his assertion that it's all the USGA's fault that equipment has evolved over the years. Just read any thread on this or any other forum about any proposal to limit equipment and watch the broohaha. It's the players themselves who feed the manufacturers urge to give us bigger, better, longer, straighter, etc. How many of you weeped when the USGA lost the Ping lawsuit? How many are in favor of the coming rollback. Any of you planning to stockpile wedges before the current grooves become unavailable? It seems that a great many forum junkies are doing so.

 

That's it for now. I'll keep watching this one though.

[honketyhank]

Funny, it's amazing the things you begin to notice when you look for them. My favorite course is a very new public access course, opened by a nearby city to attract customers to a new housing development they are promoting. The "standard" green fee includes the cost of a cart. It was somewhat understood that there was a slight reduction if you walked but in 2+ years of playing the course, I have never seen a walker. I decided to walk the course today (I almost always walk the other courses I play) and I quickly came to understand why. Since there was a MLK "special" they charged me full cost, even though I was walking. It was clear they thought I was deranged for even trying to walk. The course is about 7400 yards from the tips but I discovered (actually was told my a marshal who I swear followed me all day to make sure I wasn't slowing play - I wasn't) that the "walking loop" is a minimum of 7 miles. If my calculations are correct, that means that at a minimum there is almost 5700 yards between holes! This is obviously a course that has never been meant to be walked.

 

Sounds like a certain course adjacent to a major land grant university with purple and white decorations. Nice course, but certainly never meant to be walked, especially in August. Would be tough enough to walk even if the tees were fairly close to the previous greens. The marshal probably followed you so as to be able to call 911 as soon as possible when necessary. I salute your endurance.

[TigerStrong]

It's just a book.

[profsmitty]

Funny, it's amazing the things you begin to notice when you look for them. My favorite course is a very new public access course, opened by a nearby city to attract customers to a new housing development they are promoting. The "standard" green fee includes the cost of a cart. It was somewhat understood that there was a slight reduction if you walked but in 2+ years of playing the course, I have never seen a walker. I decided to walk the course today (I almost always walk the other courses I play) and I quickly came to understand why. Since there was a MLK "special" they charged me full cost, even though I was walking. It was clear they thought I was deranged for even trying to walk. The course is about 7400 yards from the tips but I discovered (actually was told my a marshal who I swear followed me all day to make sure I wasn't slowing play - I wasn't) that the "walking loop" is a minimum of 7 miles. If my calculations are correct, that means that at a minimum there is almost 5700 yards between holes! This is obviously a course that has never been meant to be walked.

 

Sounds like a certain course adjacent to a major land grant university with purple and white decorations. Nice course, but certainly never meant to be walked, especially in August. Would be tough enough to walk even if the tees were fairly close to the previous greens. The marshal probably followed you so as to be able to call 911 as soon as possible when necessary. I salute your endurance.

 

The day I am able to walk Colbert Hills is the day - well I can't imagine that day. This course was actually designed by the same architect. The name of the course is Sand Creek Station in Newton, KS. I really enjoy everything about the course, especially the management. But just like Colbert, the average player isn't going to walk it. I'm just a stubborn old f*** who enjoys doing things that an almost 60 year old with an artificial knee isn't supposed to do.

[alcap26]

When I first read your post I thought you were referring to Colbert Hills also and I was going to question your sanity fo reven trying to walk it. I have been lucky enough to play it about 6 times on different trips to Kansas. Great course but you must take a cart for your own health.

[profsmitty]

This may be a case where a cart option is appropriate although it would be interesting to give it a try. If I decide to give it a try, I'll let my Senior friends know how it comes out. Anyone interested?

 

Seriously, there are certainly terrains like the land Colbert is built on that simply wouldn't lend themselves to walking. Mountain courses would be a challenge, for instance. But intellegent design with a walking golfer in mind would make it more reasonable.

[Ogre41]

While reading through this thread I have seen several mentions that the newer equipment is to blame for the current state of golf. That the SGI and GI clubs are both too good not to use, but also too expensive for most people to afford. I am not sure that I agree with either argument, though I mainly find fault with the srgument that they are too expensive and will somehow provide a technological divide between the haves and the have nots. Personally, at least where I shop, the GI clubs are FAR less expensive than the traditional blades. And they have many more options to choose from. I am not sure that there really is a divide there. You can honestly get a driver for $150 at Dicks that will be just a good to the average player as any of the $400+ offerings available right now. I don't see the majority of the people I play with dropping the big money on clubs, or suffering because of it. I hit my Burner farther than those I play with because I am capable of swinging at speeds they are not, not because my Burner is better than their Cobra, Superquad, or TA Ayrtime. As for the courses, I haven't seen many over 7000 yards where I live. And the ones that are famous for their length are older courses, not the newer ones. And the course that gives me the most trouble is still Redgate in Rockville, MD. An old Arthur Hills design that has pretty much ruled out the bomb and gouge ideas of today (at least for most of us) because if you are just a bit off line with your tee shot, you're dead. You have to move the ball there which is why my most satisfying rounds are played there. If you can shoot one of your better scores on that course, you played a good round. Not that I mind just bombing the ball, but there is more to golf than just driver and wedge, and a well placed hazard to dogleg takes the driver out of most sensible people's hands. I recently played a course that had an 841 yard par 6, that played longer than that because you couldn't really hit driver off of the tee. The water hazard that cuts the hole in half is only 250 from the back tees. That's gonna take the big stick out of everyone I play with's hands because no matter what you have for a ball or club, flying that hazard is a dicey proposition at best. As for the overall decline in rounds played, maybe it's just cyclical? When I played college roller hockey there were 16 teams in our conference labeled as D1. Now there are 10 and a few of them shouldn't have been moved up. Is the equipment to blame? No, it's just the guys that I went to school with enjoyed that game more than the ones that came after us. Will it get back to it's higher status? Maybe? There are a ton of things to do now other than golf (and roller hockey), that may be the real culprit. There are just so many more choices out there for today's adults (and kids), golf is going to lose some of those players to other sports. I don't think that golf is really in any trouble.

[stage1350]

Can anyone tell me where Shackelford is donating the proceeds of this book, or any of his other books? Or is he just money-grubbing scum in it for the dollars like the OEMs?

 

This guy has been pissing and moaning this same drivel for years. "The sky is falling. Roll back the ball!" "The sky is falling. Cap the drivers!" "The sky is falling. You're part of the problem if you buy equipment." It's all the greedy OEMs fault because they produce products that make the game easier for you to play golf. Obviously, if it were up to Shackelford the Luddite, you'd all have forged blades and persimmon. You'd play wound balata balls that wouldn't last two holes without going out of round. Therefore you will spend TEN TIMES in balls what you currently budget. Yeah, great idea there, Geoff. Way to help out the juniors and golfers on limited budgets.

 

Shackelpimp wants to compare Golf to tennis and whine about the drop in participation of the sport is the direct result of technology. BS! I see less public tennis courts built in my area than I do golf courses. Completing a regulation match takes forever. And, let's face it: it's exercise. I see plenty of professional tennis still being televised. Icons like the Williams sisters bring excitement to the game, and they don't need don't have some whiny crybaby screaming about rolling back the racquets or making the court larger.

 

Then he cries about the cost of golf. How much did you accept for your input on Rustic Canyon, Shack-daddy? Or did you provide your services free of charge because it's for the good of the game? He cries about courses being too spread out to walk and taking more than three hours because the course is so difficult that daddy and junior have trouble finding their lost golf balls. That's the fault of golf course management philosophies and greedy golf courses. THAT's who's at fault. (Wait, I thought it was the OEMs. So who is it? Or is it just anyone that doesn't agree with you?) Golf courses spread out holes to make courses part of neighborhoods. This way, people pay more money and increase property values of homes because their back yard borders a hole on the course. The course can generate revenue through cart fees. And, like tennis, walking is exercise and a lot of us fatties just don't want to get in shape and walk. Thanks for trying to exclude the elderly, physically handicapped, and others that need carts to keep the game enjoyable. Quite frankly, in certain geographical areas of the country, the hills would make walking so physically exhausting that most golfers couldn't swing the club by the time they get to the 12th tee.

 

Now it's the USGAs fault for Tiger-proofing courses and forcing the creation of all these bunkers that cost money to combat distance. Yet, the ball-rollback crybabies all whine about the power hitter that flies the bunker at 240, cutting the dogleg and not playing the hole "as the architect intended." Yet, they are in the fairway, staring birdie at the face. Are you sure these people don't just want the long hitters to suffer because THEY can't carry the bunker? Everyone cries that Merion is obsolete for Majors. It's not that Merion would be overpowered. Recent tournaments have proven otherwise. It's that they cannot hold the press booths, corporate tents, and crowds that are now part of Major tournament golf. These events cost money to run and the purses that the players now play for represent this. So it's the USGA and PGA's fault for all of this. Not the greedy course managers or the greedy OEMs. (Hmmmmm, do I see a trend here? :rolleyes: )

 

Let's go to Part II and some of his other "facts."

 

Faster jets do not necessarily need longer runways that what was designed for the 747-400 airliners. What they would need is larger jets that make more noise. Anyone remember the Concorde? It wasn't longer runways that kept it out of US airspace. It was the jet noise and sonic boom that kept you from traveling faster. But hey, let's not let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

 

Again, Shackelford "claims" courses are now obsolete. Can he provide one course that has closed due to obsolescence? The ones in my area close because they charged too much and lost play. Or their land was worth more to developers that wanted to build homes and they were sold. Obsolescence? I think not.

 

 

Let's face it. If we kept listening to backwards thinking people throughout history, the United States of America would not have been discovered, lest ye sailors drop off the edge of the world. Out there be monsters, aaaargh.

 

If we still believed in the sound barrier, we would have never gotten to the moon.

 

If we still believed metal woods were the bane of golf, the old growth persimmon crop would be extinct.

If we still believed steel shafts ruin the game, the same would be said for hickory.

The return to wound balata would cause the price of rubber to increase to a level making it impossible for young golfers to afford the game.

 

Yet each of these horrible inventions has helped bring golf to the masses, despite the naysayers crying that it will ruin the game. Yet handicaps do NOT drop significantly and haven't for 30 years.

 

I pray you will realize that this guy only pushes his agenda and that his quest for the almighty dollar through book sales is no less hypocritical than the OEMs that he demonizes.

[profsmitty]

Stage, very interesting points that deserve discussion. I hope that the tone of this discussion can be free of the name-calling and personal attack that is a plague on the current public atmosphere. I won't argue that people can hold positions passionately. Clearly, Shackleford is passionate about his position. There are those on the other side that are equally passionate. I am not convinced that anything is accomplished by attacks on the ethics of either side. There are enough issues to discuss without that.

 

A couple of points. I am interested on which is the establishment position and which is the dissenting. I would suggest that Shackleford represents the latter. With that said, the quote in Stage's signature is very apropos. Jefferson was very much ahead of his society in the wise use of land and natural resourses. One of Shackleford's arguments relates to the resourses, both natural and financial, of modern courses. The very size of newer courses and the reliance on expensive to design and maintain features are responses to the technology obsessed golf establishment. More natural settings that are environmentally sensitive such as Bandon, Prairre Dunes, and others he would contend, I think, are both more aesthetically pleasing and less-expensive to maintain.

 

Personally, I think it is very exciting when environmentalism and other socially-responsible positions can be made profitable. The profit motive is very powerful. I shouldn't be the property of just one side in this argument. I am a fan of persimmon. I wonder if this renewable resourse is underutilized? It is difficult to believe that the demand for persimmon would be so great that it would cause the extinction of persimmon forests. Rather, it might provide opportunities for a cash crop for a small part of the economy.

 

A great discussion stimulator, stage1350. Thanks for your contribution. I'm sure others will be moved to further comment.

[stage1350]

Stage, very interesting points that deserve discussion. I hope that the tone of this discussion can be free of the name-calling and personal attack that is a plague on the current public atmosphere. I won't argue that people can hold positions passionately. Clearly, Shackleford is passionate about his position. There are those on the other side that are equally passionate. I am not convinced that anything is accomplished by attacks on the ethics of either side. There are enough issues to discuss without that.

 

A couple of points. I am interested on which is the establishment position and which is the dissenting. I would suggest that Shackleford represents the latter. With that said, the quote in Stage's signature is very apropos. Jefferson was very much ahead of his society in the wise use of land and natural resourses. One of Shackleford's arguments relates to the resourses, both natural and financial, of modern courses. The very size of newer courses and the reliance on expensive to design and maintain features are responses to the technology obsessed golf establishment. More natural settings that are environmentally sensitive such as Bandon, Prairre Dunes, and others he would contend, I think, are both more aesthetically pleasing and less-expensive to maintain.

 

Personally, I think it is very exciting when environmentalism and other socially-responsible positions can be made profitable. The profit motive is very powerful. I shouldn't be the property of just one side in this argument. I am a fan of persimmon. I wonder if this renewable resourse is underutilized? It is difficult to believe that the demand for persimmon would be so great that it would cause the extinction of persimmon forests. Rather, it might provide opportunities for a cash crop for a small part of the economy.

 

A great discussion stimulator, stage1350. Thanks for your contribution. I'm sure others will be moved to further comment.

I try to keep my name calling to Shackelford only. As he doesn't seem to mind labeling OEMs, the PGA, Wally Uihlein, and course managers as the Devil, he opens himself up for the same treatment. As for his ethics, again he wants to say that Golf is being ruined by greed. OEM greed, greed by course managers, etc. If he wants to call the kettle black, he needs to look at what the game of Golf has done for him. Has he not made a living off of this game as well?

 

Personally, I have no problem with courses that are environmentally responsible or utilize natural coutours of the land. Where I live, some of the best courses are the ones that predate mechanized earth moving equipment. They also have old growth trees, smaller greens, minimal irrigation, and lots of elevation changes. An excellent challenge without having to be tricked up. However, it seems that Geoff would consider them "obsolete" because the fairway bunkers can be carried by a big hitter. All but one of the par 5 holes is reachable in two. But the 18th is a 240 yard par 3 that plays into the prevailing wind from the tips. This is a course that was built in 1904. Obsolete? I think not.

 

I'd love to see modern courses that are designed like the old ones. Step off the green and you are a very short walk from the next tee. This has been ruined by the liability suit and the inability of people to yell "FORE!" when necessary. Financially, the income generated by carts, the pro shop, and concessions has become critical to the bottom line of most courses. My local Muni has gone from $8 walking (resident) to $13 walking in 24 years. While they aren't swimming in debt from excessive landscaping or unnecessary decorations, they have redone the greens twice in that time and added a set of tournament tees. The course does have some hills, but is very walkable. But if everyone started walking, they would have to double their rates to stay in business. Not a pleasant thought for the junior program at that course. Some of the newer courses, with up to a quarter-mile between holes make walking a less reasonable option. And since one of my favorite playing partners is my 62 year old father, I've been known to take the riding cart on occasion.

 

Persimmon was all bu eliminated from golf a decade ago. You can still buy brand new from Louisville, but the market seems to be niche collectors and nostalgia players. If you project the growth of golf and the usage of persimmon had it continued today, the cost of materials would have raised costs considerably. This would have been easier to demonstrate on hockory, as shafts break and the wood needs a lot of handling to make it into a good shaft. Metal woods, steel shafts, and composite balls have brought golf to the masses. I still enjoy my deep faced persimmon on occasion and still play forged irons. But for competition, I still play a modern driver and fitted shaft.

 

The only technology that I see that could considerably lower handicaps in the future is the electronic technology. Drivers fitted using launch monitors are giving even weekend warriors 10-20 yards off the tee. Accurate approaches are being helped by lasers and GPS. With the first drop in handicaps in years coinciding with this technology, electronics is one place that the USGA should consider looking at while it's still in it's infancy.

[teejaywhy]

Haven't read the book, so I won't comment on the view that golf equipment is destroying the game.

 

However, knowing that this forum is very equipment-centered, it is not surprising to find disagreement with that viewpoint. I personally value the game itself, the history and traditions and the endless variety of golf course designs much more than the tools used to play the game.

 

I will say that I enjoy reading Shackleford's golf blog and recommend it to everyone:

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/

[freddiec]

As a few know, my biggest complaint has been around all the drastic equipment enhancements over the last 10 years. The book makes a good point about how a lot of new golfers are not familiar with a game that Jack Nicklaus demonstrated during the 86 masters. ( In my opinion that was REAL GOLF). Golf in its natural state. Balata wound balls and Persimmon headed drivers. A game that millions loved. When I was in High School in the 80s the game had grown a lot and I witnessed a huge amount of enthusiasm by a ton of Junior golfers who I competed against. Golf was a little more difficult, but trust me when I tell you the courses were more beautiful back then, because you saw more of it. I don't know of another sport where changes have been so drastic. Imagine a 40 year old guy going to the local YMCA picking up a basketball for the 1st time in 15 years and realizing the ball is smaller and lighter and the 3 point line has been moved in 4 inches, just so more people would be interested in the game? And the swoosh sound has been replace with a "bang" sound. I feel thats what has happened to our great game in some respects. Fortunately that sport hasn't really changed. And don't tell me the shoes they wear is a big change. Just the other day I was in a golf shop (true story), minding my own business and didn't realize I was around the corner from a guy who was about to hit one in the net. The sound off the club , literally startled the u know what out of me. Thats golf ? I thought. Thats pretty sad. I really think the people in charge and responsible for overlooking the rules have some hidden agenda. Maybe it's a good one, I don't know.

[arkstorm]

As a few know, my biggest complaint has been around all the drastic equipment enhancements over the last 10 years. The book makes a good point about how a lot of new golfers are not familiar with a game that Jack Nicklaus demonstrated during the 86 masters. ( In my opinion that was REAL GOLF). Golf in its natural state. Balata wound balls and Persimmon headed drivers. A game that millions loved. When I was in High School in the 80s the game had grown a lot and I witnessed a huge amount of enthusiasm by a ton of Junior golfers who I competed against. Golf was a little more difficult, but trust me when I tell you the courses were more beautiful back then, because you saw more of it. I don't know of another sport where changes have been so drastic. Imagine a 40 year old guy going to the local YMCA picking up a basketball for the 1st time in 15 years and realizing the ball is smaller and lighter and the 3 point line has been moved in 4 inches, just so more people would be interested in the game? And the swoosh sound has been replace with a "bang" sound. I feel thats what has happened to our great game in some respects. Fortunately that sport hasn't really changed. And don't tell me the shoes they wear is a big change. Just the other day I was in a golf shop (true story), minding my own business and didn't realize I was around the corner from a guy who was about to hit one in the net. The sound off the club , literally startled the u know what out of me. Thats golf ? I thought. Thats pretty sad. I really think the people in charge and responsible for overlooking the rules have some hidden agenda. Maybe it's a good one, I don't know.

 

The problem I have with what you're saying isn't that its factually wrong but that neither you nor Shackelford have established a causal connection between the fact that equipment has changed and a decline in golf.

 

Maybe golf courses used to be more beautiful but land continues to increase in value and using the land for a golf course isn't as profitable as building houses or a strip mall. So courses are built on less land and less suitable land, but what does that have to do with the equipment?

 

And for those of you that miss the sound and feel of persimmon drivers, no one is saying you can't still play them. I just wouldn't take any bets against someone of similar skill with more modern gear.

 

There is a premise floating around that the tradition of golf and the advances in golf are mutually exclusive of one another. I ask anyone who believes that to submit to scrutiny and explain why.

[jefffann]

Who has the actual numbers that support the premiss that golf is in decline.I know I can't see the forest for the trees but out of 10 courses I play regularly on weekends it's hard to beleive there used to be more golfers.Heck any nice day this winter it's hard to get a tee time.