Saving the future of golf

[ibradley]

Why 18 holes?

Golf is in trouble. There are huge declines in participation among 25 to 44 year olds. In 1990, there were approximately 12.4 million golfers in that age group; by 2005, their ranks had fallen to 9.2 million – an alarming 26 percent drop. According to industry consultant Stuart Lindsay, who attributed the data to the National Sporting Goods Association, the fall-off bluntly underscores that golf isn’t appealing enough to the sweet spot of the U.S. population. He says the participation rate for that age group is about 20 percent lower today.

The problem. Time and money. Golf takes too long and cost too much.

We may need a major re-think of the game. Do we need to make all courses 18 holes? Could some courses be 12 or 15 or any number?

Check out www.why18holes.com

Comments? Thoughts?

[glcoach]

I stated in a previous thread that courses need to divide up rounds in three hole increments. It would keep the golfer that has a lot of stuff to do (kids, job, nagging wife, etc.) more connected to the game if he could go out and play 6 holes and be done with it.

Some really forward thinking would be to start a Tuesday 3 or 6 hole golf league and see what happens.

[ibradley]

From Edwin Roald:

We need to abandon the principle that a 'full' round of golf consists of eighteen holes and get used to the thought that a golf course may have just any number of holes that suits its particular environment. This will help many struggling golf clubs make quick and relatively easy changes to adapt to the needs of today's golfer, allow them to co-exist with other existing courses that wish to stick to their current model, open new dimensions in the design of new courses and give golf greater flexibility to work hand in hand with the environment.

[golfsavvy]

Courses just need to get more creative to get people to their facilities. Whether it's a push to sell 9-hole rounds, or an all-day fee, creative memberships -- we need more bodies. If we give them a great experience they'll be back. Try making a list of everything you could do or everything you could want as a customer for a round of golf. Then prioritize that list and figure out what is most important. Try different mixes of services on different days. By being complacent for a number of years, the industry has allowed this to happen.

The question is, how do we get customers to be repeat customers? And then bring their friends?

[quote name='ibradley' timestamp='1288458955' post='2766444']
Golf is in trouble. There are huge declines in participation among 25 to 44 year olds. In 1990, there were approximately 12.4 million golfers in that age group; by 2005, their ranks had fallen to 9.2 million – an alarming 26 percent drop. According to industry consultant Stuart Lindsay, who attributed the data to the National Sporting Goods Association, the fall-off bluntly underscores that golf isn't appealing enough to the sweet spot of the U.S. population. He says the participation rate for that age group is about 20 percent lower today.

The problem. Time and money. Golf takes too long and cost too much.

We may need a major re-think of the game. Do we need to make all courses 18 holes? Could some courses be 12 or 15 or any number?

Check out www.why18holes.com

Comments? Thoughts?
[/quote]

[jaskanski]

I disagree. Maybe the fall in interest in golf is simply down to "it isn't cool anymore - I'd rather watch YouTube" generation.
If time is your main criteria in golf then maybe you should find another sport.
Rather than spoiling the game of golf in the interests of the minority who either have a short attention span, or can't get round a golf course in less than 5 hours, I'd suggest leaving it alone so the rest of us can enjoy a traditional round of 18 holes.
Your time, however valuable it may be, would probably be better spent educating those who take too long to play 18 holes. It shouldn't take more than 3.5 hours for anybody. If that's too long for someone to be away from their busy work schedule (or their phone, internet, etc.) then maybe golf is better off without them.

[ZBigStick]

Definitely a need for more creativity.

Lower local rates, and twilight 9 hole rates that are less than 1/2 of 18 hole rate. They will get more playing frequency and more revenue. Give people a reason to play golf after work, in a reasonable amount of time.

[surefire]

I'm not convinced [b]golf[/b] is in decline.

Yes it appears to be in the US, but in other parts of the world, say Japan, China or India, this is not the case.
I would suggest this reflects more on a certain generation and demographic of people than on golf. I also doubt the game needs to change, just to suit this relatively small population of golfers.

[dlam]

Most sporting events I observe DO NOT take 5 hours to complete.
Pros and amateur golfers TAKE TOO MUCH TIME playing 18 hours.

Either get players to SPEED UP or cut the number of holes down.
There are still going be SLOW players but I dont want to be stuck playing or watching some play for 4-5 hours

2-3 hours is much more reasonable!!!

[BFC]

Where else can you go spend over 100$ and get treated like they are doing YOU a favor? Customer service at middle of the road golf courses has been abismal for years. I have paid close to $100 many times and the only thing I got was an exasperated "first tee is over there..." They rely on the fact that we love the game and will come anyway. That business model, downturn in the economy and more pressure on our "free" time = less people stick with it.

I don't know about you but paying $100 and then get asked for 8$ for range ball irks me. I understnad range rats/abusers of free range ball brought this on but if I pay green fees, gimme a little bag with 15/20 balls in it to go warm up. If I want to do a range session and work on my game, I'll glady pay you for a bucket.

I play quie a bit of "corporate" golf and a lot of it is played at middle of he road courses. I don't know how many times I have been told by infrequent golfers that value for money spent seemed very low.

Munis are packed, high end resorts are doing Ok'ish but the guys that want a decent, challenging couse with a reasonnable price or playing options, are kinda of screwded. And there's a lot of golf being played in that segment, or used to be.

[J13]

Agree with a lot of what was said, hence the reason I joined a private country club.

Benefits:
Never packed (3.5-4 hour round of 18 holes)
range balls are included
great conditions
friendly staff that bend over backwards.
Routinely play 6-7 holes after work.
Pool for my family
Great Tennis Courts
Oh and food is awesome.

Done Deal

[BFC]

Agree with a lot of what was said, hence the reason I joined a private country club.

 

Benefits:

Never packed (3.5-4 hour round of 18 holes)

range balls are included

great conditions

friendly staff that bend over backwards.

Routinely play 6-7 holes after work.

Pool for my family

Great Tennis Courts

Oh and food is awesome.

 

Done Deal

 

Yep, if I could I would. But it west LA, where I live, the local privates (Riveria, Brentwood, Bel air, LA CC.....) are a bit outside of my tax bracket!!

[destard]

I agree with alot being said. we have 2 municipals that have 2 courses each. One is greedy and the other is customer service driven. Needless to say alot of tournaments have switched to the non greedy course for their yearly tournaments. I like both, but tend to spend my money at the customer service driven course more than the other and vice versa as I have gotten to know the guys that work at both, so the customer service is there at both now. I still remember going to play a few holes late one Sunday or Monday around 6:15pm and still getting charged for a full 18 holes as they only do twilight fees Monday thru Friday and not on Holidays. I was like come on, It will be dark in about 2 hours. I got about 8 holes in. I beleive if courses have the twilight option available every day, it would bring in more. Now I would not offer a 9 hole pass during the morning or early afternoon because who is just going to play 9 holes at 9:00am? If I am at a golf course at 9:00am, I am playing 18 holes. If you want a shorter round, find a par 3 course and work on your short game. I can usually play a round of golf ( 18 holes ) in 3 hours and most of us on Gwrx can. Now with friends, I usually take them to the Par 3 and driving range alot before a big 18 hole course, because a 5 hour round is brutal!

[Billy79]

Accessibility:

You really can not control if a person is going to enjoy the game their first time out (beside bad customer service and other human created bad experiences). However, its the person who's first time is what gets them interested are the people you want to cater too. The biggest issue I face as a advanced beginner is learning the swing.

I've always wondered why most golf courses do not provide basic lessons with group instruction on weekend days for free or nominal fee such as buy a few bags of range balls. Most pro's cost upward of 50$ a half hour and its really not worth it unless you buy a set of lessons.

Further, course do not seem to engage in any type of practice to engage with new players. Most I've experienced are trying to get members or sell things. Which is understandable but doesn't do much for seeking out new players.

The people who gain an inkling of interest will come back but if they can not find a reasonable and cost effective way to improve they will soon lose interest.

[PingEye2]

[quote name='dlam' timestamp='1288461624' post='2766496']
Most sporting events I observe DO NOT take 5 hours to complete.
Pros and amateur golfers TAKE TOO MUCH TIME playing 18 hours.

Either get players to SPEED UP or cut the number of holes down.
There are still going be SLOW players but I dont want to be stuck playing or watching some play for 4-5 hours

2-3 hours is much more reasonable!!!
[/quote]

Seriously, 2 hours? I don't think very many players who have an honest desire to shoot the lowest score than can for that particular round can play it in 2 hours, especially as part of a threesome or foursome. Alone with an empty course maybe but I doubt it if scoring is the objective rather than speed.

[larrybud]

[quote name='dlam' timestamp='1288461624' post='2766496']
2-3 hours is much more reasonable!!!
[/quote]

You couldn't walk my course in 2 hours, let alone play it in 2 hours.

[larrybud]

The answer to the poll question is an unequivocal "no". The reason is that courses aren't designed to have the 12th or 15th hole finish at the clubhouse, and nobody is going to build a 12 hole golf course when 17,000 courses in the country already have 18.

Golf isn't any slower now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

[Skaffa77]

Does anyone have a 30 or 40 year trend to show the decline? I'd like to see the long term trend. Comparing to the mid-90's and early 2000's during "I am Tiger Woods" era...I would say we are seeing less, but I think we often see trends with too short of a focus.

[Stampa]

IMO the number of holes makes no difference. It all comes down to economics. The game is just too expensive for most people, and I don't think that trend will change any time soon.

[ibradley]

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1288470696' post='2766665']
The answer to the poll question is an unequivocal "no". The reason is that courses aren't designed to have the 12th or 15th hole finish at the clubhouse, and nobody is going to build a 12 hole golf course when 17,000 courses in the country already have 18.

Golf isn't any slower now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
[/quote]

I don't know if golf is any slower now than 20 years ago or not. The point is that societal norms have changed and as a result there is less free time for 5 hour rounds of golf.

As for the 17,000 courses in the country, many of which are struggling, to paraphrase Edwin Roald, if someone walked into your office, at your existing golf facility, and told you that almost overnight by reducing the number of holes you could possibly ...

a)reduce your maintenance costs significantly, which allows you to offer more competitive greenfees and annual fees,
b) shorten the playing time to approximately three hours plus,
c) increase the number of tee-time slots you could sell each day since the last tee-time of the day is pushed back,
d) get a much needed quick cash injection into your business,

Would you listen?

[OneBowTie]

Personally, I wish I could play 27/36 everytime I go out.

I have never made plans to play 9 holes, and doubt that I would work a schedule for only 9 holes of golf.

I don't like slow play, but I have seemed to find the right places to golf and still enjoy myself to the point, I can't wait till the next round.... Tomorrow hopefully.

[ibradley]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1288472505' post='2766713']
Personally, I wish I could play 27/36 everytime I go out.

I have never made plans to play 9 holes, and doubt that I would work a schedule for only 9 holes of golf.

I don't like slow play, but I have seemed to find the right places to golf and still enjoy myself to the point, I can't wait till the next round.... Tomorrow hopefully.
[/quote]

I wish I could play more than 18 each time out as well. Unfortunately, with a young family I can't. I agree 9 holes isn't enough. I think you would at least 12, with 15 maybe being optimal. The point is courses could be any number of holes. There is no reason to have a set amount. If the land supports 14 great holes, so be it.

[jaskanski]

I'm listening, but I can't believe what I'm hearing.
Why would anyone who want to join a golf course where they are immediately limited to the number of holes they can play? If increasing the number of tee time slots is your biggest concern, then how does that equate to a better experience? There's only a finite amount of golfers that can be accomodated on a course at any one time - if it's fewer holes then you have fewer paying guests. The end result of increased tee time slots is more of the same - congestion.
How would shorter or odd number of holes allow for matchplay or medal scoring? How would existing 18 hole complexes pick which holes to keep or discard?
If time constraints are really that important to the visitor or member, what's wrong with a quick 9-holes? Most if not all courses can accomodate this.
If you really want to save the future of golf, I suggest you start by preserving it's traditions. After all, it's what got the potential customer interested in the first place right?
Any more bright ideas?

[dbleag]

A friend of mine (golf course designer) started Prestwick 12 a few years ago.

Check it out: http://www.prestwick12golf.com/

It's a good alternative for everyone because of the flexibility.

[ibradley]

"...we should consider the possibility of making 12 holes a standard round. It might mean breaking up 18-hole facilities into three segments of six holes. Of course it would meet resistance, but eventually it would be
accepted because it would make sense in people's lives."

Jack Nicklaus, Golf Digest March 2007

I am not sure if 12 is the right number, though making existing 18 hole courses 3, 6 hole loops does seem to make some sense.

[ibradley]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1288473182' post='2766732']
I'm listening, but I can't believe what I'm hearing.
Why would anyone who want to join a golf course where they are immediately limited to the number of holes they can play? If increasing the number of tee time slots is your biggest concern, then how does that equate to a better experience? There's only a finite amount of golfers that can be accomodated on a course at any one time - if it's fewer holes then you have fewer paying guests. The end result of increased tee time slots is more of the same - congestion.
How would shorter or odd number of holes allow for matchplay or medal scoring? How would existing 18 hole complexes pick which holes to keep or discard?
If time constraints are really that important to the visitor or member, what's wrong with a quick 9-holes? Most if not all courses can accomodate this.
If you really want to save the future of golf, I suggest you start by preserving it's traditions. After all, it's what got the potential customer interested in the first place right?
Any more bright ideas?
[/quote]

The point is that people are not joining clubs. Private clubs all across the country are in trouble. For many public courses increasing the number of tee times isn't the biggest concern. Filling the tee times is. The benefit of having less than 18 holes might be that the smaller time commitment draws more people to the game.

What is wrong with a quick nine holes? I don't think it is enough most of the time. Also, it doesn't solve the problem.

You don't need 18 holes for match play or stroke play. Any number will do. The handicap system could be modified to reflect the number of holes a course has.

Existing courses can be as many holes as they want. Some may want to remain 18 holes. Course could determine how many holes they want to be based on what makes sense for them. If a widespread trend was sparked where a golf course can avoid being considered inferior for having "only" 13 or 15 holes, many clubs would consider eliminating maybe a handful of holes. Often, these are the holes that occupy land of lesser quality than the rest of the course, or is subject to recently encroaching developments that either detract from the experience of the player or compromize safety. These are often the weakest holes on the course, and can in some cases be the most expensive to maintain.

Traditions are great. However, sports change to stay healthy. The problem is the potential customer is not interested.

[bradski]

12 makes sense but I always see specials for 9 on golfnow.com so that is being done. IMO the game grew to big too fast and needs to be corrected a little like it has. When the economy rebounds then the golf industry will a bit. I personally want to keep playing after 18 but I understand people not having time. My big thing is speed of play. Some of us wont play certain places because of the pace of play.

[DaveLeeNC]

Just a couple of comments.

My Dad was a golfer and played his whole life on 9 hole muni's. To him golf was a 9 hole game. I'd talk to him on the phone and he would ask 'what did you shoot'. I'd say a 78 and he would say "but what were your scores?". So I would respond 40-38 and he would understand. He couldn't relate to a 78. I probably played for 3 years (as a kid) before ever playing on an 18 hole course. Now that I think about it I played my first 3 years of golf on sand greens - no grass greens at all in our area (at the public courses) until 1964 or so.

There is a 9 hole muni near my home town (Bonne Terre Golf Club) that is an interesting layout. It returns to the clubhouse every 3 holes (1st tee, 4th tee, and 7th tees are all within 75 yards of the clubhouse). I always thought of it as the perfect "old man's course" (back to the restrooms every 3 holes). But it certainly does offer interesting playability options.

I think that playing 14 holes here, 18 holes there, and 11 holes somewhere else will be unsatisfying (until/unless the golfing world all gets onto some form of handicap system). Is a 55 over 14 holes better than a 76 over 18 holes, etc? It is hardly rocket science, but it isn't the way people think right now.

dave

[Skaffa77]

[quote name='bradski' timestamp='1288478516' post='2766844']
12 makes sense but I always see specials for 9 on golfnow.com so that is being done. [b] IMO the game grew to big too fast and needs to be corrected a little like it has. When the economy rebounds then the golf industry will a bit.[/b] I personally want to keep playing after 18 but I understand people not having time. My big thing is speed of play. Some of us wont play certain places because of the pace of play.
[/quote]

I agree exactly with this statement. My opinion is that the popularity of golf exploded in the late 90's and early 2000's to numbers that weren't normal. Now we have too many golf course options for the normal golfing population and many new courses that were built with huge maintenance expenses with the expectation that they could charge premium rates and the masses would come. Also, you have a golf equipment industry that got used to selling equipment at record numbers that they can't meet those expectations any more. The problem is that that now we're facing a correction and people assume that the game is going to die off or requires some massive change to "save it".

By that logic, we should open up the option of 60 year mortgages so people can afford to buy houses that are realistically out of their price range to help a market that is facing a MASSIVE correction. Let's continue to make adjustments to support the artificially inflated market conditions that can't (and shouldn't be) sustained.

[i]*edit: grammar correction[/i]

[reflog74]

Let's just go to a simulator. Play a few holes, drink. Text message and check emails while you wait to hit. It's the best the modern world has to offer. That's the good news. It's also the bad.

Slow down. Enjoy the walk. You'll live longer.

John

[puttingmatt]

Actually, I believe golf courses charge green fees based
on their business model, and what the local economy will
support. . So, if you continue to play overpriced courses, why would
they change the price of green fees ? And slow play is the
reason for long rounds, Pick up the pace please !!!