Saving the future of golf

[mikpga]

I believe there is a strong market for [b]9 Hole Par 3's[/b] and [b]9 Hole Executive Courses[/b]...

I teach at Meadow Links & Golf Academy, and we have a Dr. Mike Hurdzan designed 9 hole Executive Course...

Rounds did not go down this year...

These type of courses offer a much more "gentler" exposure to the game which doesn't encourage "quick defeat" for some...

We have a lot of Junior, Women, Senior, and Handicap play at our facility...

We have plenty of leagues for Junior, Women, and Seniors...

I think these type of courses are great "breeding" ground for new golfers, but also great places for those who find "regulation" courses too long and difficult, or simply don't have enough time to play 18...

I think "shorter, 9 hole" courses are the answer...

[ibradley]

•Private-club memberships stand at 2.1 million — 900,000 below the peak of 3 million in the early 1990s. (There are 27.1 million golfers in the U.S. now, down from 30 million in 2005, the NGF says.)

•The number of golfers fell about 3% nationally in 2008 from 2007, while the number of "core golfers" — those who play eight or more rounds a year — fell 4.5%, according to the National Golf Foundation (NGF).


Consequently, as many as 15% of the roughly 4,400 private clubs nationwide reported serious financial challenges, and at least 500 are scrambling to raise their cash flow, according to a recent survey by the NGF.

Private clubs lost an estimated 5% to 15% of their members last year, costing clubs, on average, $187,000 in annual dues, says Jim Koppenhaver, president of golf-consulting firm Pellucid.

[Sean2]

It's not just that, it's our culture's expectations of instant gratification. Golf is HARD. And, it's not made any easier by long and difficult courses. The average male golfer's drive is around 200 yards. How many birdies do you think he makes a season playing 420 yard par 4's? How frustrating must that be? Why play a game that is so frustrating...and takes so long...and is expensive?

IMHO it's not so much the time and money...it's the frustration.

[2bGood]

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?

 

There was more people in the US that were 25-44 in 1990 then there are now. I think you would find the percentage of the population 25-44 golfing is not too far off from 1990 to now. The start of the echo boomers just reached 25 so you will see a natural increase in golfers even if golf does not change anything.

 

The other things that would be interesting to know is the average number of rounds per golfer.

[choptalk]

One positive to a 12 hole course. I could finally break 80

[swbyps]

My thoughts...
Kids dont think golf is cool. The overwhelming majority of kids who play were introduced to the game by a parent. Unlike other sports, you cant just go outside and play golf. You have to have access. The parents have to be in a situation financially to provide all the other necessities and pay green fees. This same situation is what has attributed to the disinterest for baseball in a lot of communities. When was the last time you saw a sandlot where a bunch of neighborhood kids were playing baseball? Thats how a lot of us grew up learning and playing the game as kids. Now you have to be on these year round tournament teams that travel all over the place and cost money and time. For parents, life is so much busier these days. More homes where both parents work. Unless you are blessed enough to have immediate access to a course and the financial means to put a kid through lessons its just a tough proposition. Not to say that its impossible by any means, but it is more than most families can do or are willing to do. Even in families where a parent is an avid golfer.

[choptalk]

Problem is golf is poorly marketed. Its a shame the PGA did not take advantage of Tiger Woods. It was a golden chance to bring golf to a whole new level and they blew it.



Wait till Tiger retires or never regains his star status, it will really tank then.


Golf needs to get rid of its elitist attitude if they want to appeal to the masses.

I mean should it really be required to wear a collared shirt to play a sporting event? I mean come on.

It does not matter if you have 1 hole, or 100 holes. The main issues run much deeper then how long a round takes.

But with all that said, in the grand scheme of things golf has never been for everyone. Golf has never had mass popularity, its always been a nitche sport loved by a very small but passionate group of people who generally make more money then the average person. It has always been that way except for a real brief window of about 10 to 15 years in the late 90's to early 2000's.

This decline you are reading about is nothing more then the Tiger Woods crowd of the late 90's early 2000's that has moved on to other things. Combine that with the economy, which even squeezes the normal crowd that alwys has and always will be golfs bread and butter. The affluent and well off people.

The problem is when the Tiger Woods crowd came along that caused a golf course boom to cater to this new crowd, and now there are more courses then we need.

I know in my town the number of courses within 20 miles of my has has doubled in the last 15 years.

Whats going to end up happening is a lot of these courses are going to have to contract and shutdown back to its old levels pre-Tiger, then everything will be back to the way it was 20 years ago

[umaynome]

Tiger Woods is irrelevant to the golf business. That is a myth. He has had no effect on either the number of golfers or the equipment business. The only "Tiger effect" is more money for pros, the media and Tiger Woods. He has not contributed a tangible benefit to the game of golf.

[mikpga]

[quote name='umaynome' timestamp='1288491543' post='2767128']
Tiger Woods is irrelevant to the golf business. That is a myth. He has had no effect on either the number of golfers or the equipment business. The only "Tiger effect" is more money for pros, the media and Tiger Woods. He has not contributed a tangible benefit to the game of golf.
[/quote]

Disagree completely...

[swbyps]

[quote name='choptalk' timestamp='1288490101' post='2767097']
Problem is golf is poorly marketed. Its a shame the PGA did not take advantage of Tiger Woods. It was a golden chance to bring golf to a whole new level and they blew it.

Wait till Tiger retires or never regains his star status, it will really tank then.

Golf needs to get rid of its elitist attitude if they want to appeal to the masses.

I mean should it really be required to wear a collared shirt to play a sporting event? I mean come on.

It does not matter if you have 1 hole, or 100 holes. The main issues run much deeper then how long a round takes.

But with all that said, in the grand scheme of things golf has never been for everyone. Golf has never had mass popularity, its always been a nitche sport loved by a very small but passionate group of people who generally make more money then the average person. It has always been that way except for a real brief window of about 10 to 15 years in the late 90's to early 2000's.

This decline you are reading about is nothing more then the Tiger Woods crowd of the late 90's early 2000's that has moved on to other things. Combine that with the economy, which even squeezes the normal crowd that alwys has and always will be golfs bread and butter. The affluent and well off people.

The problem is when the Tiger Woods crowd came along that caused a golf course boom to cater to this new crowd, and now there are more courses then we need.

I know in my town the number of courses within 20 miles of my has has doubled in the last 15 years.

Whats going to end up happening is a lot of these courses are going to have to contract and shutdown back to its old levels pre-Tiger, then everything will be back to the way it was 20 years ago

[/quote]

^^This is a good post

[quote name='umaynome' timestamp='1288491543' post='2767128']
Tiger Woods is irrelevant to the golf business. That is a myth. He has had no effect on either the number of golfers or the equipment business. The only "Tiger effect" is more money for pros, the media and Tiger Woods. He has not contributed a tangible benefit to the game of golf.
[/quote]

^^This just simply is not true. You see all these young up and coming tour players, ask them who they idolized growing up...Tiger Woods. You see all this sporty cool golf gear we all wear now. Nobody was wearing anything cool in golf until Tiger Woods and Nike made golf attire cool. Look at the First Tee program...coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) it started right at the onset of Tigers career on tour. These are just a couple examples.

[BogeyDog11]

[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]


True.....but the people filling the courses are much less respectful!

[umaynome]

If you claim that Tiger Woods has such an effect on the golf business, please show us the numbers that substantiate it, and not just your feelings. There is not a ripple in the industry numbers and trends for the last 20 years. He's been around for 11 years, now. Show me the money.

[swbyps]

[quote name='umaynome' timestamp='1288493096' post='2767166']
If you claim that Tiger Woods has such an effect on the golf business, please show us the numbers that substantiate it, and not just your feelings. There is not a ripple in the industry numbers and trends for the last 20 years. He's been around for 11 years, now. Show me the money.
[/quote]

Show us some numbers that that substantiate that the presence of Tiger has not had an effect on the business of golf. Show us some numbers that prove that the presence of Tiger did not influence the decision to start the First Tee program or the success of it because kids wanted to be like Tiger. Show us some numbers that prove the presence of Tiger and Nike did not influence the trends in golf clothing. All these things contribute to the overall business of golf and it is my opinion, and probably that of most, that the presence of Tiger has contributed to that. And...unless you are privy to all the detailed information about these things, then you too are just giving us your feelings.

[umaynome]

[url=http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1977517,00.html?cid=feed-tours_news--1977517]Link >>[/url]

[Skaffa77]

Good link...but again, let's look at the annual trends over a long period of time and then annually to really judge the impact. The article has comparison periods that I don't believe would really help to gauge the impact. I would suggest looking at periods prior to Tiger Woods 70's, 80's and early 90's and then annually during this prime.

According to some stats in this thread...the # of American golfers was approx. 30 million in 2005. A 4 million increase in the population of golfers from 1997 to 2005...is that a normal increase in the population of golfers during a 8 year period of time? I would doubt it, but I don't have any data to support my assumption. Personally, that sounds like an abnormal growth in the population of golfers and I think it would be foolish to think there isn't some relationship with his rise and domination of the sport?

Also, the stat is comparing annual sales in 1997 and 2009. I don't think most of your recreational golfers were thinking of purchasing new equipment when they were trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage and keep their jobs in 09. I would think you could compare the sales of quite a few retail items (especially luxury) and see a similar trend. Again...we'd need to see the annual figures from other eras and see the growth and shifts.

[Grapehunter]

I have a golf course close to me that has three set of 9 hole courses. When you pay for a full 18 holes you can mix n match any combination of the three 9 holers you'd like. I think this is a great idea as it keeps it new and interesting to the locals that play often and still challenging for travelers.

Cheaper monthly rates is another great way to get people to come in and play their course. I'm seeing more and more of this as well.

...and finally but not least, the dreaded 6 hour round. Now there is no absolute solution to this problem but it is my opinion that there are 3 major factors contributing to this problem.

1) Time looking for lost balls
2) Seniors
3) Women

Lost balls: Every course should have a strict time allotted to looking for balls that need to be enforced by marshals. I honestly don't see marshals doing much of anything on the course anymore other than waving hi to frequent players and driving around on their golf carts.

Seniors: Every course should have senior tee's and anyone over 55 years of age should be forced to play from them unless they have an established handicap. Doesn't matter what the handicap is but if someone takes the time money and effort to establish a handicap they most likely understand the issues with slow play and will do their best to hurry things along.

Women: Every course should have womens tees... about 50 yards from every green. Okay maybe not that close but in all seriousness they need to move the womens tees waaaaaaaaaaay the hell up the course. Most women (and I say MOST) take 5-8 shots to reach a par 4 green. Women should be forced to play from these tees unless they too have an established handicap.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='ibradley' timestamp='1288472772' post='2766722']
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.
[/quote]

Are you Ross Perot? :)

Seems like years ago at EDS they removed a few holes from the golf course on their original campus...to make room for buildings, houses, or something to that effect.

No one wanted to play there any more. Okay, maybe nobody played there before the change.

[ZBigStick]

[quote name='ibradley' timestamp='1288477590' post='2766822']
"...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.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[u]Have[/u] to have 18, but parsing them will increase possibilities for weather and daylight constraints.

[doof_dizzler]

I won't miss the hooligans and yelling and poor manners that leave the game and go back to watching WWE when Woods goes away. I personally wish golf was a LOT more "country club". It's partly getting away from the jackholes who are Woods natural fanbase that I love about going to the course.

[Newby]

I don't know if it is significant but the USGA makes provision for reurning 9 hole scores as a matter of course.
In addition the in UK and Ireland (where handicaps are based on tournament play) they have introduced 9 hole handicap qualifying competitions as a recognition that many people simply don't kave enough time to play 18 holes after finishing work.

[umaynome]

The future of golf is tied to the economy. That has a far greater effect than any one person. Building too many (or too extravagant) courses is something that developers always do during bubbles. Courses will change their business model just before, or just after, they go bankrupt.

To say that golf needs to be "saved" sounds like sensationalism.

[morganmonroe]

If you want to speed up play, put the pin in the middle of the green once in a while. Geez, some of the pin locations I see double the amount of time it takes to play the hole. It's ridiculous.

[mikpga]

[quote name='Grapehunter' timestamp='1288499217' post='2767291']
I have a golf course close to me that has three set of 9 hole courses. When you pay for a full 18 holes you can mix n match any combination of the three 9 holers you'd like. I think this is a great idea as it keeps it new and interesting to the locals that play often and still challenging for travelers.

Cheaper monthly rates is another great way to get people to come in and play their course. I'm seeing more and more of this as well.

...and finally but not least, the dreaded 6 hour round. Now there is no absolute solution to this problem but it is my opinion that there are 3 major factors contributing to this problem.

1) Time looking for lost balls
[b]2) Seniors
3) Women

[/b]Lost balls: Every course should have a strict time allotted to looking for balls that need to be enforced by marshals. I honestly don't see marshals doing much of anything on the course anymore other than waving hi to frequent players and driving around on their golf carts.

Seniors: Every course should have senior tee's and anyone over 55 years of age should be forced to play from them unless they have an established handicap. Doesn't matter what the handicap is but if someone takes the time money and effort to establish a handicap they most likely understand the issues with slow play and will do their best to hurry things along.

Women: Every course should have womens tees... about 50 yards from every green. Okay maybe not that close but in all seriousness they need to move the womens tees waaaaaaaaaaay the hell up the course. Most women (and I say MOST) take 5-8 shots to reach a par 4 green. Women should be forced to play from these tees unless they too have an established handicap.
[/quote]

Disagree with your opinions about women and seniors...

Slow play occurs from "uneducated" golfers who don't understand the concept of "pace of play"...

They haven't been taught...

There are those who play slow, there are those who play super fast, and there are those who play in between...

[Grapehunter]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1288547067' post='2767708']
[quote name='Grapehunter' timestamp='1288499217' post='2767291']
I have a golf course close to me that has three set of 9 hole courses. When you pay for a full 18 holes you can mix n match any combination of the three 9 holers you'd like. I think this is a great idea as it keeps it new and interesting to the locals that play often and still challenging for travelers.

Cheaper monthly rates is another great way to get people to come in and play their course. I'm seeing more and more of this as well.

...and finally but not least, the dreaded 6 hour round. Now there is no absolute solution to this problem but it is my opinion that there are 3 major factors contributing to this problem.

1) Time looking for lost balls
[b]2) Seniors
3) Women

[/b]Lost balls: Every course should have a strict time allotted to looking for balls that need to be enforced by marshals. I honestly don't see marshals doing much of anything on the course anymore other than waving hi to frequent players and driving around on their golf carts.

Seniors: Every course should have senior tee's and anyone over 55 years of age should be forced to play from them unless they have an established handicap. Doesn't matter what the handicap is but if someone takes the time money and effort to establish a handicap they most likely understand the issues with slow play and will do their best to hurry things along.

Women: Every course should have womens tees... about 50 yards from every green. Okay maybe not that close but in all seriousness they need to move the womens tees waaaaaaaaaaay the hell up the course. Most women (and I say MOST) take 5-8 shots to reach a par 4 green. Women should be forced to play from these tees unless they too have an established handicap.
[/quote]

Disagree with your opinions about women and seniors...

Slow play occurs from "uneducated" golfers who don't understand the concept of "pace of play"...

They haven't been taught...

There are those who play slow, there are those who play super fast, and there are those who play in between...
[/quote]



All three of my reasons have to do with uneducated golfers. As I stated, senior and women would be fine to play from any tee box they like if they have an established handicap. By having said handicap, they are most likely more educated than the average weekend golfer and will know better than to slow play down BUT take the average senior, woman, or Joe and if all three are not "educated" then seniors and women are likely to play much slower. Just my observations, not making any absolute statements about all seniors and women.

[mikpga]

Which tee box one plays should be determined by their handicap, not their sex or age...

[jwfgolfpro]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1288491791' post='2767134']
[quote name='umaynome' timestamp='1288491543' post='2767128']
Tiger Woods is irrelevant to the golf business. That is a myth. He has had no effect on either the number of golfers or the equipment business. The only "Tiger effect" is more money for pros, the media and Tiger Woods. He has not contributed a tangible benefit to the game of golf.
[/quote]

Disagree completely...
[/quote]

Totally agree with you. Golf will never be where it was back in 1990-2000. We have had a steady decline in rounds played the last 10 years at my course. We backed our rates back down to where we were in 2007 and very rarely do we get the rack rate.

JWF

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1288551051' post='2767772']
Which tee box one plays should be determined by their handicap, not their sex or age...
[/quote]

IMHO, it is a combination of your index and how far you hit the ball.

I play with some bogey golfers who hit the ball far enough to play a par 72 at 6300 to 6800 yards. And I play with a couple of bogey golfers who are very consistent, have good short games, and hit driver on 175 yard par 3's (typically older guys). They don't slow things down on longer courses, but IMHO 'should' be playing shorter courses.

dave

[grabthepin]

What are people doing with their lives if they can't justify a full 18 hole round of golf once a week? Get rid of frickin' carts, have a nice 6 mile walk in one of the few preserved fresh air, quiet zones left in the city--surely your health and hobby deserve this much time.

Golf doesn't have to be expensive. We just make it that way because we gotta hit balls at the range, get lessons, update equipment, wear overpriced golf attire, buy GPSs, use ProV1s, hire carts and seek out high rate superficial manicured courses.

We just spend longer in the office to get more money to do things we're left with no time to do...

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1288551051' post='2767772']
Which tee box one plays should be determined by their handicap, not their sex or age...
[/quote]


[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1288551767' post='2767785']
[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1288551051' post='2767772']
Which tee box one plays should be determined by their handicap, not their sex or age...
[/quote]

IMHO, it is a combination of your index and how far you hit the ball.

I play with some bogey golfers who hit the ball far enough to play a par 72 at 6300 to 6800 yards. And I play with a couple of bogey golfers who are very consistent, have good short games, and hit driver on 175 yard par 4's (typically older guys). They don't slow things down on longer courses, but IMHO 'should' be playing shorter courses.

dave
[/quote]


I agree with Dave......

I myself play with a diverse group....... sometimes I play with seniors (50 to 80 years old) ....... many of these guys have tons of fun and are competitive within the group playing from forward tee's, some of them would have fun and be competitive from further back, but for the most part, the majority of this group would be miserable and have no fun having to come into EVERY green with woods. The funny thing is, the long hitters do not dominate in this group.....they don't or won't use driver on many of the holes, because it would be the wrong club for them to hit, so things have a way of working out.

A person getting up there in age..... or a person who has physical limitations due to all the common joint and other limiting ailments, should still be able to feel the joys and competitiveness golf offers.

I think distance can be overrated in the case of amateur golf.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1288554978' post='2767852']
What are people doing with their lives if they can't justify a full 18 hole round of golf once a week? Get rid of frickin' carts, have a nice 6 mile walk in one of the few preserved fresh air, quiet zones left in the city--surely your health and hobby deserve this much time.

Golf doesn't have to be expensive. We just make it that way because we gotta hit balls at the range, get lessons, update equipment, wear overpriced golf attire, buy GPSs, use ProV1s, hire carts and seek out high rate superficial manicured courses.

We just spend longer in the office to get more money to do things we're left with no time to do...
[/quote]

That is VERY true. A golfer could buy a high caliber set of used clubs for under $300 total on ebay (would last for years and you would lose little over a new set costing well over $1K). Very playable golf balls (even high end balls used) are available for $1/ball or less. You don't need GPS or a rangefinder and MANY/MANY (but not all) areas have courses at $20/round or less. And search out a park or somewhere where you can at least hit some full SW shots as practice.

As jontyc says, golf is not expensive unless we make it so.

dave