Golf Losing Appeal

By Bill Dwyre, LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-20110531,0,4599888.column

Some interesting points.  I think the throwing it out of the bunker idea is a bit extreme.  But I like the idea of making courses more accessible to the mid-higher capper.

I hate when guys play from the blues but clearly shouldn't.  Has it become a macho thing?

He makes some interesting points. Golf is too expensive and time consuming and the over-building in the last twenty years of "championship" courses make the game too hard for the average guy or gal who gets out once/month (playing the wrong tees doesn't help.)

It's good to see people finally recognizing the problem but it's certainly not a new one.

Alan

I'm not a fan of making the game easier. I prefer lower costs and not being pressured by groups coming up behind you.

Most sports are difficult and time consuming.  I don't see the problem being with the course owners, manufacturers or cart girls, it's the individuals playing.  If you're a 25+ handicap (like me) you have no business playing from the tips.  It's your responsibility to play from the proper tee box, which means sometimes not teeing off with your buddies because they are all better golfers than you are.  It's also your responsibility to understand the rules of golf, pace of play, ready golf, etc.

Part of what attracted me to golf is it's not an easy game, most people just can't grab a club and hit one perfect shot after the next, heck even the pro's put their shots in the woods sometimes.  I don't see the need for 12 hole golf, doubling the size of the hole, creating shorter courses or allowing you to throw a ball out of the bunkers.  There are executive courses, but the high handicappers dont want to really play them, they want to play Bethpage Black.

I don't believe making major changes to the sport will attract more people, because what makes golf different from most sports is it's the same game the pro's play and the same locations.   If yuo can't convince high handicappers to hit from the senior or ladies tees how are you going to get them to use a 6" cup.  I take my kids bowling a lot and no matter how bad bowlers are, very few ask the attendant to put the bumpers down.

I'm not sure I agree with 6" holes, but there are definitely a lot of courses built in the last 20 years that are not conducive to playing quickly. A lot of it has to do with lost balls (and ball hawks), distractions (beer cart, lunch at the turn), walking like zombies to your ball, not being ready or aware, watching too much golf on TV and thinking the way pros weigh their options on every shot is necessary for hackers like us, looking at putts from every conceivable angle, and so on. Some people are just naturally slow though, and there should be a way to get them around quicker without making them pick up and skip holes. It's a debate that will never end since it's been going on for > 100 years.

I heard about the AGA.  They made a somewhat big splash in Florida at the PGA.

For me it's not a question about bad golfers playing better or loosening of rules but correct me if I am wrong aren't there quite a few bits of equipment out there that improve your game or allow you to hit the ball straighter and farther?  Why not loosen the rules to allow that equipment?  Also we are talking about a major investment of time here at least in California where rounds average 4-6 hours.  I am married and father of 3 kids.  Time is a premium.  I can't spend that much time playing golf so I have found courses nearby -- executive ones -- that allow me to not only satisfy my golf fix but finish in under 3 hours or in some cases 1 hour.

I mean apart following the rules by rote during tournaments folks constantly give each others mulligans, gimmes and the like.  It's not part of the rules but obviously we look the other way.  By definition if you follow the rules of golf you literally put out each hole -- no gimmes.  For me it's all about the investment in time.  The question is do you want to spend all that time being frustrated or get through it like a Lakers basketball game in under 3 hours?  LOL

OH yeah I have dealt with the USGA in the past and their whole contention is not about promoting golf.  It's about maintaining the traditions and rules of golf.  In other words it's counter intuitive towards "growing" the sport.  You want folks that desire improving the game but then the traditionalists hold everything back.  I suppose I am mixed but obviously for me it's all about how much time you spend during a round.  I mean sometimes it can be like going to work.

Errrr....sounds like fun.....

The best part of golf is that it is challenging.....

In my experience, the pace of play isn't as much affected by tees that someone plays as by how they approach each hole.  They take too much time on the tee box...4-5 practice swings..not being ready when its their turn to tee off...they get to their next shot and have to survey everything, consider three different kinds of shots, take a few swings, then hit again..get on the green and view their putt from all angles, and worst of all MARK 6 INCH PUTTS!  Just finish them out already.  They know the course is busy and they hit a ball a mile into tall grass yet they still spend 10 minutes looking 10-15 yards in thinking they are gonna find their ball.  Those are the kinds of things that slow play down.  My group was waiting at a tee box well before the group ahead teed off (par 3) and so we saw them all hit.  One guy has the nerve to drop another ball and tee off again even though his ball was safe by the green!

All I can say is thank God I live in a place where courses understand the real value of their complexes and don't overcharge and also that the majority of people playing are friendly and understand how public courses work.

I worry about the future of golf in this country.   Not that it is going to go away completely or anything like that, but I worry that as an industry it has driven itself in directions from which I'm not sure it can really recover and stabilize.     The tactics mentioned in the article such as using a larger cup or tossing out of the bunker seem like little band aids on a hemorrhaging artery.   As BigAl mentions above, a core issue is the overbuilding with championship courses, and another I feel is the unhealthy infatuation with length.

I really don't blame developers for the overbuilding of upscale courses, as it seems to me that there were larger economic and environmental factors at play that caused this.    If I look back when I was learning the game as a kid, there were usually a few local muni courses to learn on, and they were very kid and family friendly - they really served as the cornerstone for bringing people into the game.   For those more well-heeled, there might be a few upscale courses in an area or a country club, but by far the largest number of courses were very affordable courses run by the local municipality.

Looking at the courses today, there are pretty much the same muni operations still in existence but the expansion in courses to accommodate the expansion in population has all been in more upscale courses, frequently wrapped into a housing development.    The housing developments were competing with each other for buyers, contributing to an almost "must have" situation where famous designers became the selling point, creating a world of not-very-easy courses that are not kid friendly.     Resort developers were also caught in this spiral, requiring nicer and nicer designer courses for their own competitive environment.

At the same time as all of this, our regulatory and permit processes have become almost draconian towards building new courses.    Quite simply, a new golf course developer cannot recover the upfront planning and approval process costs with a simple inexpensive course anymore.    The time frame to secure the necessary environmental approvals requires a developer to tie up capital in the land for many years, and the costs needed for environmental remediation have grown tremendously.   The prospective course owner can never recover the multiple millions of dollars in up front costs with a $20/round entry level course.     A perfect example is right out my office window - The Crossings golf course in Carlsbad.    This course took 18 years in planning and approval and over $40M to develop, and this is a municipal course and not some upscale resort property.    It seems sort of ironic, but no one can afford to build a cheap golf course anymore - sort of like the old Mark Twain quote saying "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one".

Meanwhile, the existing municipal courses are largely operated by city or local governments that have seen significant impacts to their budgets, and they are not able to keep pace with the improvements needed to keep their properties fresh and enticing.    So the muni courses get a little worse as time and less inviting as time as gone on, and the new courses are pushed upscale in costs simply to cover the basic upfront cost of building a basic course.     So instead of a situation where the number of golf courses increased with a ratio of inexpensive approachable courses to upscale courses matching the population growth and economic demographics, we have a situation where there is a bifurcation of course types that does not line up with the demographics at all - there are not enough inexpensive courses and too many expensive courses.   The result is that new people to the game are disenfranchised by overcrowded cheaper courses which aren't welcoming, and we have uncrowded and money-losing upscale courses, many of which will end up reverting to their natural land state.

In parallel with these changing conditions of golf course economics, we have seen significant changes in the marketing of golf equipment, and probably the biggest change has been that "length" is marketed as never before.    Throughout the modern history of the game, increased length has always been desirable but it seems that players from only a decade or two ago (and earlier) looked at increased length as only a small part of their attractiveness to new equipment.      I would characterize golf club marketing over the last three or four decades as falling into the following phases:  a "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" phase where the top players in the game marketed their name on the equipment (Hogan, Nicklaus, etc.); a "Forgiveness" phase where the introduction of perimeter weighting and focus on the moment of inertia was the primary selling point; and now the "Grip it and Rip it" phase, where length seems the primary marketing message.

In those above phases, the Forgiveness phase helped contribute to the growth of the game, allowing players of lesser ability to perform better on the course in the area that primarily mattered on courses of the time - keep it in play.   As exemplified by Ping, this phase sort of took the Tour player's name off the clubs and, drawing on the country's interest in expanding science (as fueled by the space program, introduction of personal computers, etc.) created a change in marketing to focus on how the club could make you score better through science instead of who's name was on it.    Unfortunately, once design limits were closely reached there was little incremental scientific improvement left, so the engineering talents then turned more towards how to make it longer, and thus was born the "grip it and rip it" phase.    With high MOI to give forgiveness and the introduction of new materials and manufacturing techniques, the club designers could now open up a whole new dimension for the game - hit it deep.

And with this technical capability game a completely different type of marketing focus for equipment.   In many ways, the marketing messages of the past were pure and simple, and these also fit well into the psyche of those taking up the game.   It wasn't intimidating for a beginner to buy a set of clubs - they could show their player allegiance by playing what their hero played, or use a little technology to make the game a little easier.   They could go into a store and find a small selection of clubs that could meet either desire, pay a little money, and they were now a golfer.

But the infatuation with length has opened up new dimensions of competition between manufacturers, creating niches for new companies and obsessions for existing ones.    Consider what the poor beginning golfer is faced with now.    He or she goes into the store and is assaulted with dozens of different manufacturer choices, and each manufacturer has multiple different product lines each targeted toward some specific player attribute.   Steel or graphite, forged or cast, light or heavy.    Dozens of shaft choices.   Launch monitors.  A few dozen ball options.    And internet sites like this one, full of "useful" advice.      And the poor player will also know that as soon as they walk out the door with their new equipment it will probably be obsolete as some new product being touted as even longer will be released the next day.    But the new player believes that length is so important to the game that they feel they must be drawn into this if they really want to become a golfer, because "hit it longer" is the mantra on every club makers advertisement and in every golf publication.

So the industry has now reached a breaking point.   It has intimidated new players who may want to take up the game, frightening them with a dizzy array of equipment choices and punishing them with a miserable golf experience on an over-crowded poorly kept muni or sucking their wallet dry at an upscale course which is anything but beginner friendly.    This breaking point will not destroy golf, but it will likely induce a large correction factor.     Many courses will go bust, sadly leaving development homeowners with a weed-filled canyon out their back window instead of that prestigious course that enticed them to move there.   The decline in golfers will limit the market for new equipment, likely driving out many smaller companies and forcing the large ones to contract their operations significantly (and also sadly seek to further minimize their costs by further offshoring).

Eventually, it will again reach a healthy equilibrium point, kind of like it was 30 years ago.    And then the cycle will start again.....

TBH, most of the states has it good......Alberta prices are a f****g rip off.

I am sure sean miller can attest to this

Almost everything you mentioned is the golfers fault, not the course owner, cart girl or manufacturers.  Maybe golf should licensed and as part of licensing you would be required to attend a class that explains the basic rules of golf, proper etiquette, and playing ready golf.

I just don't see dumbed down courses attracting many people, and they won't stop someone who spends 10 minutes looking for his shiny $4 Pro V1, drinking beer, eating lunch, walking like zombies and weighing every shot like a pro from going to any course they want.  I was amazed at how many horrible golfers (worse than me, and I was there for a party that overlooked the 18th hole, not to play golf)  there were on Bethpage Black and there's a huge sign (see avatar) that warns you it's a tough course for highly skilled golfers.  As I say at work sometimes, "you can't fix stupid."

But that's the crux of it, isn't it?

Unlike bowling, where a crappy bowler doesn't affect the pace of play of the scratch bowler two lanes over - golf is played on a 'two-lane' road.  There's no passing, unless there is a safe opportunity, and (in addition) the lead car (group) actually has to 'let you' pass by.  In comparison, bowling is played on an 18 or 20+ lane highway.  What is happening in the far right lane, has no bearing on the other 20+ lanes.

Golf is played on a narrow conduit.  If the individual feels, by virtue of paying his greens fee, he has a 'right' to play from the tips, by God he's going to do so.  The fact it causes the 34 groups behind him (17 more holes times 2 groups per hole, roughly) to endure a 6 hour round?  Too f-ing bad.  You can see it in the attitudes displayed right here in this forum.  Lot's of folks find it astounding that some of us think a 4 to 4.5 hour round for 18 holes exceeds the limits of a reasonable pace of play.

So the lowest common denominator wins, and 90 million people give up the game because they have virtually no opportunity to move past the little old gray-hair doing 35 mph in a 55 mph 2-lane zone.

Yeah, what I meant was even though there are some new courses that have bottlenecks built right in, slow play is by and large the fault of the players. There have always been slow players, but now we're trying find ways to accommodate them rather than identifying them and steering them in the right direction. Weird.

@kieran - my season's pass is at a small course and it was $1200. Not too bad in 2011 dollars.

Pace of play would help, but clubs try and make more money by jamming tee times like 3-5 minutes apart....then you get log jammed by one slow group 5 holes ahead

And I am all for people walking, but TBH, if there are a foursome of 70+ plus golfers walking, pace of play goes out the window.

Maybe start charging per half hour of golf. This will get people moving.

Great post, no question golf is on the decline, but I don't know that it's because of large upscale golf course, hardcore marketing techniques by manufacturers who offer too many choices to new players, or even that it takes too long, I think most of the problems golf is facing today is due to the downfall of the economy and Tiger Woods, at least in the United States.

Golf has long been considered a gentlemans game, and most tend to associate it with wealth as well.  10- 15 years ago, developers built communities of large houses on fancy golf courses because that's what their target market wanted.  Unfortuntely these people that bought the houses couldn't see there was a huge recession combined with a housing market crash on the horizon.  Without recapping the ugly series of events, these communities are now loaded with vacant homes, auction homes, home owners stuck with upside down mortgages and no one cares about the golf course on it anymore nor want an increase in home owner fees to keep it running.   Golf is a luxery item, it costs money for clubs, shoes, green fees, cart rental, and time.  With so many people in this country either unemployed or having accepted a job well below their previous salary the average person can't justify $50 - $100 on a round of golf when they barely can afford to pay their bills.

Tiger was golfs link to the average person.  He was everywhere, selling soda, shoes, cars, phones, oh and golf equipment.   He was the Michael Jordan of golf, and made people that never watched golf before pay attention to the sport and want to be like Tiger.  Without Tiger, you don't see golf on the new teasers during prime time anymore, nor has golf found its way onto the covers of non-golf magazines or back pages of newspapers like you used to.  Golf reached a pinnacle of interest during the Tiger years, and he combined with a healthy economy and housing market made everyone think it would last forever and it didn't.  Just like the market is cyclical and automatically adjusts, the golf industry will have to as well.

As for the obsession with distance, I agree it's insane.  I must be the only guy that's tried a new driver and didn't hit it an inch further than my current driver cause everyone else tells me they gain 10 yards everytime they switch.  I figure the average driving distance in 10 years at the current rate will be at least 400 yards.  It's like 0-60 times on sports cars or wattage on audio equipment, all hype. Eventually everyone will figure out it's bogus and the marketing geniuses will find a new way for us to part with our hard earned cash.

Good points, which again maybe that's where permits or licensing needs to come into play.  Education, and enforcement are better alternative than 6" holes and throwing the ball out of the sand trap.  Technology may some day eliminate searching for lost balls, but until RFID is feasible, golf courses that were worried about pace of play and time lost searching for balls could assign caddies to each group.  It would add to their overhead, but how many more golfers could they service if they had someone guiding them and didn't have people spending 10 min plus looking for balls on every hole?