Will smaller courses save golf?

[glebert]

Just something that has been rattling around in my head lately. There seems to be some trends in golf that seem unsustainable. Greens fees making golf unaffordable, 5+ hour rounds being way too common, and the environmental impact of maintaining courses (water, chemicals, fuel, etc.). There are may be more.

My favorite course to play, though, makes me think there is a different way, you may have similar gems. This one in particular is only 9 holes, 2500ish yards, but it isn't easy. I don't know anyone who scores any better on it than on a bigger courses. The first two holes are 240ish yard par 4s, but doglegs with undriveable greens, 100 foot trees in the fairways, and a creek on one that eats golf balls by the dozen. Most of the fairways are maybe 25 yards wide. Lots of trees. It is much more target golf than bomb and gouge.

So here's the real upside. 9 holes are $8 during the week, 2 hours is a really slow round, and with it's smaller size it would have a much smaller footprint for water, fuel, and chemicals (I measured on Google Earth and the whole course takes up maybe 50 acres of land).

Doesn't this sort of course make more sense than one with 600 yard holes where you pay $100 to wait while you watch the group ahead of you top their tee shots short of the white tees?

greg

[Ceej]

I don't think golf really needs saved, but the smaller, cheaper courses are helping golf stay on the map

[tm22721]

I don't think golf really needs saved, but the smaller, cheaper courses are helping golf stay on the map

I would like to see more unproductive farmland converted to small links type courses that are less manicured so less expensive. Get rid of the clubhouse and the carts too. An aging population needs more exercise to curb out-of -control health costs.

[MunkeyGolfer]

By my small course here keeping their green fees affordable, I can afford to travel a few times a month to the more expensive places to play. Now if gas keeps spiraling up then I may not go any further than my electric golf cart can drive me.

[clemsontiger]

That type of small course is good for target golf. That is really good for training yourself to play you way around the course and have a strategy. I would like to have one of those around to do some practicing, but I still like the really long courses. The longer clubs are the one that usually get you in the most trouble. I like playing long courses to test my ability to control the long shots and navigate my way around the course.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Doesn't this sort of course make more sense than one with 600 yard holes where you pay $100 to wait while you watch the group ahead of you top their tee shots short of the white tees?

To me, no it doesn't make more sense to me:

(1) I've lived in areas where that type of course was available; I've played them and generally they are too easy (yes, a course CAN be too easy for a guy with a 13.0 index) and I much prefer an 18-hole round to a 9-hole round. (2) I rarely pay more than $50 or $60 for an 18-hole round and am not sure I've EVER payed $100 or more (although in some golf trip packages it's pretty hard to figure out how much is for greens fees and how much if for the hotel). (3) Oddly, the groups ahead of me rarely, if ever, top their tee shots short of the white tees. Probably one person every ten years or so . . . If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there is a problem that market forces won't take care of. Just my opinion.

[glebert]

Sorry, wasn't arguing to get rid of 18 hole courses in general. This particular course is 9 holes, but the same sort of approach could give a 18 hole course that is much cheaper ($8 x 2 = 16 dollars), plays quicker, doesn't require carts, and has a smaller enironmental footprint. I also assume that there will always be some large courses, but for myself I think that most people would be better off playing shorter target golf courses more often, which will improve their scores when they play a bigger course. Also, let's face it, we are all going to get old someday, and technology can only do so much for your distance. I get my butt kicked regularly by the old guys on my shorter course even though I have way more distance than them. I hope when I get old there will still be short and cheap courses for me to play on.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Sorry, wasn't arguing to get rid of 18 hole courses in general. This particular course is 9 holes, but the same sort of approach could give a 18 hole course that is much cheaper ($8 x 2 = 16 dollars), plays quicker, doesn't require carts, and has a smaller enironmental footprint. I also assume that there will always be some large courses, but for myself I think that most people would be better off playing shorter target golf courses more often, which will improve their scores when they play a bigger course. Also, let's face it, we are all going to get old someday, and technology can only do so much for your distance. I get my butt kicked regularly by the old guys on my shorter course even though I have way more distance than them. I hope when I get old there will still be short and cheap courses for me to play on.

glebert, I agree the 2,500 yard 9-hole courses have their place and their fans - I'm just not one of them. Also, most of the courses I play are pretty tight and require precise shots, particularly shots to greens and also tee shots on many of the par-4 & 5 holes. And I like the occasional par-3 course, especially if it's an 18-holer. To me, playing a nine hole layout twice to make an 18 hole round is kind of like deja vu all over again.

When you get old, keep in mind most courses have four or five sets of tees and there is no requirement that you to play the tips. P.S. - I'm already old . . . Enjoy.

[shredfit]

Will they save golf, or will they be the ones that survive? In MN, I've seen a few 18 holers start their rates at a buck a hole... During the week 18 holes = $18. How long can they keep this up? This cannot be making $$$... or at least very little. Perhaps gas prices, have removed much of peoples disposable income thus forcing the golf courses to lower their rates etc...

Conversely, as stated, a smaller course requires less manpower and resources to operate in the black.

[CosmosMpower]

I really like small par 3/4 courses. I have one within 3 minutes of my house and 1 within 15. The one 15 mins away is lit and open till about midnight so that's a big bonus. Green fees are 10-13 bucks to walk. I normally hate walking but on such a short course it's relaxing to go by yourself after work with an ipod and take it slow, and think shots and strategy through. It's very rewarding and most importantly lets me practice my 100 yard in game which is what needs work the most anyway. For me it's much harder to par a bunch of par 3 holes one after another than par 4's or 5's where a big tee shot and second shot can get you on the green and you two/three putt your way to a par.

[GaijinGolfer]

Id definetly be in favor of smaller courses and cheaper greens fees. IMO, if they want to make a course more difficult, adding length isnt the best way to do it.
The best way, IMO, would be to have more bunkers, narrower fairways, deeper rough, more water and to have greens that are fast and have multi-levels, forcing precise shots with you irons in order to hit the green and stay on the green.