The Future of golf

[RFKFREAK]

I see your point but there is a huge aspect that is being missed.

You will always have private clubs, I'm not talking about those.  They will succeed or fail based on their members being hit up for money as new expenses rise, nothing like a quick $1,000 assessment / month.

The Munis are huge problem within themselves anything government (tax) subsidized is a failing business model / plan, however for some reason we keep doing it.  Without knowing your location, region, number of rounds / golfers in your specific area its hard to say if course closings in YOUR area are needed. I didnt say 2500 in your area, state, or region, i stated Nationally.  Obviously more in some areas, less in others.

In many areas its opposite of what you are experiencing.  However it still falls back on operations and market demographic.  How I ran courses in the mountains is different then how I ran them in the midwest / Iowa and will be different again with my start here in the transition zone.  Each area has its unique obstacles to over come, and assessing those specifically for each location is the only way to determine the need for each type of course.

I can only speak for the local munis in my area but on the weekends they're generally packed and they run lots of leagues during the weekdays.  I haven't looked at their books or anything so I can't say with any degree of certainty but they seem to be doing fairly well.

[pumaAttack]

I can only speak for the local munis in my area but on the weekends they're generally packed and they run lots of leagues during the weekdays.  I haven't looked at their books or anything so I can't say with any degree of certainty but they seem to be doing fairly well.

I can't get a tee time until late evenings at the munis around me...

I think Bubbles just wants courses to close so they can go to his family's course.

[BubblesUSMC]

You are talking from a business objective, not a golfers perspective...

I would prefer to have 100 new courses open up near me that are public.  Not to see 1 course close.  How does that help the GOLFER not the business man?  I don't care about the businessman at all.

Well if you dont care about the person that has to invest all the money, time, and expertise, then YOU dont care about the golfer because without the operator / owner you dont have a place to play golf.

[RFKFREAK]

I can't get a tee time until late evenings at the munis around me...

I think Bubbles just wants courses to close so they can go to his family's course.

Haha, maybe.

I played a round in upstate NY by the Canadian border this past Saturday morning at 7:30 and had called on Wednesday to get a tee time and the only reason I was able to get one was because someone had just cancelled.  I would have thought with it being a holiday weekend and a few golf courses in the area that I would have had no problem getting a tee time and, had the cancellation not happened when it did, I'm not sure I would have gotten an opportunity to play the course.

[pumaAttack]

Well if you dont care about the person that has to invest all the money, time, and expertise, then YOU dont care about the golfer because without the operator / owner you dont have a place to play golf.

As a golfer, I want crowded courses with less options on where to play??  All so that one investor makes more money?

Ok... you are right.  In this hypothetical scenario you obviously care more about the golfer than I do...

[DrvFrShow]

There are some well maintained courses around here that it's difficult to get a tee time even during the week. Well I usually can as a walk on single if I go with a threesome or twosome. But if I want to go as a single, they don't take reservations online, and I can't get a tee time until about 4:00 pm. I don't like playing that late. It's too hot in the summer.

The poorly maintained goat tracks? Yeah, you can easily get a walk on time. It's sad, too, because the course could be nice and fun to play. The greens are crap. Last time I played there, there were holes in them and not from aerating. Bad enough where I was moving my ball so as not to have one in my putting line. The price was a little too proud for the course conditions, too. And they closed the practice tee, too. It's obvious they're losing money.

[newtogolf]

Well if you dont care about the person that has to invest all the money, time, and expertise, then YOU dont care about the golfer because without the operator / owner you dont have a place to play golf.

Closing courses may benefit you but that doesn't mean it helps golfers.  Less courses and available tee times does nothing for the golfer, it helps those businesses that survive.  If the owners / operators are doing their job, keeping their rates reasonable and their course well maintained they shouldn't have to worry about their competition.

[WUTiger]

1. The Play 9 initiative. I know very few courses in my area that offer 9 hole rates. So you pay for 18 holes and only have time to play 9. You won't play. Courses have to understand that perhaps 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

And I'd say new courses should be designed with more walking in mind. Have the tee boxes near the greens of the previous holes. Walking is good for the body and mind. However, people can't seem to tear themselves away from their electronic devices for more than one hour these days. So perhaps even have the course layout so that there's a four hole loop where you can continue or return to the clubhouse for those who are trying to squeeze in a few holes. ...

The Nineties with all the fancy residential-development courses have done a lot to cut into walking. The course developers assumed that half the nation wanted to have a $300K house (in late Ninetiees $$) near the golf course. This led to problems with walking, and just keeping fancy courses playable.

• Lack of continuity. Several courses in my area have a couple of holes where its a quarter-mile from the green to the next tee. Put in some roller-coaster terrain, and this can be tough on walkers. Basically, people in carts run you into the ground. Many such courses ban walking, because walkers can't keep up on the distance stretches.
• Unsold lots ⇒ fewer "equity members" ⇒ fewer maintenance $$. Many developers assumed that all the lots would sell out, and they would take the course private. Well, it didn't happen in any of the five courses in our area across from St. Louis in near Illinois. Half the lots got sold, at most. So... you don't have the equity buy-in / stock fees you counted when you couldn't go private. So... if a hole needs refurbishing - a few holes always settle out strangely after 20 years - where do the $$ come from? Also, your course is now semi-private, and with lesser greens fees revenues its hard to keep the more exotically designed holes in good playing shape.

(One of the five courses shut down this spring. It was just too tight in a lot of places, and people didn't want to rush back after playing it the first time. And, newbies kept

getting lost on the back nine - odd routing.)

Good things I've seen : St. Ann's nine hole course near the St. Louis airport has some features I like. You have fairly wide fairways, and most of the rough along realistic route of play is "first cut" length: about two inches. You have some midsize trees scattered through the rough, so shots off line have some penalty. BUT, you can find your ball and punch back to the fairway, with a chance to get up-and-down. Course has gently rolling terrain and is easy to walk.

Running counter to recent trends in golfdom, St. Ann's city government has discussed building a second nine and a driving range. (This might be viable, as a vintage Foulis-built public course in the area got bought by a local university. Sadly, its fairways may eventually give way to dorms and classroom buildings.)

[rolopolo]

don't mind lads in front hacking it all over the place, new golfers mean more are taking up the game which is a good thing.

has golf really gotten that much slower? were we all playing 3hour rounds 20 years ago? some folk are just slow, they walk slowly, same as wimmin - short legs innit?

[RGoosen]

don't mind lads in front hacking it all over the place, new golfers mean more are taking up the game which is a good thing.  has golf really gotten that much slower? were we all playing 3hour rounds 20 years ago? some folk are just slow, they walk slowly, same as wimmin - short legs innit?

I played basketball in high school, I played college tennis, and I played indoor soccer after college. All these sports involve a lot of movement and action. If you want to attract people that play sports that involve a lot of sitting or standing around then your only going to attract bowlers and baseball players. I used to play left field in little league and half the time I was drawing in the dirt b/c of all the down time. Then you have to wait for 8 more guys to bat before you can make it to the plate again. That is my I quit baseball after 6th grade. I enjoyed all that sitting and standing around as much as I like sitting or standing around on a golf course when the goes much past 4 hours. I discovered golf in 2003 and in a short amount of time I got hooked. One thing I learned quickly was that if you don't tee off before 9 am on the weekend you can forget about playing fast or even a reasonable pace. I'm not expecting seniors, beginners, juniors, females, walkers, etc. to play lightning fast but how on earth can any round last more than 4 hours is beyond my comprehensive?!?! I just want to hit the ball when I arrive at it. Is that too much to ask?

[DrvFrShow]

I played basketball in high school, I played college tennis, and I played indoor soccer after college. All these sports involve a lot of movement and action.

If you want to attract people that play sports that involve a lot of sitting or standing around then your only going to attract bowlers and baseball players. I used to play left field in little league and half the time I was drawing in the dirt b/c of all the down time. Then you have to wait for 8 more guys to bat before you can make it to the plate again. That is my I quit baseball after 6th grade. I enjoyed all that sitting and standing around as much as I like sitting or standing around on a golf course when the goes much past 4 hours.

I discovered golf in 2003 and in a short amount of time I got hooked. One thing I learned quickly was that if you don't tee off before 9 am on the weekend you can forget about playing fast or even a reasonable pace. I'm not expecting seniors, beginners, juniors, females, walkers, etc. to play lightning fast but how on earth can any round last more than 4 hours is beyond my comprehensive?!?!

I just want to hit the ball when I arrive at it. Is that too much to ask?

I understand your frustration. But part of the problem is course layout. And please don't include women as slow - we're quite fast as a rule. My league burns up the course. Here are some pictures of courses in the Puget Sound area of Washington.

The following two courses are examples of those which can be played in under four hours walking even at a leisurely pace. I've played High Cedars in a foursome of women in 3.5 hours. Note the hole layouts and how close they are together. The second picture also includes the Executive Course, so the course looks larger than it really is.

These next two courses cannot be played reasonably in under four hours, especially walking. Chambers Bay is walking only. Notice how spread out the holes are. Plus there's terrain, too. These two courses have quite a number of elevation changes, whereas the two above are essentially flat.

[RGoosen]

I understand your frustration. But part of the problem is course layout. And please don't include women as slow - we're quite fast as a rule. My league burns up the course. Here are some pictures of courses in the Puget Sound area of Washington. The following two courses are examples of those which can be played in under four hours walking even at a leisurely pace. I've played High Cedars in a foursome of women in 3.5 hours. Note the hole layouts and how close they are together. The second picture also includes the Executive Course, so the course looks larger than it really is. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/131545/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/131546/] [/URL] These next two courses cannot be played reasonably in under four hours, especially walking. Chambers Bay is walking only. Notice how spread out the holes are. Plus there's terrain, too. These two courses have quite a number of elevation changes, whereas the two above are essentially flat. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/131547/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/131548/] [/URL]

Please don't be offended by the inclusion of female golfers. I was trying to point out that I believe all golfers have the ability to play golf in 4 hours or less (regardless of age, ability level, or gender). I included women for two reasons one b/c it is a sterotype, but mainly b/c I was quoting @rolopolo . That doesn't necessarily mean he or I believe that all female players are slow.

[RGoosen]

@DrvFrShow I agree course layouts play a big part of it, tee times too close together, etc. I haven't played Chambers Bay, but I did play Streamsong with two of my friends. That is also a course that might be difficult for many foursomes to finish in under 4 hours. I guess the four hour target is better for local courses. Large scale remote resort courses probably closer to 4:20.

[RussUK]

Just an update on the larger holes, Woburn golf club in the UK are stagging a couple of tournaments this month using 6 inch holes. Will be interesting to hear what the players think

[MrDC]

I like the idea of future courses being very walk minded, the problem is they make money on the carts so that won't happen, if anything courses will continue to be made where walking is not an option, which is sad because golf is a better game when walked and I think people that are so-so on the game would get more into it if they walked more.

[RussUK]

I like the idea of future courses being very walk minded, the problem is they make money on the carts so that won't happen, if anything courses will continue to be made where walking is not an option, which is sad because golf is a better game when walked and I think people that are so-so on the game would get more into it if they walked more.

I think any courses will move towards Golfboards and away from carts. Much cheaper to buy and maintain but can still be rented out for a decent return.

[BubblesUSMC]

As a golfer, I want crowded courses with less options on where to play??  All so that one investor makes more money?

Ok... you are right.  In this hypothetical scenario you obviously care more about the golfer than I do...

Well I'm obviously trying to have an educated conversation with someone who works 9 to 5 for someone else.

Yes me and my father are bazillionaires, and the other 85% of course owners (family owned) are as well.  Thank you for your input, would you care to contribute anything intelligent or helpful now?

[BubblesUSMC]

I think any courses will move towards Golfboards and away from carts. Much cheaper to buy and maintain but can still be rented out for a decent return.

I am excited about the golf board, and the Turf Choppers...

Golf boards costs are equal to a golf cart though, in fact the leasing options for carts and rentals for large events, Golf board cannot even come close to matching in cost.

So I dont see carts going away but I do see more individual devices like the board and chopper.