Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David_Tepper on December 18, 2014, 10:37:00 AM
-
From tomorrow's issue:
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636688-though-thriving-parts-asia-golf-struggling-america-and-much-europe
-
"Golf is an old-fashioned sport, obsessed with tradition. People still dress up as though they are auditioning to star in “Caddyshack”, a 1980 comedy about a stuffy country club."
It would help if golf writers would stop talking down to us common folk. I think the intended demo of this article knows that Caddyshack was a movie.
-
A bit pessimistic but the author does seem to list practically every reason as to the decline in our game over the last 10 years or so. He even highlights the negative effect of over challenging courses.
-
Did you see the comment section? I would have never started playing if I had know these guys would be waiting for me some 50 years down the road. Who plays a game where after a tough day you "end up before the committee"?
From DGM:
Any member of my club who took 5 hours to play a round would probably find himself up before the committee. The norm is 3 hours.
By the way, we have a 3 year waiting list
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
Lectured to as a child is a good thing. We were not allowed to take practice swings. A practice that has stuck with me even today.
Fish stories like 300 yd drives and 3 hr rounds makes beginners feel like there is no hope. While I understand the game is rooted in Scottish traditions, exaggeration serves no one.
-
Lectured to as a child is a good thing. We were not allowed to take practice swings. A practice that has stuck with me even today.
Was there ever a time in the evolution of the game's etiquette when taking multiple divots in a fairway before actually hitting the shot was considered a breach? If I could dictate the game's etiquette I would make creating divots with practice swings a 10x worse infraction than stepping on someone's putting line or farting loudly during a backswing (not ones own backswing, I mean).
John is the first person I've ever heard admit to sharing my own personal peccadillo about making divots. I agree that the game would perhaps be better off without practice swings altogether but making unnecessary divots just seems so totally wrong to me.
P.S. Which is one reason I am so mortified on the rare occasions I unleash a temper tantrum after a series of bad shots. Not only is it ugly and distracting to watch, it often ends up with my having to repair to totally uncalled for bit of damage to the fairway.
-
Hahahaha! Compare this article to the "baseball is dead" stories.
I love The Economist but it's more frequently a lagging indicator than a leading one and the first graf shows how that could be the case with this article: they offer up a case showing cyclical decline then use it to argue secular decline.
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
Another way of looking at it Paul is when the arrogant secretary treated people like dirt thinking their suburban club was gods gift and exempt from financial pressures. Golf and clubs are in a bad way partially because they treated outsiders as exactly that, outsiders.
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
Another way of looking at it Paul is when the arrogant secretary treated people like dirt thinking their suburban club was gods gift and exempt from financial pressures. Golf and clubs are in a bad way partially because they treated outsiders as exactly that, outsiders.
More than just outsider, they don't always treat their employees with respect. I know some clubs are great to their employees, but many are not.
I worked at a nice club growing up for 10 years and our only playing privileges were Mondays after 2PM and we had to get off the tee if a member wanted to play. Once I asked the assistant pro to look at my swing and the only time we were allowed to use the range was before it opened at 6AM. Heaven forbid a member see an employee using the driving range. I know every club is different, but because of how I was treated its hard to feel sad for the club dissolving. Now the actual course, that's something to be sad about.
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
Lectured to as a child is a good thing. We were not allowed to take practice swings. A practice that has stuck with me even today.
Fish stories like 300 yd drives and 3 hr rounds makes beginners feel like there is no hope. While I understand the game is rooted in Scottish traditions, exaggeration serves no one.
I appreciate that you live in a world so distant from the origins of the game that it probably defies belief for you but I didn't exaggerate one bit. Therewas also a clock by the gents chchanging rooms, courtesy of Golf Monthly, which was emblazoned with the words "it's time to stamp out slow play" with a guide suggesting no fourball should take more than three hours.
Like you, I was taught that practice swings were just a way of showing off.
-
As a kid I would have been lectured by the Club Secretary if I'd taken three and a half hours to play 18 holes. It used to work, back when the arrogant customer with more money than sense could actually be wrong.
Another way of looking at it Paul is when the arrogant secretary treated people like dirt thinking their suburban club was gods gift and exempt from financial pressures. Golf and clubs are in a bad way partially because they treated outsiders as exactly that, outsiders.
Nope, the place is still thriving.
-
don't agree with all the article states, and there are some stereotypical themes, but overall it captures the essence of why golf is in decline.
I think it ultimately relates to profound sociological shifts, that have accelerated in the last ten years.
The article states that "Golf is hard". Boy, you had better believe that. But so is bowling, so is hitting a 90 mph fast ball, so if fly fishing, so is a lot of things. There are a whole lot of things that have been hard, that never kept us away. But we have a generation now that perhaps lacks the patience of previous, and is not willing to make the physical and psychic investment that being able to play golf or other diversions require. A lot is virtual now. You play a video game, you get instant gratification without expending a lot of effort. I cannot believe how many adults I see on their cell phones playing these silly games hour after hour. I cannot believe this is healthy from the pure sedentary standpoint, but I cannot help but think there is some neurological rewiring that is being done here, and the quick positive reinforcement these games provide, creates a powerful Pavlov's effect, and the player wants more and more. You just don't get that with golf. I am but a "lowly" 18 handicapper, I really struggle at times, it might take 15 holes before I get that shot that went exactly as planned. That means a lot of time and delaying of gratification, before I get the positive reinforcement. I am ok with that, because I accept the difficulty of the game and accept the fact that golf owes me nothing. Nothing despite the best equipment, reading and practicing, and the best of intents. I don't think that premise sits well with the younger people today, they are wired differently.
I don't buy the argument that golf is time consuming, because the stats showing how much time people spend watching TV, surfing the net, and texting shows that there IS time out there.
I don't buy the argument that golf is expensive, because you can go to Golfnow or clip some coupons and play for less than $20. There is a really decent public course down the road from me that offers annual memberships for $800 a year, and there is a really decent private course that offers an annual fee of $1200/year. Yet, a lot of these same folks won't hesitate to spend $50 at a local pub, or $600 for the latest electronic gizmo, and Topgolf is not exactly cheap either. I see a lot of eating and drinking there, plus the cost of hitting the balls.
A lot of young people are really buying into this income inequality thing, and the bad guys are the ones at the golf courses. There are a lot of people that think rich people are inherently bad and exploitive, and somehow your being at a golf or country club is feeding into this and validating the behavior of these terrible people. . The truth is that people of all walks of life play golf. There are cheap golf courses that we can all afford, there are luxurious, exclusive clubs that few of us can afford. How is that any different than cars, boats, houses, etc.? That applies to every aspect of our lives, boats, cars, houses, but somehow golf and golfers get branded differently.
One thing that has really hit me hard, is how tough it is to get a bunch of guys out these days. We used to have golf outings from work, we gave up. Used to be over a hundred, and dwindled to nothing, you could not get commitment. If you ask me to play a round next week, you get a yes or no. Getting a simple yes or no is almost impossible. It seems that guys are more concerned about how they are going to have to sell this to their wife, and what tit for tat is going to have to transpire, before the "license" is granted to go out for a few hours. I really believe we are transitioning to a matriarchal culture. Women rule. I work with a lot of women being an RN, and I can't tell you how motivated many of them are. Not only working 40-60 hours, but going to school for masters and PhD's, and still finding the time to manage the house and family. I think women are really carrying us now, and that is taking its toll, because now more women than ever are dying of heart disease, and many seem to me to be incredibly tired and under a lot of stress. So when you are carrying a disproportionate share , it is really hard to make the case to go to the club and spend the day.
Bottom line is there will always be golf, but it is in decline and will continue to decline, because of a variety of sociological factors. I do not buy the economic argument, because like I said the same ones that complain about the cost will not complain about the cost of drinking, cable tv, electronic devices, high speed internet , or the cost of decent tickets to see Lady Gaga. It is a matter or priority.
This group is a microcosm, and does not reflect the average golfer, who could care less about Ross or Raynor, or whether a hole is a Redan or Biarritz. They could care less about why a pond was put there or a mound or bunker was put there. They could care less about the history of a club and how many times a given hole was remodeled. Most just want to go out there and whack the hell out of the ball and fail to realize that golf is a game with many subgames (IE sand, chipping, putting, etc) And that is not a good or bad thing, it just is what is. Things come and go in life, things hit highs and go rock bottom. Golf is not entitled to succeed or prosper, it is at the whim of who wants to participate. I take the view that the impact of golf is due to incredible sociological shifts. Secondly, due to rewiring of our central nervous systems by electronic devices that can make us asynchronous with the physical and psychic investment required by the sport of golf. Electronic devices have consumed the lives of many. Of course, they have their place. It has gone way passed the point of "their place". The merging of cellular and electronic is upon us, it almost sounds like something you would find in an science fiction book, but it is upon us, very real. There are some that are immune to this, just like you could inject 100 people with the flu virus ten times and there would be some that would never catch the flu. The human species is devolving. From a health standpoint, look at the chronic diseases, start with diabeties. And from an intellectual standpoint, look what our schools are putting out and try to have a deep intellectual discussion with a lot of people. And a discussion that does not get degraded by emotionalism rather than reason. Golf is from a different time, it is a dinosaur. It is devolving just like we are. The golden days are over, so be it.
-
Eric. That's a really well written and thought out piece and much kudos to you. So what you're basically saying is women are to blame! ;)
-
Eric,
Quite a post. Not that I agree with it but quite a post.
Starts well and your reference to neurological rewiring is most definitely a reality which has been shown via a number of experiments. Unfortunately you then fall into the 'old is good, new is bad, all them damn kids are either lazy or under the thumb of a women' argument and it all goes somewhat Daily Mail from there.
I am firmly of the opinion that 'target golf,' as I insist on continuing to call it, simply doesn't hold longer term appeal because there just isn't that much to discover. People simply don't get hooked on the game because the hook just isn't there. I am therefore optimistic about the future as I genuinely believe the minimalist revival is far more than just another passing trend.
-
Lectured to as a child is a good thing. We were not allowed to take practice swings. A practice that has stuck with me even today.
Was there ever a time in the evolution of the game's etiquette when taking multiple divots in a fairway before actually hitting the shot was considered a breach? If I could dictate the game's etiquette I would make creating divots with practice swings a 10x worse infraction than stepping on someone's putting line or farting loudly during a backswing (not ones own backswing, I mean).
John is the first person I've ever heard admit to sharing my own personal peccadillo about making divots. I agree that the game would perhaps be better off without practice swings altogether but making unnecessary divots just seems so totally wrong to me.
+1 drives me nuts
and compounded by super tight soft fairways(painted mud) which REQUIRE a divot with all clubs to reach the center of club.
The days of merely brushing the grass are generally lost except on "lower end" courses.
Eric,
great post.
very thought provoking.
Paul,
You're right.
Target golf is NO fun a new or poor player so the hook can't be set.
As a kid I remember topping one ball around a highly playable course with my dad who never broke 100 but we counted every shot and we finished in under three hours. very rarely is that possible on a modern course even with the silly gibberish about "playing the right tees"-no actual score gives one no bar to set-thus no hook.
All is not lost though-Golf is not for everyone, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
It appeals to only a certain type and our attempts to expand that base artificially are rarely successful.
-
The article states that "Golf is hard". Boy, you had better believe that.
Sorry for cherry picking this quote,but I've always thought this was the gist of the "problem".
For those of who play golf,the fact that it's hard as hell is a large part of the game's attraction. For those who don't,this is the biggest barrier.
No matter how many imbecilic ideas come from TMAG or the PGA,this will never change. There will always be a low ceiling on participation because very people are masochistic enough to keep at it.
-
The article states that "Golf is hard". Boy, you had better believe that.
Sorry for cherry picking this quote,but I've always thought this was the gist of the "problem".
For those of who play golf,the fact that it's hard as hell is a large part of the game's attraction. For those who don't,this is the biggest barrier.
No matter how many imbecilic ideas come from TMAG or the PGA,this will never change. There will always be a low ceiling on participation because very people are masochistic enough to keep at it.
+1
and the sooner we get the suits to stop getting paid for clever BS that wreaks of deperation, the better off we'll all be.
Imagine finding an incredible restaurant at the the top of a 5000 foot mountain you had to climb to dine in, and sitting at the foot of it begging people to climb it ::) ::)
Perceived difficulty is reasonable self policing-dumbing it down merely attracts those who need more substantial policing.
Important to note whoever we share/grow the game with, we need to do so in a method and at a pace that the player and game can embrace and accept.
If not we create a generation of golfers we may not enjoy being with or behind ;) ;D
Of course there's a fine line between snobbery and inclusion , but that's what's always separated golf from other pastimes.
-
For those of who play golf,the fact that it's hard as hell is a large part of the game's attraction. For those who don't,this is the biggest barrier.
Riffing on this idea a bit more...
Was there ever a period in golf's history (let's limit it to the past couple centuries, not the far-distant past before the game regularized into its current format) when golfers had lower expectations of their results? I've only been around golf for 20 years but I can recall going through the usual stages.
At first it was frustrating trying to figure out how to get the ball up in the air at all. After a few months there were at least a plurality to "as expected" shots to go along with the way-crooked ones and the outright duffs. But then it didn't take long before the fact I'd never "broke 100" made the game seem like the proverbial carrot dangled in front of the horse to keep him plodding forward.
Maybe it's the glow of burnished imperfect memories but I believe I recall a state of grace for a few months in there where finishing a hole in four strokes felt like an accomplishment and the fact that numerous holes per round required six, seven, eight strokes did not seem like a big deal. There was a lot of joy in those dozen or so shots per round that got up in the air and finished somewhere in the intended ZIP code.
So here's where I'm going with this. It's a theory, just spitballing here. For total beginners the game is frustrating in the extreme. But with just a modicum of coordination and persistence a beginner can push through that early fecklessness in a matter of weeks or months and start playing at least a fitfully recognizable version of the same game the better golfers play.
After that point, the "golf is HARD" meme is denominated totally in terms of expectations. It is HARD if you want to make birdies. It is HARD if you want to sink your 4-footers under pressure. Heck for a beginner it is HARD if you expect to play every hole from tee to green expediently enough that the eventual 4-footer even matters.
I recall a round years ago when Daryl Boe stopped by the club I was then a member of. He's never seen the course and we had just enough daylight after work to take a quick tour of nine holes. No warmups, no money on the line, no scorecards. We walked and hit and talked and went around that nine in an hour or so. Being fairly new to the game and not really paying attention it probably took me half a dozen shots on several holes to duff-and-roll the ball along until we reached the green. But it was fun to be moving and have that sense that we were just rolling along after the ball (my ball at least, as I recall Turboe was ho-humming pars on just about every hole) with no expectations other than the kinetic thrill of swinging, walking and seeing a ball move toward a distant target.
Now I'd get bored as hell doing that duff-and-roll, follow the bouncing ball routine 100x a year. It's much more engaging to be grinding over some 8-foot bogey putt to try and shoot 79. But surely there must be an in-between stage, no? My idle curiosity wonders if that "in-between" state was ever a stage in the development of the game as we all know it. Maybe there was a time when golf courses were full of, I dunno, gutty-rolling, wooden-club-swinging, middling players who wouldn't be breaking 100 if they kept score but who did *not* think of the game as HARD (at least not once they got past the raw beginner months).
-
Brent,riffing on your riff.
Add frustrating to hard--that makes things exponentially worse. It takes so long to get to a point where you can even remotely feel like you're making progress.
An aunt started playing and told me how it was so frustrating for her--she just couldn't get better.She took lessons,practiced,etc. She wasn't put off by the inherent difficulty (she knew that going in)--it was the constant 2 steps forward,1 step back part that infuriated her.
Then she told me she couldn't wait to get better because she figured the better she got,the less frustrating golf must be. I had to tell the opposite is true--when you get really good,the frustration increases too.
I'm not sure I made her feel better with that one.
-
I find inexpensive courses that are easy to score on far too crowded. I would rather hit a few bad shots than be surrounded by bad company.
-
Brent,
There is absolutely nothing engaging for me about grinding over an 8 footer in order to shoot 79. Regardless, I'm retiring from the game for at least five minutes.
But then that is the hook. Maybe your 79 is my 69 and we both feel great when it actually happens. We temporarily kid ourselves that we've actually accomplished something but the reality is that there is no state where you feel as if you've completed the game. Regardless of whether it's a complete beginner, you, me or Rory, there is always room for better. That endless appeal should be what keeps golfers coming back for more and it worked pretty well for a few centuries. But so many newer courses have been created in such a way that the new golfer, rather than feeling some sense of improvement, simply gets to a 'can't do' situation. Who wants to go back for more of that?
-
I don’t buy into the “golf is dying” theory. What’s happening is that rounds played are declining. Courses are closing and equipment sales are down. This is not golf dying!
This golf business contraction was set off by a change in demand that triggered a rapid decline in a fairly recent “bubble” of both casual players and unsustainable courses.
The 1980’s & 90’s saw a lot of new “casual” players drawn to the game. By casual, I mean players who played infrequently, often for social or business reasons, but were not really addicted to or even appreciative of the game. The economy was great and golf was seen as “cool” and/or a symbol of social status. “Business golf” became a norm.
Following this rise in demand, real estate and CCFAD courses were built, which were overly robust in design and difficulty and expensive to build and maintain. They required the high demand, with its associated round volume and pricing, to sustain their cost structure. Many real estate courses were unsustainable even in this high demand environment and built only to sell house lots. They were destined to be toast, no matter what happened.
Private clubs, most of which had been financially stable for years, felt the need to respond to both demand and new competition by taking out large debt to renovate and add large clubhouses & other non-golf features. Again, sustainability was linked to continued high demand.
Equipment makers capitalized on the new demand by shortening product life cycles from years to months and justifying the marketing of continued equipment replacement with technological advances in club and ball performance and gadgets like range-finders. As long as demand in the form of new players was there, it worked.
Then, about the time of the recent recession, demand changed – just a little change was enough to burst the bubble. Money and jobs got tighter for many people. Culture also changed. The male golfer found his family role changed. With a spouse working and parents feeling obligated to inject themselves more into their children’s school, activities, and recreation, less time was available spend playing golf. (New, less experienced, “casual” golfers struggling to play at a decent pace did not help.) Young player inflow into the game also slowed, as they spent more time on electronic social networking and no longer had caddie jobs as a way to find the game. Golf also lost its “coolness factor” in the eyes of new generations. Rounds played fell, as did the willingness to pay high fees.
This change in demand, however small, was enough to tip the balance for marginally sustainable public access courses, for private clubs with high debt loads, and for high priced, short product cycle, equipment manufacturers. We are now seeing the most exposed in each of these categories go out of existence.
It’s important to realize that this is not the end of golf. It’s just a correction. While the casual golfer population will decline quite a bit, the central core of golf enthusiasts will be much less affected. Before the bubble, there was this core of players. It probably did not expand proportionally during the bubble, and likely will not proportionally decline during the bursting of the bubble.
I believe that the cost of golf will decline (memberships, greens fees, equipment). The time required for a round will also decrease as less serious golfers depart. We’ll lose a lot of courses, unfortunately including some architecturally significant ones, but end up with the right number for the demand. For those of us who form the core of golf enthusiasts, things will be even better in the future. For those who make a living in the industry…not so much – times will be tough. Those in the industry who and are among the best at what they do will be OK in the future. The basic supply-demand balance of Economics is interesting to watch.
-
don't agree with all the article states, and there are some stereotypical themes, but overall it captures the essence of why golf is in decline.
I think it ultimately relates to profound sociological shifts, that have accelerated in the last ten years.
The article states that "Golf is hard". Boy, you had better believe that. But so is bowling, so is hitting a 90 mph fast ball, so if fly fishing, so is a lot of things. There are a whole lot of things that have been hard, that never kept us away. But we have a generation now that perhaps lacks the patience of previous, and is not willing to make the physical and psychic investment that being able to play golf or other diversions require. A lot is virtual now. You play a video game, you get instant gratification without expending a lot of effort. I cannot believe how many adults I see on their cell phones playing these silly games hour after hour. I cannot believe this is healthy from the pure sedentary standpoint, but I cannot help but think there is some neurological rewiring that is being done here, and the quick positive reinforcement these games provide, creates a powerful Pavlov's effect, and the player wants more and more. You just don't get that with golf. I am but a "lowly" 18 handicapper, I really struggle at times, it might take 15 holes before I get that shot that went exactly as planned. That means a lot of time and delaying of gratification, before I get the positive reinforcement. I am ok with that, because I accept the difficulty of the game and accept the fact that golf owes me nothing. Nothing despite the best equipment, reading and practicing, and the best of intents. I don't think that premise sits well with the younger people today, they are wired differently.
I don't buy the argument that golf is time consuming, because the stats showing how much time people spend watching TV, surfing the net, and texting shows that there IS time out there.
I don't buy the argument that golf is expensive, because you can go to Golfnow or clip some coupons and play for less than $20. There is a really decent public course down the road from me that offers annual memberships for $800 a year, and there is a really decent private course that offers an annual fee of $1200/year. Yet, a lot of these same folks won't hesitate to spend $50 at a local pub, or $600 for the latest electronic gizmo, and Topgolf is not exactly cheap either. I see a lot of eating and drinking there, plus the cost of hitting the balls.
A lot of young people are really buying into this income inequality thing, and the bad guys are the ones at the golf courses. There are a lot of people that think rich people are inherently bad and exploitive, and somehow your being at a golf or country club is feeding into this and validating the behavior of these terrible people. . The truth is that people of all walks of life play golf. There are cheap golf courses that we can all afford, there are luxurious, exclusive clubs that few of us can afford. How is that any different than cars, boats, houses, etc.? That applies to every aspect of our lives, boats, cars, houses, but somehow golf and golfers get branded differently.
One thing that has really hit me hard, is how tough it is to get a bunch of guys out these days. We used to have golf outings from work, we gave up. Used to be over a hundred, and dwindled to nothing, you could not get commitment. If you ask me to play a round next week, you get a yes or no. Getting a simple yes or no is almost impossible. It seems that guys are more concerned about how they are going to have to sell this to their wife, and what tit for tat is going to have to transpire, before the "license" is granted to go out for a few hours. I really believe we are transitioning to a matriarchal culture. Women rule. I work with a lot of women being an RN, and I can't tell you how motivated many of them are. Not only working 40-60 hours, but going to school for masters and PhD's, and still finding the time to manage the house and family. I think women are really carrying us now, and that is taking its toll, because now more women than ever are dying of heart disease, and many seem to me to be incredibly tired and under a lot of stress. So when you are carrying a disproportionate share , it is really hard to make the case to go to the club and spend the day.
Bottom line is there will always be golf, but it is in decline and will continue to decline, because of a variety of sociological factors. I do not buy the economic argument, because like I said the same ones that complain about the cost will not complain about the cost of drinking, cable tv, electronic devices, high speed internet , or the cost of decent tickets to see Lady Gaga. It is a matter or priority.
This group is a microcosm, and does not reflect the average golfer, who could care less about Ross or Raynor, or whether a hole is a Redan or Biarritz. They could care less about why a pond was put there or a mound or bunker was put there. They could care less about the history of a club and how many times a given hole was remodeled. Most just want to go out there and whack the hell out of the ball and fail to realize that golf is a game with many subgames (IE sand, chipping, putting, etc) And that is not a good or bad thing, it just is what is. Things come and go in life, things hit highs and go rock bottom. Golf is not entitled to succeed or prosper, it is at the whim of who wants to participate. I take the view that the impact of golf is due to incredible sociological shifts. Secondly, due to rewiring of our central nervous systems by electronic devices that can make us asynchronous with the physical and psychic investment required by the sport of golf. Electronic devices have consumed the lives of many. Of course, they have their place. It has gone way passed the point of "their place". The merging of cellular and electronic is upon us, it almost sounds like something you would find in an science fiction book, but it is upon us, very real. There are some that are immune to this, just like you could inject 100 people with the flu virus ten times and there would be some that would never catch the flu. The human species is devolving. From a health standpoint, look at the chronic diseases, start with diabeties. And from an intellectual standpoint, look what our schools are putting out and try to have a deep intellectual discussion with a lot of people. And a discussion that does not get degraded by emotionalism rather than reason. Golf is from a different time, it is a dinosaur. It is devolving just like we are. The golden days are over, so be it.
Bowling Alone argument.
-
Excellent post Eric; there is much there I agree with. To divert a little it sounds like you may know something about diabetes; this devolution, how does it cause diabetes and is all diabetes chronic?
The growth of diabetes is mind boggling. The consequences of diabetes is equally mind boggling including heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, kidney failure, neuropathy, obesity, etc. Luckily, there are many diabetics that take care of themselves and follow the regimens prescribed by their MD's, but there s also a lot of noncompliance. Diabetes is a function of a lot of things, but we can put sedentary lifestyle, bad eating habits, and obesity at the top of the list. And sometimes we try to do everything right, and genetics prevails anyway. Type 1 diabetics are living longer and are passing this trait on, where if left to nature a lot of these folks might die. Of course, we don't want them to die, thank god for the miracles of modern day medicine, but from a genetic point of view this does not advance the species to a higher level. Just do a google search, and you can read the projected growth of diabetes worldwide. In answer to your question, diabetes can sometimes be reversed through exercise and diet, but many times it cannot and this makes it chronic. The growth of diabetes does not represent an evolution of the species, it represents devolution. I once heard a genetics expert talk about this, and he said that one day insulin resistance might be the end of the human race as we know it. As the trait of insulin resistence gets passed from generation and generation, and as this trait mutates, making the cells less receptive to insulin, both from the pancreas and externally.
There are so many studies about the prevalence of diabetes and trends going forward. Here is one: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/11/1936.full The big question is how this health system that is already stressed to the limit in many areas going to handle this.
-
All is not lost though-Golf is not for everyone, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
It appeals to only a certain type and our attempts to expand that base artificially are rarely successful.
Taking the game to people still requires people to come to the game. I am too am ok with golf catering for its core participants. If the numbers drift downward I can't help but think the game is in better hands.
Ciao
-
IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.
This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.
The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.
-
IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.
This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.
The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.
Adrian
So what is your solution?
Sure its regrettable that a few clubs of repute and merit may have to alter their approach to attracting money or perhaps even close down, but what is the alternative? So far as I can tell, clubs heading the wrong direction roll the dice with terrific visitor/membership offers; some of these clubs will be turned around and some won't. I am one to believe that the general business side of golf will be bleak for a long time. The divide between haves and have nots will become sharper. Could we even see some courses being taken over by local authorities and turned into munis until such time as houses are built? This may not be a bad investment for LAs and may even buoy the books from the constant pressure of having to come up with balanced budgets on less money.
So what is your solution?
Ciao
-
Sean - More likely LAs will dump more golf courses, this has been the trend recently. We actually stepped in with a rescue plan for a LA course which must remain nameless, we felt we could keep a course on 75% of the land footprint so produce 40 acres of housing. I think things in the background had already been decided they did not like our plan and opted for closure. I half heard the land had already been outed at a big price. To be honest it makes perfect sense as the income to the LA for the land sale will be for the betterment of ALL in that community.
The solution is probably that if numbers do not increase then the oversupply can be balanced only by courses closing. It will be like a declining business that has 500 employees and now they need 350, some will naturally fold up by being not up to standard as other courses in the rat race offer better value. Some (and these are the ones that more concern GCApeeps) are so remote that they cant compete with the others because fuel/time/£££ factor them out. Some could be good courses but would be attractive for housing and at £50,000,000 for the land and 500 members each member takes £100,000 and joins another club and a scenario of 100 new members boost 5 other clubs.
A solution to boost numbers IMO would be to promote the health benifits of the game and active sport. UK people aged 16-50 go to the gym now as a regular thing, golf is an extension of that pattern for people aged 40-100 and yes I mean one hundred because people in 20 years time will be active at that age.
So to quote Carl Spackler......."we got that going for us ....which is nice".
-
IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.
This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.
The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.
So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.
-
IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.
This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.
The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.
So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.
Paul - You totally baffle me, what have you seen in my post that relates to your reply
-
IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.
This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.
The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.
So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.
Paul - You totally baffle me, what have you seen in my post that relates to your reply
Frankly Adrian, I'm beginning to find your tone more than a little annoying. You and I don't always have the same interpretation of things but I've never resorted to adopting the sort of manner you seem to wish to sling in my direction, presumably because I've had the audacity to point out where your business interests might have slanted your perception.
OK. Carts, cart girls, half way houses. Do these not come with certain fixed costs? What demographic do you typically attract with these add-ons and what is the net yield from them? What area of the market is currently struggling the most? Is it that overcrowded lower/middle ground market where each club has tried to better the last by focusing on those non essential add-ons, complete with those fixed costs, or is it the traditional clubs which have stuck to the core product of good golf?
Golf is apparently dying and yet many of the more traditional clubs could double membership in a month if they wanted the course to be busier and actively pursued a recruitment policy. Doesn't sound much like a dying industry to me.
-
Paul - Carts don't cost much to buy or rent, in the UK we don't really need paths but by the same token their winter use is almost zero. They are a good yielder I can only speak for the figures of the clubs I know, but probably they bring in a profit of £25,000 per year. It is how important that is in the scheme of things, plenty of old fashioned clubs won't have them but the loss of £25,000 might not be the only downer. Some groups and they could be worth £2000 for a hours tee time won't play if poor old Charlie can't have a buggy....so they go somewhere else. That might not matter to the top 100 clubs that can more dictate their terms but it does impact those outside the hundred.
Half way houses can mean different things and I am not advocating a new build. A lot of older golf courses are out and in and the nines don't return to the house thats a minus. Returning nines might not mean a toss to GCApeeps but it makes a big difference if the 10th tee is near the clubhouse and they spend £3 on a bacon roll or £1 on a cup of tea and buy a mars bar. That type of commercial design of a golf course, ie the importance to provide that facility within the initial infrastructure is a yielder and might bring in more revenue. If a club does not have that then send a cart girl out twice a day.
The new golfers to the game have very little interest in the finer points of architecture and the game has changed well away from what you like. I would say the Modern clubs are generally run much better as a rule than traditional clubs. Modern Clubs are more professional in their outlook though there are good and bad operators everywhere. New people if they are under 40 want to join modern clubs more than the traditional ones, good practice facilities are another important reason and the modern set ups have tended to focus in those areas. Vat implications are helping traditional clubs and not the modern ones, if the playing field gets levelled it will be a no contest.
The GCA way is romantic but commercially its all about numbers. Success is dependant on what you believe ...statistics or your heart.
But NO the things I mentioned don't come with high costs at all.
-
Adrian,
I'm not opposed to carts, simply disputing the notion that they are an essential for survival. Their raw financial benefit is clear but the broader issue of promoting those non essentials and who you attract with them is a more subtle issue. Those society days for the local pub or radio station show great returns on buggy hire, not to mention the revenue from them as a whole. They equally however have your core demographic looking elsewhere, leaving you in a race to the bottom.
Again, dispute it all you like but who is actually struggling and who isn't? Whilst I'm not suggesting there won't be any casualties from the top end, I don't see any abundance of first or second tier classic courses hitting the skids.
You seem to assume, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that tomorrow's average player will demand magpie shiny, binary golf and convenience when they're 65, simply because that's what they want from their Playstation at the age of 20. Reality is that classic courses have retained the interest of multiple generations simply because there's far more to discover, hence the endless allure and applicable repeat visits. The hook is stronger because there's so much more to explore. The fact that a few of us here can articulate that while the average golfer can't is of no relevance.
-
I think pretty much all clubs are struggling in the UK. It is the 'degrees of' of course. I know that we lose a lot of business on price, our membership is going down in terms of numbers ie am losing the flexible memberships more but firming up with the traditional pay one fee for a years golf, overall I have put the price up not down and we are doing okay. I only really know the ones that I designed and how they are doing, a couple in difficult locations are struggling, one does groupons and idiotic deals and IMO has destroyed it's integrity. By and large the other's are still good in the scheme of things.
I would say considering my courses (ones I have designed) as commercial operations I have at least three in the GB & I top 100 for what they make profit's wise. Bearing in mind the courses were built on limited budgets I would say that was pretty dam good.
Now if you were going to build a golf course do you want one that makes money or go's bust. None of mine have (yet) and one will post pre tax profits this week of £340,000.
Everyone will have their way they think it will work, you have your's and I have mine. I don't know how old you are, I assume fairly young as you said you worked in a pro shop a few summers back, but without sounding big headed 87% of golf developers get it wrong. There is a lot which commercially is the anti of best GCA practice.
-
I'm 37. It was a career break during the recession which did enough to convince me that if I were to have a career change and enter golf, me and the proprietary market weren't going to be bed fellows.
As I've said to you before, more than once, clearly you get a lot right where most get it wrong. In fact 87% getting it wrong does sound about right to me.
Where we always seem to differ is your insistance on always coming back to profit. I don't knock you for seeking profit but I equally don't believe your motives can best serve the game. Traditional clubs, courtesy of ideal conditions, tax breaks and a need to only break even can offer the golfer more for less. That isn't your fault, simply the reality of the situation.
Respectfully, you are not the first and won't be the last in the proprietary market to tell me that you've done well "all things considered." The consumer is interested in the end product and how well that product stacks up against the local alternatives. Telling me that it's a good course when considering that you started off with a toxic swamp and a tiny budget is irrelevant to me as the customer. If the heathland course down the road offers more bang for my buck, that's where I'm going. Your agronomic genius which turned a swamp in to an average golf course is neither here nor there. If it's great then it's great and if it's average then it's average. The fact that you were dealt a bad hand is not my concern, nor anyone else's that might be looking to spend their hard earned cash on golf.
-
Paul - You have just made your usual mistake. You believe your opinion on what's good and what's bad is the law. Everyone likes different things. The winner is the one that most consumers like not Paul Gray's call. Your opinion is just that. There is nothing wrong in a minor opinion though and some will like course A, B, C or D more and have a different 1 to 4 for it.
I wear a number of different hats in the golf industry, primarily I think of myself as a golf course architect but the one slant I do put on everything is the viability of 'will it work' and if I think the client is wasting his money I will tell him/her. I think it is important that a club seeks to make a profit and those that don't try are likely to get into trouble, you never know what's around the corner so there should be some money in the coffers. Too many clubs lease their equipment instead of having a good mechanic and work with older equipment. A lot of clubs have no rainy day funds at the moment. These things are good business practice not just about making a profit. Traditional clubs don't need to make a profit as such but planning anything to break even is dodgy ground. The profit is the rainy day fund.
I am tired of talking to you Paul. You have your own agenda and clearly we clash, you seem to come up with things I don't even say or you assume I am going to say them. So I would rather put you on my list of people I don't engage with.
-
Adrian,
Where you got all that from is beyond me but clearly there's a certain raw nerve there which I've managed to more than niggle.
I really am at a total loss to comprehend where the 'me right, everyone else wrong' interpretation has come from but there's more than a hint of bitter desperation therein.
I wish you well.