We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Are course architects and real estate developers responsible for golf's decline?

WOW NPR fingered capitalism as a culprit in golf's decline - brilliant.
 
Hawk said:
The game shrinking isn't good any way I look at it. Less players = less money = fewer courses, more crowded courses, worse conditions, less opportunities for careers, etc.
Click to expand...

Hawk sees the big picture. I don't agree 100% with the ideas in the first post but I do think it is good to look at what the game's issues are and make sure we don't make the same mistakes moving forward.
 
tequila4kapp said:
I can't quite get on board with your characterization. It isn't about making every household is a golfing household. It is about dealing with the real numbers which show golf is in decline. Perhaps some of that is the Tiger effect. Regardless, it isn't healthy for anyone when a sport's participation numbers go the wrong way. Discussing causes and solutions is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Never a bad thing to put minds together for keeping anything from declining and to try to help it grow. I certainly don't want to see golf die off. But we too often compare golf today with the Tiger influx combined with the better economy at the time and then act as if to say "where did we go wrong". As said earlier an influx imo is like a temporary fad just like in anything else. I don't have the facts but I think it safe to assume if we looked at golf prior to the influx and in the better economy we would find very many more still playing today vs then. If we took the influx out of the equation I think the stats would say golf has actually grown even with the bad economy. I am turning 50 this year and was around and old enough before the influx. I can tell you for certain I know very many more people who golf today vs back then. I think the sport is simply on the downside of an influx fad and combined with a bad economy and yet still is larger than it was prior.

We also should remember that with a fad or influx for anything, that thing then grows, and new businesses pop up as anyone who can tries to invest and then cash in. But when the influx goes back the other way those who profited no longer can and then we are left with a void where there was not one before. It almost becomes a victim of its own success. This only adds to make the problem appear worse than it may actually be. There are golf courses, stores, and businesses alike closing up but how much of that is due to the fact that many opened for business due to the influx from Tiger and also a better economy at the time. Had they never opened to take advantage of the influx then we wouldn't be left with the extra competition and this void that they now suffer. Not blaming anyone for that but that's just the way it is.

Hawk said:
The game shrinking isn't good any way I look at it. Less players = less money = fewer courses, more crowded courses, worse conditions, less opportunities for careers, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.
The good and bad works both ways. Needs a happy medium between businesses and patrons. Too many or too less of either one = a bad scenario. Fewer courses may result in more crowded courses bringing in more money per and allowing for better conditions per. I understand what you said and in many ways don't disagree. But for example my county opened up 2 courses during the influx back in I believe 99 and 2001. Just like I said above they took advantage of the influx and better economy. But as the influx and economy are dying so are they (I assume) hurting especially during the week. Had these new courses never existed the other 3 that already existed would still be very profitable. Its a victim of its own success. It all works both ways. Too many patrons and that can be bad too. Too many businesses vs patrons and that is also bad. In many ways the industry over did itself. It went on to support an influx that would eventually fade. A happy medium is what it requires but that is very hard to obtain. One way will always chase or fall behind the other. If something becomes more popular than it usually is we take advantage of that and expand on it but we fail to realize that fads and influxes don't last for ever. When they calm down so then does everything associated with it. And we are left with a void as I mention above where we think what went wrong. Just perhaps too many courses and other golf businesses opened up to begin with. That doesnt necessarily mean something went wrong as it still imo more popular than before. Not as popular as when the influx thrived but still very popular.
 
Last edited:
rollin said:
Never a bad thing to put minds together for keeping anything from declining and to try to help it grow. I certainly don't want to see golf die off. But we too often compare golf today with the Tiger influx combined with the better economy at the time and then act as if to say "where did we go wrong". As said earlier an influx imo is like a temporary fad just like in anything else. I don't have the facts but I think it safe to assume if we looked at golf prior to the influx and in the better economy we would find very many more still playing today vs then. If we took the influx out of the equation I think the stats would say golf has actually grown even with the bad economy. I am turning 50 this year and was around and old enough before the influx. I can tell you for certain I know very many more people who golf today vs back then. I think the sport is simply on the downside of an influx fad and combined with a bad economy and yet still is larger than it was prior.

We also should remember that with a fad or influx for anything, that thing then grows, and new businesses pop up as anyone who can tries to invest and then cash in. But when the influx goes back the other way those who profited no longer can and then we are left with a void where there was not one before. It almost becomes a victim of its own success. This only adds to make the problem appear worse than it may actually be. There are golf courses, stores, and businesses alike closing up but how much of that is due to the fact that many opened for business due to the influx from Tiger and also a better economy at the time. Had they never opened to take advantage of the influx then we wouldn't be left with the extra competition and this void that they now suffer. Not blaming anyone for that but that's just the way it is.



Yes and no.
The good and bad works both ways. Needs a happy medium between businesses and patrons. Too many or too less of either one = a bad scenario. Fewer courses may result in more crowded courses bringing in more money per and allowing for better conditions per. I understand what you said and in many ways don't disagree. But for example my county opened up 2 courses during the influx back in I believe 99 and 2001. Just like I said above they took advantage of the influx and better economy. But as the influx and economy are dying so are they (I assume) hurting especially during the week. Had these new courses never existed the other 3 that already existed would still be very profitable. Its a victim of its own success. It all works both ways. Too many patrons and that can be bad too. Too many businesses vs patrons and that is also bad. In many ways the industry over did itself. It went on to support an influx that would eventually fade. A happy medium is what it requires but that is very hard to obtain. One way will always chase or fall behind the other. If something becomes more popular than it usually is we take advantage of that and expand on it but we fail to realize that fads and influxes don't last for ever. When they calm down so then does everything associated with it. And we are left with a void as I mention above where we think what went wrong. Just perhaps too many courses and other golf businesses opened up to begin with. That doesnt necessarily mean something went wrong as it still imo more popular than before. Not as popular as when the influx thrived but still very popular.
Click to expand...

So, in a few words what is the cause of the decline in golf? Course Architecture or home developers?
 
Howzat said:
I heard a blurb on NPR this morning that made some interesting points about the decline in the popularity of amateurs playing golf. I will try to find a link but it basically states that big name course architects and real estate developers are a big part of the issue. The architects making the courses more difficult and the real estate developers for making the courses longer. For each extra 15 yards of fairway you add 4 houses which could be close to $1 million for the developer in some places. Of course this leads to the longer rounds. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...


That's some crazy money for the developer, wow! I have no idea really what kind of impact they have on the game TBH, I do think that they have affected walking the course, many housing developments with courses can have a 1/4 mile between holes and it's just crazy. time is a big killer of the game too as is cost to play some of the nicer courses. There are a lot of reasons I'd bet but the economy certainly plays the biggest role I'd bet.
 
Way to much emphasis put on that number for the profit of the developer. I have a feeling there's a lot of fine print surrounding that number.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
I'm not sure about the correct answer to OP's question, but I'm inclined to doubt it, or at least think that if developers are still leaning toward longer courses, they need to reevaluate their knowledge of golfing trends. It is also clear that course don't need to be longer to be challenging. Just ask anyone who watched last weekend's Legends of Golf playing at Big Cedar Lodge's 9 hole masterpiece. It was absolutely impressive. We have a lot of 'Executive courses" here in Washington, as I suspect most places do; and many of those 9 hole designs with maybe 1 or 2 Par Fours added to the mostly Par Threes are challenging, fun, and great practise with the short irons. Personally, I play as many a 3 Exec courses a month.
 
There were a bunch of courses put together during the golf upswing (Tiger era). Expectations were that people would take up the sport and be willing to pay outrageous sums of money to play. I think the sparkle is gone, and reality has set in. The golfers that play today, want good courses, well maintained, and reasonably priced. There are very few that meet this criteria where I live.
 
GenErr said:
There were a bunch of courses put together during the golf upswing (Tiger era). Expectations were that people would take up the sport and be willing to pay outrageous sums of money to play. I think the sparkle is gone, and reality has set in. The golfers that play today, want good courses, well maintained, and reasonably priced. There are very few that meet this criteria where I live.
Click to expand...

Is much of what I mentioned. Became sort of a victim of its own success.
I am fortunate that my county courses are pretty darn nice. 3 of the 5 are very nice wile one is average to above average and only 1 other that could be better. I don't know why the one seems to be the black sheep of the family since all is own and run by the same county. :confused2:. But over all I think we have it pretty good condition wise though I do wish it were cheaper but who doesn't.
 
I don't think the problem is longer courses, I think the problem is expecting peopled to pay $50.00-$100.00 per round of golf.

It's simple, lower the barrier to entry and more people will play. Bigger cups and 9 hole rounds aren't solving the core problem. You have a shrinking middle class with less disposable income.
 
Howzat said:
I heard a blurb on NPR this morning that made some interesting points about the decline in the popularity of amateurs playing golf. I will try to find a link but it basically states that big name course architects and real estate developers are a big part of the issue. The architects making the courses more difficult and the real estate developers for making the courses longer. For each extra 15 yards of fairway you add 4 houses which could be close to $1 million for the developer in some places. Of course this leads to the longer rounds. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say they are responsible, but they haven't helped. Designing courses that sprawl over large areas, weaving through houses with long distances between green and the next tee, contributes to slow play and either prohibits walking or makes it exhausting at best. Add in OB everywhere and you have created the perfect formula for 5 plus hour rounds. Since many dedicated players would almost rather quit than ride, and any experienced player hates slow play, that is a definite problem.

Also building courses which cater to the few players who want extreme difficulty drives away the average golfer. Courses where the middle tees play to a 135 slope or higher is just nuts in my opinion. I've played for 40 years and I still don't like that type of course.
 
Fourputt said:
I wouldn't necessarily say they are responsible, but they haven't helped. Designing courses that sprawl over large areas, weaving through houses with long distances between green and the next tee, contributes to slow play and either prohibits walking or makes it exhausting at best. Add in OB everywhere and you have created the perfect formula for 5 plus hour rounds. Since many dedicated players would almost rather quit than ride, and any experienced player hates slow play, that is a definite problem.

Also building courses which cater to the few players who want extreme difficulty drives away the average golfer. Courses where the middle tees play to a 135 slope or higher is just nuts in my opinion. I've played for 40 years and I still don't like that type of course.
Click to expand...

Fourputt has hit on a feature of design that IS geared towards putting more houses on fairways and maximizing revenue. That is, when you eliminate side-by-side holes that share turf and you make every hole a little island of green surrounded by red tile roofs, you can sell more course-side lots. This requires that you have little cart paths between each island to connect them. This I think developers are guilty of doing because it does boost profits, whereas lengthening holes (and thereby poaching turf from potential homesites) would not be viewed so favorably by developers. In California where the land is flat-ish, but not tabletop flat, developers try to route their holes in the low arroyos with the homes overlooking them on the arroyo-tops. This makes the holes into little alleyways keeping shots in, and it also gives the homes a "view". As a result of their bland similarity, we called these kinds of courses "Condo Canyons" and there are hundreds of them in Southern California
 
fupresti said:
I don't think the problem is longer courses, I think the problem is expecting peopled to pay $50.00-$100.00 per round of golf.

It's simple, lower the barrier to entry and more people will play. Bigger cups and 9 hole rounds aren't solving the core problem. You have a shrinking middle class with less disposable income.
Click to expand...

One of the problem with costs is that we also don't want close tee times. We know how that contributes a ton towards slowing things up right from the first tee. There are only so many tee times regardless of cost so charging less in many places means the same golfers but less income. However I guess weekdays is when courses can drum up more players if cheaper. But most people cant golf weekdays anyway. I just not sure how it would all work out.
 
rollin said:
Is much of what I mentioned. Became sort of a victim of its own success.
I am fortunate that my county courses are pretty darn nice. 3 of the 5 are very nice wile one is average to above average and only 1 other that could be better. I don't know why the one seems to be the black sheep of the family since all is own and run by the same county. :confused2:. But over all I think we have it pretty good condition wise though I do wish it were cheaper but who doesn't.
Click to expand...
You are lucky to have great county courses to play - but if you don't have a resident card, the courses are expensive. I haven't played Howell or Hominy in years, but remember them as excellent courses. I don't recall much about Shark River. Friends often invite me to play Charleston Springs on weekends. Its two 18 hole layouts are very nice, but as a non-resident I don't want to pay close to $100 to play there.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I have yet to go to a golf course that didn't have multiple sets of tees for every range of golfer. I also have yet to play a course that is tough from the forward tees. I think golf is on a decline because people don't put the time in to get lessons or play the right tees. Frustration sets in and they leave the game.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is the only reason for a golf decline. Golf is hard. 15 years ago people who never played before got caught up in Tigermania and wanted to give it a try. After spending hundreds or thousands of dollars trying to play like Tiger, they realized they couldn't, then didn't or couldn't take the necessary strides to improve, and simply gave it up or at the least scaled way back.

I don't think it has anything to do with residential courses or course layouts. People want to play nice courses, but after realizing they are no good and not having fun, they simply don't want to spend the money for the best courses, but also don't want to play the 'cheap' courses.

Golf is hard and costs a lot of money. It can also be a lot of fun if you want it to be, but if you don't find it fun, it makes the hard and the costs very hard to tolerate.
 
Conversely, you could also say some developers have fostered a return to a lot of the classic traits of golf. Look at Kaiser, Mack, heck, even Trump. They're responsible for Bandon, Streamsong and the Trump courses I have played are pricey, but he makes sure they're accessible for all to keep that healthy bottom line. Granted, Bandon and Streamsong are much more affordable, but the cropping up of this business model is encouraging IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
GenErr said:
You are lucky to have great county courses to play - but if you don't have a resident card, the courses are expensive. I haven't played Howell or Hominy in years, but remember them as excellent courses. I don't recall much about Shark River. Friends often invite me to play Charleston Springs on weekends. Its two 18 hole layouts are very nice, but as a non-resident I don't want to pay close to $100 to play there.
Click to expand...

Shark is the one least desirable and in need of work to get on par with the others but by no means a disaster. Its the shortest by a lump yet in many ways not easy as it has 2 very long 4's and 5's and also small greens. If conditions were up to par its a nice challenging course.

Hominy as nice as always as usual. Charlestons two tracks are both very nice condition. Of course the tall fescue that lines most every hole fairways on both courses is a ball swallower and very different from Hominy's tree lined fairways but still graet conditions. Howell goes hit and miss. Seems every couple years is very good and a couple only decent.

Yea they are not cheap without a resident card. Honestly not so cheap with one. About 43 to walk weekends plus 18 cart fee. But considereing the over all conditions they are worth it. But like anything else its only worth it if one can afford it.
 
I tend to like courses without the houses surrounding them. Tends to be rare nowadays. For me I like the serenity of the golf course without having to deal with the common noises that development golf courses tend to bring.
 
We had this discussion last year and I'll repeat that a lot of these newer, more spread out, development type courses are an absolute nightmare to walk at since some of the tee boxes are hundreds of yards of scorching concrete apart. Paired with humongous multi-tiered greens running at 13 can you see any rounds finishing in under 5 hrs regardless of tee choice? Walk or ride, I always enjoy playing the older muni styled courses and I've seen a lot of them especially getting on top of their maintenance and especially the greens and getting them back in shape.

In terms of golf "growing" remember (for example) that Las Vegas has more millenials going there to go "dancing" at stupid overpriced nightclubs and blowing $18 on Grey Goose cosmos - then playing golf now. The 20 somethings (besides the THPer types here obviously) would rather tweet, facebook, take pictures of their lunch to twit around, and go clubbing and hang out than play golf.

I say that as a grumpy mid 40 something though! When my rat pack of friends all went to LV our priorities were to #1, play golf, #2 gamble, 3# grub, 4# drink/strip clubs, #5 pool etc. IF someone mentioned that some hot dj was at a club we would laugh them out of town.
 
KeyserSoze said:
We had this discussion last year and I'll repeat that a lot of these newer, more spread out, development type courses are an absolute nightmare to walk at since some of the tee boxes are hundreds of yards of scorching concrete apart. Paired with humongous multi-tiered greens running at 13 can you see any rounds finishing in under 5 hrs regardless of tee choice? Walk or ride, I always enjoy playing the older muni styled courses and I've seen a lot of them especially getting on top of their maintenance and especially the greens and getting them back in shape.

In terms of golf "growing" remember (for example) that Las Vegas has more millenials going there to go "dancing" at stupid overpriced nightclubs and blowing $18 on Grey Goose cosmos - then playing golf now. The 20 somethings (besides the THPer types here obviously) would rather tweet, facebook, take pictures of their lunch to twit around, and go clubbing and hang out than play golf.

I say that as a grumpy mid 40 something though! When my rat pack of friends all went to LV our priorities were to #1, play golf, #2 gamble, 3# grub, 4# drink/strip clubs, #5 pool etc. IF someone mentioned that some hot dj was at a club we would laugh them out of town.
Click to expand...


As a current 20 something, not sure I agree. I would account for it being closely related to the costs and time related to education which often only leads to a mediocre career in today's economy. Though, that's a different discussion.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
I think there are more factors than that that play into the decline. Most were listed but for me I believe that green fees and pace of play are the two biggest issues. There are several courses on long island and probably everywhere else that charge a fortune for a round of golf that to be honest are not worth anything near the price they charge. I have talked to a lot of people about this and they agree, most people avoid these courses because the price doesn't justify the product. Now some courses may be worth it but I am not paying $120 a round to play a semi private that is slightly better than a course that is a third the price. Perfect example on long island, Hamlet Wind Watch. Perfect example of a course that has its pricing right, Tallgrass.

Even with that there are plenty of cheaper muni courses that I have noticed have realized if they put more money into course conditions more people will play it. This leads to the next issue, pace of play. For some reason a lot of people think they are in the US open when they play. A lot of courses I have played do not have marshalls telling people to pick up the pace and ones that do aren't strict enough on it. Now people playing slow isnt the whole reason pace of play is bad, some courses put tee time to close together which just bogs down a course. Length and difficulty may factor in but I feel like more people get turned off for pace of play than anything else.


I played a course yesterday where they got all of the above right. It was a shorter course called Hollydale. Green fees were $17 and the course was in a condition that could have warranted a little more in price after 4pm and the course was fairly crowded. I tee'd off on 1 at a little after 4:30 and was done before 7:30 even with a crowded course. Just for the pace and the price I would play there again.
 
I still think pace of play is more of a deterrent for people already playing golf and hitting the frustration point not necessarily new players picking it up.

I'll concur that if more 9 hole exec style courses existed (and night courses) that would help new players get experience and have some fun. When I was learning how to play golf after high school I basically learned on a beat up 9 hole track built into a decaying mobile home park. Going to the "big courses" was extremely nervewracking especially if I had to play with people that knew what they were doing, so I avoided it until I was "ready." No amount of range time off of plastic mats is truly going to get a new player "ready" to actually play to play a proper course.

I played a course last week (Castle Oaks, Ione CA) that had a significant amount of holes with forced carries, and although we were playing the blues the whites were gonna have to go over or around almost all of them.
 
KeyserSoze said:
We had this discussion last year and I'll repeat that a lot of these newer, more spread out, development type courses are an absolute nightmare to walk at since some of the tee boxes are hundreds of yards of scorching concrete apart. Paired with humongous multi-tiered greens running at 13 can you see any rounds finishing in under 5 hrs regardless of tee choice? Walk or ride, I always enjoy playing the older muni styled courses and I've seen a lot of them especially getting on top of their maintenance and especially the greens and getting them back in shape.

In terms of golf "growing" remember (for example) that Las Vegas has more millenials going there to go "dancing" at stupid overpriced nightclubs and blowing $18 on Grey Goose cosmos - then playing golf now. The 20 somethings (besides the THPer types here obviously) would rather tweet, facebook, take pictures of their lunch to twit around, and go clubbing and hang out than play golf.

I say that as a grumpy mid 40 something though! When my rat pack of friends all went to LV our priorities were to #1, play golf, #2 gamble, 3# grub, 4# drink/strip clubs, #5 pool etc. IF someone mentioned that some hot dj was at a club we would laugh them out of town.
Click to expand...

Keyser makes a valid distinction. The reasons why a golfer leaves the game are different than the reasons why young people don't bother to take it up, and they're different still from the carping complaints of veteran golfers who aren't going anywhere.

By virtue of the fact that we are all typing here, we are in the last category, so our perspectives are skewed. Slow play grumbles don't scare away newbies so much as other factors. Quite often the newbies are the source of slow play, not the victims of it. Perhaps what needs to be done is not ask a bunch of golf bloggers what ticks them off, but poll a bunch of teens on the reasons why they don't play.
 
KeyserSoze said:
I still think pace of play is more of a deterrent for people already playing golf and hitting the frustration point not necessarily new players picking it up.
Click to expand...

mark blanchard said:
Keyser makes a valid distinction. The reasons why a golfer leaves the game are different than the reasons why young people don't bother to take it up, and they're different still from the carping complaints of veteran golfers who aren't going anywhere.

By virtue of the fact that we are all typing here, we are in the last category, so our perspectives are skewed. Slow play grumbles don't scare away newbies so much as other factors. Quite often the newbies are the source of slow play, not the victims of it. Perhaps what needs to be done is not ask a bunch of golf bloggers what ticks them off, but poll a bunch of teens on the reasons why they don't play.
Click to expand...

I agree with both above statements.
I have made mention before that many confuse the issues that we avid players have with why new people don't take up the sport. Most of the issues with the game that we have are only important to us who are playing it. Most outsiders don't even realize many of them. Including pace of play. If it were somehow guaranteed that golf never took more that 4 hrs the masses would still not flock on over because most of them think that's about what it takes us anyway and are unaware of the real long 5 to 6 hr rounds. And that is not the norm. But they are not (not playing golf) because any of us are pissed that it took 4:38 to finish his round. Just too many others facts and reasons masses of more people don't play golf. What may tee us off about our sport is not always the same reasons outsiders don't play it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top