HBO Future of golf!

[tgtt]

His entire game. It had been discussed before but he always got defensive and that's why I said we would have to stop playing. He needs/chooses to play slow then that's his choice. It was my choice not to continue being apart of it. It wasn't a fight or heated or anything like that.

And if you're gonna justify 5 extra seconds where does that justification stop? Why not take 2 extra minutes per shot if it results in a better shot? What's the big deal if it works?

 

[JB]

This is all true. But from a business perspective, isnt that putting the cart before the horse? If the course has a rep for being an excellent track that actively promotes fast play, wouldn't that be a feather in their cap? Somebody has to set the trend, and setting trends is about taking risks. But if nobody is willing take a first step, how will anything change? Slow play will just continue to be a reality of the game.

As in tgtt's anecdote, how would that guy have improved if the specific point wasn't made? I think all courses should take a more active role to improve pace of play. After all, isn't a better product better for business?

Would you go play at a course that you had to take a "class" before getting on?
I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, most wouldnt.
I can also tell you they could speak until their blue in the face and it wouldnt change. The ONLY way to make it better is to enforce it.

 

[stevie-a]

His entire game. It had been discussed before but he always got defensive and that's why I said we would have to stop playing. He needs/chooses to play slow then that's his choice. It was my choice not to continue being apart of it. It wasn't a fight or heated or anything like that.

And if you're gonna justify 5 extra seconds where does that justification stop? Why not take 2 extra minutes per shot if it results in a better shot? What's the big deal if it works?

Obviously there is a point where it crosses the line, and that is subjective for each of us.... I threw 5 seconds out there as an example to demonstrate how little overall affect it had on play...unless finishing a round at 11:00 am versus 11:07 am made a huge difference.

 

[tgtt]

Obviously there is a point where it crosses the line, and that is subjective for each of us.... I threw 5 seconds out there as an example to demonstrate how little overall affect it had on play...unless finishing a round at 11:00 am versus 11:07 am made a huge difference.

Yep and I doubt if anyone would notice or b*tch about 5 seconds...

 

[Martsy]

I will say most things dont come down in cost.
There might be more options (computers is a good case), but the costs dont come down from the popular periods.
Now if you compare something from creation that might be a different story (see laptops).
More choices equal lower costs and we have seen that.

In the 90s the cost of drivers is the same as it is now (generally speaking).
The cost of irons is the same as it is now (generally speaking).

Show me another market like that.

I generally agree with you, and probably here do too, except i'm not quite sure what your point is. I'm an economist by education and by trade, so when i see that the price of something hasn't change in 20 years, there are undoubtedly reasons, but it's certainly not due to the generosity of golf OEMs. I'm pretty sure there's more major oem's today that there were 20 years ago, not to mention more alternatives like costco brands and what not, so competition is probably steeper. While we're talking about a decline in golf in the last 5-10 years, when compared to 1990, it's still up, and probably at rate that is just countering the cross between inflation and excess supply in the market. Undoubtedly we're going to see 1-2 major oems either leave the market, or converge over the next few years...providing there is no significant change in demand. Once that happens, I think you will see a potential increase in price, assuming no other new market pressures.

And the computers is a pretty good example. The cost of a top end mac or IBM compatible desktop or laptop is certainly less than in the 90's. Now you have seen competitors leave the market, but that's because the demand is dropping considerably too for alternatives like phones and tablets. In golf's case, there really isn't a direct competition. People aren't leaving golf after making a conscious decision that they like basketball instead, for example. Which I think contributes to the stagnation of prices. If there was more competition, you'd see a drastically difference, but when there is no pricing alternative, the need to meet a fixed demand with lower prices simply isn't needed. This is where i disagree with King...i think foot golf if it ever picked up (which i sincerely doubt), could be severely detrimental to the golf oem industry, while being favorable to the golf course. Offering a true alternative for the time at the course where none exists today.

 

[JB]

I generally agree with you, and probably here do too, except i'm not quite sure what your point is. I'm an economist by education and by trade, so when i see that the price of something hasn't change in 20 years, there are undoubtedly reasons, but it's certainly not due to the generosity of golf OEMs. I'm pretty sure there's more major oem's today that there were 20 years ago, not to mention more alternatives like costco brands and what not, so competition is probably steeper. While we're talking about a decline in golf in the last 5-10 years, when compared to 1990, it's still up, and probably at rate that is just countering the cross between inflation and excess supply in the market. Undoubtedly we're going to see 1-2 major oems either leave the market, or converge over the next few years...providing there is no significant change in demand. Once that happens, I think you will see a potential increase in price, assuming no other new market pressures.

My point was quite simple. People said the equipment cost was too high for people to come to the game. My point showed that it has not changed in over 20 years. The reason for this is also simple. Manufacturing costs have come down and material costs have come down. Then add in that technology has managed to make R&D less expensive (only overall) and you can charge the same thing for better equipment (light years better actually). However the irony is margins have decreased due to a number of factors most notably advertising dollars (most notably cost of players).

As to more OEMs today than 20 years ago...I actually think its less if you look at it from a full catalog profile. Far too many could not keep up and have been acquired or gone away. Although each full line manufacturer is offering more choices than ever before thanks to that technology.

 

[EaglevsFalcon]

Would you go play at a course that you had to take a "class" before getting on?
I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, most wouldnt.
I can also tell you they could speak until their blue in the face and it wouldnt change. The ONLY way to make it better is to enforce it.

I mean, what is 5-10 minutes really? If people aren't told what is expected, how can anything be enforced? And those that refuse, aren't those the people that are being complained about anyway?

I'm also not saying that this "class" would be an every round thing, only the first. Most courses have a record of who plays anyway, so you would know who has been and hasn't been taught.

I'm not saying this is the answer, but there has to be one to make a dent in the issue. We can complain till we're blue in the face but nothing will change until there is some definitive outreach that can get the know-nothings and don't-cares to get in line.

 

[JB]

I mean, what is 5-10 minutes really? If people aren't told what is expected, how can anything be enforced? And those that refuse, aren't those the people that are being complained about anyway?

I'm also not saying that this "class" would be an every round thing, only the first. Most courses have a record of who plays anyway, so you would know who has been and hasn't been taught.

I'm not saying this is the answer, but there has to be one to make a dent in the issue. We can complain till we're blue in the face but nothing will change until there is some definitive outreach that can get the know-nothings and don't-cares to get in line.

Its not about the 5-10 minutes. Its about that it will do nothing for the slow and annoy those that are not slow.
Easiest way to fix this is to fix the tour. Make the shot clock a real thing and then enforce it at the top level. When players on tour stop taking 1 minute and 25 seconds per putt, amateurs will too.

 

[jitzy]

Its not about the 5-10 minutes. Its about that it will do nothing for the slow and annoy those that are not slow.
Easiest way to fix this is to fix the tour. Make the shot clock a real thing and then enforce it at the top level. When players on tour stop taking 1 minute and 25 seconds per putt, amateurs will too.

But do you really think the tour wants the guys sped up? Slower rounds on TV equates more advertising dollars.

 

[JB]

But do you really think the tour wants the guys sped up? Slower rounds on TV equates more advertising dollars.

Not really though. I used to think that, but the time allotment has not changed. They absolutely would like to show more golf.

 

[Martsy]

My point was quite simple. People said the equipment cost was too high for people to come to the game. My point showed that it has not changed in over 20 years. The reason for this is also simple. Manufacturing costs have come down and material costs have come down. Then add in that technology has managed to make R&D less expensive (only overall) and you can charge the same thing for better equipment (light years better actually). However the irony is margins have decreased due to a number of factors most notably advertising dollars (most notably cost of players).

As to more OEMs today than 20 years ago...I actually think its less if you look at it from a full catalog profile. Far too many could not keep up and have been acquired or gone away. Although each full line manufacturer is offering more choices than ever before thanks to that technology.

while the cost reduction has undoubtedly allowed them to remain the in the market, it ultimately has no determination on price. A company will charge the most it can for their product that the market will pay. I would guess that margin drop is undoubtedly due to the fact that demand has not kept up with the fixed costs necessary to operate. Expense is growing based on an expected growth rate which revenues are not following. I think it's those cost reductions, which have slowed the exit in the market, and allowed price to remain somewhat flat. It sounds like form the doom and gloom i read about...that we've got to be on a bubble of a major oem exiting the market.

 

[Navyhacker]

Having marshalls on the course doesn't do anything either. It turns into a political thing and they tend to hook up their buddies and castigate people that are complaining about the slow pace. That's how it was in Fl and Al when I was stationed down there.

 

[JB]

while the cost reduction has undoubtedly allowed them to remain the in the market, it ultimately has no determination on price. A company will charge the most it can for their product that the market will pay. I would guess that margin drop is undoubtedly due to the fact that demand has not kept up with the fixed costs necessary to operate. Expense is growing based on an expected growth rate which revenues are not following. I think it's those cost reductions, which have slowed the exit in the market, and allowed price to remain somewhat flat.

Its actually not. The main reason is because every company has to wait for the market leader in that category. Raising price while the market leader stays firm has been suicide in golf for decades. Unlike other industries where the price can change as a new feature is marketed, in golf, it kills the brand. Ask Liquid Metal and Orlimar what happens when you do that despite having a great product at that time. We saw it with more than a handful of companies in the last 2 decades and this year was the first time it changed a bit when TaylorMade stayed put on price and a few others raised price to create margins. It caused many to assume inferior materials or QC. We saw it with golf balls as well and again it was just this year. Before that the status quo had been release each year in January (at PGA Show) and price at $299 and $399 as well as $699 and $899. Just like golf balls are done at $10 intervals starting at 19.99. One company changed that by offering 3 releases per year instead of 3 at once and it took off and we saw a spike in their metal wood sales that had never been seen before (and broken since then).

Then add the expenses skyrocketing (which I said earlier) in terms of advertising dollars (athletes).
Then add the amount the government is taking skyrocketing.
Then add the cost of fuel skyrocketing in terms of shipping (which is rarely passed on in full).
Then add weather playing a cruel trick on the spring in half the country this year.

 

[tgtt]

But do you really think the tour wants the guys sped up? Slower rounds on TV equates more advertising dollars.

Why would it be less golf on TV? Same timeframe they could show more golfers and the leaders entire round. And, IMO, when the Tiger Era is completely over they will lose TV exposure this forcing them to speed up the game and get as many players exposure as possible.

 

[JB]

People are so quick to forget that people in this country have less money than they had previously. Less money equals less entertainment dollars spent. The movie and music industry blames pirating, the sports wear world blames counterfeiting, the TV shows blame DVRs, but nobody ever wants to get down to the nuts and bolts of the problem.

People dont have the money to spend. And when they do have it to spend, more choices are out there (luxury cars, dining out, new apparel, technology every 5 minutes), etc etc etc.

 

[arydolphin]

First of all, I can't believe this thread turned into a debate about 9 holes vs. 18 holes and pace of play. If people actually watched the video, they would see that pace of play was barely talked about in it (if at all), and it was more talking about decreasing numbers of players in golf and what could be done to stimulate new players to come into the game.

The irony is that GolfNow did not become popular because of discounts. It became popular because people are lazy and did not want to make calls to courses to see about openings and find out a cost. Instead they can go to a single website and find all the courses at once. Most of the golfers that use the program have no idea what the rates are regularly, if there is a discount, etc.

I don't think this is golfers being lazy, I think that it's being efficient and finding an online tool to make tee times similar to how many people make restaurant reservations using OpenTable, hotel reservations using a number of online sites, etc.

Is it possible that golf grew unsustainably during boom years, like housing and populations in the Southwest? Now it simply has to retract?

I can't see golf becoming bowling, or basketball...it will always be hard enough and time consuming enough and expensive enough to keep participation down.

You're right, golf went through a boom in building courses that is touched on in the story, and we'll see a lot more courses close in the next 10-15 years as the golf market evens itself out.

People are so quick to forget that people in this country have less money than they had previously. Less money equals less entertainment dollars spent. The movie and music industry blames pirating, the sports wear world blames counterfeiting, the TV shows blame DVRs, but nobody ever wants to get down to the nuts and bolts of the problem.

People dont have the money to spend. And when they do have it to spend, more choices are out there (luxury cars, dining out, new apparel, technology every 5 minutes), etc etc etc.

JB, we don't agree on a lot of stuff politically (and I don't want to take this thread in that direction), but you are so right on this one. In particular, the middle class of this country is worse off than it was in the previous generation, and many things that are considered necessities for families are more expensive now than they were for the past generation. Additionally, a large part of 18-34 year old demographic that is not taking up golf is crippled by student loan debt, and don't have much money at all for extracurricular activities. Golf has always been a niche sport, and it's going to struggle even more in the future to attract the "casual" golfer unless a lot of things change in the golf world and in the economic state of our world overall. The ironic part is that golf may become better off for the "avid" golfer with lesser players overall in the game.

 

[jitzy]

Why would it be less golf on TV? Same timeframe they could show more golfers and the leaders entire round. And, IMO, when the Tiger Era is completely over they will lose TV exposure this forcing them to speed up the game and get as many players exposure as possible.

Because if it takes them all less time to play a round it will be less time. If everyone is playing 5 1/2 hour rounds and they cut it down to 4 it would simply be less time.

 

[fupresti]

People have been paying $400.00 for a new driver for almost 20 years. Im tired of that being the excuse. A Great Big Bertha retailed for $349.00 on 1997, over $500.00 in 2014 money and they couldn't make enough of them.

 

[JB]

People have been paying $400.00 for a new driver for almost 20 years. Im tired of that being the excuse. A Great Big Bertha retailed for $349.00 on 1997, over $500.00 in 2014 money and they couldn't make enough of them.

Dont forget the Bubble Burner that was $449.

 

[tgtt]

Because if it takes them all less time to play a round it will be less time. If everyone is playing 5 1/2 hour rounds and they cut it down to 4 it would simply be less time.

The TV window would be unaffected. There are 70 players that make the cut. More players to watch is all that changes.

 

[Philly Golf Guy]

I read the first page and then skimmed, but I belong to a nine hole private club and love it. I can play during the week in a lunch hour if I wanted. Aside from a few get togethers with friends and THP that are planned well in advance, that is all the golf I have time for. For 18 holes, we switch up the tees. At any rate, playing 9 holes actually helps me play more, if that makes sense.

 

[Squints]

Not that this is your typical course, but I did find one that had a pace of play that approached 5 hrs. :act-up:

From the Erin Hills website:
http://www.erinhills.com/erin_hills_golf_faq_2.aspx

How long does it take to play a typical round?
Please plan on a four hour and forty-five minute round of golf.

Having golfed it without a caddy, I can say it could easily go to the 5 1/2 hr range.

 

[stevie-a]

The ironic part is that golf may become better off for the "avid" golfer with lesser players overall in the game.

Which circles this right back to the original theme of the video...that golf will return to being an elitist sport unless it does something to gain the attention of new players. I have a couple friends that just took up golfing and they view playing golf as something to do on the weekends...the equivalent of cooking out or going to the lake. They could care less how long it takes to play or what they score, they are just there to have a good time. While that doesn't work for those of us looking to get done in 4 hours or less, it's what they want as a new player. Now have someone riding their ass or hitting into them all day and why would they want to come back???

 

[JB]

While that doesn't work for those of us looking to get done in 4 hours or less, it's what they want as a new player. Now have someone riding their ass or hitting into them all day and why would they want to come back???

So the answer is bending the rules to make sure to keep a select few coming back? Each course has a pace of play. Failure to abide by that is no different than breaking any other rules, except that it impacts everyone else on the course.

What if your friends decided that instead of playing slower, they did not want to fix pitch marks, repair divots or even walk to the greens?

I dont think asking for someone to marginally follow the rules, makes anything elitist. In fact nothing of the sort really.

 

[howl1309]

I have a few thoughts on this. Much of which is based on my experiences playing golf in RI.

1. The options to play round here are somewhat limited. A lot of the courses are private and therefore expensive, ore expensive enough. On the public courses which are somewhat limited, the course is either packed or expensive. I would love to play some of the better courses but at $75+ dollars a round it seems crazy. Maybe I don't look around enough but it is hard to get tee times for a reasonable price. Not sure if much can be done here but it is a concern.

2. The fun factor. As somebody that is always thinking about golf as everybody here is, I'll have rounds were I don't have a ton of fun but the casual fan or the new player these can be a major turnoff. The game is hard. I can warm up to the larger cup idea but not 15 inches. Make it 8 or 9. Just an idea, could a company develop a new cup that has an insert that can change the cup size in the middle of the round? So better players can play with the traditional cup size and the worse players play with a large cup size?

3. Tying into the fun factor is playing better golf. Practicing is a huge part of getting better. One major issue around here is poor practice faculties. Most are average at best with poor synthetic mats, no true understanding of distances, and crappy range balls. Very few have anything to work on short game, putting, or bunker play. Living in the northeast, I understand space is always at a premium and land is very expense so it is difficult to getting these facilities up and running. I would think that using the top golf model is a nice place to start. Personally, I would rather have it more focused on the actually golfing than the club-ish feel. But maybe I'm just getting a little old.

The ability to be able to put in an hour or two of quality golf practice can both be fun but also productive. With a great set of features, practice facilities have the opportunity to create more life-life golfers while also providing a golf outlet for those short on time/money.

More courses should make an investment in their clients with group clinics for ball striking, putting, short game. All that stuff. Don't charge $50 for 1/2 session. Close down half the course for 2 hours and run a clinic based on actually playing conditions for a reasonable price, like $10. The course should pay their pros to offset the 'cost.'

4. Promote much more youth golf. Create leagues with more of a team focus.

5. Time and pace of play. Rounds can take way to long to play. Players need to be retrained has to how long the game should take and how long they should prepare for their shots. Nobody needs to read the greens for 5 minutes and then stand over the putt looking at the line for another minute. Read the putt and putt. Same thing with approach shots.

Also, I have heard of a few courses that sell 6 hole rounds. Make it so you can play 6 holes, 9 holes, 12 holes, or 18 holes (or even 24 those that want to play more). Making the time commitment more reasonable opens up lots of potential revenue.

Another major burn on pace of play is lost balls. A lot of courses could spend more time (yes, I know there is an investment cost involved) clearing out more the woods and leaves to make finding balls much easier. Get rid of as much of the crap as possible to encourage players finding their balls quickly.