Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
2014-15 PGA Tour Thread 2014-15 PGA Tour Thread

06-08-2015 , 08:04 AM
What about the less people playing part?
06-08-2015 , 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjaidii
What about the less people playing part?
less money for golf clubs -> golf courses shut down -> less golf for you
06-08-2015 , 08:54 AM
Well, I guess it depends on whether you believe the rate of golf course closings will exceed the loss of players/interest. I would say that might depend on where you live. In areas where golf courses are scarce, but there is a decent number of players, you would welcome the decline in the number of players, because not many courses will close. In Boston and surrounding, there is a shortage of courses relative to the number of players.

So, really, the courses respond to the number of players... Whether or not they stay open depends on whether or not there is still enough interest. I know golf is hurting in some areas like FLA, but I haven't seen any course closings in the states around me.

'Good for the game' probably means more to the industry in terms of selling shirts, clubs, balls, etc, than it does to the access of the game to people who want to play..
06-08-2015 , 09:47 AM
Video of shank in this article for those who missed it like I did:

http://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/ju...forces-playoff
06-08-2015 , 11:44 AM
I was hoping that was a link to Roses second shank, which seemed to almost be intentional.
06-08-2015 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
Well, there should be correlation since we all watch this for entertainment.

Golf is on the decline. TV is an avenue to get people interested in playing. Tiger brought a lot of interest to the game. David Lingmerth winning in a playoff accomplishes little except for him.
Golf was doing pretty well pre-1996, and it will do well after Tiger. If the ratings and purses shrink some due to losing casualfan, meh. My income isn't tied to how well the PGA Tour fares with common folk so it's a dumb thing for me to care about.

Nevertheless, some people think that we should be invested in Tiger doing well because if he becomes irrelevant then golf is totally screwed. Wrong. Euro, Sr., Web.com, the LPGA, and countless other tours worldwide draw sufficient sponsors and fans to survive despite Tiger not playing in their events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Probably because if less people watch, means less people play, which leads to less courses, or higher greens fees.
Golf is overbuilt in a lot of places, period, so some contraction is inevitable. However, fewer people playing leading to higher green fees is pretty much the opposite of how supply and demand works. It's highly unlikely that supply of golf courses outpace decline in interest to the point where prices would actually rise, thus I benefit from waning interest in the game.
06-08-2015 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Probably because if less people watch, means less people play, which leads to less courses, or higher greens fees.
huh? I don't think that's how supply and demand works.
06-08-2015 , 12:41 PM
Not to derail thread too much but it'll be interesting to see what courses survive as the golf economy inevitably shrinks a bit.

Obviously the elite / high-end golf clubs remain as their members and revenue streams are pretty inelastic.

It'll be interesting to see how the public golf course market evolves.
06-08-2015 , 12:43 PM
That kind of was my point. There will be people who stop golfing, thus limiting how many rounds are being played which decreases revenue for the course. The courses that survive will survive only because they have raised greens fees, and there are enough people at that price point willing to pay.
06-08-2015 , 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
That kind of was my point. There will be people who stop golfing, thus limiting how many rounds are being played which decreases revenue for the course. The courses that survive will survive only because they have raised greens fees, and there are enough people at that price point willing to pay.
I disagree with courses having to raise green fees to survive.

The courses who offer the best value, location, and experience will continue to thrive and the ones that don't will fail. The trickle down effect will likely be courses reducing costs of operation which might lead to more natural areas, etc, but I wouldn't expect a ton of courses to close up shop - just the ones that are grossly mismanaged.
06-08-2015 , 01:24 PM
Yes but the opposite end is true also. I stopped playing as much as if I book an early tee time I still get stuck behind slow players and looking at a 5 hour round. When I golfed a bunch you would head out 6:30 or 7:00 AM and group of 4 done in 3.5 tops. Now only way is to be the first group out.
06-08-2015 , 01:41 PM
Yeah, I see your point.

I guess I just expect 5h rounds at public courses where you're paying < $100/rd. Anything over and I expect 4:30 or less.
06-08-2015 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
That kind of was my point. There will be people who stop golfing, thus limiting how many rounds are being played which decreases revenue for the course. The courses that survive will survive only because they have raised greens fees, and there are enough people at that price point willing to pay.
The point at which there are so many golf course closures that the supply falls even faster than demand is at the very least several years out, and is more than likely some bizarre fantasy.

My guess is the ever-increasing emphasis on conservation along with improvements like durable grasses which require less watering are likely to bring costs down in the long-term anyway, which would make it easier for courses to be profitable and less likely to close. This helps the supply side and should keep costs from rising.
06-08-2015 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBananaboy
Not to derail thread too much but it'll be interesting to see what courses survive as the golf economy inevitably shrinks a bit.

Obviously the elite / high-end golf clubs remain as their members and revenue streams are pretty inelastic.

It'll be interesting to see how the public golf course market evolves.
I think that other than the very top courses and the lowliest municipals that the future will involve some sort of effectively private/public hybrid....... can pay $2000-$3,000 a year and play all the golf you want and grab the best tee times? or you can pay anywhere from $70-$200 for public tee time? satisfy all types of customers?

I think it would even be good for top courses to offer $300 rounds... say you can only do it once or twice a year and the tees times would be restricted.... obviously Olympic, cypress point, pine valley etc. don't need this but it drops off pretty fast after that and I think it is good for golf in general.
06-08-2015 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Probably because if less people watch, means less people play, which leads to less courses, or higher greens fees.
Oh FFS, I'm so sick of hearing **** like this.

So, whenever someone who isn't a big name wins, we're all supposed to be slightly dismayed that it isn't "good for golf". Think of the future greens fees!!!

"Wow, what an NBA Finals game last night!"

"Yeah, but a small market team won. Imagine what that will mean for basketball shoe prices in the future."

"Yeah, good point. The game last night sucked, I guess."

Christ, you guys are the worst golf fans.
06-08-2015 , 03:27 PM
Country Clubs are hurting.

Public Golf Courses are hurting.

No-namers winning golf tournaments and low golf ratings are not going to help. Tiger Woods generated interest. Or at least faux interest.

I think country club attitudes of elitism have killed off a generation of golfers. They didn't want kids at their "club" all these yaers. Well, now you have to deal with all these 30 and 40-year olds that are not golfers.

The old ones are dying off.

They are people who may play golf once in a while, but it is golfers that keeps golf courses alive.
06-08-2015 , 03:32 PM
Course I played 3 weeks ago there wasn't a person under 60 on the course. It was pretty sad to see.
06-08-2015 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
Country Clubs are hurting.

Public Golf Courses are hurting.

No-namers winning golf tournaments and low golf ratings are not going to help. Tiger Woods generated interest. Or at least faux interest.

I think country club attitudes of elitism have killed off a generation of golfers. They didn't want kids at their "club" all these yaers. Well, now you have to deal with all these 30 and 40-year olds that are not golfers.

The old ones are dying off.

They are people who may play golf once in a while, but it is golfers that keeps golf courses alive.
Wow, all this decline since late 2013 when Tiger was last #1 in the world. Poor poor golf. To have such a new and broad crop of players who can win any Sunday, it's a terrible tragedy for the game. The PGA should do something about this. If no-names are in the lead, maybe a course marshal can kick their ball in a hazard or something.
06-08-2015 , 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Course I played 3 weeks ago there wasn't a person under 60 on the course. It was pretty sad to see.
Where did all the people go? Tiger dominated golf for 15 years. It was never more mainstream. Surely he made a lasting impact right? If not, why does it matter who wins today if the biggest name in the sport won for 15 years and still no youngings on your particular course. Or wait, maybe just maybe the two aren't as directly related as you all like to think. There could be other factors at play. But nah. TIGAAAH!
06-08-2015 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
Where did all the people go? Tiger dominated golf for 15 years. It was never more mainstream. Surely he made a lasting impact right? If not, why does it matter who wins today if the biggest name in the sport won for 15 years and still no youngings on your particular course. Or wait, maybe just maybe the two aren't as directly related as you all like to think. There could be other factors at play. But nah. TIGAAAH!
No clue what you are even arguing. I prefer to see different people winning every week. Fact of the matter is the golf industry is hurting, and Tiger's downfall is contributing to it.
06-08-2015 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
Country Clubs are hurting.

Public Golf Courses are hurting.

No-namers winning golf tournaments and low golf ratings are not going to help. Tiger Woods generated interest. Or at least faux interest.

I think country club attitudes of elitism have killed off a generation of golfers. They didn't want kids at their "club" all these yaers. Well, now you have to deal with all these 30 and 40-year olds that are not golfers.

The old ones are dying off.

They are people who may play golf once in a while, but it is golfers that keeps golf courses alive.
what? isn't this a pretty good thing for a club? non-golfing members still put the same amount of dollars in the club's pockets (maybe more bc if they're a member for non-golf reasons then they are probably spending a bunch of time there eating and drinking). I would think that most clubs are pretty happy with people in their 30s coming on board as non-golfing members.
06-08-2015 , 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
No clue what you are even arguing. I prefer to see different people winning every week. Fact of the matter is the golf industry is hurting, and Tiger's downfall is contributing to it.
If the state of the golf industry is so bad at the tail end of Tiger's reign, then maybe the state of the golf industry is affected by other factors more than who wins on any Sunday. Recall this derail started when a poster commented that Sunday's winner was only good for him, and nobody else, like that should factor into a golf fan's enjoyment of a tournament. If you enjoy seeing new faces win on Sunday, then no need to carry water for that argument.
06-08-2015 , 04:03 PM
It's like this with any sport right? Basketball was at an all time low, and then came Michael, Magic, and Bird. Baseball coming off the strike, and Sosa and McGwire turned that around. Golf would benefit from guys like Bubba not being a prick, because he could be very exciting to watch. Speith, Fowler, Rory, and Fineau are my favorite guys on tour right now. When Speith wins the Grand Slam that will be plenty.
06-08-2015 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
It's like this with any sport right?
Sure.

Now think back at all the times you heard a basketball or baseball fan comment after a big game that the outcome wasn't any good for the game as a whole because some no name hit the winning home run or scored the game winning basket. I'm betting you come up empty. Such a fan would be roundly ridiculed by ardent fans of the sport. Same should happen here.
06-08-2015 , 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight
what? isn't this a pretty good thing for a club? non-golfing members still put the same amount of dollars in the club's pockets (maybe more bc if they're a member for non-golf reasons then they are probably spending a bunch of time there eating and drinking). I would think that most clubs are pretty happy with people in their 30s coming on board as non-golfing members.
You want active golf members. They spend money on carts, the pro shop, and food. You need a chef and staff whether you have one person or 50 members.

Active golfers are also the best source of bringing in guests who pay fees and may potentially join.

Golf isn't dead, but it is definitely experiencing negative growth in America.

      
m