03ki11erAG said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't imagine playing a course one day with a 100% ball and another the next with a 50% ball.

---

---

Just for arguments sake, you likely wouldn't go play a course that's under 6,000 yards anyway.

Older courses that don't have room to grow can still be nice courses. Today's equipment has made many of them obsolete and "long" players will ignore them.

he has a history behind him of thinking like this:

[url]http://www.oobgolf.com/content/fore+play/1-3470-Brief_History_Lesson_Cayman_Golf_Ball.html [/url]

That is really dumb and impractical. Not sure what planet that guy is living on if he thinks that is a good idea.

I played that course this past summer. No one uses that golf ball and it's honestly the worst Nicklaus course I've played, upkeep-wise.

I think lofts need to be standardized.

Golf is expensive to play. Thus fewer people play. When I was a kid I had a local muni membership at landa park. Hung out and played 18-36 holes a day during the summer and most weekends. There is no way to do that today. Either these memberships are not offered or they are too expensive.

Not when your parents pay for it at the club... oh wait #golfisnowarichkidsport

I've value shopped memberships the last few years here near Indy. Got a family membership for $2700 including carts and range alls.

Jack Nicklaus is one of the smarter people who will EVER play the game of Golf. He does not say something if he has not thought it thru. Your game may not be able to handle it, but that does not make it a stupid idea. Your ball goes different distances anyway, depending upon temperature, humidity, wind, etc... Your a good 10 yards short and 30 on your drive in the winter. You can even be long in the afternoon and shorter at dusk. So starting out with a ball that goes less should not be a big deal. Most people are not playing a Pro V1 on every shot. You use different golf balls already, guess what, every one of them goes a different distance.

I might call Jack a lot of things, but Stupid? It is probably not your best move.

To further his point, the ball is responsible for more length than any of the technology...

oldschool87 said:

---

Jack Nicklaus is one of the smarter people who will EVER play the game of Golf. He does not say something if he has not thought it thru. Your game may not be able to handle it, but that does not make it a stupid idea. Your ball goes different distances anyway, depending upon temperature, humidity, wind, etc... Your a good 10 yards short and 30 on your drive in the winter. You can even be long in the afternoon and shorter at dusk. So starting out with a ball that goes less should not be a big deal. Most people are not playing a Pro V1 on every shot. You use different golf balls already, guess what, every one of them goes a different distance.

I might call Jack a lot of things, but Stupid? It is probably not your best move.

To further his point, the ball is responsible for more length than any of the technology...

---

Who are you arguing with?

Jack is now commenting on the topic from the viewpoint of a golf course architect that does not want to see courses have to spend millions of dollars to modernize their golf course. Courses that did have great layouts for the game in the past now have to re-design their holes in order to make it play like it was supposed to be played which costs millions to move bunker complexes, create larger water hazards, move back tee boxes, etc. If the courses do not have the funds to modernize their course, they are in jeopardy of going out of business, losing members, or becoming public. It's close to the analogy of baseball in which the pros did not use better technology when aluminum bats came around. They still used the old wooden bats. Why can't golf make rules like MLB did so the courses did not have to eat up the cost of lengthening the layout. It would be easier and less cost effective to make the manufacturers change a golf ball or golf club because they do this all the time anyways, sometimes yearly!! I would not mind seeing the pros have to use the old persimmon wood and only steel shafts, lol!

C ROC N said:

---

Jack is now commenting on the topic from the viewpoint of a golf course architect that does not want to see courses have to spend millions of dollars to modernize their golf course. Courses that did have great layouts for the game in the past now have to re-design their holes in order to make it play like it was supposed to be played which costs millions to move bunker complexes, create larger water hazards, move back tee boxes, etc. If the courses do not have the funds to modernize their course, they are in jeopardy of going out of business, losing members, or becoming public. It's close to the analogy of baseball in which the pros did not use better technology when aluminum bats came around. They still used the old wooden bats. Why can't golf make rules like MLB did so the courses did not have to eat up the cost of lengthening the layout. It would be easier and less cost effective to make the manufacturers change a golf ball or golf club because they do this all the time anyways, sometimes yearly!! I would not mind seeing the pros have to use the old persimmon wood and only steel shafts, lol!

---

I see the point, but if golf did what MLB did with the bat you wouldn't have near the industry for equipment. So the courses would have survived but how many companies and jobs would have never developed? How many new golfers would have come to the game without the excitement of big hitters? Just my .02 on the matter.

This morning on his show Michael Breed was discussing Tiger and his impact on the game. Since 1996 there has been a net decrease in golf rounds and a pretty significant reduction in the number of both public and private courses.

jja79 said:

---

This morning on his show Michael Breed was discussing Tiger and his impact on the game. Since 1996 there has been a net decrease in golf rounds and a pretty significant reduction in the number of both public and private courses.

---

something tells me Tiger is not to blame.

jja79 said:

---

This morning on his show Michael Breed was discussing Tiger and his impact on the game. Since 1996 there has been a net decrease in golf rounds and a pretty significant reduction in the number of both public and private courses.

---

That is interesting. I'd be curious to see the affect he had on profits for the industry. If rounds played decreases by 5% but the greens fees increased by 35% then it's a net win.

I was replying to a poster saying long hitters attract new golfers. I didn't at all mean it might be Tiger's fault. But, it's a fact that during the Tiger era/golden age of golf participation has declined and more and more courses close.

03ki11erAG said:

---

jja79 said:

---

This morning on his show Michael Breed was discussing Tiger and his impact on the game. Since 1996 there has been a net decrease in golf rounds and a pretty significant reduction in the number of both public and private courses.

---

That is interesting. I'd be curious to see the affect he had on profits for the industry. If rounds played decreases by 5% but the greens fees increased by 35% then it's a net win.

---

If it's a net win wouldn't the number of courses stay at least steady rather than decline?

jja79 said:

---

This morning on his show Michael Breed was discussing Tiger and his impact on the game. Since 1996 there has been a net decrease in golf rounds and a pretty significant reduction in the number of both public and private courses.

---

The golf course construction boom was tied to the housing bubble.

Bottom line is golf is just too expensive for most people to get in too

Takes a good while on the range/course to make it enjoyable.

Ag pride said:

---

Bottom line is golf is just too expensive for most people to get in too

Takes a good while on the range/course to make it enjoyable.

---

Not only that but golf is a social game as well and unless you have a rotation of friends that play that are also committed to the game and it's challenges/expenses you will play by yourself a lot or show up to the course to play partner roulette.

There are a lot of challenges to golf that have been discussed to no end. I think in order for the game to grow and be healthy courses (even public courses) need to evolve into country clubs that are affordable to the average middle class family. I think when golf was really popular there were lots of country clubs (maybe that's because golf was popular) but i think they lost track of what was important. They became too exclusive and too expensive and didn't cater to wives and families enough. Even the most alpha male is not going to spend all weekend at the course with his buddies only to come home to a hacked off wife.

Courses need to provide amenities that appeal to the typical woman along with a golf course. She needs a place where she can participate in activities with her kids and also her lady friends. A place that wives bring the kids up to the club to swim while you are playing a sunday afternoon round, a place to take tennis lessons with her friends and grab lunch or grab a drink after work or on the weekend. Additionally this place needs to be affordable (<$10k initiation, <$250/month membership). However, the only way this works is if the course is able to attract a large base that comes for the other amenities and privileges as much as the golf. When that happens more women will pick up the game and more kids will be exposed to it at a younger age. Both of which can grow the game tremendously. It's a build it and they will come thought but i would bet money that it would work better than having a 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% golf ball for different courses.

I think a club with nice pool, bars, tennis and a tennis pro for lessons along with a golf course would cost you more than <$10K initiation and <$250/month.

I will admit that I have had some sort of 'I miss the good ole days' this year with golf. I played some golf this summer with a promising Mini Tour player that will probably be selling insurance or measuring windows soon enough. But watching his approach to golf and realizing he really had zero appreciation for how drastic the game has changed in the lat 20 years saddened me. I grew up playing with a pro and we relatively recently rehashed the days of balatas and persimmon and how much more difficult the game was then. And this is 1992 we are talking about, not black and white television days.

For example, back in the day of persimmon woods and balata golf balls you might take a 110% swing on 2 drives in a round. Twice. Two full hard ass swings with a driver. Now you take 14. You will never convince me that golf is a better game today than it was 30 years ago. Nor is it more accessible or anything else.

How do these public courses in subdivisions make it? I live in Gleannloch Farms but have only played it twice because the greens and range are so bad. They have 27 holes to maintain which has to be ridiculously expensive.

jja79 said:

---

I think a club with nice pool, bars, tennis and a tennis pro for lessons along with a golf course would cost you more than <$10K initiation and <$250/month.

---

I don't know how the public courses in neighborhoods work to stay afloat but I do know for a fact that the above does work, quite well actually.

There are two clubs in my area that do what I mentioned (I belong to one) and both have thriving golf communities including enough kids playing that we have two PGA junior league teams. The key is to use large member numbers to keep prices low. If you had 1000 members at 10k that equates to 100 million in seed money and if they all pay $250/month in dues that is 250k per month to operate. That should be plenty of money to maintain amenities and staff (including tennis and golf pros)

With 1,000 members how crowded is it? Is it tough to get good weekend tee times? Your numbers certainly work out and makes me wonder why more clubs like that aren't available.

jja79 said:

---

With 1,000 members how crowded is it? Is it tough to get good weekend tee times? Your numbers certainly work out and makes me wonder why more clubs like that aren't available.

---

Hackberry Creek is like that. Initiation is around $0-$2500 depending on demand. Lately it's been about $150. Dues are ~$250 plus cart fees. It's been voted DFW's best value numerous years in a row. The clubhouse is really nice and the pool is decent. Golf on a Saturday or Sunday morning is usually pretty stacked though. You can get a tee time but you have to snag one on Thursday. Tuesday-Thursday is pretty open though.

The course gets a lot of play (something like3500 rounds in November) so it's rarely wide open except for afternoons. You can get a T time any day you want to play but you can't get a prime t time everyday you want to play. If you are flexible or don't mind playing at 2 pm in the summer it's a good deal. If you like to play at 8 am all the time it may be frustrating.

One thing that surprises me is how nice the fairways, greens, etc. stay with all the traffic but we have a good super with a full time staff and a nice budget for upkeep.

Maybe has less to do with courses, balls, and Tiger, and more with economy the last 8 years.

Eminus6 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I think a club with nice pool, bars, tennis and a tennis pro for lessons along with a golf course would cost you more than <$10K initiation and <$250/month.

---

I don't know how the public courses in neighborhoods work to stay afloat but I do know for a fact that the above does work, quite well actually.

There are two clubs in my area that do what I mentioned (I belong to one) and both have thriving golf communities including enough kids playing that we have two PGA junior league teams. The key is to use large member numbers to keep prices low. If you had 1000 members at 10k that equates to 100 million in seed money and if they all pay $250/month in dues that is 250k per month to operate. That should be plenty of money to maintain amenities and staff (including tennis and golf pros)

---

I think you're about 90 million high there.

Ha. You are right. Fat fingered an extra 0. Turns out it makes a big difference!

Eminus6 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I think a club with nice pool, bars, tennis and a tennis pro for lessons along with a golf course would cost you more than <$10K initiation and <$250/month.

---

I don't know how the public courses in neighborhoods work to stay afloat but I do know for a fact that the above does work, quite well actually.

There are two clubs in my area that do what I mentioned (I belong to one) and both have thriving golf communities including enough kids playing that we have two PGA junior league teams. The key is to use large member numbers to keep prices low. If you had 1000 members at 10k that equates to 100 million in seed money and if they all pay $250/month in dues that is 250k per month to operate. That should be plenty of money to maintain amenities and staff (including tennis and golf pros)

---

Pretty much the ClubCorp model.

And if you aren't making money, they sell the property off.

On a semi-related note, I've played 4 Nickalaus courses. They all shared similar characteristics in that:

They all were in great locations with nice scenery

They all were in good condition - good greens and manicured fairways

None of them were fun to play