Survey finds a round of Golf takes too long.

Free Hat

Unfortunately I can't link the article but you should find it if you google the thread title.

"The R&A, based in St Andrews, Scotland, received responses from 56,000 golfers in 122 countries about their experience of playing a typical 18-hole round of golf which lasts between three and four hours.

Although 70 percent were largely happy with the duration of their rounds, 60 percent said they would like the game better if it took less time to play"

I work in the industry myself and see this as the big issue going forward, especially if participation amongst younger people is to increase.

SaveOurLyric

Free Hat wrote: »

I work in the industry myself and see this as the big issue going forward, especially if participation amongst younger people is to increase.

Why ? The pace of play has been the same for the last 40-50 years. And takes the length of time it does because that is the time people choose to take to play it. It has become slower as people adopted the mannerisms of professionals who are at work and have no hurry on them. But everyone is at fault on this one - not everytime, but intermittently, everyone. Which is enough for everyone to feel that they are a quick player being held up by slow players ahead. A handful of players in the field slow it up for all. But all have had they day where they are playing poorly, looking for several balls, should have but didnt play a provo and have to walk back, or are playing carefully and taking their time because they have the rare opportunity of a score ("well, normally I am quick, so I am entitled to take my time this once" - the problem is that someone has that mentality ever day).

So I dont see it as a problem. Let alone going forward, or for younger people (some of the slowest in my view, but then we are all blinkered that it is 'some other group' that is slow). Its simply the pace we choose collectively to play at. And there is no way to increase the speed. Nor is one needed in my view.

Free Hat

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Why ? The pace of play has been the same for the last 40-50 years. And takes the length of time it does because that is the time people choose to take to play it. It has become slower as people adopted the mannerisms of professionals who are at work and have no hurry on them. But everyone is at fault on this one - not everytime, but intermittently, everyone. Which is enough for everyone to feel that they are a quick player being held up by slow players ahead. A handful of players in the field slow it up for all. But all have had they day where they are playing poorly, looking for several balls, should have but didnt play a provo and have to walk back, or are playing carefully and taking their time because they have the rare opportunity of a score ("well, normally I am quick, so I am entitled to take my time this once" - the problem is that someone has that mentality ever day).

So I dont see it as a problem. Let alone going forward, or for younger people (some of the slowest in my view, but then we are all blinkered that it is 'some other group' that is slow). Its simply the pace we choose collectively to play at. And there is no way to increase the speed. Nor is one needed in my view.

I don't think the thrust of the argument is the pace of play, though that has surely become slower in recent years, rather spending 4 to 5 hours playing. It is essentially the issue of playing 18 holes.

Boskowski

People could simply play 9 holes then.

In the fast-paced modern world, a typical round of golf takes too much time away from family or work for many players, a survey commissioned by the sport's governing body showed on Monday.

I don't see golf as the problem. 34% say work commitments, 29% say family commitments. Seems people work too much or maybe should stop ferrying their kids here there and everywhere. I see that a lot in my colleagues, especially in the US. Their entire weekends are made up of ferrying the sprogs to soccer, ballet, pottery whatnot. Thats a choice people make.

Free Hat

Boskowski wrote: »

People could simply play 9 holes then.

Indeed. How common are 9 hole qualifying competitions?

SaveOurLyric

Free Hat wrote: »

Indeed. How common are 9 hole qualifying competitions?

As rare as hens teeth. Weekday summer evening 'fun' golf being the exception in many clubs. Because people want 18 holes. If they didnt really have the time to play 18, 9 hole comps would be common.

Boskowski

Free Hat wrote: »

Indeed. How common are 9 hole qualifying competitions?

I don't know, not very common. Why does everybody have to play qualifying competitions?

Most of our midweek comps are 9 (11) holes. I don't think they are deemed qualifying competitions but AFAIK there is no rule saying they couldn't be.

SaveOurLyric

Boskowski wrote: »

I don't know, not very common. Why does everybody have to play qualifying competitions?

Most of our midweek comps are 9 (11) holes. I don't think they are deemed qualifying competitions but AFAIK there is no rule saying they couldn't be.

There is. Qualifying comps must be 9 or 18 holes. And clubs must endevour to play qualifying comps where at all possible. ie. a nine holer rather and an 11 holer unless there is some extraordinary reason. And 9 holes comps must be qualifying. You cannot just declare them non qualifying. Again, unless some extraordinary circumstance. And open to correction, but I think you must get permission from the GUI for it to be declared non qualifying.

Free Hat

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

As rare as hens teeth. Weekday summer evening 'fun' golf being the exception in many clubs. Because people want 18 holes. If they didnt really have the time to play 18, 9 hole comps would be common.

I think the general consensus is that the numbers of people playing golf is declining. Particularly amongst younger people.

Boskowski

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is. Qualifying comps must be 9 or 18 holes. And clubs must endevour to play qualifying comps where at all possible. ie. a nine holer rather and an 11 holer unless there is some extraordinary reason. And 9 holes comps must be qualifying. You cannot just declare them non qualifying. Again, unless some extraordinary circumstance. And open to correction, but I think you must get permission from the GUI for it to be declared non qualifying.

I didn't know that. In my club the course returns to the club house after 11 holes. So the midweek fourball and the long handicaps are 11 hole comps and thats probably your loophole. Obviously no issue with the fourball, but I guess thats very convenient for the long handicaps. These are usually won by 27, 28 or more points and its a bit of an older crowd who doesn't seem to want anything else but be a long handicap.

SaveOurLyric

Boskowski wrote: »

I didn't know that. In my club the course returns to the club house after 11 holes. So the midweek fourball and the long handicaps are 11 hole comps and thats probably your loophole. Obviously no issue with the fourball, but I guess thats very convenient for the long handicaps. These are usually won by 27, 28 or more points and its a bit of an older crowd who doesn't seem to want anything else but be a long handicap.

CONGU
7.2 The following returns are not acceptable as Qualifying Scores:
(a) Scores returned in any better ball four-ball competition.
(b) Scores returned in competitions over other than 9 or 8 holes.

Although a club committee or Handicapping Authority has the right to deprive certain competitions of their status as Qualifying Competitions this discretion should not be abused. It is considered to be outside the spirit and intent of the UHS to deliberately adjust the terms and conditions of a competition so that it is technically Non Qualifying.

Non Qualifying Competition
A Non Qualifying Competition is a competition when the requirements of a Qualifying Competition are
not satisfied.
In exceptional circumstances only, or with the authority of the Union, the Committee in charge of a
competition may declare it a Non Qualifying Competition before play commences and must so advise
competitors before they commence play.




Your loophole would not apply. The competition would have to be over 9. Play the two holes home for fun.

Boskowski

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

CONGU
7.2 The following returns are not acceptable as Qualifying Scores:
(a) Scores returned in any better ball four-ball competition.
(b) Scores returned in competitions over other than 9 or 8 holes.

Although a club committee or Handicapping Authority has the right to deprive certain competitions of their status as Qualifying Competitions this discretion should not be abused. It is considered to be outside the spirit and intent of the UHS to deliberately adjust the terms and conditions of a competition so that it is technically Non Qualifying.

Non Qualifying Competition
A Non Qualifying Competition is a competition when the requirements of a Qualifying Competition are
not satisfied.
In exceptional circumstances only, or with the authority of the Union, the Committee in charge of a
competition may declare it a Non Qualifying Competition before play commences and must so advise
competitors before they commence play.




Your loophole would not apply. The competition would have to be over 9. Play the two holes home for fun.

Interesting. Our long handicaps do this as long as I'm a member there so it must be legit. But it's definitely non qualifying. They cut you a shot just for that competition if you win like in society golf but that's it.

PARlance

Boskowski wrote: »

Interesting. Our long handicaps do this as long as I'm a member there so it must be legit. But it's definitely non qualifying. They cut you a shot just for that competition if you win like in society golf but that's it.

No issue there. It's an 11 hole comp and it's rightly deemed as non-qualifying.
Your club is cutting on observation, I'm not sure if it's strictly observation (a fixed reduction for a win) but I'm guessing they checked that out to see if it's allowed.

PARlance

Boskowski wrote: »

I don't see golf as the problem. 34% say work commitments, 29% say family commitments. Seems people work too much or maybe should stop ferrying their kids here there and everywhere. I see that a lot in my colleagues, especially in the US. Their entire weekends are made up of ferrying the sprogs to soccer, ballet, pottery whatnot. Thats a choice people make.

The GUI should run a campaign based on this..
I can see the poster now.

F**k work.
Kids? F**k them, they'll be grand.
And while we're at it, let's have a skin full before driving home.
F**k the police
GOLFERS WITH ATTITUDE.
Straight outta counting comp.

Boskowski

Free Hat wrote: »

I think the general consensus is that the numbers of people playing golf is declining. Particularly amongst younger people.

I think that has mostly got to do with the squeeze caused by the economic downturn and political change. I don't want to get political but the attitude towards work life balance has changed unfavourably. In many areas you're now 'lucky to have a job' and longer hours and after hours availability is expected.

Easy for me to say as I'm not in the industry but I guess not every industry can expect everlasting growth, especially not in the leisure sector. What we see right now is probably just a necessary downward adjustment from the unsustainable growth during the boom times.

alxmorgan

Boskowski wrote: »

People could simply play 9 holes then.



I don't see golf as the problem. 34% say work commitments, 29% say family commitments. Seems people work too much or maybe should stop ferrying their kids here there and everywhere. I see that a lot in my colleagues, especially in the US. Their entire weekends are made up of ferrying the sprogs to soccer, ballet, pottery whatnot. Thats a choice people make.

Seems a very strange comment to make. Feck giving my kids a chance to see what they like I'm off to play golf.

Free Hat

Boskowski wrote: »

I think that has mostly got to do with the squeeze caused by the economic downturn and political change. I don't want to get political but the attitude towards work life balance has changed unfavourably. In many areas you're now 'lucky to have a job' and longer hours and after hours availability is expected.

Easy for me to say as I'm not in the industry but I guess not every industry can expect everlasting growth, especially not in the leisure sector. What we see right now is probably just a necessary downward adjustment from the unsustainable growth during the boom times.

I think at the moment golf is tailored towards older people with more time available. Its the time poor 20 and 30 year olds that are the future of the game, they need to be targeted. Shorter forms of the game might help that.

Boskowski

PARlance wrote: »

The GUI should run a campaign based on this..
I can see the poster now.

F**k work.
Kids? F**k them, they'll be grand.
And while we're at it, let's have a skin full before driving home.
F**k the police
GOLFERS WITH ATTITUDE.
Straight outta counting comp.

Jesus, I really riled you up the wrong way did I? I didn't mean to, but in fairness I think you're overreacting a bit.

First of all I don't get the work thing. Golf is mostly a weekend activity. In the summer you may get a few midweek holes in after work and that should still be possible unless you're working until 7 or 8 every day.

And at the weekend I don't know what the problem is. Kids don't need to be ferried everywhere. I was a kid once too you know and what parents did then they carpooled to the soccer game and my dad was only on the hook every 6 weeks or so.

Its an entitlement attitude thats being displayed here. I'm currently in a demographic group where I feel a squeeze on my leisure time cos I started a family, have to work weekends or whatnot. But guess what. I want it all anyway. So whatever activity I would like to do better be changing to suit my needs.

Boskowski

alxmorgan wrote: »

Seems a very strange comment to make. Feck giving my kids a chance to see what they like I'm off to play golf.

Not a strange attitude at all. I fully understand when people want to give all to their kids. But thats a choice they make and they can't expect everything around to accommodate their current predicament. Also kids don't need constant parental supervision and being ferried around to everything. They're perfectly capable of cycling to that GAA pitch or carpooling with the neighbours kids.

I think what we have here is just a little frustration by a certain demographic group. They feel the squeeze from their careers and their young families but want it all. Same over on the open requirements thread. Unless I'm completely off it was very common not so long ago that people didn't play much golf during their late twenties and thirties and returned to it when the kids got that little older. I can understand that frustration but you say it yourself your kids are your priority so what would you would like to happen?

PARlance

Free Hat wrote: »

I think at the moment golf is tailored towards older people with more time available. Its the time poor 20 and 30 year olds that are the future of the game, they need to be targeted. Shorter forms of the game might help that.

It's something I suggested a while back.
A 9 hole weekend comp, starting at first light on the 10th, for golfers that with little time would mean that 30 or so 30 somethings could get out for a bit of weekend competitive golf.
It would have no effect on the main comp but would be a good idea imo of getting younger members into clubs.

It would be great to see more 9 hole comps in the evenings too.

Free Hat

PARlance wrote: »

It's something I suggested a while back.
A 9 hole weekend comp, starting at first light on the 10th, for golfers that with little time would mean that 30 or so 30 somethings could get out for a bit of weekend competitive golf.
It would have no effect on the main comp but would be a good idea imo of getting younger members into clubs.

It would be great to see more 9 hole comps in the evenings too.

I know of one club that runs three six hole competitions during the winter. Wouldn't it be great to do that on during the summer occasionally also. You can enter all three competitions if you like or just play one or two.

Boskowski

Free Hat wrote: »

I think at the moment golf is tailored towards older people with more time available. Its the time poor 20 and 30 year olds that are the future of the game, they need to be targeted. Shorter forms of the game might help that.

I think golf has always been that way. I don't consider myself older although I'm no spring chicken as they say. I guess my advantage is I don't have kids.

The industry is simply experiencing a downwards adjustment. Not nice if on the receiving end but thats probably all there is to it. You're saying we have declining numbers, but thats in relation to the max numbers from the boom. I'd imagine if you compare the numbers with pre-boom numbers they're probably pretty stable.

Boskowski

Nine hole comps are actually a good idea. Of course golf should try to include as many people as it possibly can, but it mustn't be to the detriment of the game itself (like the cheap qualifying golf would be). The problem is probably that they're taking up just as much time on the first tee as a regular comp and don't generate the same revenue.

PARlance

Boskowski wrote: »

Jesus, I really riled you up the wrong way did I? I didn't mean to, but in fairness I think you're overreacting a bit.

First of all I don't get the work thing. Golf is mostly a weekend activity. In the summer you may get a few midweek holes in after work and that should still be possible unless you're working until 7 or 8 every day.

And at the weekend I don't know what the problem is. Kids don't need to be ferried everywhere. I was a kid once too you know and what parents did then they carpooled to the soccer game and my dad was only on the hook every 6 weeks or so.

Its an entitlement attitude thats being displayed here. I'm currently in a demographic group where I feel a squeeze on my leisure time cos I started a family, have to work weekends or whatnot. But guess what. I want it all anyway. So whatever activity I would like to do better be changing to suit my needs.

What makes you think I'm riled up?
I was actually laughing at your post.

I'm the exception amongst my mates in that I've got a young family etc, early 30's but am still lucky enough to get a fair bit of golf in.
I'm also the exception in that I'm the only full member amongst them.

I think you've greatly misunderstood peoples sentiment. I don't feel entitled, rather, I fear for the future of golf and would like to see as many people getting into the game as possible.

I wouldn't go around saying that older golfers are selfish because they don't want change.

Boskowski

PARlance wrote: »

What makes you think I'm riled up?
I was actually laughing at your post.

I'm the exception amongst my mates in that I've got a young family etc, early 30's but am still lucky enough to get a fair bit of golf in.
I'm also the exception in that I'm the only full member amongst them.

I think you've greatly misunderstood peoples sentiment. I don't feel entitled, rather, I fear for the future of golf and would like to see as many people getting into the game as possible.

I wouldn't go around saying that older golfers are selfish because they don't want change.

I think thats a case of easily misunderstood written words. Thought you were being sarcastic towards me. Happens on forums all the time. When I say entitlement I'm probably taking my hiccups from the open comp requirements thread here.

I'm all for including as many people as possible myself. In fact I love it that golf in Ireland is very much a sports for everybody. In continental Europe (where I'm from originally) this is not the case at all. But I don't fear for the game itself tbh. Its too good a game for that. I think its more a case of a downward adjustment happening (might have mentioned that before :pac:)

Just out of curiosity how do you manage the juggle family and everything and still play a bit. I believe I picked up somewhere earlier that you're quite low? It must take at some minimum maintenance (2, 3 rounds a week?) to remain at that level?

Milkers

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Why ? The pace of play has been the same for the last 40-50 years.

Genuinely curious if this is true?

Boskowski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXNs1iBE8h0

Golfgraffix

I think the point a lot us over 35 are missing is what kids deem to be too long. I attended a very interesting talk by a psychologist at last years PGA show. The main gist was the idea of quick gratification in hobbies and sports amongst kids.

He said that proliferation of gaming (consoles) had intrinsically changed a whole generation's perception of how long it takes to become proficient at a sport. When he applied this to golf it was even more magnified. A ten year old who has never played a computer version of golf before can pick up a joystick and win a whole season of golf in 4 hours. Taking that to the real world the same 10 year old finds it takes 4 hours just to learn the correct grip let alone how long it takes to learn how to get the ball in the air or even hit it straight.

Golf is a hard game and it takes a long time to become even reasonably good, I know it has always been that way but as kids attitudes change it has become a huge barrier to entry.

Like a lot of academics he had all the study done but no real answers, the discussion after was quite lively. But the main point aggreed upon was that there is something needed to bridge the gap between playstation golf and real golf.

Whatever the answer, there is no way of disputing that less kids are starting on the traditional route of club golf. Considering the ageing profile of golfers this will be a big problem in tears to come.

Golf needs to be more affordable, easier to get into, have better options for a quicker game and be more inclusive.

J

SaveOurLyric

Milkers wrote: »

Genuinely curious if this is true?

I have no hard evidence on it.

But it hasnt got faster, thats for sure. And the evidence is that people did play 3hr rounds up to the 40s/50s and likely the increase in time taken happening earlier in the USA than in the British Isles.

But what is true is that golf courses on average have got longer, the distance people are hitting the ball has got longer, golf course design generally has longer distances green to tee, and that golfers of all abilities have been aping the mannerisms of professionals since the advent of mass viewing tv golf (a 23 handicapper surveying a putt from both sides, plumb bobbing, taking 3 practice swings, really is just wasting everybody on the course's time including his own - but he thinks that what necessary to improve his game).

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1950/500719.pdf
http://jacksonville.com/sports/golf/2013-06-11/story/us-open-decades-later-golf-still-struggles-slow-play
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/gwar-golf-slow-play-jaime-diaz-0530

FixdePitchmark

I think 4 hours should be limit - 3hr30 target - 3 hours doable. (in up to 3 balls - I'd ban 4 balls)

There are many reasons above can be done.

It is what I do - and target golf around that timeline. The type of course you play is a big factor.

bustercherry

And in other news, survey finds that 99% of bears sh1t in the woods.

yettie1701

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think 4 hours should be limit - 3hr30 target - 3 hours doable. (in up to 3 balls - I'd ban 4 balls)

There are many reasons above can be done.

It is what I do - and target golf around that timeline. The type of course you play is a big factor.

Totally agree with three balls only. Our club only brought in a rule last year allowing four balls. This has slowed up play considerably. Now it's a four hour round on Sunday end of. I can't understand the thinking behind this as we have pretty small membership and getting out is rarely a problem. We have 9 hole comps every Wednesday once the clocks go forward till they go back. They are very well supported and are a great social thing. You can't book a time you just arrive after 4.30 go to the first tee and play with the next two or three people that turn up. It's a great way to get to know members especially new members. All the score cards are entered in to a draw afterwards the winning card is then entered in to a draw for free membership at the end of the summer. The only stipulation is that you have to be present in the club house to be deemed a winner. It is a great way to get people to hang around for a chat afterwards.

Seve OB

Don't really see the issue. Golf has always been a game which took up to about 4 hours.

Played in the medal on Saturday gone, which as we all know is the slowest form of golf. We were last on an absolutely full time sheet and we took 3:50 to get around.

I have a young family, am in my late 30's, have a round trip to the golf club of 1hr:30. So for me yes a quicker round would be great, but it's always been like that so I know I either have to make the time or find something else to do.

PARlance

Seve OB wrote: »

Don't really see the issue. Golf has always been a game which took up to about 4 hours.

Played in the medal on Saturday gone, which as we all know is the slowest form of golf. We were last on an absolutely full time sheet and we took 3:50 to get around.

I have a young family, am in my late 30's, have a round trip to the golf club of 1hr:30. So for me yes a quicker round would be great, but it's always been like that so I know I either have to make the time or find something else to do.

Don't see an issue there either but the issue lies with those that aren't playing the game. For me anyway.

Clubs, governing bodies etc need to focus on those who aren't playing as much if not more on those that play.
The issue for them isn't that it's 4:30 as opposed to 3:50, the issue seems to be that golf as it is, can't (or they don't think it can) be fit into their schedule. Now there's the tough s**t approach to them but I don't think that's in anyone's interest long term.

I don't see many alternatives other than more 9 hole comps tbh, and golf shouldn't change for those that can play it as it is.
But the trends in demographics are worrying and I think that it's in the interest of all golfers and golf in general to start trying to get this lost generation into golf somehow.

Golf isn't stagnant, it has always evolved, be it on the courses played or new means of getting people their golf fix. The widespread use of driving ranges are recent enough developments that give people a chance to get their fix in a certain way. There was a report conducted by HSBC recently and they think that there'll be a big shift towards simulation in future. Technology prices will have to come down but they tend to do so over time.

Seve OB

Yea but is there really a change in the demographics playing golf?

IMO, golf was always a game played by older generations. Golf has actually improved so much in that respect over the last 20 years. When I was a kid, there were very few young lads in the club. I'm talking teenagers. Maybe 30 at the most. They were welcome but there was very little invested in us. Nowadays you are talking of up to about 90 regular enough juniors playing with a few competitions per week, loads of girls, different levels, plenty of tuition... so yes demographics has changed, and there are more younger people playing golf.

Now I do realise they are pretty much all teenagers and that doesn't mean they will all continue to play into their 20's & 30's. I'm a perfect example of that. I played very little golf from the time I left school till I was about 25. But that was not because of the time it took. It was because I was in my early 20's and I had other things on my mind as opposed to golf! I still played a couple of games a year and came back to it in my late 20's with more gusto

Anatom

Its not just a question of whether a round of golf takes 3, 3.5 or 4 hours. Don't forget the arriving at the course up to an hour beforehand (warm-up, check-in to the system, practice range, putting green etc.,) takes up time too, as does the post-round rigmarole (round analysis, shower, cup of tea / sandwich / whatever). That can bring a 3 hour round up to almost 5 hours out of the house - not including a possible further hour's commute to and from the course. Its not surprising that people are reluctant to commit to a membership to something that demands that level of time commitment, especially when the target audience seems to be people in their 20s and 30s who have jobs and often young families as well...

Its a tough one and its laudable that consideration is being given to bringing in 9-hole competitions. It might go some way to attracting people to the game, but it won't be a single solution that does it...

Seve OB

If you ask me, if clubs are concerned because of dwindling numbers, there are two reasons and neither of them are because less people are joining because it takes up to much time.

1. Accessability
While golf has become a lot more accessable today than yesteryear, it has brought about it's own problems. If you remember not to long ago, it was actually difficult enough to play a game of golf unless you were a member of a club. You had to produce handicap certs everywhere you went. Open competitions were pretty much non existent except for once a year when clubs celebrated their open week. There was indeed an element of snobbery in the game. Now I'm not saying this was a good thing by any means. But nowadays there are open competitions and cheap green fees available in the best of courses, most days a week. What is happening is there are way to many people joining the golf club down in Ballygobackwards, for a measly few quid, just to get their handicap to enable them to play in these open competitions.

2. Course numbers
The other reason is there are way to many golf courses around the country for the numbers who play the game. I don't know the facts & figures but turn the clock back to the early 90's and compare it with today. Even with a lot of clubs having shut down over the last few years, I would bet there are still way more golf courses around the place today.

For example the Greystones area had 2 18 hole courses in Greystones & Delgany. There was a 9 hole course in Bray and when Glenroe was in its twilight years on the tele Stephen Brennan turned his farm into a 9 hole pitch and Putt down in Kilcoole. Now, Charlesland is another 18 hole course in Greystones village, Bray has moved to an 18 hole course on Bray head, Dun Laoghaire has moved out of Dun Laoghaire altogether to a 27 hole complex in Enniskerry, where Powerscourt has opened two 18 hole courses while Kilcoole saw Stephen Brennans pitch and Putt turn into a 9 hole course the arrival of another 36 Holes @ Druids Glen/Heath. All of this and not to mention the likes of Old Conna, Woodbrook and many more all within a stones throw of each other.

PARlance

Seve OB wrote: »

Yea but is there really a change in the demographics playing golf?

IMO, golf was always a game played by older generations. Golf has actually improved so much in that respect over the last 20 years. When I was a kid, there were very few young lads in the club. I'm talking teenagers. Maybe 30 at the most. They were welcome but there was very little invested in us. Nowadays you are talking of up to about 90 regular enough juniors playing with a few competitions per week, loads of girls, different levels, plenty of tuition... so yes demographics has changed, and there are more younger people playing golf.

Now I do realise they are pretty much all teenagers and that doesn't mean they will all continue to play into their 20's & 30's. I'm a perfect example of that. I played very little golf from the time I left school till I was about 25. But that was not because of the time it took. It was because I was in my early 20's and I had other things on my mind as opposed to golf! I still played a couple of games a year and came back to it in my late 20's with more gusto

The demographics have certainly changed Seve, your clubs example is great to see but it has to be the minority.
Yes, golf was always an older persons game, but it's increasingly becoming a much much older persons game.

A report in the Financial Times, referencing work conducted by Sports Marketing Surveys (SMS INC), states that 'in the UK, the average age of golfers is up from 41 in 2009 to 45, while that of 'avid golfers', those who play at least once a week, is up from 48 to 63, according to SMS INC.'Nov 7, 2014

There are no available stats on this from an Irish viewpoint from what I can see.

Fast forward 20 years and unfortunately the majority of golfers playing today probably won't be playing. The younger golfer isn't coming through to fill these future gaps as is demonstrated by the massive leap in average age.

Seve OB

PARlance wrote: »

The demographics have certainly changed Seve, your clubs example is great to see but it has to be the minority.

Ah well I don't know about that. As I say, there are lots of youngsters playing, but not an awful lot of guys or girls in their 20's or 30's. But there is nothing new there. It will just be interesting to see how the big jump in juinior members pushes it's way through to full membership through their 20's.

I stayed a member during those years as it sisn't cost to much, but I also knew it would be crazy money to join again at a later stage or any other club for that matter. Nowadays, no joining fees pretty much everywhere make it easier to go away from the game, leave clubs, move around etc.

PARlance

Seve OB wrote: »

Ah well I don't know about that. As I say, there are lots of youngsters playing, but not an awful lot of guys or girls in their 20's or 30's. But there is nothing new there. It will just be interesting to see how the big jump in juinior members pushes it's way through to full membership through their 20's.

There are plenty of facts, reports etc out there that may convince you. I've seen people argue over the degree of the problem but you're the first that has said the age profile is getting younger. Gu

Seve OB

PARlance wrote: »

There are plenty of facts, reports etc out there that may convince you. I've seen people argue over the degree of the problem but you're the first that has said the age profile is getting younger. Gu

just to clarify, I didn't say the age profile is getting younger. I said there are an awful lot more junior members now in our club than back in my day. Probably 4 or 5 times more.

PARlance

Seve OB wrote: »

just to clarify, I didn't say the age profile is getting younger. I said there are an awful lot more junior members now in our club than back in my day. Probably 4 or 5 times more.

And that is great but having 4-5 times more juniors in your club isn't worth much (in the short-medium term) if they don't progress into full members. If they're leaving at 16 and coming back, at say, 36 then that's a 20 year gap.
And that's going back to my original point, unless something is done to get people in their 20-30's into clubs in the short-medium term then I think there'll be a major cliff edge down the road.

I know of a club where 92% of their members are over 50. That's about 540 people over, and 60 people under 50 years old. The vast majority of those 540 won't be playing in 20 years.
New golfers will come into the game to replace them but I can't see it happening at that level. The average age rising backs up this point.

So getting back to the issue, I think it's very important for clubs to change the way they look at the game. If the lost generation are giving their reasons for not playing it should be at least looked at.

FixdePitchmark

Well it looks a hard task that the http://www.cgigolf.org/ have ahead of them.

The real problem for them - is the lag in club participation if they invest in targeting the very young. But a great start, to have professionals looking at this and acting on it. I think you are not going to get that group from 20 to 35 or so playing golf. If they are playing golf - they should be doing something else in my opinion. You have to be serious serious into it to play it at that age.

To be positive to start.

Golf is now far more accessible than it was
It is far cheaper
There are more courses
Cheaper to get equipment
Teaching and driving ranges have come along, by miles


The negatives

Still way too long
Still very very hard
Modern Courses too long and too hard
Not now considered the focal point of a community - or the "place to be seen".


But I guess that is not really the topic here. But, as golfers we will have to consider the time the game is taking and the impact this is having on the game.

It is not just a crazy idea from the internet - But, people in the game at very high levels in the UK are looking at shorter versions of golf - Par 3 etc.

As we are golfers - that is just impossible for us to justify.


But - to look at my own group of friends - relationships and roles have changed. Typically both of the couple are working (they have too big a mortgage) , they have a limited amount of spare money and a limited amount of quality / family time. As other have said - Golf is not an option for them , but also they have had kids later and will be well into 40s before they go back to golf in a big way.

Society and the odd game will do them.


I'm lucky - I play golf midweek , very unusual due to my work.

But even at that. I play courses that are quick. The newer courses that were built are crazy - And I can hit the ball a fair bit, it was not just length , it was bunkers , rough , water etc.

6 holes an hour is my rule of thumb (1 ball) - 1hour 10 to 15 (2 ball) - good 3 balls can hold a 2 ball . Examples of course you can do that are Corballis - Clontarf etc. Short, tight green to tee , yes, near dangerous .

You should play a course within 10 minutes of you, end of.

There is a course type that is very very quick and it is enjoyable golf. I think short courses well laid out have a role in the future. Real golfers don't like these , but if you like your golf a lot - you need to get real with the time it uses.

I just can't see this 5 to 6 hour trip to the golf course working out till lads are near 50 to be honest. I'd love if it was the 70/80s again to be honest

PARlance

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You should play a course within 10 minutes of you, end of.

Couldn't agree any more. Let's start building the 4,000 odd courses needed to facilitate this.

Seve OB

see above... move to Greystones

Rikand

4 hours and under is grand.
4 - 4.5 hours is okay
4.5+ hours is not acceptable

FixdePitchmark

PARlance wrote: »

Couldn't agree any more. Let's start building the 4,000 odd courses needed to facilitate this.

I think you get the point.

If you live in the middle of nowhere. Well.....

But Ireland would be some puzzle to avoid a golf course.

alxmorgan

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think you get the point.

If you live in the middle of nowhere. Well.....

But Ireland would be some puzzle to avoid a golf course.

Nearest course to me is 25 mins.

I get up at 6:40 to play my golf so I can get out early and get around unencumbered and get home to the family as quickly as possible. Never have time for even a cup of tea after but I do play weekly so I'm trying to be fair to all involved.

Fear is that as the kids grow and I become the taxi service that I'm not back to playing at the same rate until the lads are old enough to come with me or if they have no interest then we could be talking 10+ years

PARlance

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think you get the point.

If you live in the middle of nowhere. Well.....

But Ireland would be some puzzle to avoid a golf course.

I don't, I'm far from the middle of nowhere but in order to get into a golf course within 15 mins (3 clubs) I would need to join a waiting list and have a cheque for about €10k ready and yearly subs of ~ 2k+ thereafter.

And it's not just a Dublin problem, you'll see guys in Cork, Galway having to travel a fair bit to find golf.

Seve OB

Anyway, I really don't know what the problem is. Golf is not long enough. I played 36 on Saturday, left the house at 8:40, Druids Glen first tee @10... 4 hours later. game over... lunch.... dropped down to say hello to the sister, spin up to Greystones to tee off at 3:42, was home with the feet up before half 8.... to watch the golf on the tele.......kids already tucked up in bed.

Carlsberg don't do Saturdays, but if they did, I'd be having this every week

kiers47

Seve OB wrote: »

Carlsberg don't do Saturdays, but if they did, I'd be having this every week

Do Carlsberg do divorces? :cool::D