Could Shorter Loops Help Golfers Play More Holes?

The Wall Street Journal ran an article this past weekend on a golf course in Michigan that is experimenting with 5, 7, 9 and 12 hole formats in addition to the normal 18.  It has generated a decent amount of discussion within golf circles already, including at the highest level within Southern California, and I wanted to add a few comments.

To read the article, please click here.

The reason why I think this concept has really opened eyes can perhaps be explained through my personal history with golf.

As a child, I was fortunate to have parents who were members of the local country club so I could play unlimited golf for no additional fee.  And because of the course layout at Moraga Country Club, there were natural loops of 4, 5, 8 and 10 holes.  I took advantage of this countless times when I simply wanted to enjoy the game and had limited time or sunlight to do so.  Some of my best memories with my dad, my friends and even being alone came during these times when dusk was setting in, the shadows were long, sprinklers had to be dodged and the many majesties of golf were in full force.

Now, as an adult in the metropolis of Los Angeles where club memberships start at $100k+, I, like so many others, rely on public facilities for my golf.  The problem is that these courses charge a minimum nine hole rate which is usually overpriced even for the nine holes, and often the pro shop / tee sheet is closed a few hours prior to dusk so there isn't an opportunity to jump on for a few holes at the end of the day.  Given my responsibilities as a parent and the increasing demand of 24/7 availability in the professional world, this golfing reality doesn't work for me.  I could go to a Par 3 course, but they are so populated that it's still a two hour experience to play the nine holes.  (Plus, I want to hit the big dog!)  As a result, I haven't played golf in 5+ months.  I wonder how much potential revenue the industry is losing from folks like me.  I want to play, but the game doesn't have a solution for someone in my shoes (yet), especially in an urban setting.

What Island Hills is trying to accomplish from my perspective is to provide the country club convenience at a public facility where you pay as you play.  Therefore, that free hour you may have to play golf is accommodated with a viable and cost-effective solution to enjoy golf for that hour.  Brilliant.

There are, of course, the issues of potential bottlenecks, the timing for alternative routings and so forth, which the course owner Bob Griffioen seems to recognize.  It's promising to hear him have clear perspective that his model is a test needing study and likely iteration in the coming months/years.

An important thing to note about Mr. Griffioen is that he comes from an engineering background, not a golf one, and he applies that perspective to how he operates his facility.  I can relate in the sense that I too am not a PGA Professional but rather come from more of a business background. I think the golf industry benefits when folks outside the inner circle take a crack at out-of-the-box solutions to some of golf's ailments.  I reiterate this belief daily when folks who aren't PGA Professionals inquire about TGA's franchise opportunity and worry whether they can be successful in the golf industry coming from a background other than golf.  The answer is absolutely yes.

Concepts like shorter loops, pay as you play models, free equipment and cheap lessons (similar to the Mini Prince at Princeville course I wrote about a few weeks ago) may not benefit the short term bottom line, but if they encourage new players to join the game then we all win financially and otherwise in the long run.

I applaud Mr. Griffioen for taking the risk to try this approach, I'm confident that the industry will be closely following (and aiding) his efforts, and I wish him all the best.

A Significant, Sustainable & Non-Radical Solution to Golf's Participation Problem

The Wall Street Journal published an article last weekend called “The Battle for the Soul of the Game” and it captured the essence of this interesting time in the golf industry. 

The article discusses how the golf industry is thinking about combating the game’s declining participation, causes of which include 5-6 hour rounds, expensive green fees, increasingly difficult courses and little overall accessibility.  Industry leaders face difficult decisions because many of the popular solutions to these problems require a fundamental shift in the traditions, values and “soul” of the game.

Some of the more radical ideas include: two sets of rules – one for professionals and one for amateurs, golf balls that fly farther or shorter to accommodate courses of different lengths, doubling the size of the hole, building courses with less holes and so forth.

I understand why these ideas exist but I don’t support them because they disrupt a fundamental aspect of the game that I believe should be forever sacred – “the number.”  Every round of golf produces a score.  Golfers can compare it to previous performances.  It’ll make them feel good about themselves, or strive to be better, or both.  They can compare it to others.  It can be discussed at ease with both golfers and non-golfers alike.  They can even compare it to professionals.  Thanks to one set of rules, 18 holes, normal-sized golf courses, standardized equipment and a 3” hole, every score produces a number that means something.  In many ways it means everything.  And it should never be taken away.

There are traditional solutions as well – moving the tees forward, eliminating carts on courses where they have to stay on the path, increasing marketing efforts, etc. – but these all feel to me like using a band aid where stitches are needed.

There is one solution, however, that was discussed in the Comments section of the article that I think is game-changing because it would solve these problems in a significant and meaningful way while also preserving the traditions of the game.

The concept is to create a system where people need to be able to achieve a certain handicap on a short course and pass a rules/etiquette assessment before receiving a card that would allow them to play on an 18 hole regulation facility.  This policy would apply to juniors, men, women, everyone.  It makes a lot of sense and would do several things:

1.    Create inherent demand for building short courses and a sustainable business model to support them.

2.    Provide a nurturing, non-intimidating environment for beginners to try the game and develop some skills before going to longer, harder, more expensive and time-consuming courses.

3.    Offer all golfers more opportunities to enjoy the game in a relaxed setting for two hours or less.

4.    Speed up play at 18 hole facilities.

Failing golf courses could convert into a short course as opposed to closing, thus saving jobs and making the transition to this model smooth for everyone.  In the interim of building the short course, or in areas where it would be impossible to sustain one, regulation facilities could utilize the family tees or create a modified routing format (such as Tierra Rejada's innovative "Players Course") on certain days/times for beginners.  USGA members with a handicap below a certain number would be grandfathered in while all others would need to pass through the program.

I’m sure there are many more considerations as I dive deeper into the concept, including potential legal and political complications, but this to me makes a lot of sense on many levels… much more so than some of the alternatives.  It maintains the integrity of “the number,” preserves the game’s traditions, makes it more accessible to beginners, presents more opportunities for seasoned players to enjoy it and has a sustainable business model to support it. 

And, this model would present ample opportunity for entrepreneurs to capitalize on the shifting landscape.

What do you think?

The Future of U.S. Golf Course Design

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article titled: “When Building a Course Makes Sense.”  Right now the answer is, well, pretty much never.  There has been a net loss of 300+ golf courses since 2006 and the author could find only a half dozen courses scheduled to open in the next two years (compared to the ~300/year that opened during the 90’s).

While the drop off is more significant than I would’ve imagined, the trend makes sense.  Courses are often built as attachments to real estate communities or resorts, or by municipalities to serve the community.  We’re all familiar with the recent struggles of these industries / budgets.  Additionally, the number of golfers in the U.S. fell 13% from 30 to 26 million in the five short years between 2005-2010.

According to the article, most of the courses currently under construction are “destination courses” that are looking to cut costs by being built in remote areas on sand-based land while utilizing more of their natural environment in the design.

The article cites Bandon Dunes and Sand Hills as great examples of this philosophy being a good one.  I’d include Whistling Straits as well.  All three were created in this style and are widely considered the best courses built in the U.S. since 1960.

Whistling Straits, where Dustin Johnson famously
couldn't tell what was and was not a bunker

A friend in the golf industry recently gave me a book called "Planet Golf USA” and in it, the author laments the lack of quality golf courses that have been built in the U.S. since the Great Depression.  And he’s right.  If you look at Golf Digest’s ranking of “America’s 100 Greatest Golf Courses” you’ll find that 9 of the top 10 were built before1933 … along with 18 of the top 25.  I find these statistics fascinating considering the remarkable advancements in technology and equipment since then.

It’s reported that Sand Hills (#9 in the aforementioned rankings) was built for $1.5 million in 1994 compared to some resort courses with fake waterfalls, etc. that exceeded $20 million.  I know which one I’d rather play.

Sand Hills - only Top 10 U.S. course built after 1933 and
considered one of the most naturally-built courses ever

Interestingly, my favorite public course in Los Angeles – Rustic Canyon – was one of the few non-ranked courses featured in Planet Golf USA.  It is rugged, pure and a great test of golf.  The designer moved only a scant 17,000 cubic yards of soil during the construction process, bringing the project in on time and under budget.  As a result, they charge $60 greens fees in a region where the only other public option (besides municipalities that take 6 hours to play) are mediocre, fancied-up daily fee courses needing to charge $100+ to stay afloat.  And that is the problem the market is currently correcting.

Rustic Canyon's Front 9 hugs the natural landscape

The recalibration occurring in the golf industry unfortunately affects many good people.  But if there is one bright spot, I hope it’s that the necessity to build more cost-effective courses brings the game back to its roots of being played on minimalist courses designed from the natural environment.  This applies to both destination courses we can dream about like Bandon Dunes and local courses we can play regularly as weekend warriors like Rustic Canyon.

If this trend continues, who knows… perhaps one day we’ll look back on this time as a second golden age of golf course design.  And undoubtedly there are opportunities out there for entrepreneurs to capitilize on this shift.