Going Out To Play 12??

Earlier this week, I had Ryan Ballengee who is NBC Sports' golf blogger on the Sportscage to talk about Tiger Woods. I was checking out his website this morning (http://www.progolftalk.nbcsports.com/) and he relays an interesting chat that was had with Jack Nicklaus. I see where Jack is coming from, but I can't buy this.

------
From Ryan Ballengee

Golf is hurting, says Jack Nicklaus. And he’s right. Course construction that boomed in the last decade has been replaced by constriction in the last-half decade. Players are walking away from the game and not being replaced by nearly enough new golfers. The sport’s aging demographic has not been sufficiently refreshed despite the best efforts of programs like The First Tee.

With all that in mind, Jack Nicklaus feels the sport needs to do something radical to encourage golfers to come back to the game or take it up in the first place. His suggestion? 12-hole golf rounds.

The Tennessean reports on Nicklaus’ comments at the charity event for country singer Vince Gill:

Nicklaus talked to PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem about the problem, telling Finchem that every sport you play can be played in two, maybe three hours. Except a round of golf.

“The kids are all playing soccer or lacrosse or basketball.’’

Looking forward, Nicklaus believes cutting a round of golf to 12 holes would be more palatable for golfers who don’t want to make it a day-long process.

While the suggestion is appreciated, golf already has a short form – the 9-hole round – and it has been the business of Jack Nicklaus (and others) to construct championship-style golf courses for developers who are dumb enough to believe that more than eight people in a year could play from the tips and have a good time on a 7100-yard course. In other words, Nicklaus has been part of the proliferation of courses which he says now intimidate golfers into not playing.

Nicklaus, then, should do something about it. Lopping off six holes of a golf course is not the solitary answer – not for amateurs and not by using the PGA Tour as an example.

As golf industry numbers suggest, participation in the sport continues to decline. The National Golf Federation reports the sport shed another 2.2% of its playing force in 2010, which further extends a trend of a decline in the golfing public since the height of participation around 2000.

Call it the Tiger Effect if you’d like, but the proliferation of real estate developments anchored by these behemoth and unsustainable tracks, as well as paper wealth of Americans, likely precipitated the surge in population of the game. As the property bubble burst in this country, courses closed and golfers walked away to do other, cheaper, faster things with their negative equity holdings.

Since the decline in participation became evident, voices in the game have suggested a host of solutions. Allow players to have more clubs in the bag. Have two cups on each hole. Force players to tee it up closer to the hole. Conduct more clinics to welcome new players and create social connections to the sport.

Throw in 12-hole rounds. Why not? It can’t hurt. But there is no panacea for the problems the game faces. There are clear causes of the problem, though. For many people, golf takes too long and costs too much money. Those problems have to be addressed head-on if the game intends to recapture its fleeing patrons.

Baseball faces the same problem in urban areas against basketball. Baseball requires equipment – bat, ball, gloves, bases – and much more acreage than basketball. Give kids a ball and a half-court and they can work on the game.

Golf can address its similar problems by collectively providing the infrastructure to encourage kids and oft-neglected demographics of people to take up the game. Build 9-hole courses – hell, 12-hole courses like the one I grew up playing – and do so with the same vigor as was done for the litany of courses that didn’t need to be built in the first place. Make it cost-effective to play for kids and their accompanying parents. Parents will not fork over a $65 green fee to let their children play. They shouldn’t have to pay more than $20 to get in a round with them on a course designed for kids.

Encourage kids to take up the game with hyper-cheap equipment. Niche companies exist already to provide that, like US Kids Golf, but none have reached the scale of the major manufacturers. Making available cheap equipment kind of flies in the face of the $400 driver.

None of these suggestions to improve the game are particularly profitable. Shortening courses or building smaller ones limits rounds and, therefore, the profit margin. And, again, it was profit that motivated the evolution of golf to this point anyhow – profits Nicklaus enjoyed in, as well as a heap of others.

Now that the clamoring for Caterpillars has stopped around the country, the industry is trying to find a way to change course. While that’s commendable, the reversal requires a financial commitment – and it wouldn’t hurt to start by using some of the money that got us into this mess to start.