Barney Adams on the Future of Golf - Part Four

Barney Adams

Barney Adams, the founder and past CEO of Adams Golf, is a man whose open-minded approach to the game improved the way it's played for thousands and thousands of golfers. He recently applied his genius to the biggest question in the game: how do we make it accessible, popular, and attractive to more players? This is the fourth of a series of guest posts containing his unfiltered thoughts. If you haven't yet, I suggest you read the first three posts (Part One, Part Two, Part Three) for an in-depth look at his idea.

From the Desk of Barney Adams...

I've spent months telling this story, initially trying for converts. An overriding lack of success taught me that the better approach was to gather feedback, hone the idea and hope to garner support from major organizations. Some of the most repeated comments and my responses follow.  

“Your idea will ruin the game. To get everyone at the 135 yard “The Tour Test” marker players in a foursome will be hitting from different tees and that destroys the camaraderie that is part of golf.”

Response: In my concept a group playing from the same tees is integral to the enjoyment of the game. On Tour (our standard of relativity) the longest hitters are 40 yards in front of the shorter ones. As long as your group on average is 20 yards on either side of the 135 yard “The Tour Test” marker, you are fine.

“Let's cut to the chase, we gamble. You think we want our opponent at 120 yards from the green while we're at 150? That’s nuts.”

Response: Right now your shot is 180 yards. Can you roll the ball between the traps? Maybe one in five times? Your opponent is 150 yards and feels very secure. With “The Tour Test” you are now positioned at 150 yards and can carry your ball over the bunker and guess what -- it stops 10' from the hole. I don't care how close he is, your opponent’s shot just got a lot harder.

Note: Let me add something here. There’s a misconception that playing at “The Tour Test” distance will automatically result in lower scores. Maybe. I've plugged a lot of 7 or 8 irons into bunkers (while gambling) but at least somewhere in the “The Tour Test” game, I'll get a decent birdie opportunity.

“This is baloney, I'm 62 and I can get home on 400 yard par 4 holes.”

Response: I'm 73 and so can I. That's not the objective. I can shoot at a 12' basket too but I'd rather compete at 10' and be playing comparable to the best in the world. Besides, I have a lot more fun at 10’. If we don’t do something to enhance the experience of the game of golf for everyone, it is going to die a slow and painful death.

“How do I know what tees to play?”

Response: Properly set up (which is part of the program) courses will have  suggested "The Tour Test" tees for men and women based on tee shot data from tens of thousands of golfers. If you find yourself constantly approaching from 160-180 yards (rather than close to 140 yards) then move up a set. If you are truly (note the word truly) a golfer who drives the ball 260 -280 yards, keep moving back. Golf is a game of honesty. If your stock 8 iron is 163 yards (like a tour player) then play the tips.

Over the years we have turned into a total yardage descriptor for golf, “We play from 6700, or 6000 or 7700 whatever.” I'd do away with those numbers if I could, (along with tee colors). “The Tour Test” golf is about testing your game against the best players in the world by playing relative distances into the green.

“Our group moved up and it just didn't feel right hitting 8 irons where we used to hit hybrids, almost like cheating.”

Response: Ironically this is one of the most significant lessons I learned from my field odyssey and experienced it myself. There is an inherent honesty in golf and you have to get used to the idea that you are simply playing relative distances to the best in the world. Once accepted it's an easy adjustment.

“What about my handicap, if I move to the “Tour Test” tees won't it go down and then I'll be penalized if I play a course that still plays back?”

Response: The USGA has strongly supported Tee It Forward. Assuming they are on board with “The Tour Test” I cannot see them ignoring handicaps should they become an issue.

“Can we do this at our course now? Why do we have to wait?”

Response: It’s perfectly legit to change. In my dreams the golfers of the world rise up and request "The Tour Test" tees at their courses NOW.

Among many other books, Dave Donelson is the author of Weird Golf: 18 tales of fantastic, horrific, scientifically impossible, and morally reprehensible golf

Barney Adams on the Future of Golf - Part Three

Barney Adams

Barney Adams, the founder and past CEO of Adams Golf, is a man whose open-minded approach to the game improved the way it's played for thousands and thousands of golfers. He recently applied his genius to the biggest question in the game: how do we make it accessible, popular, and attractive to more players? This is the third of a series of guest posts containing his unfiltered thoughts.

From the Desk of Barney Adams...

A Typical “ Tour Test" Layout 
Notice the word typical and other vague references. Further I use “Tour Test” here as simply a name for setting up courses. Golf is not a fixed experience. A 350 yard hole is not always the same 350 yard hole. Prevailing winds, fairway design, firmness, forced carries, green sizes, surrounding bunkering (I could go on)…all are factors. Tee It Forward was a start but it needs an upgrade. The front tees may work in some cases, on some holes, and not at all on others. Since I’ve played this way, I realize that in some instances current course design will force compromises. Maybe someday there will be new tees but for now, I suggest we work with existing layouts.

“The Tour Test” Par Four Holes
Given historical data on tee shots, a median length of 360 yards is a good rule of thumb for a par four hole. If I'm laying out a course I look for a design where I have at least one short par four hole (290-310 yards) on each side. Basically there are two types of design that accomplish this: relief off the tee with a very small green surrounded by trouble, or a more forgiving green area and a narrow, tough tee shot.

In my layout there will also be a couple of long par four holes (in the 400 yard range) with openings into the green, down slope, or down prevailing winds.

That leaves 6 par 4 holes (depending on their shape) between 340 and 370 yards each.

“The Tour Test” Par Three Holes
A par 3 hole with forced carry and trouble can be a short 120-140 yards. With a wider opening into the green the hole can be longer (180 yards). Terrain and conditions always affect design plans.

“The Tour Test” Par Five Holes. 
Unlike the Tee It Forward approach, “The Tour Test” play can support longer holes. A 220 yard drive, 190 yard second shot, and 140 yard approach is a 550 yard hole!  While the number 550 works perfectly in the field, the same players who disparage moving up to Tee it Forward are equally unhappy with longer par 5 holes. Conditions dictate! The point is 550 yards can work perfectly. Hitting the green on a par 5 in two shots is common on tour. It is great fun to watch, but it’s not happening for the vast majority of golfers – just for the .08%.  I’ve heard suggestions for 425 yard “reachable” par 5 holes and the idea just doesn’t work.

“The Tour Test” Course
“The Tour Test” course could measure 6000 yards (or 6400 yards or even more) depending on the conditions mentioned.   What it is not is 6100 yards with 7 par four holes of 400 yards, and 4 par 5 holes at 460 yards. That course layout is one of the weaknesses of the “Tee It Forward” movement. Moving up does not always give you “The Tour Test” experience. The question to ask as we create “The Tour Test” holes is: How do we lay this out so the amateur is realistically given the chance to compete against the best players in the world?

So there is my story. I am a great fan of the game; it bothers me to realize that it might not continue at its current level for my grandchildren and their children. I’ve given you the history, the analysis, and a proposed solution.  I do not know what will come next. I hope "they" rally to the cause.

from Dave: Read some reactions to Barney's ideas in the next post.


Among many other books, Dave Donelson is the author of Weird Golf: 18 tales of fantastic, horrific, scientifically impossible, and morally reprehensible golf

Barney Adams on the Future of Golf - Part Two

Barney Adams

Barney Adams, the founder and past CEO of Adams Golf, is a man whose open-minded approach to the game improved the way it's played for thousands and thousands of golfers. He recently applied his genius to the biggest question in the game: how do we make it accessible, popular, and attractive to more players? This is the second of a series of guest posts containing his unfiltered thoughts.

From the Desk of Barney Adams...

I need to start with some general comments. There are lots of issues to be addressed in the industry, I'm a huge fan of junior programs, caddies, family friendly courses initiatives, at the local level too numerous to mention. I am zeroing in on one specific aspect of participation because if we ignore that, if we keep doing the same things we've done in the past the prognostication for the future is very unhealthy. I have no illusions about the difficulty involved to bring about this change.    

"The golf industry should pay very close attention to Barney's ideas", said Tom Fazio, renowned golf course architect.  "The game should be fun, not a struggle."

Good business practices teach us to be very focused in our marketing efforts. The golf industry has data that identifies the target market but somehow the message of focused marketing gets lost.   "Come play our magnificent 7200 yard (famous designer) layout."   At 7200 yards you are marketing to maybe 2% of your potential customers. When golfers do arrive they are not allowed to play from 7200 yards but moved forward as if they aren't worthy. So we've accomplished two things: spending advertising dollars ineffectively and creating a negative environment once customers get on property.

And here's the odd part: I don't fault the owners/operators for this. They are responding to a culture developed over the years that emphasizes course length not shots into the green.

To start let me be clear, you cannot put golf in a defined box. One of the great joys of the game is its inconsistency; you can have two 360 yard par 4 holes that play completely different. Fairway slopes, prevailing winds, types of grass hazards to avoid and I could go on. So analyze in golf terms, the way holes play, not in absolute yardages.

No better example exists than the recent U.S. Open at Merion. I loved watching the best players in the world trying to hit short par 4 greens from the rough or, even the fairway, and you know what?   Sometimes they didn't !

I use men's data simply because it's more familiar and easier for me to write about; I have women's data as well.

Fig 1 shows a classic long par 4, 460 yards, with a trap protecting the right side of the green. This is pretty basic architecture. Data from the PGA Tour's Shotlink system on 35,000 drives shows that Tour players will hit 6 or 7 irons into the green 26% of the time, an 8 iron 36% of the time and 9 irons or wedges 22% of the time. There will be roughly 40 yards between the longest and shortest drives. This is why 7200 yards is no problem for Tour players, who constitute .08% of those who play. Please allow me to emphasize: the .08% are great talents who play a game that is television entertainment. Somehow the folks who are protecting the game get them mixed up with the other 99.92% -us.

 

For amateurs, who cares?! Using data from 1.8 million handicaps, fewer than 10% of players will get home to the aforementioned green in two shots using any club; stick a creek in front of the green, making it a forced carry, and the GIR figure drops to less than 6%.

Aha! A poor example, you say, because amateurs don't often play 460 yd par 4 holes. I'll agree, but even under Tee It Forward they will play 405 yard par 4's. From that distance all of the Tour players, if they hit driver or three wood off the tee, will hit 9 iron or wedge into the green on their second shots, in while the number of amateurs getting home in two on a 405-yard par 4 leaps all the way to 24%, and to   15% with that damn creek to carry. That carefully sculpted trap on the right might work better as a grass bunker because even in that at 24%, many are rolling the ball onto the green, not hitting a soft shot to a protected pin.  

So it isn't about forward tees, it's about where you play approach shots from. On Tour the average iron into a par 4 hole is an 8 iron and that's good enough for me. (I mean my 8 iron, which goes 135 not theirs, which go 164 yards on average) Do you get it; how can I correctly emphasize this ; not one hole but 8 irons or less for most second shots.   Play the same type of shots into the green that the best players in the world do; most golfers play the equivalent of a 12' basket.

When I bring up the subject when visiting clubs, I see furtive glances, folks wondering who those "other guys" who don't hit 8 irons are. Yeah, right! Many decades ago I cleaned clubs and it stuck with me that the long irons were seldom used, a thought that ultimately led to the design of a fairway wood. Cleaning clubs today and I'd see used hybrids and relatively clean 6-9 irons!      

Install me as Grand Czar and all courses would be required to have  markers measured 135 yards from the green. They could be painted sprinkler heads, small plaques (I will have some official Czar discs available with my likeness), trees like the old 150 bushes. My army of golf police will inspect and certify them.

The markers are reminders. It's like having a great Scottish caddy standing in the fairway, "Aye, Laddie play from here.   It's just like the professionals only adjusted for you." He will explain there is a 40 yard spread-plus or minus 20 yards-from the markers and playing within that spread is to play the same shots Tour players do. Over a relatively short period, the question of what tees to play will become evident. The back tees don't disappear; they just get used by the few that really belong there.

Originally I had this grand idea of official markers sanctioned by the PGA of America and the USGA. The regional PGA of America staff would verify them as they visited courses. This would allow certified facilities to advertise that they featured the chance to play Tour-type shots into the greens, have fun, and enjoy the game.

I even invented a sponsor who would host a three-year amateur event played from the correct distances. I called the event "The Tour Test" as a way of incenting folks to play from the relevant areas. Like a lot of my grand schemes, reality intervened. The USGA and PGA of America have their own programs.

Truth is I harbor a dream of a large corporation with ties to golf contacting me about wanting to be associated with an event that so strongly supports amateur golf. Oh Golf Channel and a partner, can you hear me, televised regionals, finals; this would be a game changer. Nope, not looking for work here...just trying to help.

I think this concept has a near zero chance of becoming adapted.  Tour golf produces a state of 'television euphoria' and a commentary that the game isn't doing well is not well received.  The PGA of America will continue efforts to bring in new players and there will be some references to 'more fun' and 'playing faster'.  Yes, I see the Jack Nicklaus spot on moving to forward tees.  This is the closest to getting those who have cut back to start playing more but at the  course level this gets interpreted as an application for senior players and is not becoming widely accepted.  

There are two factors conspicuous by their absence in this article. The first is the issue of slow play; very simply, if golfers learn to play from the correct approach area play will speed up. I realize slow play is a study unto itself, but this movement is definitely on the right side of the equation. The second is cost; I believe in value. Once you get courses playing correctly, you've increased value. The marketplace will determine actual cost far beyond any words by me.

As an added thought, turn off the water. Two reasons: it will make the course play faster, and pretty soon you're not going to be able to afford it anyway. Educate the golfing market that soft green fairways are unhealthy; a light tan means a deeper, stronger root structure.  

Among many other books, Dave Donelson is the author of Weird Golf: 18 tales of fantastic, horrific, scientifically impossible, and morally reprehensible golf

Barney Adams on the Future of Golf - Part One

Barney Adams

Barney Adams, the founder and past CEO of Adams Golf, is a man whose open-minded approach to the game improved the way it's played for thousands and thousands of golfers. He recently applied his genius to the biggest question in the game: how do we make it accessible, popular, and attractive to more players? This is the first of a series of guest posts containing his unfiltered thoughts.

From the Desk of Barney Adams...

Given my history with Tee It Forward, I have spent a significant amount of time studying participation data in the golf industry. Recently, I saw two forecasts, one from the NGF and one from Golf 20/20. The former predicts 3 million new golfers by 2020, keeping up with the population increase; the latter, an increase to 30 million players in 5 years. Apples to apples the 5 million increase would constitute almost 29 million, so the NGF is relatively more conservative.                                                              

My initial reaction to these revelations was somewhere between negative and incredulous. They have 30 years worth of data that refutes their own positions. But, as I contemplated more, it became evident that the real issue is how to increase participation, not criticize forecasts.

The facts: golf participation has significantly lost ground vs. the population increase over the last 30 years-something well over 20%. Junior golf is down 30% from its high in 2005. And in fact, if you carefully look at the participation data since 1985, everything is down.

The NGF has a category encompassing all who play at least once a year, age six and older, (the base they use for their 2020 forecast). While that category shows a similar decline, I am more specific in my analysis. They have a category called "Avid," those who play 25+ times a year. This category accounts for and pick up 71% of all golf associated costs. A clear path: grow this group and good things fall in line.

Definitely a straightforward objective, we have the category we want to expand - now let's develop programs to increase their play, just as has been done in the past. It worked! We had 10.2 million avid golfers in 2000, only ultimately it didn't work.  Well, that group of avid golfers did grow once. From 1985 to 2000, it grew from 6.8 million to 10.2 million.  But that didn't solve the problem, because then it shrank. From 10.2 million in 2000 to 9.1 million in 2005, 7.0 million in 2010, we end up with 6.8 million and counting in 2012, the same as we had in 1985, (not close to keeping up with the population increase). So it isn't about getting them, it's about keeping them and that is where every organization associated with the game needs to focus. There have been enough economic and weather variations over those years to factor them out as the cause; the culprit is the game itself.

In the business world this would be identified as a case of product rejection. At all levels, men, women and juniors, we can get them started, but we can't get them to stay with the game. We continue to try and attract new players but until the product rejection issue is turned around these efforts will not fix the participation issue.

I understand that there will be some who say the current status is acceptable so let's not interfere. Two million jobs, people supporting families, kids with summer jobs-that is what the industry provides and that base is being eroded. If that isn't an incentive, there is a long range forecast which is so negative folks tune it out. That is the result of today's birth rate, the lowest in history, By comparison, the baby boomers, today's chief golf participants had the highest birth rate in our history.

Let's be the generation that is recognized for taking action that has a positive effect on participation. In Part 2, I'll propose a fix that is within the rules and spirit of the game, is virtually cost free and at the end of the day, a solution that we can easily install. I'm talking about us, the folks who play the game.

Among many other books, Dave Donelson is the author of Weird Golf: 18 tales of fantastic, horrific, scientifically impossible, and morally reprehensible golf