Cycling's popularity affecting golfing numbers?

Macy0161

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In the mid 1990s my father used to lament that there were not as many young people out fishing on the local lakes as there were when he was young (1950s/60s)

He put it down to the popularity of golf.

The same seems to be happening with golf now with the popularity of cycling.

I think time is the biggest factor, and then lifestyle.

I used to fish, I used to play golf. I still have my tackle and still have my clubs. Before I decided to get fitter, I was on a waiting list for my local golf club (subsequently went wallop) and for the club that controls my local fishing rights - this only came around last year, after a 5 year wait!

However, limited time is a killer, and now I am relatively fit, I'd rather go out on the bike.

Watts per KG I'm a middling cyclist, I'd cover well over a hilly 100km in the time it took my last round of golf*. But that would be from my door, and include a coffee stop, not having to load up, drive to and from, changing etc. Even practice/ training, I can do at home, rather than add half an hour each way for an hour at the range.

Incidentally, there's much discussion around cycling on reduced numbers racing, doing sportives etc. I'd say it's just ever evolving.

*definitely wasn't a middling golfer!

paulanthony

GreeBo wrote: »

Expect it is, one is a casual meetup, the other is a stipulated competition with rules and regulations and others involved.


Indeed, and yet here you are still typing...
Its a discussion forum, if you are not happy with people having a different opinion than your own then I suggest you stop being involved rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Btw you'll note that there are others who agree with me on this topic.


Great, now please compare this to a cycling competition or its a moot point.
I might want to do a road race on a Monday morning because I'm a chef and I work weekends, pretty sure Im going to be sh1t out of luck though, right?

Playing competition is not pretty average participation, many, many people are not members of clubs any more and play causal/greenfee rounds of golf where ever they can get on whatever day/time they can get.


Again you are comparing a casual cycle with a golf competition, try turning up for any cycle race late and see if they waited for you.
Also, you choose to play 18 holes, why not play 9 if time is your issue?

I'm just trying to address the question asked in the first thread - not compare and contrast the two sports form a first principles perspective. I'm taking the perspective of a person who wants to "participate" (not necessarily compete) regularly (ie weekly) in a pastime - on the weekend in my (and most peoples) case.

To play golf you need to access a golf course, so this either involves being (a) being a member somewhere and playing a competition or casual round there or (b) paying a green fee somewhere. I don't care about competitions - have never won or come close to winning a competition, but I used to play competitions every Saturday or Sunday morning because it was the only way to play in my local course (I wasn't living in Dublin at the time and so this was essentially the only way to play there). I would just as happily played a casual round, but not really an option. Now living in central Dublin what are my options, assuming I want to participate in my pastime reasonably close to home? It's join a club (likely a joining fee) and pay an annual sub or pay a green fee every weekend (where available - obviously lots of clubs don't have any slots on these mornings). Assuming I am not able to justify the membership costs, and don't want to pay a €50/60 green fee every weekend, I'm essentially stuck playing Donabate and Corballis every weekend if I can find a friend who is also available to join my casual round.

I sometimes (but irregularly) participate in cycling races and also sometimes participate in organised cycles which are not races. But I mainly meet people and go for a "casual" cycle. As often as I can (not very often unfortunately) I meet 1-3 friends for a "casual" round of golf. I wish I could do the golf more and cycling less but that's not the reality at the moment. Both are pastimes which people enjoy but you can't say it is not "cycling" if I am not zipping along at 90KMPH with another 10 guys wearing the same jersey as me, in the same way I wouldn't say it's not golf if a guy is heading to the course to play 9 holes on his own on a wet Wednesday morning.

All just based in reality and the reality is that the roads are free and open 24/7. I'd love to pop to a nice course 10 mins from home and play golf for 2 hrs on Saturday morning for a reasonable fee. That just doesn't exist for me unfortunately. It may do in other parts of the country.

GreeBo

Weepsie wrote: »

I could leave my house at 9 (Northside of Dublin) cycle the length of the sally gap and be back at home by lunch. That's with probably above average fitness in fairness and assuming conditions are not too windy. Others could do it in less.

If I left at 6.30, I could possibly do the Military Road, Wicklow Gap and Sally Gap an get back for lunch.

Case in point being it very much depends on the player/cyclist, event, conditions etc.

I would frame it as, less time is wasted in the act of cycling than of golfing, because for golf you need to nearly always plan on getting to the course/clubhouse, setting up etc. Cycling, you can just shut your door and start.

Possibly less time is wasted, but as you get better/fitter cycling you typically need to go further for longer to get something out of it.
30mins can be a considerable cycle for a beginner, but is not worth getting the gear on for someone who is an accomplished cyclist.

30 mins on a the range/green/whatever is beneficial to beginners and pros alike.

The main point I am trying to make is that "golf" doesn't automatically mean 4 hours on a Saturday playing a strokes comp any more than "going for a cycle" means 4 hours down to Rosslare.

RoadRunner

GreeBo wrote: »

You cant compare "serious" golf with "casual" cycling and then say golf takes more time.

On average golf is more 1) time consuming, 2) expensive, 3) inconvenient for the family. Cyclists commuting in a suit, or the god-tier top 0.01% cyclist who compete aren't relevant to the discussion.

The average golfer competes, the average cyclist doesn't.

You're all over the road coming up with the craziest of extremes like comparing rounds of golf performed at running speed against a commuter cyclist in a business suit to try to say that golf burns more calories. Lets stick to averages, the cyclists who compete in un-handicapped races around the country are not the guys on the fence about cancelling golf membership to take up cycling. Also they're not the guys cycling in business suits or spending €50 on a competition bike.

(I've reply-quoted you, but you weren't the only offender ignoring the law of averages )

paulanthony

RoadRunner wrote: »

On average golf is more 1) time consuming, 2) expensive, 3) inconvenient for the family. Cyclists commuting in a suit, or the god-tier top 0.01% cyclist who compete aren't relevant to the discussion.

The average golfer competes, the average cyclist doesn't.

This is exactly my point - much more succinctly put. I know lots of golfers and cyclists. Most of the golfers I know play competitions regularly (including own club, open fixtures, societies and inter-club). It is the basic (and brilliant) point of the handicap system. Of all the cyclists I know only one really seriously "competes" (this guy does Tour de France stages, cycling holidays in the Alps etc) and his golfing equivalent is probably someone who is entering elite amateur competitions.

magicbastarder

i guess a lot of that comes down to the fact that all golf competitions take place in venues dedicated to golf, and golf alone. most cycle races take place on public property, so take a lot more organisation (and have a probable higher injury rate...)

CalamariFritti

Entire post deleted

Weepsie

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I’m sick of reading about Cycling and cyclists. Can you pls just feck off out of the golf forum? Nobody gives a crap why you think cycling is so much better than everything else. We already heard it many times. it’s still sh1t and you still look ridiculous and I still have to look at your fat arse from my car.

At least golfers have the decency to conceal their fat arses in their cars I guess?

A lot are not saying why they think it's better, they are just answering why they think there are more turning to cycling than golf.

CalamariFritti

Weepsie wrote: »

At least golfers have the decency to conceal their fat arses in their cars I guess?

Exactly.

How can cycling be considered a replacement for golf? Ye maybe you can go for shorter cycles or something. But its dangerous and boring as hell and it involves no skill whatsoever except maybe for squeezing your arse into those pants. You might as well turn to thumb twisting as a hobby.

Mantis Toboggan

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Exactly.

How can cycling be considered a replacement for golf? Ye maybe you can go for shorter cycles or something. But its dangerous and boring as hell and it involves no skill whatsoever except maybe for squeezing your arse into those pants. You might as well turn to thumb twisting as a hobby.

Exactly, when I finished hurling I turned to golf. Hitting a ball around a field, competing, hand eye coordination etc. I also took up tennis, again, similar enough it made sense. But cycling? I don't see the correlation.

GreeBo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Exactly, when I finished hurling I turned to golf. Hitting a ball around a field, competing, hand eye coordination etc. I also took up tennis, again, similar enough it made sense. But cycling? I don't see the correlation.

Ability to network is where its at.
If the guy you want to deal with cycles then you join him for a cycle, if he plays golf you invite him for a round.

If you dont like him at all you invite him fishing

CalamariFritti

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Exactly, when I finished hurling I turned to golf. Hitting a ball around a field, competing, hand eye coordination etc. I also took up tennis, again, similar enough it made sense. But cycling? I don't see the correlation.

Thats my biggest problem with all those activities that are mostly an exercise with a limited skill element like running, lifting, gymming, cycling etc. If I do any of these for 10 minutes or more all I want is for it to be over. Now put a ball in there and everything changes. I run happily for an hour after a ball. It creates all these unique challenges for me all the time, but just running down the road for an hour would kill me with boredom.

GreeBo

RoadRunner wrote: »

The average golfer competes, the average cyclist doesn't.

i'd like to see where you are getting the figures to base that assumption from.
A huge percentage of golfers are 100% casual golf.
I'd say the average golfer doesnt compete.

RoadRunner wrote: »

You're all over the road coming up with the craziest of extremes like comparing rounds of golf performed at running speed against a commuter cyclist in a business suit to try to say that golf burns more calories.

Again, I'm not saying golf burns more calories, I'm saying cycling is more efficient than walking. This is thermodynamics, nothing to do with me.
If you dont believe me ask yourself would you rather cycle 100K or walk 100K?

Its not all over the place at all, its a simple example to show how you can easily burn more calories playing golf than cycling.
The arguments on this thread are all over the place, one minute its a lad hoping onto his bike for a quick spin but then he is burning hundreds of calories on a hill climb, all when it suits.

This is why I have a problem with the rough definition of "golfer" and "cyclist" in this thread.

RoadRunner wrote: »

Lets stick to averages, the cyclists who compete in un-handicapped races around the country are not the guys on the fence about cancelling golf membership to take up cycling.

The average golfer doesnt have a membership or a handicap.
Is the average cyclist in a club? I dont know, probably not, but if we are comparing golfers who joined a club we should probably compare them to cyclists who joined a club, otherwise what exactly are we comparing?

Does the average club have specific times for meetups/sportives? Yes, so in that essence its the same as a competitive golf round, arguably golf is more accessible as you have multiple hours during the day (or days) when you can play in that competition.

Effects

As far as cycling goes, it seems like it's often about having the newest and better bike for a lot of people. So for that reason it can be expensive, but only if you want it to be. I've noticed this over in the UK as well. I used to cycle with a guy that spent over £10k on one of his bikes, purely because he wanted an expensive bike and could afford it.

I've also cycled a good bit in France, where there's a longer history of cycling culture, and a lot of people have older bikes, that work just fine.
I've found that cyclists there are much friendlier than cyclists here, and there's less elitism between cyclists.

As mentioned, the bike to work scheme is great for people wanting to get a good bike at a good price.
Even if you can't avail of the scheme, it means there's more bikes of that level available second hand. And as there's a larger amount of those bikes available on the second hand market, the price is lower.

triggermortis

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Now put a ball in there and everything changes. I run happily for an hour after a ball.

Are you sure you're not a Labrador??

Seve OB

Jaysus!

RoadRunner

GreeBo wrote: »

i'd like to see where you are getting the figures

I'm too time and resource poor to bite :pac:

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying golf burns more calories, I'm saying cycling is more efficient than walking. This is thermodynamics, nothing to do with me.
If you dont believe me ask yourself would you rather cycle 100K or walk 100K?

Are you still arguing about efficiency in terms of calories vs distance instead of calories vs time? Who with an interest in cycling is going to be only cycling a distance similar to a round or half a round of golf? If you're comparing the two you have to look at what people will typically do. Not the people at the ends of the spectrum of each activity.

youcancallmeal

I don't really see the point of this thread, it's just people defending golf vs cycling and vice versa based on whichever you enjoy more.

I cycled and spent a lot of money on it in my 20s. I got into golf in my 30s and rarely cycle now. As an activity I find golf much more enjoyable than cycling. That's just me though, Ive many friends who love cycling and wouldn't touch a golf club. Do whatever you enjoy and can make time for

CalamariFritti

I think we're discussing whether we should ban cycling in order to boost golf club member numbers. Me personally I think we shouldn't. I wouldn't like the look of them on the course. I don't think they're cut out for it either. I mean look at them, they'd be freezing playing golf in the winter dressed like that. I'd be much more in favour of a mandatory golf levy for cyclists. That way we give golf a boost but don't need to look at them more often than we have to. I mean its bad enough flocks of them slowing me down on the way to the golf course but imagine ON the golf course, shudders.

Wildly Boaring

Good luck golfing forum.
Perhaps the attitude of some golfers to us outsiders is the reason for courses closing

Bye

slave1

@CalamariFritti
I'm sure your can get your point across in a more civil manner please

CalamariFritti

Ah jaysus I'm only having a bit of fun. I thought that was quite obvious, no? I'll be nice.

Ah_go_on

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Entire post deleted

Ah mountain bikers are cool though

BigChap1759

RoadRunner wrote: »

I'm too time and resource poor to bite :pac:

Stop buying so many putters and your situation may improve!

paulanthony

youcancallmeal wrote: »

I don't really see the point of this thread, it's just people defending golf vs cycling and vice versa based on whichever you enjoy more.

I don't think that's really the case. I've been "defending" cycling, but I'd pick a round of golf over a cycle ten times out of ten. It's just people trying to give their view on the OP's question.

BigChap1759

I’m very surprised at all the comparisons as the two sports are so fundamentally different, golf is a game of skill and cycling is an endurance sport. Anyone who thinks golf is keeping them fit is kidding themselves. I think both have aspects around mindfulness and getting away from the hum drum of working/family life but I’m not sure what aspect of cycling compares to nailing a 300yd drive or sinking a long out to win a match etc

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

i'd like to see where you are getting the figures to base that assumption from.
A huge percentage of golfers are 100% casual golf.
I'd say the average golfer doesnt compete.

I know this is a small sample size but would seem to suggest on this forum at least a large percentage play competitive golf https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057982941/

I'm imagining a counter argument is whether or not a boards member is an average golf. I don't know to be honest but I'd imagine many would consider themselves to be

GreeBo

ronnoco13 wrote: »

I know this is a small sample size but would seem to suggest on this forum at least a large percentage play competitive golf https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057982941/

I'm imagining a counter argument is whether or not a boards member is an average golf. I don't know to be honest but I'd imagine many would consider themselves to be

I'd say they are average golfers rather than your average golfer!

Also that thread starts with "you are a club member"...

GreeBo

Other than both giving an opportunity to get away from it all, they both offer very different challenges. You can obviously exert yourself far more on the bike but the opportunity to showcase some skills appears on the course, totally depends on what floats your boat.

I'd argue that golf is giving some people a level of fitness that they wouldn't otherwise have, 4 hours walking is not to be sniffed at when you get older...