Dumbing down the game, changing the rules, making the holes bigger, making the courses shorter, etc. doesn't get the golf industry from point A (where they currently are) to point B (where they want to be). This goes above and beyond the cost of a driver, or the price of a Titleist NXT ball. We're talking the entire industry.
Back in 2011, Nicklaus offered the only real long-term solution for the waning interest in golf. People laughed, told him he was crazy. Of course - his solution was so enormous in scope, so revolutionary, that it would ultimately require a long-term commitment from all of the organizations around the world associated with golf, including the independent owners of both private and public golf facilities worldwide. It would require an enormous campaign, and there would certainly be lots of initial criticisms early on, particularly from the traditional loyalists who would rather see the game dry up to nothing than change the way it needs to today to reflect the current realities. All of the game's governing bodies would have to embrace an adjusted universal handicapping system.
It wouldn't be easy. It would take several years to implement and get everyone on board. But in the end, if we're talking about real sustainable growth - it's really the only viable-yet-unlikely solution. Unlikely, of course, because so many people are against change, especially when it is radical in nature.
His solution was the 12-hole round.
At first, I was like no way. This would never go over. Then I started thinking about it. I started thinking about everything that I personally don't like about golf. It has very little to do with the rules... has very little to do with the challenging nature of the game itself. But the time commitment - certainly. I don't like that I have to spend most of a day away from my house to play a round of golf. I don't like the expense either. Now mind you - equipment costs and hard goods - that stuff won't get any less expensive. But it stands to reason that if you're playing 1/3 less holes - then the price of greens fees should likewise reflect 1/3 less cost savings. So I've cut down my time investment by 1/3... I've cut my greens fees expenses by 1/3. Instead of forking over $60 and 6 hours of my day on Saturdays, I'm now spending 40 bucks and back home 4 hours later. Not only that, but now maybe I can justify playing on Sundays too, whereas before I was just a once-per-week player.
From the golf course owners standpoint... they're really not standing to lose much money. In fact - they might actually increase revenues. They now have an additional 6 holes to accommodate more play. Sure - it would require some coordination with rerouting the different 6-hole layouts from one side to the other, but there are currently plenty of 27-hole facilities already doing this successfully.
So the more I thought about it... particularly given that the older we get - generally speaking - the more easily tired we get... 12 holes is perfect. On the rare day that I want to play more golf - I can always do a replay, where 24 holes sound much more enticing that the usual 36. Just on that standpoint alone - some facilities could stand to gain from replay revenues alone.
At this stage of my life, retired... I can play whenever I want, as many holes as I want. I'm a private club member, my investment wouldn't change... but I'd enjoy a shorter round. I'd enjoy coming home in the afternoon not feeling dog tired and having a couple more hours to do stuff around the house before it gets dark. But for the public golfer, who has essentially been forced to curtail his golf hobby because of time and expense? This would certainly find some appeal.
Of course, none of this would happen. It's too radical of a change, and golf seems hellbent on stubbornly maintaining tradition, even if it eventually results in near-extinction. But this is really the only real long-term solution, if the keepers of the sport are genuinely interested in sustaining long-term interest.