14 April 2016
Golf vs Cycling
by Frank O’Nomics
The rise of the MAMIL (middle-aged man in lycra) is a modern phenomenon which has taken place at the same time as a dramatic fall in the number of golfers. Students of both science and economics will be very familiar with the expression that “correlation does not imply causation”, and that the movement of two factors while looking related, may be merely coincidental. The decade long decline in the number of people playing golf may, on the face of it, have very little to do with the strong rise in the number of people cycling – one might assume that the demographic is very different, with golf having faded due to its fuddy-duddy image, while the cycling has boomed on the endless quest for fitness. However, the surveys that show a fall in the number of golfers of 200,000 in England over the last 10 years (1 in 5 golfers gave up a club membership), and a rise of 270,000 in the number of cyclists, have been supplemented by research demonstrating that 20% of the new cyclists had actually given up golf for their bike. The question then is – why are people making this change? And (much more subjectively) are they right to do so? It is worth trying to explore the benefits of both sports and ascribe a relative value to each one – clearly not an exact science (but then I am an economist).
The time factor seems to be a crucial one for golf. Modern life does not seem to lend itself to the prospect of a 4-hour plus round, which can easily take out around 6 hours of the day, once travelling to and from the course, changing and the obligatory sojourn in the 19th hole are included. Surveys suggest that young fathers have around 2½ hours per week available for sport, with mothers somewhat less, and hence there is barely time available for a weekly 9 holes for many. A bike ride however is extremely flexible, it can be very short or as long as your energy levels can sustain. Nevertheless, both sports can be enjoyed in most weathers, and have great flexibility as they do not necessarily require other people to be involved. Hence I have scored cycling as 8/10 and golf as 6/10.
Both of these sports are generally regarded as involving expensive equipment. A set of golf clubs costs a similar amount to an entry level road bike, around £500-£600. The real expense of golf however comes from the cost of club membership, typically upwards of £1,000 per year, and for many clubs significantly more (Wentworth’s new owners recently retreated from levying a new £100,000 joining fee and a £15,000 annual subscription, but it remains very expensive). Many of those who have allowed their golf memberships to lapse will still be playing somewhere on a pay-as-you-go basis. Clearly one can spend much more on a bike than golf clubs. A Trek Emonda SLR 10 will set you back £9,000, but few of us likely to appreciate the additional benefits and £2,000 will still buy something pretty and hi-tech. The big positive for cycling is that it costs nothing to put your bike on the road and just go – and, for those who like to invest in the latest technology, there does seem to be an endless series of optional extras to sap up that spare cash (surely we all need electric gear shifts and a carbon-fibre water bottle holder!). In terms of cost, cycling again wins out with a score of 7/10 vs 5/10.
What about fitness? Again this is a big positive for cycling. A 4 hour round of golf burns off around 1,500 calories, assuming that you carry your clubs, but the use of a cart reduces this figure by almost 50%. Cycling on the other hand, can easily burn 400-500 calories per hour, with those who are prepared to work very hard able to expend upwards of twice that amount. Once again, the only thing that will restrict a cyclist will be energy and fitness level, where other sports are constrained much more from impact injuries and muscle damage. So I have scored cycling at 8/10 and golf at 4/10 as effective fitness regimes. However, there is an important additional factor to be added to this part of the assessment; that of sporting longevity. The beauty of golf is that the degree of fitness needed to continue into your dotage is relatively modest, whereas few would want to be spending long times on a bike well into their 80s for example. While many might see golf as an old person’s sport (and getting older, with the average age of those playing at least once a week rising from 48 to 63 since 2009) in many respects this is one of its key attractions – it is a sport that allows you to benefit from exercise for a very long time, particularly as you can use a buggy once walking becomes an issue. For longevity golf wins out, scoring 9/10 vs 6/10 for cycling.
This leads us to some of the other key positives for golf. Firstly, it is a very social sport. A playing partner is not essential but usual, and the game is played at a pace where conversation not a challenge – cycling is probably safer conducted at a pace where talking is possible and there is much to be gained from cycling in a group, but this is more from a teamwork point of view as each rider takes a turn at the front, rather than for sociability (golf 8/10, cycling 5/10). Secondly, golf lends itself much more to competition than cycling. There has been a growth in the number of cycling sportives (typically 50-100 mile organised events), but these are more a challenge than a competition for most, and in general MAMILs just go out for ad hoc rides . Competitive golf, on the other hand benefits from a very effective handicap system which means that all golfers are able to compete against each other, regardless of age or ability, with a differential in tees allowing an equal battle of the sexes (golf 9/10, cycling 4/10). Finally, there is the intellectual rigour and character building aspects of golf which very few sports can deliver. Few golf matches have a referee to watch that the rules are being observed and ultimately the game can only work if players remain honest. There is an etiquette to cycling, but one based upon safety rather than sportsmanship (golf 9/10, cycling 6/10).
If you have been keeping score you will have seen that, if you give each factor an equal weighting, golf wins over cycling. However, for many the weightings are clearly not equal as the time factor in particular can make golf a non-starter. Golf may need to overcome this by making some changes, and there have been some experiments with “speed golf” and enlarging the size of cups to make putting easier. Such changes may be critical from a commercial point of view. US TV audiences for golf have reportedly fallen some 45% over the last few years and the profits of equipment manufacturers have followed. Nevertheless, the competitive nature of golf does make it much more telegenic than cycling. For all the increase in interest surrounding the Tour de France, there are limited numbers that will want to sit in front of a full leg of the event. For those of us not as constrained by the time factor, the answer to the debate is of course much more simple, the only issue being which to do first on a Sunday morning.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
