A cry for help

I have been a keen follower of this forum for a number of years now but have rarely contributed. I have always been impressed by the depth of knowledge displayed and I am now wondering if any of you can help me out with a certain dilemma I am facing? Essentially I am currently a third year Maths student with the intention of basing my analysis project on golf. In order to complete this Project I require the total attendance figures for the four championship days of the Open Championship from 1980-2015.

However after searching high and low I am struggling to find these figures. It is easy to find figures for random years but a complete list seems to be hard to come by. I have attempted to obtain them from the R&A but after a number of telephone calls/emails I have gotten nowhere. The only thing I have managed to get from them is the fact that the attendance figures are published in the Open annual after every championship. However being a student I am fairly reluctant to shell out £16. Therefore I am wondering if any of you well informed folk maybe able to provide me with the figures or at least point me in the right direction? I would be extremely grateful as this is fairly important to my project! Cheers.

If you post your paypal account I am sure someone will send you the £16.

What do you want to do? Do you intend to correlate the Open attendance figures with the venue/location, ticket price, whether it's a sell out, and the weather?

Btw During the Phoenix Open coverage they posted the attendance figures for the past 10+ years. This year it was a record 600,000 despite only 50,000 on Sunday (Super Bowl).

Given you can't find the figures I'm going to guess whoever is grading your work won't be able to either.

My helpful suggestion is to just make the figures up to fit your hypothesis?

I facking hate students. Especially now it's nearly twenty years since I was one and I still hate my job.

Maybe the clubs at which it was held have (or have access to) the information?

Hibbz' suggestion of making it up as you go along might serve you well if after you attain your degree you work in the Labour Party economic policy team.

Do you need to be able to reference where the figures were gathered.

Just wondering if you could go into a watetstones (or book shop of your choice ) and take photos on your phone of the relevant pages detailing attendance figures.

Yet_Another_Shank wrote:I have been a keen follower of this forum for a number of years now but have rarely contributed. I have always been impressed by the depth of knowledge displayed and I am now wondering if any of you can help me out with a certain dilemma I am facing? Essentially I am currently a third year Maths student with the intention of basing my analysis project on golf. In order to complete this Project I require the total attendance figures for the four championship days of the Open Championship from 1980-2015.

However after searching high and low I am struggling to find these figures. It is easy to find figures for random years but a complete list seems to be hard to come by. I have attempted to obtain them from the R&A but after a number of telephone calls/emails I have gotten nowhere. The only thing I have managed to get from them is the fact that the attendance figures are published in the Open annual after every championship. However being a student I am fairly reluctant to shell out £16. Therefore I am wondering if any of you well informed folk maybe able to provide me with the figures or at least point me in the right direction? I would be extremely grateful as this is fairly important to my project! Cheers.

I was going to help you until you typed that sentence. Are you 7 years old? Either way, I can't take you seriously. I'm working for a private equity house which is considering a golf related investment, so have access to a lot of data at the moment.

wow and you wondered why this board is populated by the same dullards day in day out.
pathetic

raycastleunited wrote:


I was going to help you until you typed that sentence. Are you 7 years old? Either way, I can't take you seriously. I'm working for a private equity house which is considering a golf related investment, so have access to a lot of data at the moment.

wow.

my 5 year old nephew told me he had a secret but couldn't tell me what it was at the weekend.... you make a 7 year old seem pretty mature.

C'mon Ray, give the guy a hand, if you are able to...

What stats do you want?

Day by day attendance?
or total attendance?
Including practice days?
Including freebies?

I'd be interested in the hypothesis.

I think he wants the data just to be able to sell it to private equity houses that are looking into golf related investments...

raycastleunited wrote:

Yet_Another_Shank wrote:I have been a keen follower of this forum for a number of years now but have rarely contributed. I have always been impressed by the depth of knowledge displayed and I am now wondering if any of you can help me out with a certain dilemma I am facing? Essentially I am currently a third year Maths student with the intention of basing my analysis project on golf. In order to complete this Project I require the total attendance figures for the four championship days of the Open Championship from 1980-2015.

However after searching high and low I am struggling to find these figures. It is easy to find figures for random years but a complete list seems to be hard to come by. I have attempted to obtain them from the R&A but after a number of telephone calls/emails I have gotten nowhere. The only thing I have managed to get from them is the fact that the attendance figures are published in the Open annual after every championship. However being a student I am fairly reluctant to shell out £16. Therefore I am wondering if any of you well informed folk maybe able to provide me with the figures or at least point me in the right direction? I would be extremely grateful as this is fairly important to my project! Cheers.

I was going to help you until you typed that sentence. Are you 7 years old? Either way, I can't take you seriously. I'm working for a private equity house which is considering a golf related investment, so have access to a lot of data at the moment.

WTF was the point of that response?

You have the data so just cough it up. Post it on here and then we can all have a look.

Guys I was joking, I just think using the word "gotten" is incredibly sloppy and uneducated... which is ironic given this is supposed to be a student asking for data for educational purposes.

The data I have is only recent years. I have loads of TV data mainly. I think you could easily obtain more historical data with a bit of research... find an article about golf attendances that quotes previous attendances, and find out the source. Email the author if necessary.

2015: practice days 41,377; thurs 34,860; fri 39,815; sat 40,526; sun 45,076; mon 35,370. Total = 237,024.
2014: practice days 42,805; thurs 35,382; fri 43,183; sat 39,398; sun 42,149. Total = 202,917.

Usually Turnberry has the lowest attendance due to its remoteness, and the English venues have the highest attendances because they are nearer to places where people live. Obviously, holding the Open at a venue that is accessible to golf fans never comes into the thoughts of the R&A.

raycastleunited wrote:Guys I was joking, I just think using the word "gotten" is incredibly sloppy and uneducated...

...or they might just be using an old fashioned version of the word.

2013 figures HERE

2006: 230,000
2005: 223,000

2000: 239,000

From HERE

However these are probably the total for the event not just the 4 championship days...but it's a start and you could probably apply a simple pro-rata adjustment to exclude the practice days (say reduction by the ratio for a year you have the full stats)

Is there really a University level project in this? Seems doubtful. Seems a bit GCSE to me.

He/she has been a member since April last year...

Do we have any other members of uni age let alone GCSE age?

Regardless I hope they get the data they need.

Apologies for the delayed response gents! I must admit I hadn't given this much hope but I am pleased to see that the Majority of responses have been more than helpful. The project that I am looking to undertake will look to explore how golf prize money has evolved in the last 35 years and the reasons why it has grown at such a large rate. With the main focus being on whether the Tiger factor has had the most signifcant influence above all other factors. I thought it would make a change from the usual GDP, exchange rates, ppp or inflation modelling projects that the majority of students look at.

I thought as an extra variable I'd throw in attendance figures at a major comp but as explained earlier that apart from the odd year, they have been harder to come by than I first anticpated . Ideally I would like a complete list of the total attendance figures across the four championship days for every open from 1980-2015. However if it were to include the practice days as I see some have posted above then that would certainly not be an issue as long as it was consistent for each year. I know for a fact that the R&A have a complete list of these figures but it's been like trying to extract blood from a stone. So if anybody has these figures i'd be very grateful? I cannot find the annual in any public library and don't particularly want to buy it unless I have to. The waterstones idea maybe worth looking at though!

Yet_Another_Shank wrote:Apologies for the delayed response gents! I must admit I hadn't given this much hope but I am pleased to see that the Majority of responses have been more than helpful. The project that I am looking to undertake will look to explore how golf prize money has evolved in the last 35 years and the reasons why it has grown at such a large rate. With the main focus being on whether the Tiger factor has had the most signifcant influence above all other factors. I thought it would make a change from the usual GDP, exchange rates, ppp or inflation modelling projects that the majority of students look at.

I thought as an extra variable I'd throw in attendance figures at a major comp but as explained earlier that apart from the odd year, they have been harder to come by than I first anticpated . Ideally I would like a complete list of  the total attendance figures across the four championship days for every open from 1980-2015. However if it were to include the practice days as I see some have posted above then that would certainly not be an issue as long as it was consistent for each year. I know for a fact that the R&A have a complete list of these figures but it's been like trying to extract blood from a stone. So if anybody has these figures i'd be very grateful? I cannot find the annual in any public library and don't particularly want to buy it unless I have to. The waterstones idea maybe worth looking at though!

You can't take it in isolation for a number of reasons. First of all, prize money has increased in other sports too, Football, F1, Tennis, Cricket, Rugby etc.
Secondly, coinciding with the arrival of the loathesome Mr Woods were BIG changes in how we view and consume sports and media in general, chiefly, the technological aspect of Internet and Sky TV and improvements in TV sets, tablet, mobile phones, not to mention the advertising and sponsorship that goes with that and an increase in peoples leisure time and changes in betting.

So, although Woods has undeniably had an influence on golf for better or worse, when you compare it to other sports that do not have a Woods equivalent and which have undergone similar surges in popularity, viewing figures and prize money, then there is obviously something else at work which is more than just Woods. Sport has become far more popular in general from a viewing perspective and there is no single reason for it.

There's a great many reasons for Golf being more popular, Woods being just one of many.
For example, Prize money has been rising in golf since the very first Open, same as Tennis, Football etc.

I'd be surprised if you could garner anything statistically significant from a few decades of Open attendances to come to any conclusion and it seems a bit lightweight of a project for that level if you ask me.

super_realist wrote:

Yet_Another_Shank wrote:Apologies for the delayed response gents! I must admit I hadn't given this much hope but I am pleased to see that the Majority of responses have been more than helpful. The project that I am looking to undertake will look to explore how golf prize money has evolved in the last 35 years and the reasons why it has grown at such a large rate. With the main focus being on whether the Tiger factor has had the most signifcant influence above all other factors. I thought it would make a change from the usual GDP, exchange rates, ppp or inflation modelling projects that the majority of students look at.

I thought as an extra variable I'd throw in attendance figures at a major comp but as explained earlier that apart from the odd year, they have been harder to come by than I first anticpated . Ideally I would like a complete list of  the total attendance figures across the four championship days for every open from 1980-2015. However if it were to include the practice days as I see some have posted above then that would certainly not be an issue as long as it was consistent for each year. I know for a fact that the R&A have a complete list of these figures but it's been like trying to extract blood from a stone. So if anybody has these figures i'd be very grateful? I cannot find the annual in any public library and don't particularly want to buy it unless I have to. The waterstones idea maybe worth looking at though!

You can't take it in isolation for a number of reasons. First of all, prize money has increased in other sports too, Football, F1, Tennis, Cricket, Rugby etc.
Secondly, coinciding with the arrival of the loathesome Mr Woods were BIG changes in how we view and consume sports and media in general, chiefly, the  technological aspect of Internet and Sky TV and improvements in TV sets, tablet, mobile phones, not to mention the advertising and sponsorship that goes with that and an increase in peoples leisure time and changes in betting.

So, although Woods has undeniably had an influence on golf for better or worse, when you compare it to other sports that do not have a Woods equivalent and which have undergone similar surges in popularity, viewing figures and prize money, then there is obviously something else at work which is more than just Woods. Sport has become far more popular in general from a viewing perspective and there is no single reason for it.

There's a great many reasons for Golf being more popular, Woods being just one of many.
For example, Prize money has been rising in golf since the very first Open, same as Tennis, Football etc.

I'd be surprised if you could garner anything statistically significant from a few decades of Open attendances to come to any conclusion and it seems a bit lightweight of a project for that level if you ask me.

I think that's the point of doing it?
Confusing opinion with facts... again.

Not at all Monty, sounded very much like the poster wanted to look at attendances and then attribute any change to the 9C Effect, when in fact there's a hundred reasons in action of which 9C is only one.

But surely a statistical analysis will take these confounding factors into account? That's the point of doing it surely? It would certainly be interesting to see if the Woods effect is borne out, and I for one would imagine that there will be a statistically significant increase in viewing figures, participation and prize money. The big names in golf just before Tiger were huge stars like Flado and Norman, hardly anything to get the 'kids' excited and interested in what was seen to be one of the most unappealing 'sports' played by boring old snobby white men. I think that perception has changed immeasurably and would think the figures will bear it out.

THat's the whole point Monty, if you take it in isolation, then you could jump to the conclusion it's about 9c, if however you chart it in combination with an almost identical rise in prize money for Tennis during the same time period, then you have to think there is something else at play.

Like they say, you can show anything with statistics, but it doesn't necessarily paint a true picture, especially if you go in with confirmation bias.

Point is, attendances will tell you very little.

You can show the truth with statistics. Facts do not lie. Interpretation is how most justify there own bias. That is the basis of all science as we know it.

"Point is, attendances will tell you very little" is conjecture and often used by clarkson types to confuse their opinion with facts.

The point I'm trying to make is this:

Attendances going up (or down) do not lead you to deduce the reason for it, they only tell you attendances have gone up or down.

Someone might surmise or attribute it to 9C, but it doesn't include all the other factors at work. Therefore attendances do not tell you the reason for the change.

For example, weather, venues, venue capacity, venue history, tv coverage, spectating facilities/quality, conflicting sports events, ticket price, economic situation, transport links, parking, media exposure, advertising and marketing etc are all contributory factors which can affect attendances.

super_realist wrote:

For example, weather, venues, venue capacity, venue history,  tv coverage, spectating facilities/quality, conflicting sports events, ticket price, economic situation, transport links, parking, media exposure, advertising and marketing etc are all contributory factors which can affect attendances.

Sorry I thought you were scientifically inclined. Let me explain. These are know as confounding factors and any statistical analysis would (or should if done correctly) take them into account. The author of the analysis should be able to make it perfectly clear, by avoiding confirmation bias, exactly the effect Tiger Woods has had on the game of golf. It sounds like an interesting and challenging piece of work, and if done correctly is not light weight in the least, as the actual subject matter is immaterial, it is the process and scientific rigour employed that is under scrutiny.

That's the whole point Monty, It looked from the OP's post that he WASN'T taking these into account and was ONLY concerned with establishing a link between 9C and Attendances WITHOUT taking these into consideration. Clear?

super_realist wrote:The point I'm trying to make is this:

Attendances going up (or down) do not lead you to deduce the reason for it, they only tell you attendances have gone up or down.

Someone might surmise or attribute it to 9C, but it doesn't include all the other factors at work. Therefore attendances do not tell you the reason for the change.

For example, weather, venues, venue capacity, venue history,  tv coverage, spectating facilities/quality, conflicting sports events, ticket price, economic situation, transport links, parking, media exposure, advertising and marketing etc are all contributory factors which can affect attendances.

What is clear is that it is unlikely you have read the authors research protocol and as such cannot possibly know what is included in his analysis. To try and second guess the results of a purely statistical exercise using your own confirmation bias is the reason such exercises exist in the first place.

I don't have a confirmation bias, I'm sure there is a 9C factor, however I don't believe you could judge a 9C effect based on attendances.

Very scientific I'm sure, you should go into research.

Interesting stat reported by Golf Digest, culled from a US National Golf Federation report:

"For the third straight year, the NGF reports the number of golfers in 2014 was near 25 million. This number (24.7 million) also matches the pre-Tiger Woods number of 24.7 million in 1995." Having peaked at 30 million in 2005.

Sure there was a Tiger boost but that started to fade ten years or so ago. No idea what the comparable numbers in Britain or Europe might be, and Asia figures might be explosive.

Now, this is participation only, and in the U.S., but attendances at Majors (with all the variables of course, location, weather) will only offer one snapshot.

How do you define "success"??!! And, is an increase in visibility/money in the pro game, at the very top levels, indicative of success of a sport?

MontysMerkin wrote:Very scientific I'm sure, you should go into research.

Nothing like being deliberately obtuse Monty.

I can't make a claim on attendances and claim it is ALL down the the weather, so no one can claim attendances are down to 9C either.

So that could prove that the Woods era of dominance was reflected in higher participation? And his decline may have been matched by a decline in participant numbers. There could well be a correlation.

We aren't talking about participation, we're talking about his influence on attendances at The Open and NOTHING else.

this is like speaking to Mac.

super_realist wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:Very scientific I'm sure, you should go into research.

Nothing like being deliberately obtuse Monty.

I can't make a claim on attendances and claim it is ALL down the the weather, so no one can claim attendances are down to 9C either.

You can make some very strong arguments using data in the correct way I'm sure.
As for obtuse, just because you don't like being called out, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. And in this case it is extremely relevant. A thorough and proper statistical exercise of this nature is the only way to prove a strong correlation therefore proving or disproving the given hypothesis. This is the basis for all scientific endeavour, you must know this. Your well known dislike for '9C' is the reason that these techniques must be used to take your (or the authors) biased views from the equation.

super_realist wrote:We aren't talking about participation, we're talking about his influence on attendances at The Open and NOTHING else.

this is like speaking to Mac.

"The project that I am looking to undertake will look to explore how golf prize money has evolved in the last 35 years and the reasons why it has grown at such a large rate. With the main focus being on whether the Tiger factor has had the most signifcant influence above all other factors. "

Very likely Monty, but it's also apparent that participation started to drop off whilst Woods was still dominant and before the economic depression took its toll.
I imagine the demographics of golf participation also changed significantly. More resort courses and developments, less muni, youth (school golf programmes here for boys and girls are shrinking rapidly) and grass roots.
Again, what defines success . . . . .

MontysMerkin wrote:

super_realist wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:Very scientific I'm sure, you should go into research.

Nothing like being deliberately obtuse Monty.

I can't make a claim on attendances and claim it is ALL down the the weather, so no one can claim attendances are down to 9C either.

You can make some very strong arguments using data in the correct way I'm sure.
As for obtuse, just because you don't like being called out, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. And in this case it is extremely relevant. A thorough and proper statistical exercise of this nature is the only way to prove a strong correlation therefore proving or disproving the given hypothesis. This is the basis for all scientific endeavour, you must know this. Your well known dislike for '9C' is the reason that these techniques must be used to take your (or the authors) biased views from the equation.  

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. You can attribute some things to 9C in golf popularity, you cannot put it all down to 9C. That's all I've ever said.

For example, more people attended the 2006 Open than attended the 2005 Open (both won by 9C). It would be jumping to a conclusion that this increase is due to 9C.

You can attribute some things to 9C in golf popularity = the authors hypothesis.
You cannot put it all down to 9C = not the authors hypothesis - conjecture on your part.

It's not remotely conjecture to state that there are many factors which affect the popularity of golf.

Sorry, meant to say that nowhere has the author said "its all down to 9C". His hypothesis (such as it is) clearly states "With the main focus being on whether the Tiger factor has had the most signifcant (sic) influence above all other factors." Using thorough statistical analysis he should be able to arrive at a power calculation allowing his conclusions to be attributable or not to the golfer in question. This is basic scientific enquiry, taught very early on in further education. I can only assume you were off ill that day.

My thread on Attendances were based entirely on his opening statement, his clarification came a good deal later.

It's an interesting topic - attributing some of the rise in the popularity of golf to Tiger would seem to be so obvious as to almost require no analysis. However, attributing the degree to which it was Tiger and not other factors sounds very tricky, as it would involve normalising the data for all other variables, some of which have probably never been identified let alone quantified.  

This of course is what statistical analysis is for, but in the absence of a blind (i.e. Tiger not existing) or a comparable sport (I can't think of one that's global, weather dependent, moves location etc etc.) it's hard to be able to isolate the Tiger effect.  In addition, the OP didn't say they were only looking at the Open, but if they were, that's narrowing the sample population down too far to give a meaningful outcome.

My theory....

OP is actually carrying out a study on message boards to see how easy it is to get posters to waste far too much time debating things that don't really matter or for which they aren't actually qualified

Super

This is so simple. Shanks null hypothesis will be something like "The tiger effect is not the most important factor for the increase in golf prize money".

Can you not see that you need stuff like attendance data in order to fully investigate this?

It is also clear that you have never carried out an investigation using data as there are many statistical tests that can be carried out to check whether or not you are missing variables or if your model is bunk in general. You do not need to rely on your on reason or common sense, you let the numbers do the thinking for you. You can speculate forever like you are on this thread but how do you propose to come to a conclusion based on your mere conjecture method?

You asked whether it was a gcse level project (which it clearly isn't) and that you'd be interested in the hypothesis. You only really started spouting off when Woods was mentioned (surprise).

Mac,
Why would attendance data be more significant than the rise of sycophantic sponsors with targetted advertising of high-end products to niche demographics?
Would have thought attendance at Majors would be one of the least significant elements, viewership by the targetted audiences considerably more important, for instance.

kwinigolfer wrote:Interesting stat reported by Golf Digest, culled from a US National Golf Federation report:

"For the third straight year, the NGF reports the number of golfers in 2014 was near 25 million. This number (24.7 million) also matches the pre-Tiger Woods number of 24.7 million in 1995." Having peaked at 30 million in 2005.

Sure there was a Tiger boost but that started to fade ten years or so ago. No idea what the comparable numbers in Britain or Europe might be, and Asia figures might be explosive.

Now, this is participation only, and in the U.S., but attendances at Majors (with all the variables of course, location, weather) will only offer one snapshot.

How do you define "success"??!! And, is an increase in visibility/money in the pro game, at the very top levels, indicative of success of a sport?

Do you have the numbers for every year, or just those quoted in the article above? Maybe the figure bumbled along at 24m for years, started rising in 97 after Tiger won his 1st major, peaked at 30m in 2005 due to Tiger's continued dominance, remained stable at 29.9m for a few years, and then started to drop off from 2010 onwards as a result of Tiger's injuries and fire hydrant. I don't know.

I remember walking around the golf section in Niketown at Oxford Circus maybe 10 years ago, seeing people there who would never have wandered into a golf display if it wasn't for Eldrick.