[Doug Ralston]

Dan;

Thanks for your comments. I see now that you and I mostly agree on these things. I have seen 'Little League Syndrome', in it's many aspects, in several sports. I thought I heard some of that in your post. I am happy to be wrong.

Dan; I was once a very strong competitive tournament chess player. I had some titles and a lot of expectations, mine and others. It became almost a nightmare. The need to win drove out first the joy of the game, then the creative process, and finally was of such stress that I quit. I quit a hobby I loved for nearly 20 years because it was so not good for me; pure stress! I have since regained my love for the game, and play online quite a bit. But never again a serious game.

It made me about as non-competitive a sports lover as you will see. I never compete with my playing partner, nor anyone we play with. But Dan, that does not mean I reject competition for everyone. Many of my friends on GKL compete all the time, and I enjoy their recount of adventures. But I have found that golf, more than other sports that I play much better, gives me greatest return on my investment of time, money, and attention. Unless my old family enemy, arthiritis, stops me, I shall certainly play till death or disability.

As for people's attitude about golf and it's relationship to business, that is being slowly eroded, I hope, by this boom. OTOH, there is quite a kernel of truth involved. When I, who will never be a private club member, ask people who are in those about it's value, as opposed to playing a huge variety of publics now available, they more often speak of business contacts than any other reason. This is no secret. I just want young players to know golf is also available publically and offers much else.

Must be wonderful to have a child playing, whom you can show all those fun things you know about.

Doug

[Doug Ralston]

Doug,

If Dan had been writing about a small-town Indiana basketball team with four decent-to-good players, and one inept fifth starter who stood between the team and a chance to make a post-season run, would you still be critical of the team's efforts to scour the halls for one more kid who could actually dribble, pass and shoot?

Rick;

Yes. Though 'critical' is, I hope, not the operative word. I was concerned about how much a certain social mania know as 'Little League Syndrome' might influence decisions. It is usually very hurtful. 

Dan certainly dispelled that worry, and I am glad for it. He sounds like he will make he a great mentor, as well as dad.

But yes, even in Indiana, I think sport should mean something quite different to children in school. Even basketball. Now, in Kentucky, on the other hand ............... 

Doug

[Rick Shefchik]

Doug,

For what it's worth, I think sports should be completely separate from schools, at all levels -- from the five-year-old youth soccer leagues (now community-run, as is proper) right through college. Athletic competition works just fine on the community level through fourth or fifth grade -- it's when kids begin trying out for the school teams (make the roster, or get cut and have no place to play a sport you love) that things start to get perverted.

Schools have it tough enough these days allocating their funds for educating our kids; I believe kids who want to play sports in addition to getting an education could do that better through community-based teams. If you don't have enough kids who want to play, you go to the next community. If you have too many kids for one team, you start a new team.

But within that context (which, I admit, won't happen in my lifetime), I don't see anything wrong with young people playing their sport to win. Yes, parents can be overzealous, and should be kept at arms' length from their kids games, but I well remember competing on teams when I was a kid (with my dad and the other kids' dads nowhere around) and wanting very much to win the games I played in. If a kid on the bench -- or a kid who chose not to go out for the team -- gave us a better chance to do that, I wanted him to be playing. Human nature, no?

[Rick Shefchik]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Kelly. I've had this discussion with a number of people, and while I know I'm tilting at windmills here, I believe a number of your objections to community-based athletics can at least be debated.

Doug,

For what it's worth, I think sports should be completely separate from schools, at all levels -- from the five-year-old youth soccer leagues (now community-run, as is proper) right through college. Athletic competition works just fine on the community level through fourth or fifth grade -- it's when kids begin trying out for the school teams (make the roster, or get cut and have no place to play a sport you love) that things start to get perverted.

Schools have it tough enough these days allocating their funds for educating our kids; I believe kids who want to play sports in addition to getting an education could do that better through community-based teams. If you don't have enough kids who want to play, you go to the next community. If you have too many kids for one team, you start a new team.

But within that context (which, I admit, won't happen in my lifetime), I don't see anything wrong with young people playing their sport to win. Yes, parents can be overzealous, and should be kept at arms' length from their kids games, but I well remember competing on teams when I was a kid (with my dad and the other kids' dads nowhere around) and wanting very much to win the games I played in. If a kid on the bench -- or a kid who chose not to go out for the team -- gave us a better chance to do that, I wanted him to be playing. Human nature, no?

Rick,

Community based sports at the middle and high school levels is a terrible idea.  It works okay through 6th grade but many of these organizations become too political and the parent/coaching is not always good and can be down right dangerous.

I wish I could say that this doesn't happen in school-based sports, too, but I've witnessed many politically-driven high school athletic situations. I've played for a terrible high school football coach; some of the football-loving adults in my community couldn't possibly had done worse. I agree that traveling teams can be riven with favoritism, but they don't have to be. I believe if the community system was all we had, the level of coaching would rise to the current level of school coaches in time (which, on balance, would be a good thing) and the politics would be more directly addressed than they are now.

I like school based sports because the coaches are hired by the school board, sometimes they are teachers in the schools which is an excellent way for them to help influence the athletes and typically the coaches are better trained and have been in their kid's position when they were growing up.

Again, with proper oversight, I don't see any reason why the good coaches wouldn't flourish in a community-based system. There's nothing magical about a school board's blessing. The newspapers are certainly full of stories about teachers behaving illegally with students.

The one consistant comment I receive about our youth football organization is the fact there are no parental politics...soccer and baseball are polluted with overbearing parents who run the organizations for the personal benefit of a few.  A parent signs up to coach a team or a travel team and their kid either plays too much or automatically makes a travel team that he has no business playing on.  All of this is removed from school based sports.

Not all of it. But again, you point to the community system as it currently exists, outside the parallel system of school sports. It could change significantly if all athletics were run through a strong community system.

Furthermore athletics gives a school an identity and is a source of pride for many schools.

True, but not essential.

Sports is an excellent way to teach many of the characteristics we want our kids to take into the world when they graduate.  It can be oppportunity for a kid to use those experiences to build a career related to the sport they loved to play in school.

All true -- and just as true whether the kid has "Lincoln High" or "Maplewood" on his jersey.

If they get cut that is another life lesson, and it is only fair that the best kids make the team.

I agree that getting cut is a life lesson, but should it happen at 16 years of age to a good athlete who loves his sport but can't make the school basketball team because there are only 12 roster spots in a school of 2800 kids, while 50 miles away a small school has to scrape up 12 players to put a team on the court?

Schools should take a cue from this because too many bright kids are held back in classes because the cirriculum sometimes caters to the average or below average kids leaving the bright kids bored and disallusioned with a particular subject.  We are always recruiting kids for our fledgling football programs.  I think it is great Dan's girl is seeking better players for her golf team, that should be the coaches job too.   

Golf could do better to have community based activities at the younger level, much like soccer, baseball, football, and then for parents to work to support better school based teams.  Our county wide golf program is a joke.  The competative schedule last about 45 days and that is it for the entire year.  I know kids who are big time athletes right now for their age that would love to learn golf, but the opportunities through their parents and through community organizations and the schools are none existent.  That is in part why golf is diminishing in terms of participation.  Unless you are poor and black, or rich and white their are very few people in too many communities that care whether you are introduced to golf. 

[RSLivingston_III]

I have a question.
I read the article and can't find the reference to golf being dead.
I did see were the said it is in sort of a recession, but that is something we have talked about here a number of times.

If someone can lead me to the part where it says golf is dead I would appreciate it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Seems to me that, if golf is to thrive -- real golf, not the corporate-outing-type golf that, with any luck, really is in decline -- those who love the game must address both of my points.

Maybe we're both pessimists, Dan, but I think you're right. That's the reason I think there's value in overstating the case against all those elements of golf course architecture that many equate with flabby and self-centred corporatism. I say "overstate the case" because from where I sit (literally) that corporate-type golf dominates the landscape. And when I say "many equate" I'm including myself.  If all the talk about minimal maintenance practices and minimal earthmoving and affordable public golf was for the sake of discussion alone, or for the sake of taking a purist's stance alone, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Peter 

[Kyle Harris]

This thread hits very close to my heart in some ways. Why aren't school based sports considered community based? In Pennsylvania, at least, the school boards are elected...

If it weren't for the nature of my high school's golf team - I would have never taken up the game when I did, and I certainly wouldn't be here now, doing what I'm doing now. My freshman year, we had 40 people try out for the team. We kept an 8 person varsity squad, an 8 person JV squad and a 12 person practice squad. Prior to tryouts I had never played golf in my life and had only hit balls on the range. I managed to shoot 72 for 9 holes but was kept for the practice squad because of my work ethic and desire. The next season I lettered in varsity and during my junior and senior seasons qualified for the district and state championships.

My high school's team was not competitive and I was the only person that really cared, but we all had fun. It was frustrating a times because deep down I had the desire to use my talents to be a part of something that was larger than myself, but there weren't many people who played golf for those reasons at my school. I've played head to head and have beaten or competed with golfers who have played on tour, made it to match play at the US Amateur and who continue to play at a high level in the Philadelphia area - all on courses such as Huntingdon Valley (C-Nine), Torresdale-Frankford, Sandy Run, Doylestown CC, Jericho National, Lookaway, and Philmont.

That being said, my school's model was unique. We played at our local muni, the venerable and elite Five Ponds Golf Club, which allowed the school to have a large team to practice and play the course daily after 3 throughout the season. No other school had this opportunity. It's a great model that I wish could be repeated as it would do much to grow the game.

[JWinick]

If you consider that we are living in the Era of Tiger Woods, golf is really in trouble since the Tiger Woods effect has not increased the number of golfers.  What happens to the game in 10 years when Tiger retires?   

I suspect that the only economically viable golf courses will be high-end private clubs and cheap public courses.   The middle looks like it will get squeezed.

Golf has failed to reach out to young people.  Yours truly grew up with all the golf advantages (my father was an avid golfer and we belonged to a private club), but I never picked up the game until after college.  Why?  Because my family's club never made kids feel comfortable.  We were supposed to be seen and not heard.

We're facing an uphill battle: cost and time.   

[Sean_A]

Rick,

I appreciate your steadfastness in promoting community based sports and I know first-hand the two situations you describe: 1) building a strong community program with well-educate coaches, and 2) poor coaching choices by school boards.  I am not certain most communities are capable of building several community based organizations for all sports offered.  It is an arduous task for people who have daytime jobs, but there are enough parents who can effect change in ineffective coaching through pressure at the administrative an board levels.  I have witnessed a behind-the-scenes campaign to improve our school based football coaching situation for football and it has been dramatic to date.  We have gone from 30 participants in season to 70 kids now invovled in off-season weight training due solely to the change in coaching staff.  Sometimes a well organized booster club can contribute in better ways than a parent based community organization.  I see exceptional athletes opting out of their local community based organizations for other organizations that are better run outside their county.  these kids are forced to communte several miles for better coaching.  I guess it is good to have that option and once the kid returns for the school based sport we have a better athlete.  Maybe that is the model for golf, organizing community based programs that will attract kids from a larger area to help develop their talent and to provide opportunites.  This may be necessary because most schools care little about the golf programs.

This is quite enlightening.  I always thought of community sports as connected to school teams because schools are an important aspect of the community.  Kids learn the game at early stages in community run programs and the best of them play for schools - its a natural progression.  This doesn't mean the community run programs stop existing for teenagers.  Where I grew up hockey and baseball had plenty of opportunities for kids that didn't make the school teams.  I admit, that this is only two sports, but ya have to go with the most popular sports in the area if you are to have decent leagues with divisions formed for separate skill levels, decent facilities and decent coaching.  By the time kids are 16 they have to make choices on how to spend their time and playing more than a few sports can eat into time that can be spent doing other activities - including earning money.  I don't much see the point in asking kids with 5-10 years experience at a game to be paired with or against a kid that is just learning to skate.  The reason these situations do exist is that the sport isn't popular enough to support decent leagues.  A community can only be expected to provide so much in terms competitive recreation. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Rick

There is a reciprocal negative for your idea, too--without school sports, the quality of the school itself can suffer.  Where I live there are no school sports at the elementary, middle or higfh school level, unless you wish to spend the money to send your child to private school.  This was all done many years ago to save money by the public schools authorities.  In a further twist, because there are no school sports, the expansive playing fields built 50 or so years ago to accomodate them are also being sold off for housing and other development, making the schools just small islands in an enveloping urban/suburban sprawl.  Based on my experience growing up in the US, school sports were a critical element is fostering not only pride for the institution (even a perverse pride, if you were crap), but also social integration.  Living now in a culture which prides itself in being socially aware and egalitarian, the anomaly of an educational system which seems to doing its best to exacerbate social divisions is not just ironic, it is tragic.

Rich

PS--don't forget the old Chinese curse that you get what you wish for.....

[Lou_Duran]

"Living now in a culture which prides itself in being socially aware and egalitarian, the anomaly of an educational system which seems to doing its best to exacerbate social divisions is not just ironic, it is tragic." R. Farnsworth Goodale

Whoa!  How can this be?  On another thread, the inestimable Mr. Goodale describes a land of felicity and efficiency.  You mean that after free socialized healthcare and the dole there's no money left over for school sports?  In the name of egalitarianism, should one not expect as a matter of policy a regression toward an increasingly lower mean?  That upper end of the Bell Curve can be quite unsettling to the "socially aware" masses. 

Can someone repost the NYT article?  I can't get it to open without subscribing to the service.  Thanks.   

[Jason McNamara]

Lou, try this link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html

If that doesn't work, there's always   http://www.bugmenot.com/

[Mark Bourgeois]

The latest issue of Forbes Life has an article on golf in Sweden.

It discusses how Sweden has the most golf courses per capita of any nation in Europe; how tennis used to be really popular, especially as a youth sport, producing players like Wilander and Borg; and how tennis lost its allure and everyone took up golf, ginning up another junior stellar junior program which has produced all the great Swedish professional players.

Then it notes that golf rounds among the young have dropped.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()