Empty great golf courses - a shame?

[JWinick]

A few days ago, a fellow GCAer and I had a discussion on the fact that many of the great golf courses in this country receive very little play.   We all know their names so no need to name them.

I've enjoyed playing a great golf course with the feeling that no other golfers are on the course.   Certainly, the condition of a golf course benefits from less play.   One joins a private club to pay for others not to play. 

On the other hand, is it a waste of precious golf resources that some famous golf courses are hardly played at all?   Wouldn't the game of golf benefit if more people had a chance to play these cathedrals? 


 

[Mike Nuzzo]

"precious golf resources"

I like that expression a lot.

[Tim Gavrich]

I couldn't possibly agree more.  I think it would do a lot for the image of the game if some of these ultra-exclusive, ultra-private clubs opened their doors every so often to some less-fortunate folks (who often tend to take better care of their courses than do the rich and snobby).  But I'm not holding my breath for this to happen on a large scale.

[Matt_Cohn]

While we're at it, there are a lot of Bentleys sitting undriven in parking lots around the world.

I wish it were different, because I'm definitely on the "have not" side of things at the moment, but great golf is neither a fundamental right nor a public resource. Oh well.

[Buck Wolter]

I once worked on the green's crew of a private but not ultra-private CC -- we called it a turf museum.

[JWinick]

I'm not arguing that private clubs should start opening their doors to the general public.   But, how many more people would take up the game or even join a private club of their own if they had a chance to play a private club, let alone a top-100 golf course?

As someone in the real estate business, it's hard to argue that an empty golf course is generally the highest and best use of a property.   Is an ultra-exclusive golf club with 150 80-year old members who play 4X a year good for golf?  Maybe, in some cases.   Eventually, they may have to change, but we all know the game of golf is not growing.  Wait 5-10 years, and you will begin hearing of some well-known golf clubs in trouble.  

Why doesn't the ultra-exclusive golf club allow 1 unaccompanied foursome a day?  Or, try to increase its membership rolls?    Or follow the European model?   Just questions....

[John_Conley]

Uh, because then they wouldn't be ultra-exclusive.

Credit the guy at Sanctuary for having the big charity push that allows some to play his underutilized track.

[Mark_F]

A few days ago, a fellow GCAer and I had a discussion on the fact that many of the great golf courses in this country receive very little play.   

Too true.  St Andrews Beach only sees asmall handful of miscreants hopping the fence at the moment.  Oh for it not to be so...

[Chris Kane]

Too true.  St Andrews Beach only sees asmall handful of miscreants hopping the fence at the moment.  Oh for it not to be so...

Only the truly dedicated will be golfing across a market garden in a few months, trying to recreate the Clayton/Doak gem which once sat there...

[Mark_F]

Only the truly dedicated will be golfing across a market garden in a few months, trying to recreate the Clayton/Doak gem which once sat there...

I guess I will be joining you and the master misogynist at Commonwealth then, where I will also be able to catch up with my old chum Crozier.

[Matthew Mollica]

Too true.  St Andrews Beach only sees a small handful of miscreants hopping the fence at the moment.  Oh for it not to be so...

Imagine. Who would do such a thing.

MM

[Tags:]

Tags: