Interesting point raised by Jon, which had me wondering why we ever allowed courses to be classified as Championship rather than just define them as standard golf courses.
My early recognition of golf courses where of 3 spaced Tee sites for Women, Men and Professionals. These appeared on near every course apart from the odd smaller out of the way club courses. They served a purpose of allowing all the opportunity to follow (from different Tees) the footsteps of their heroes, from a local, National or The Open Championship Tournament.
This was a wonderful way of encouraging the new blood and the young to take up the game.
I do not know how many Majors are played on public/private courses in the USA. However, I believe we are lucky here in GB (or correct me if I am wrong) as over the pond Private Clubs means private,
so access to certain courses are totally limited.
I would like to see the title ‘Championship’ removed from the status of courses in GB as I feel that projects the wrong image of the course and game. I accept that some courses offer better public spaces and facilities than others (TOC vs. Prestwick) but to this golfer the courses should be selected on the merit of the playing area as that is where the game is played and the test and challenge should surface. WE must look to the arena and not the spectator gallery, certain courses will have limited spectator access others will not, but still I advocate the course is paramount part of any course selection process.
Nevertheless this will not happen, money rules the game not the golf anymore. Golf is just the side show. Decisions have been made for the best part of 100 years that has steered us to the current state of affairs. Course like Prestwick – the Home of The Open – no longer considered thanks to the financial pressure and not necessary the quality of the potential match, golf or the course. There are other links courses that also offer the modern elite golfer a challenge which are not on the selection schedule.
For this golfer, it’s the quality of the course that is important. The golfers are just there to accept the challenge in the hope of being crowned Champion with all the rewards associated with being the victor.
If we are accepting technology is now well in place within the game why can’t we accept that certain courses will only allow a limited numbers to make up the spectators gallery with the game being televised using the latest technology be it through home TV’s Computers or phones. Again it’s the quality of the course that should motivate the selection. If for no other reason than to offer the public the best that golf can offer.
The point I feel I am struggling to make is that golf courses are selected more for the money than for the real opportunity to see great players being pushed. This is the result of accumulation of years of ignoring the game in preference for financial rewards. Not understanding the full consequences of one’s decision. Not grasping the nettle after examining the current and future implications of one’s decisions.
While I understand the financial pressures, it’s after all a game and that should be considered first and foremost. Perhaps seeing lesser revenue is the way to break the restrictive practices being used to squeeze the game of its sporting spirit.
Alas why is the R&A not pondering these issues, making their concerns for the health and wellbeing of the sport public, even just to test the waters?
Could it be they are no longer the Disciples of the Game of Golf and are seeking to change their name by deed poll to Judas Iscariot?
There are other issues and questions, asking why were they allowed; did no one consider the future implications of these decision and what about protecting the core game of golf that ignited the world’s interest in the first place. Today that is really only seen if one looks to the real inheritor of the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf, that being the Hickory game, as all else has been handed over to the equipment manufacturers to do with what they want.
Why was the cart allowed?
Why has technology not been used to improve consistency instead of reducing distance?
Why are distance aids allowed when the history of the game shows is a relative new concept introduced around the time of the cart?
Why is the ball issue still not resolves after a century plus of discussion?
All the above have an effect upon the game and GCA, they reflect upon our game, our enjoyment, our pocket. They allow spinoffs of the original game yet still governed by the same rules, can this be seen as right let alone fair.
Nearly every issue today has its origins, its botched decisions from the past, we do not seem to learn but certainly certain pockets or should I say coffers are always open to the point one has to wonder if the decision was taken with golf in mind or just making money to hell with the game of golf.
Even if all is totally innocent the projected mess and dithering conveys poorly upon the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.
Hopefully I have given you some bones to chew upon. Even if you are not aware of the function of the R&A you may have an opinion on the other items and issues I mentioned.
This is no rant but serious concern from one who care for the game, who has it in his blood and who ultimately wants to see the game flourish but in its true form, that form that I mentioned above
the ‘game of golf that ignited the world’s interest in the first place’.
Melvyn
PS Niall If you feel word neglect describes their action on the course, wonder what word you would use for the shambles of the off course actions. Neglect seems just too generous a word to use, something far, far stronger I feel is required. In fact over sometime one or two of their own Members have resigned in horror and disbelief.