[Stephen Davis]

Reading Patrick's thread on Seminole got me thinking about the super exclusive private clubs in America. There was talk on there about the "average" golfer and whether or not they know of many of our Nations great courses. Many of the greatest courses in the US are exclusively private and by definition unavailable to the "average" golfer, so why should they care to know about them? The vast majority if golfers will never even have the chance to see these courses, let alone play them. This, IMO,  is one of the great failings of the way golf is set up in America. We talk is much about golf being an art, but at least other artforms can be experienced by the masses in museums or other places. Why should our artform be so different? I don't get how it benefits us, or this game we love, to deny people the opportunity to experience the best golf has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

[Mac Plumart]

Disagree.

Private clubs are built as a benefit to members.  And, therefore, members are their only concern.  Non-members can play all of them as a guest of a member.

Also, the vast majority of golfers don't care about architecture anyway...so they wouldnt/couldnt appreciate the course fully.  In light of this, many who want to play these private clubs are belt-notchers...not architecture enthusiasts.

[Stephen Davis]

Disagree.

Private clubs are built as a benefit to members.  And, therefore, members are their only concern.  Non-members can play all of them as a guest of a member.

Also, the vast majority of golfers don't care about architecture anyway...so they wouldnt/couldnt appreciate the course fully.  In light of this, many who want to play these private clubs are belt-notchers...not architecture enthusiasts.

Thanks for your response Mac. I think the success of Pebble Beach and places like Bandon Dunes would show that, although these golfers may not appreciate architecture the way you and I do, nevertheless, they know a great course when they play one. I have spoken with many people who have told me that the round at XYZ course was the best if their lives. Even though they were not able to articulate the exact things that set these courses apart from a design perspective, they still felt and experienced what the designer wanted them to experience. I don't see how helping more people experience that is a bad thing. Even the private European courses seem to be much more accommodating this way.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I haven't played in the US, so I can't comment, but I get the clear impression that the thinking is very different to say the UK. While the club is composed of members, there's an underlying belief that it should be open to anyone that pays a green fee. In some ways, the members are just the guardians and protectors of a resource that benefits the wider community.

Some of the courses built in recent years in the UK and Ireland don't embrace that principle, and are more US oriented in their business model.

I recently played Birkdale and Lytham unaccompanied. I'd need to be a guest of a member to play many of the top US courses. There's a big difference.

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't played in the US, so I can't comment, but I get the clear impression that the thinking is very different to say the UK. While the club is composed of members, there's an underlying belief that it should be open to anyone that pays a green fee. In some ways, the members are just the guardians and protectors of a resource that benefits the wider community.

Some of the courses built in recent years in the UK and Ireland don't embrace that principle, and are more US oriented in their business model.

I recently played Birkdale and Lytham unaccompanied. I'd need to be a guest of a member to play many of the top US courses. There's a big difference.

Donal, isn't a lot of that to do with the UK model's reliance on outside income, visitor fees, to keep subs as low as possible?  That's a model I like, but unlikely over here.

[JESII]

Isn't this primarily a function of the great UK clubs opting to take in some outside revenue on their own terms while the US clubs are not as prone to do so?

May be an indication of different cultures but not by way of being exclusionary as much as being more prudent on the UK side.

Surely there are crappy courses with the same model...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There are 2 courses here in the US that most golfers see every year on television-ANGC and TPC Sawgrass. I have been to both and played one. Just walking ANGC in the practice rounds was good enough for me as I don't travel in the corporate world and access for me to play there is a longshot at best. I've played TPC Sawgrass since it's a resort course and open to the public,albeit at a high price.Other resort courses- Pebble Beach and Pinehurst2 are available to the public, again at a high price. Bandon Dunes' 4 courses are somewhat less pricey.
Living in the Philadelphia area for many years, I have played many of the top rated private clubs there, either through the kindness of others or events. It's possible to play the top privates in the US but only occasionally, unless one is an access whore.

[Jason Thurman]

Obviously the American golf model is more exclusive as it pertains to highly ranked private clubs. If a primary concern in golf is access to courses, then the American model definitely fails the "average" player.

I've never heard it articulated, though, why access to the majority of top courses should be a primary concern in golf. Is that just a truth we hold to be self-evident?

Stephen, you mention other forms of art can be appreciated by everyone in museums. That's true if the piece is held at a museum with doors open to the public, but many great pieces are held in private residences only to be enjoyed by the homeowner and their guests. As those pieces are completely off-the-radar for most, almost none of us even know what we're missing. In what way is the golf business in America any different?

[Tom_Doak]

Stephen, you mention other forms of art can be appreciated by everyone in museums. That's true if the piece is held at a museum with doors open to the public, but many great pieces are held in private residences only to be enjoyed by the homeowner and their guests. As those pieces are completely off-the-radar for most, almost none of us even know what we're missing. In what way is the golf business in America any different?

I was going to make the same point.

As an artist of sorts myself, it has been a great boon to my career that some of my most prominent clients [in Bandon, and at Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle] have decided to share our work with the general public.  I've never done a truly private course like Mike Nuzzo did at Wolf Point, but as freeing as it was for him to design something without having to think about what the public wants, it would suck to have some of your best work mostly off limits to viewing.

I have struggled with some of the projects we've done for clients who wanted to keep the course very exclusive, and my associates have struggled with that even more, because they don't have quite the same freedom to go back that I do.  It is certainly a factor in whether we take on a job or not.  However, we will do private projects when the rest of the job excites us.  From the artist's perspective, the important thing is the process and the creation of the work ... whether anybody else sees it, or not.

I would also like to mention that as a student with zero connections in the golf business, I was welcomed by most all of these super-private clubs when I was in college and in the years since then, because I have a sincere interest in the field.  I know that's different than for most golfers, but if a place like Augusta National or Pine Valley let in every golfer who wanted to see it, it would be completely overrun by the outsiders.  Some of these clubs could put a better face on their guest policies, but at the end of the day, it really is up to the owners or members how they want to run things, isn't it?

[Stephen Davis]

Jason,

I do think it is different, because even many of the privately held art pieces are put on display at museums for a limited time basis. I have been to many art museums for the express purpose of seeing a privately held piece that is being displayed because while the owner wants to keep ownership, they also wanted others to have the opportunity to enjoy it. The problem with the member/guest policy of many of these courses is not everyone is well connected, in fact few are. If these courses allowed even one twosome a day or week to come and play unaccompanied. This would go a long way to allowing those who are interested in enjoying the course the opportunity to do so. The reality is those who don't care won't go through the trouble.

[Mark Chaplin]

The basic difference is what people are prepared to pay for their golf. Deal is expensive in the UK at £1500pa so roughly US$2200. If we did away with visitors the members subs would rise between 50 and 100%. If subs were £3000pa we would lose a lot of members

Yesterday we bumped into a member who now lives in Washington, he plays at a 1950s built modest country club and pays $800 per month. Thats around £6000 a year and it isn't 12 months golf and you're not talking about a top of the range club either.

The UK general member club market just would't pay those prices for private golf.

[Tim Pitner]

Continuing with the art comparison, I've been to some private residences or private museums that open to the public for one day or a few days a year for the purpose of showing their collections.  I could imagine a prestigious private course, especially a historically significant one, doing something like that.  Maybe it would be somewhat similar to what Muirfield does, except that the visitor days would be much more limited.  Of course private clubs can do what they want, but that would be a nice gesture.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Great thread on the day before Thanksgiving considering your audience can access every great course in this country with the exception of a select few.  Please explain to me where you want to play and why you think you can't.

[Ian Andrew]

I don't get how it benefits us, or this game we love, to deny people the opportunity to experience the best golf has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

You can see just about anything every course, but there are simple rules to follow.

1. Write them well in advance (a letter has more impact)
   a. provide references
   b. show flexibility
   c. don't ask to play
   d. explain why they should have you as a guest

2. Make it convienient to them
   a. inquire about visiting in their off season
   b. tell them to set the schedule and agenda (you'll be suprised who takes you and what you see)

3. Formalities matter
   a. bring a gift if your invited to play or a member has agreed to take you out for a walk
   b. send a thank you card afterwards
   c. they often stay in touch after and occasionally end up helping you elsewhere

There is not a single course in the US where I have asked to see the course that I have not been able to arrange that opportunity.
I have had help in a few instances, but that goes back to the third set of notes.

[Jason Thurman]

Stephen, it's great that many private art collectors allow the public to see their pieces. Of course, places like Pine Valley and Augusta National open their doors to the public every year too. They don't let just anyone come out and play, just like the collectors don't let everybody touch their pieces. But you can certainly go see and appreciate those courses in person.

I still don't see the case for why these courses SHOULD open their doors to more guests, and why it's a failure that they haven't. It always seems like the reason comes down to "Well, I wish I could play them all." That's fair, but it's also at least as self-serving as the stance taken by the private membership that wants to maintain their privacy.

It would be great if I could show up at Cypress Point and walk out to the first tee, but it's no great failure by the American golf system that I can't.

[Mike Hendren]

In the U. S. we have this little thing called the Internal Revenue Service.

Bogey

[Stephen Davis]

Great thread on the day before Thanksgiving considering your audience can access every great course in this country with the exception of a select few.  Please explain to me where you want to play and why you think you can't.

John,

This post reminds me of a round I played at Pacific Dunes. I was paired up with a really fantastic husband and wife. As we played it was clear that this gentleman had a good amount of knowledge of golf architecture. So we started into a discussion and he began to talk about the features at courses he had played like Augusta, Cypress Point, Shinnecock, etc. I am sure my mouth was gaping wide open as he discussed the great experiences he had at these places. He looked at me and said, "Don't worry, I am sure you will get the opportunity to play at theses places too." I thought to myself, "No. No I don't think I will ever be that lucky."

[Stephen Davis]

I don't get how it benefits us, or this game we love, to deny people the opportunity to experience the best golf has to offer. Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

You can see just about anything every course, but there are simple rules to follow.

1. Write them well in advance (a letter has more impact)
   a. provide references
   b. show flexibility
   c. don't ask to play
   d. explain why they should have you as a guest

2. Make it convienient to them
   a. inquire about visiting in their off season
   b. tell them to set the schedule and agenda (you'll be suprised who takes you and what you see)

3. Formalities matter
   a. bring a gift if your invited to play or a member has agreed to take you out for a walk
   b. send a thank you card afterwards
   c. they often stay in touch after and occasionally end up helping you elsewhere

There is not a single course in the US where I have asked to see the course that I have not been able to arrange that opportunity.
I have had help in a few instances, but that goes back to the third set of notes.

Ian, this is a great list thank you for taking the time to type that up.

[Sven Nilsen]

Stephen:

What is interesting to me is that it has not always been the way you described.  As late as the 1930's, the vast majority of U.S. private golf courses were open to visitor play. 

Why this changed is a mystery to me, as well as the answer to why this did not change overseas.

Sven

[Stephen Davis]

Stephen, it's great that many private art collectors allow the public to see their pieces. Of course, places like Pine Valley and Augusta National open their doors to the public every year too. They don't let just anyone come out and play, just like the collectors don't let everybody touch their pieces. But you can certainly go see and appreciate those courses in person.

I still don't see the case for why these courses SHOULD open their doors to more guests, and why it's a failure that they haven't. It always seems like the reason comes down to "Well, I wish I could play them all." That's fair, but it's also at least as self-serving as the stance taken by the private membership that wants to maintain their privacy.

It would be great if I could show up at Cypress Point and walk out to the first tee, but it's no great failure by the American golf system that I can't.

Jason,

Thanks for articulating your position. I disagree with you, but I am glad that you were able to give me the position from the other side, which is exactly what I was hoping would be accomplished. I can agree that my wishing more people could enjoy these courses is at least as selfish as the members wanting to keep thee treasure to themselves. But put in this light sure makes the system seem like a lose-lose to me as both sides have selfish motivations. I do disagree with your analogy of the private art owners, as they don't let anyone touch the art. Everyone is enjoying it with the same sense of perception. While looking at a course from pictures is different from being able to walk the grounds, which is also different from being able to play the course.

Bogey,

Is your reference to the IRS in regards to the fact that many courses are run as not for profit entities? I don't see how 2 rounds a week would put that in jeopardy.

[Andy Troeger]

Stephen,
I think you would be surprised how many people and places will open doors for you if you are genuine in your desire to experience great architecture and courses. I'm not sure how Mac meant his belt-notcher comment, but I really think most people who want to see great courses do so because its an interest or a passion for them. Most of my friends are NOT impressed by the courses I've played and think I'm nuts for traveling around to see golf courses--but they don't play golf (much) anyway.

I guess my point is that I'm currently a financial aid officer in New Mexico, originally from Indiana. Ten years ago I had played about two courses of any real architectural significance and had no real reason to think I'd ever see the greats and honestly had not really given much thought to it. My interest came from playing mainly public courses (Whistling Straits, Blackwolf Run, Arcadia Bluffs, Harbour Town, Tullymore) and it grew from there. Admittedly much of my access since then has come from joining a magazine rating panel, but I've also been invited to play Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, and Crystal Downs through the generosity of friends. PV and CPC were two of my four original "dream" courses along with Pebble (which I've played) and Augusta (which I haven't). I'll consider myself very lucky at 75% of that dream. The friend who invited me to Pine Valley had played it many times and gave up his spot in a foursome to let me play--he walked with us and took photos. I wish I had the ability to "repay" those friends with more than gratitude and some small token of appreciation, but given that its Thanksgiving tomorrow I'll suggest that sincere gratitude is a gift too. I've had a few chances to help others access places they could not have seen otherwise, so I hope that I've done something worthwhile by paying it forward, so to speak.

[Sean_A]

Stephen

What goes round comes round.  I see one of the big issues of private courses not being more welcoming is that the average guy doesn't care what happens to those courses.  This lack of care is two-fold.  First, few care to even raise an eyebrow when a highbrow membership chooses to destroy its heritage by screwing with the course.  I think that if these courses were better known and loved there would  be more of an outcry against their destruction.  Perhaps to the point where members may take a view and second guess themselves.  Second, there may be times and places when some privates need general support for a variety of reasons - including scarcity of resources.  

In the long-run, I think memberships are better off by being more welcoming, but I support any private club to do as they please.  That said, golf's rep is still terrible.  At some point, some clubs would probably be better off reaching out to the broader community to explain how well the resources are used - that is if they are well used.  Golfers and those in the business need to wake up and pay attention to the world around them.  The we operate in a bubble act will only go so far in the future.

Ciao  

[Tom_Doak]

there may be times and places when some privates need general support for a variety of reasons - including scarcity of resources.  

In the long-run, I think memberships are better off by being more welcoming, but I support any private club to do as they please.  That said, golf's rep is still terrible.  At some point, some clubs would probably be better off reaching out to the broader community to explain how well the resources are used - that is if they are well used.  Golfers and those in the business need to wake up and pay attention to the world around them.  The we operate in a bubble act will only go so far in the future.

Ciao  

I do agree with Sean's second point, which seems to be lost on the golf business in general.  The general public impression of golf in America as a private, rich man's game will start to hinder its growth more and more in the next generation, and the onus is on private clubs to be more pro-active in their outreach.  [And, to be fair, many clubs HAVE gotten better at outreach, such as making days for charity events.]

If we don't all do more to shatter that stigma of golf as a sport for rich white guys, it will get ever harder to justify the use of water and other resources necessary to keep the game healthy and growing.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the golden rule is common to most all religions and therefore most cultures of the world. The exclusive private club seems to me to be a violation of the golden rule. I agree with Stephen.

[Stephen Davis]

Sven,
I would love to know why as well. It seems like a topic that deserves further discussion.

Andy,
Your story gives me hope, thanks for sharing. It also serves as a good reminder that many of the private club members are generous beyond words.

Sean,
I totally agree! You made two very good points.

Tom,
I do agree that the stigma of golf being a rich, white guys sport is going to be very damaging going forward.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()