OT (?): The Etiquette of Access

[John Kavanaugh]

Dick Youngscap is a great friend of golf.  He has sponsored a number of GCAers over the years as unaccompanied guests.  As noted earlier, the club has a great reputation for being welcoming to its guests, member-accompanied or not.  With a short season and a difficult labor market, guest play is likely an important part of its financial well-being.  It is a policy which seems to work for the club, offering the chance to play a great course to some who aren't well-connected without detracting from the membership experience (unless one values exclusivity very highly- I don't).

It is one thing to kill the golden goose but to speculate on how he makes his gold is in poor taste.  

[Terry Lavin]

The easiest way to get the benefit of the doubt about access whoring on this site is to contribute meaningfully to the discussion of architecture. Share the knowledge you have. Ask questions about things that show a real inquisitiveness if you don't have much knowledge of your own. If your posting pattern suggests that you're just someone who gets excited about playing good courses but has no ability or desire to analyze and competently discuss the architecture of those courses, you will get exposed when you express your desire to play private clubs. You'll also get raked over the coals when you violate the advice in this thread. This site is a bit like a club in its own right, in the sense that it has a group of self-policing members who are passionate about why they're here and quick to expose someone who's just in it for the social perks.

Bingo.  Do a better job of hiding it and you can play a lot of great courses.  There are mentors available, I'm certain.

[Lou_Duran]

John, my friend, for you to provide advice on good taste is comical.  Given the nature of your business, I do understand your sensitivity about financial matters.  I doubt that I revealed any trade secrets by pointing out common interests.

Been looking up my GHIN history lately?  Hope to be playing better at Dismal River in June, and perhaps avoid you and your ringer partner! 

[Morgan Clawson]

Jason and Lou -

Very nicely written.

The thing that gets me down is that some of us like to assume the worst about a person or situation. That was the case in the pulled thread and the Dismal River thread.

At the end of the day, we're mostly a group of dorks that are interested in golf and golf architecture.

Let's give each other a break and not hit the panic button so often.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, my friend, for you to provide advice on good taste is comical.  Given the nature of your business, I do understand your sensitivity about financial matters.  I doubt that I revealed any trade secrets by pointing out common interests.

Been looking up my GHIN history lately?  Hope to be playing better at Dismal River in June, and perhaps avoid you and your ringer partner! 

Now that I have three new unnamed ghost enemies as a result of me personally destroying their dream round I would prefer that you not advertise where I will be sleeping.

[Kevin_D]

Slightly OT, but relating to cultural differences and etiquette: what's up with the requirement of socks going above the ankle in the UK?  Do Brits have nipples on their ankles or something?

[Michael Felton]

Slightly OT, but relating to cultural differences and etiquette: what's up with the requirement of socks going above the ankle in the UK?  Do Brits have nipples on their ankles or something?

Good question - lots of courses used to have rules about above the calf. You could barely have more than your knee showing. The above the ankle is actually a pretty large step forwards. Personally I think it looks worse to wear socks over the ankle than the no show ones that most people in the US wear. The other thing is it's rarely warm enough to be too concerned about wearing shorts. The UK is a country where plus fours became common because people didn't want mud on their trousers. Shorts are relatively uncommon anyway (certainly compared with the US).

[BHoover]

John, my friend, for you to provide advice on good taste is comical. 

I have never met Mr. Kavanaugh so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a nice guy in person (I hope he's nothing like his online persona because that would be a shame). But for him to comment on etiquette or what is in good taste is, IMO, the height of hypocrisy. He's told us that he rarely pays but expects his guests to pay (for the record, I say let each guest pay his/her own way), and that he would never hire an employee who posts more than X number of rounds per month (as if that's any of his business). He also played a significant role in blowing up several others' chance to play SH, all without knowing any facts and based purely on speculation (at least based on what I read before the thread was pulled). So despite all that, he purports to tell us about etiquette? I can only hope he's joking when he tells us how we ought to behave. Is that right, JK, you're only being sarcastic?

[John Kavanaugh]

John, my friend, for you to provide advice on good taste is comical. 

I have never met Mr. Kavanaugh so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a nice guy in person (I hope he's nothing like his online persona because that would be a shame). But for him to comment on etiquette or what is in good taste is, IMO, the height of hypocrisy. He's told us that he rarely pays but expects his guests to pay (for the record, I say let each guest pay his/her own way), and that he would never hire an employee who posts more than X number of rounds per month (as if that's any of his business). He also played a significant role in blowing up several others' chance to play SH, all without knowing any facts and based purely on speculation (at least based on what I read before the thread was pulled). So despite all that, he purports to tell us about etiquette? I can only hope he's joking when he tells us how we ought to behave. Is that right, JK, you're only being sarcastic?

No I was not being sarcastic.  It is in poor taste to question the financial motivations of one of golfs great heros.  Just as it is in poor taste to make yourself hero for a day with something you do not own when you could have very easily accomplished your good deed in private.  I did not cost those people their dream round, the vanity of the guest of a generous host is to blame.

[BHoover]

John, my friend, for you to provide advice on good taste is comical. 

I have never met Mr. Kavanaugh so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a nice guy in person (I hope he's nothing like his online persona because that would be a shame). But for him to comment on etiquette or what is in good taste is, IMO, the height of hypocrisy. He's told us that he rarely pays but expects his guests to pay (for the record, I say let each guest pay his/her own way), and that he would never hire an employee who posts more than X number of rounds per month (as if that's any of his business). He also played a significant role in blowing up several others' chance to play SH, all without knowing any facts and based purely on speculation (at least based on what I read before the thread was pulled). So despite all that, he purports to tell us about etiquette? I can only hope he's joking when he tells us how we ought to behave. Is that right, JK, you're only being sarcastic?

No I was not being sarcastic.  It is in poor taste to question the financial motivations of one of golfs great heros.  Just as it is in poor taste to make yourself hero for a day with something you do not own when you could have very easily accomplished your good deed in private.  I did not cost those people their dream round, the vanity of the guest of a generous host is to blame.

Huh, I could have sworn you were being sarcastic. If you were, I was going to compliment you on a great joke because it's downright funny to read you telling us about etiquette. My mistake. 

[Jason Thurman]

Brian, if you (or anyone else) really believes John (or anyone else) was responsible for the Sand Hills thread and offer therein being rescinded, can you explain how?

I thought it was a cool sounding offer and have no problem confessing that I sent a message to inquire about the details. But I also don't think it takes much effort to read between the lines and figure out what happened. Hell, I don't even think it took a stroke of genius to predict the fate of the invitation and the thread just from reading the subject line. Then again, I don't have a hard time reading between the lines and understanding the tone of John's posts, which some probably consider to be a cause for concern about my own sanity rather than something to be proud of.

[Bob_Huntley]

Kevin,

The peculiar dress habits of the British Commonwealth are mighty strange. Normally when playing golf in some of the former colonies, shorts were de rigueur but socks went up to the knee.   Why, who on earth knows?  Most Americans when visiting Bermuda are astonished to see grown men going to the office in shorts.

I am not sure if the Scots care about their golfing attire and in my visits I have yet to see any of them wearing skinny ankle socks. However, they do have a penchant for wearing a dress that reaches down to the knee and shunning an undergarment.  

Bob

[BHoover]

Brian, if you (or anyone else) really believes John (or anyone else) was responsible for the Sand Hills thread and offer therein being rescinded, can you explain how?

I should clarify--I don't think JK's responsible for the offer being rescinded.  If that's what I said earlier, then I apologize.  What I do believe is that he was quick to weigh in and call out the original poster publicly without knowing all the facts and circumstances (presumably).  Perhaps the poster had the permission of his host to make a public offer to invite a group? I don't know whether he did or not, and it's not what I would have done.  But I also would not have publicly called out (or whatever you want to call what JK and others did) the poster; I might have sent him a PM suggesting that it might not be the best way to go about it.

[BHoover]

Kevin,

The peculiar dress habits of the British Commonwealth are mighty strange. Normally when playing golf in some of the former colonies, shorts were de rigueur but socks went up to the knee.   Why, who on earth knows?  Most Americans when visiting Bermuda are astonished to see grown men going to the office in shorts.

I am not sure if the Scots care about their golfing attire and in my visits I have yet to see any of them wearing skinny ankle socks. However, they do have a penchant for wearing a dress that reaches down to the knee and shunning an undergarment.   

What about the Aussies and their knee-length socks? What's up with that? Of course, we Americans are probably responsible for cargo shorts and jeans on the course, so I'm not criticizing our Aussie cousins.

[Niall C]

Kevin,

The peculiar dress habits of the British Commonwealth are mighty strange. Normally when playing golf in some of the former colonies, shorts were de rigueur but socks went up to the knee.   Why, who on earth knows?  Most Americans when visiting Bermuda are astonished to see grown men going to the office in shorts.

I am not sure if the Scots care about their golfing attire and in my visits I have yet to see any of them wearing skinny ankle socks. However, they do have a penchant for wearing a dress that reaches down to the knee and shunning an undergarment.  

Bob

........but not for golf. The thought brings tears to my eyes.

Niall

[John McCarthy]

Brian:  I assume the long socks down under is a result of living on an island where every other living thing is trying to kill you.  Otherwise one would be afraid to walk in the rough for fear of a wee beastie latching on to an ankle. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Brian, if you (or anyone else) really believes John (or anyone else) was responsible for the Sand Hills thread and offer therein being rescinded, can you explain how?

I should clarify--I don't think JK's responsible for the offer being rescinded.  If that's what I said earlier, then I apologize.  What I do believe is that he was quick to weigh in and call out the original poster publicly without knowing all the facts and circumstances (presumably).  Perhaps the poster had the permission of his host to make a public offer to invite a group? I don't know whether he did or not, and it's not what I would have done.  But I also would not have publicly called out (or whatever you want to call what JK and others did) the poster; I might have sent him a PM suggesting that it might not be the best way to go about it.

I didn't send Bobby a PM for the same reason you did not send me one.  PM's are far too intimate for acquaintances to lecture each other.  You take a friend off to the side and whisper in his ear, you call out a bore in public.

[Lou_Duran]

Brian,

John needs a psychologist.  He enjoys being the provocateur and succeeds in getting attention.  I've been around him a few times and, despite his herculean efforts on this site to be a world-class asshole, I can't help but liking him.

JK,

It seems to me that it is you who is questioning Mr. Youngscap's motives.  I only stated the known- guest fees help the operations of the club and that Sand Hills is a friendly, welcoming place in addition to being a fantastic golf course.

You and Lavin chastised a well-meaning fellow golf architecture enthusiast publicly and harshly.  If your intent was to elevate the behavior of members of this site, you would have done this through a private email or IM.  Alternatively, you could have contacted Ran or Ben for them to reach out to the "offender".  I have no idea whether you directly killed what would have been a great experience for four GCAers, but the two admonishments on his thread had to be responsible for the negative outcome and the subsequent unnecessary discussion over access.

What is very ironic about all this is that you and Lavin are so highly privileged.  You have all the access in the world and the financial means to act on it.  Why not dwell on and be grateful for your great fortune and let those in lesser stations seek theirs, particularly when no one is bothering you to do anything?

For all the soul searching attention this topic seems to demand, what is lost when a non-member gets the chance to experience a great golf course?  Within the relevant range we are talking about here, the psychology that my enjoyment as a member is diminished by virtue that instead of 8,000 rounds being played on my course, an additional 500 rounds are enjoyed by unconnected, well-behaved non-members totally escapes me.  I am hardly a person of great virtue, but I enjoy when others enjoy what I enjoy.   

[John Kavanaugh]

Lou,

Why do you continue to think that clubs with zero financial worries give a damn about your guest fees?  They over the long run lose money by hosting unaccompanied guests.  The only reason they charge anything at all is give the ignorant masses a measuring stick on which to base the value of their experience.  If it was free most people would leave disappointed.  In this way they do guests a favor by charging them.

[BHoover]

Brian:  I assume the long socks down under is a result of living on an island where every other living thing is trying to kill you.  Otherwise one would be afraid to walk in the rough for fear of a wee beastie latching on to an ankle. 

I'm afraid we don't have as good of an excuse for cargo shorts or jeans...except maybe for being hillbillies.

[Tim Martin]

The absolute best thing that could have happened to Mr. Curtiss is that the thread was in fact taken down and disappears into cyberspace. I can't imagine that either the member of SH who was responsible for setting up the unaccompanied round or anyone associated with the club would be or was happy to see the slots being peddled on a public website. Anyone that questions that statement might want to put themselves in the members position. I can't fathom why invitations weren't proffered behind the scenes and anybody that thinks that the member gave the thumbs up for this to be facilitated through a public website is dreaming. Further would the round have been scuttled without such a shortsighted decision to do so? I think not but those that disagree can continue to speculate. If common sense was applied these guys would have experienced a "Holy Grail" golf experience but alas that ship sailed along with the common sense. Anybody that is blaming either John Kavanaugh or Judge Lavin for the demise of this opportunity certainly hasn't kept their eye on the ball. Lastly anyone that thinks Mr. Kavanaugh's posts are without a least a tinge of sardonic wit and a wink need to come out of the ether.

[Bruce Katona]

When you're our guest, we make sure you are treated like a member, because you are our guest.  Please act accordingly.

Have fun. You're our guest which means you're not paying.  The golf staff may or may not accept a gartutity but certainly appreciate the offer, but the hospitality staff certaily do - slip the server a $10 or $20, they work hard and it hasn't cost you a dime all day.

[Nigel Islam]

Lou,

Why do you continue to think that clubs with zero financial worries give a damn about your guest fees?  They over the long run lose money by hosting unaccompanied guests.  The only reason they charge anything at all is give the ignorant masses a measuring stick on which to base the value of their experience.  If it was free most people would leave disappointed.  In this way they do guests a favor by charging them.

That is an interesting way to look at it. I always assumed the unaccompanied fees to be a deterrent. Much like the fees in England or Australia can be.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

Why do you continue to think that clubs with zero financial worries give a damn about your guest fees?  They over the long run lose money by hosting unaccompanied guests.  The only reason they charge anything at all is give the ignorant masses a measuring stick on which to base the value of their experience.  If it was free most people would leave disappointed.  In this way they do guests a favor by charging them.

John,

Despite my education and 40+ years of experience in business and golf, I suppose I am just a dumb ass.  If you are interested, we'll broach the subject this summer with someone we both know who you might find more knowledgeable and credible on these matters.

Tim Martin,

Do you truly believe that if Terry and John wouldn't have commented that this thing would have blown up?  Using the DG was not a good way of making up the foursome, and the subsequent brouhaha has probably been a good learning experience for the gentleman and others not privy to the sensitivities that plague a few on this site.  Some seem to look for ill motives wherever they can.  When I read the original thread, my first reaction was, wow, how cool is this.  Then, having been on this site for more than 10 years and knowing some of the characters, my next thought was "on shit, he is going to get inundated and then the bitching begins".  These two threads have taught me that I am not cynical enough.  What a complicated world we live in.

Nigel,

The people who look at the world like John are very few.  Guest fee pricing vary with the objectives of the club, but typically involve the needs and preferences of the members, its financial and tax situations, and seasonal considerations.  Some clubs don't want much play, even from members.  Others prefer a fuller tee sheet and are welcoming of guests.

[Greg Clark]

After being on the site for several years, I have reached the conclusion that the best way to gain access would be to move to Australia or the UK (or to be indigenous to those locales), develop a local accent, and then write or call US clubs about your dream trip to study American golf architecture.  Other than Augusta National, it appears everyone else is happy to have you.  Just kidding - sort of.

As for me, anyone visiting the Dallas area, please feel free to look me up for a game.  I'd be happy to host.  No reciprocity expected.