Agree or Disagree.....

[Kalen Braley]

I read this snippet in an online article today.  Do you agree or disagree with Trump....

Golf has historically had an inclusion problem. The PGA of America has fought to shed it. Trump's comments exacerbate the issue, and even if you like Trump as a candidate, embracing the man as a brand is tantamount to embracing a sentiment he hasn't backed down from. That's especially the case considering the verbiage the PGA used when it announced its deal with Trump in 2014:
"The PGA of America is excited to begin a new chapter of the major championship history by taking two of our premier championships to venues that bear the Trump label of excellence," said PGA President Ted Bishop. "Mr. Trump understands what it means to present both the finest venues in golf and an unforgettable experience for both our fans and the greatest players in the game."
That "unforgettable experience" was recently revoked for all employees of Univision, after the network refused to televise Trump's beauty pageants. Trump banned them from his Doral course. So much for inclusion.
It goes further, too. Trump recently told Fortune Magazine he doesn't much care for the kind of outreach the sport is trying for. He said golf should be an "aspirational" game, and that "people should come to golf; golf shouldn't come to them."
He continued:
"Let golf be elitist," he said. "When I say, 'aspire,' that's a positive word. Let people work hard and aspire to someday be able to play golf. To afford to play it. They're trying to teach golf to people who will never be able to really play it."
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/when-it-comes-to-trump--pga-trying-to-have-it-both-ways-010138179.html
 
Thoughts???

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,

Could you frame your question in fewer words?  The name Trump triggers such an emotional response my mind got lost in the jibber.

[Ronald Montesano]

I believe we examined this a few weeks back, when he made the statement. I might be in error.

[Tim Gavrich]

I would venture to say that most of us agree that golf has a positive effect on pretty much all people who play it, so why wouldn't we want more people to be able to be positively affected by it?

Part of what makes golf so special to me is that in order to get much out of it, you have to invest a bit - I'm talking mostly about time and willingness to learn and struggle mightily, especially at first, though there is an up-front and continuing monetary cost that is unavoidable. I can find a soccer ball, kick it around with a few people for a few minutes, decide it's not for me and be in and out of the sport in the blink of an eye. But if I've never played golf before and want to give it a try, it requires both a time and financial commitment. Those who ante up and like what they experience early on tend to become golfers for life.

I think the real question is whether the $$$ amount of that ante should be lower than it is now. I say yes, but based on that "Is Financial Discrimination Moral" thread from some weeks ago, it's very clear a number of people here think it should be higher than it currently is, if anything, for various reasons that I hope will not (but fear may) be rehashed here.

Re: his seeing golf as "aspirational" (in the monetary sense, of course; he is one the Altar of the Almighty Dollar's most fervent worshippers), I'd like to ask Mr. Trump to name an income figure at which he sees someone as being able to "afford" to play golf. If it's, say, $30,000 a year annual income, I'd love to hear him explain why someone who makes $29,999 a year should not play golf but someone who makes a dollar more does. His statement holds zero authority if there's no line which, once crossed, someone is now able to afford to play golf. Necessarily he must furnish that line to have anything other than an intellectual belch in response to that question.

So I'd challenge him to draw that line and then defend it, and wish him only the best of luck in that fool's errand. Otherwise, it's clear that he regards golf as a string of pearls to be clutched, rather than a game that has a positive impact on those who pursue it.

[MCirba]

What Tim Gavrich said.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I'd like to see him "give back" to the game by subsidising the renovation of various low cost munis around the country in need of updating and improvement.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't disagree with anything Tim posted above.


The one statement of Mr. Trump's I would be inclined to agree with is his last sentence.  All of the well-intentioned First Tee type initiatives have failed to produce many golfers; and Mr. Trump is partly right, that many of the kids exposed to golf can't follow through with it for reasons of money, or proximity, or time [the last two of which can also be attributed to money, if you think that way].


Certainly Mr. Trump's properties are designed to appeal to the elitist, but there are lots of golf facilities for us common folk, too.  And most are willing to accept whatever cash we can give them.

[JJShanley]

In the United States at least, I've the right to play golf anywhere that extends me an invitation of some sort (whether general public access or from an individual member at a private club) in the expectation that I fulfill any obligations, financial or otherwise.


In terms of public golf, I can play Pebble Beach if I decide I can afford that level of green fee.  If I can't afford that then I can play at a variety of courses across the nation that will welcome me with open arms.  Trump has no interest in the likes of Elbel Park in South Bend, Indiana, the plight of which I introduced a few days ago.  He has no obligation to do so, as I have no obligation to play his courses.  His views on golf matter not a jot to me.  Such comments might look bad to the outside world, but folk who want to use golf as a social indicator might want to shed that baggage.


I'd love to see as many people as possible enjoy a game that has given me such joy, but no one has a right to play a specific course.  I have the great fortune to play an excellent college course at reduced daily fees until I graduate from my Ph.D. program.  I understand that I will play down-at-heel tracks from 2017 onwards.  That doesn't faze me in the slightest.


I'll play golf for as long as my health, finances, and schedule allows.  I aspire to play the game well, in the spirit that greater women and men than me have handed it down to us. 


The ball doesn't know who you are.  It doesn't even know if it's a ProV1 or a Pinnacle.

[Kalen Braley]

My apologies if this question has already been asked in the group.  While I've attended GCA.com more often, I still don't check in every day.
 
I know Trumps style has always been bombastic and controversial, but when he says something like "Let golf be elitist," it makes me cringe on the inside. Elitist to me is 1%er territory, so does he really mean that only the top 1% of the population should be eligible to play golf like the old days...
 
 

[John Kavanaugh]

People who make $30,000 per year can either own a dog or play golf, not both.  Thank God that they have the freedom to choose.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't disagree with anything Tim posted above.


The one statement of Mr. Trump's I would be inclined to agree with is his last sentence.  All of the well-intentioned First Tee type initiatives have failed to produce many golfers; and Mr. Trump is partly right, that many of the kids exposed to golf can't follow through with it for reasons of money, or proximity, or time [the last two of which can also be attributed to money, if you think that way].


Certainly Mr. Trump's properties are designed to appeal to the elitist, but there are lots of golf facilities for us common folk, too.  And most are willing to accept whatever cash we can give them.

Tom,
 
I know the 1st tee has been discussed a ton in here, but is its principle goal to create professional golfers?  I'm not so sure. It seems fine to me as a charity type org where if nothing else it gives kids something to do away from their complex and difficult home lives.  I'm not sure how well the 1st tee uses its funds but compared to the massive amount of scamish charities out there, I would think one could do a lot worse.
 
P.S. Given that the script has flipped and there are far more public courses than privates, one could make a case that golf is for the everyday Joe, just based on the raw numbers alone of who plays the game.

[JJShanley]

Kalen: should someone considering a donation to a golf-related charity not first consider the Evans Fund, rather than First Tee?  Caddying can mean access to golf and paid employment, with the possibility of a college scholarship.  As someone who "works" in higher education, I'd emphasize the importance of limiting my student debt. 

[Phil Young]

I began playing golf in 1966 at Merrick Road Park golf course on Long Island when I was just short of my 13th birthday. Every Sunday morning I played in a four-some with my parents and my brother who is a year older than me. The rounds on this 9-hole course usually took at least three hours and it was built on land that was created originally as a garbage dump site. From there I graduated to Salisbury and then Bethpage. I never had a lesson growing up as we couldn't afford one. The closest I ever came to the front gate of at a country club was waving as we drove by.

According to Mr. Trump I never should have taken up the game... All who know me understand that I'm not a political person. That said, Mr. Trump you are everything that is wrong about golf.

My parents, especially my father, taught me that golf was a game of honor. To enjoy those 3-hour 9-hole Sunday rounds which cost my parents an enormous amount of money that they struggled to afford at the time even at the $5 we were charged, and I played with an old set of clubs passed onto me from my uncle, I had to obey the following rules:
1- NO foul language of any sort.
2- Don't throw a club.
3- Don't smash a club into the ground after I hit a bad shot.

If I broke any of those rules I couldn't play for the next month.

Money and success in business doesn't teach honor such as that, and obviously Mr. Trump is quite lacking in that most important part of character.

The first time I was ever invited to play at a country club was when I was 50 years old, the year after I wrote my first history of Bethpage. I've laughed that it took something so unimportantly innocuous to bring that about.

Golf IS inclusive as I'm living proof of it. It is the country club mentality that is not. The passion for the game is just as strong, if not stronger, at places like Bethpage, Salisbury and every other municipally owned course in the world as it is in the most elite of golf clubs that, according to Mr. Trump, one should "aspire" to. That is exactly why the First Tee is so important for those it inspires as they grow up to keep playing the game throughout their lives are taught two very key points that following Mr. Trump's beliefs they wouldn't: Honor and joy in simply playing the game.

If he'd like to learn the true meaning of "aspiration" in golf he should join me for a round at Merrick Road Park... If he leaves his ego at the door he'd see just how much golf means to the average person who is well aware that they will NEVER have the ability to walk through the doors of any country club as a member.

Sorry for the rant...

[JJShanley]

Phil: I don't think you can define golfers as easily as you have.  I've met wealthy, GOP-voting, conservative country club folk who get golf in a similar way to folk like ourselves, who wouldn't want to play a Trump course.  I met enough idiots at "establishment" clubs who looked down on me.  It bothered me at first, but I learned not to care because it didn't affect my enjoyment of the game. 

I don't care for Trump myself.  If folk outside the game want to define golf by one person, they may do so.  If what we believe about golf reflects reality, then they lose out in the end.  Such prejudice about the game speaks to more than a dislike of a sport. 

We can't limit the game by defining it in terms of a single person, whether a golfer, administrator, developer, or architect. 

[John Kavanaugh]

When I visit Manhattan I aspire to one day own an apartment in the city, possibly in a Trump property.  How is that not a good thing?  What kind of people think that they will never improve either their life or that of their children?  I know...losers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I imagine Trump will be continuing to buy/build/renovate golf courses in the future, so I'd like to thank him in advance for bringing back something that's been lost in the modern era - the "Unknown" architect. 

[Carl Johnson]

I disagree with Mr. Trump's views on golf, which I am absolutely certain will not bother him a bit.  As for the "aspirational" aspect . . .  not everyone can afford to play golf, eat steak at a fancy restaurant (I just called Fleming's Prime Steakhouse here in Charlotte and learned that their least expensive steak is $38.50) or even go to a movie.  But those who really want to play golf and have some disposable income (i.e., beyond that needed for food, shelter and clothing) should be able to work something out (that is, there should be reasonably priced options for them, and I think generally there are), and then of course they can "aspire" to play more and more expensively, if they wish.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen: should someone considering a donation to a golf-related charity not first consider the Evans Fund, rather than First Tee?  Caddying can mean access to golf and paid employment, with the possibility of a college scholarship.  As someone who "works" in higher education, I'd emphasize the importance of limiting my student debt.

JJ,
 
I envision such a decision to be completely left to the individual.  In this case, I'm glad to see someone is trying to make a difference, regardless of where the money is donated to.

[Dan Herrmann]

I agree with Tom Doak, who agreed with Tim.

Another reason Trump to me is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  I read this week that he's banned push/pull carts from the PUBLIC course he built in the Bronx.   Apparently, he doesn't feel they "look right", whatever the heck that means.

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone think Trump would be investing in golf if he thought his future clientele was anchored in the douche inducing children of his rich friends.  He simply wants, and needs, those less fortunate to have the opportunity to better themselves and join his clubs. As much as it may kill you guys he is the favorite of the white middle class golfer who sees his ability to either have the time or money to play the game slipping away.

[John Kavanaugh]

Could someone please tell me what income it would take to have a wife, house, dog and a kid on a travel team and be a golfer.  Please note:  This is only one wife, house, dog or kid on a travel team.

[Paul Gray]

People who make $30,000 per year can either own a dog or play golf, not both.  Thank God that they have the freedom to choose.

Thank goodness I live in a country where people on $30, 000 a year can afford both. I'd hate to think the nurses responsible for saving my life couldn't afford to join me for a game.

[David Whitmer]

I think Trump was speaking of my father. My dad, like a whole bunch of guys born right after WW2, was not well off and caddied at the local country club starting when he was 13 years old. He would literally hitch hike to and from the club. He told me as he got to be a 15 or 16 year old, he decided then and there he would one day be well enough off to join that club.

Out of college he and his buddies played the local muni every weekend; he said it was some of the best times golf-wise he ever had. But he kept working hard even though he and my mom had 4 kids, and eventually he was able to join the club. He belonged for 34 years until he passed.

I think that's what Trump was referring to. I don't think he ever said that folks who aren't rich can't or shouldn't play golf. I think he was saying that golf at certain places can and should be something to work for. Don't see what the problem is with what he said, looking at my father's path.

[Carl Johnson]

The one statement of Mr. Trump's I would be inclined to agree with is his last sentence.  All of the well-intentioned First Tee type initiatives have failed to produce many golfers . . . .

Not to bash all First Tee programs, but I was involved with one for a while, as a "volunteer".  I learned that its (the program I was involved with) purpose was not to produce golfers or "good citizens" or whatever, but rather to be a very good creator/provider of relatively high paying jobs for those hired in staff positions.  Therefore, I don't think it's fair to criticize all First Tee programs for not producing golfers.  Some may be producing some future golfers and good citizens, etc., but not all have that as their purpose.

[Paul Gray]

David,

Firstly, please understand that this is not an attack on your father, far from it in fact. It's actually not even an attack on Donald Trump, much as I detest the man. There is nothing inherently wrong with aspirating to be a member of a nice golf club. What your father did, and many others like him, was all part of a quest to have a better life than previous generations. All of that is good in my book and, if that's what Trump was referring to, all fine and dandy.

What however concerns me is the unintended consequences. In Tim Gavrich's excellent thread about the beautification of golf courses, I wrote about the post war generation effectively pushing for ever more bling on the golf course, moving the game away from golf for golf's sake. Donald Trump and his courses are the stranger than fiction, hyperbolic representation of that. His hatred of Pinehurst last year or Chamber's Bay this year is not simply about the look of a golf course, any fool can see that. For him it's about an attack on a whole philosophy which dictates that you where your $50 bills on your sleeve to demonstrate your status and value as a human being. That kind of aspiration doesn't do the game of golf any kind of service.