Is the Masters good for the game of golf?

[Ian Mackenzie]

The point?
May mean different things to different people.
No, to you...what's the point to you?...this speculation is pointless to me, becasuse it's a subjective truth, no one is changing your mind and nothing about your changed or unchanged mind is going to mean anything when the thread is done. It was never an honest question on your part; you should change the title to The Masters is bad for golf...and let people argue/agree with you about it as they will.

I’m always curious about what is good for hobbies and sports that are important to me and my family and friends.
Why? Why is the opinion of others informative, decisive or worthy, when nobody on this board is giving you an answer Ian...why don't you follow what you think is good and avoid what is bad in your own sphere of judgment?

Tiger Woods? He’s been good for the game. When he was out, the game last fans. He returned, there was the “Tiger bump”.
The game would be there whether he was or not... it is debatable, not a fact...for every revenue or ad number you could easily point to, I can give you the unquantifiable You da' man bullshit...the Phoenix stadium bullshit... Billion dollar bullshit...the tabloid bullshit...the glorification of very plain, often flawed, people for beating a ball around.

When the Dallas Stars moved from Minnesota, it was good for youth hockey in DFW. It was measured in new player participation.
And devastating for thousands who had their historic associations with the North Stars, and who says good for youth hockey in one town is good for the game in another or the game as a whole or anything measurable beyond sentiment... I see a lot of shit behavior from f'ed up sports parents, hockey a major venue for such transgressors,...what's so good about those potentials?

If the Masters ceased to exist, would it even have the same impact on the game as just one player....like Tiger Woods...?
What makes the Masters different in thsi regard than the Open Championship or anyother major, long-time tournament

ANGC is like a supermodel that is skimpily flaunted in front of legions of aspiring fans.
But, I just wonder, like fashion and even politics, if we are not better served by less celebrity and more pure substance.
I thought you just said Tiger Woods was good for the game...I mean he is substance, but if he is not celebrity run amok over his sport, what is?

So, back on point...what I mean specifically as a subset of this is, as an example, did the ridiculous ANGC greens serve as the Helen of Troy moment that launched 1000 clubs to seek green speeds of 12+? Where, when..what were the green speeds in 1958 and 78 and 88 and 98...when did they become faster or slower than Oakmonts or Merions or Quaker Ridges?

Is that good for the game?
What question do you have?  This ain't it!

It's VERY obviously not pointless to you, mate.


We may differ, but when I see pointless things here at GCA, I just skip over them and decline to participate.


You making a point about pointlessness seems rather pointless to me...


I'll just take one of your "points" and avoid the others, especially the hockey one as that is just...well, nevermind...Let's just say it's all hat and no cattle.


as to your statement:



"[size=0px]If the Masters ceased to exist, would it even have the same impact on the game as just one player....like Tiger Woods...?[/size][/color][/size][size=0px]What makes the Masters different in thsi regard than the Open Championship or anyother major, long-time tournament"[/size]


1. Over 10000 US and foreign golfers attempt to qualify for the US Open every year
2. Countless regional and sectional qualifiers at public venues that involve scores of facilities and thousands of volunteers.
3. Truly open to amateurs and professionals
4. It's OUR National Championship


I am trying to respect your opinion, but just wish you'd throttle down a bit as this ain't personal.




[/size][size=0px][/color][/size]

[Greg Smith]

What's good golf, at least to me? 

A golf course is a place that takes me off the current planet I live on and lets me worry about nothing but the golf for the space of time I am there. 

Any golf course is capable of doing this, but...

1)  A typical muni may call to mind many, many things about my current planet, so I have to work at the mindset.  But maybe I can still get there.  And at least I'm not taxing my wallet.

2)  A public course in half-decent shape with a clientele that isn't TOO "baba-booey" (whatever the social class) can minimize the distractions somewhat (this is where I usually end up playing).

3)  If I get to play at a club (none of which I can afford to join), it's probable that the place will be unlike my current planet, which makes it good for my golf.

4)  If I (very occasionally) get to play at a really nice club with good GCA (usually at some charity golf tournament), it's practically a guarantee that I am removed from my current planet and therefore it'll be one of the highlights of that year.

5)  If I were ever so fortunate as to be invited to ANGC -- well, that is the single place in the space/time continuum furthest removed from my current planet.  So for that day, I will become a captain of world industry (hopefully a humble one!)  and I will enjoy it to the absolute max.  I will happily class bifurcate away and count it as a lifetime event, then die in peace.

One sometimes might call me a Democrat (and sometimes not!).  But on the golf course, the thing I want to think about the LEAST is "class bifurcation" or other manifestations of political or philosophical thought.  I don't care if I am playing in a beer-swilling scramble or invited as an honored guest to the best club in town, I am there to see, hear, smell, taste, and if possible PLAY golf -- that's it.

All that matters is getting off my current planet.  From that standpoint, the Masters and ANGC are one of the very best things the game has to offer -- even if I do have some beefs with the golf architecture at times.

[Mike Wagner]

Yeah, the greatest event of the year is bad for golf.  C'mon, get a grip.

Appreciate the reply.
Thanks for the opinion.


My grip is firm.
Didn’t say I don’t enjoy the tourney.


Just wondering if it has some contagion that is sometimes hard to quantify.


Has it caused some courses to have Masters perfection as a goal?
Does that contribute to sky rocketing fees and memberships?


Does that then make it prohibitive for the game to reach new markets effectively?


Or, I could just be flippant...

Ian -


You started a topic (maybe unknowingly, but I doubt it) boldly.  I don't think you would have expected anything but bold responses, yet your responses don't imply that.


I could dice up each of the reasons you state it's not good for the game and we could argue endlessly.  I don't say this to exclusively argue, but your points are worthy of heated discussion. 


I'll just touch on one (well, make it two) points:


The elitism and "skyrocketing" memberships.  If you're going to present "elitism" as a reason you say is not good for the game, then please present your "solution" to that term. 


As far a "skyrocketing" memberships - please cite examples, your solution, and explain how the market is inefficient.  Or maybe we just shouldn't aspire to having great things in our life?  Maybe we should just appeal to the lowest common denominator? 

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


Easy answer to those two questions.... The UK private model!  To my knowledge, in most cases, it promotes/leads to anti-elitist clubs, and affordable memberships.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yeah, the greatest event of the year is bad for golf.  C'mon, get a grip.

Appreciate the reply.
Thanks for the opinion.


My grip is firm.
Didn’t say I don’t enjoy the tourney.


Just wondering if it has some contagion that is sometimes hard to quantify.


Has it caused some courses to have Masters perfection as a goal?
Does that contribute to sky rocketing fees and memberships?


Does that then make it prohibitive for the game to reach new markets effectively?


Or, I could just be flippant...

Ian -


You started a topic (maybe unknowingly, but I doubt it) boldly.  I don't think you would have expected anything but bold responses, yet your responses don't imply that.


I could dice up each of the reasons you state it's not good for the game and we could argue endlessly.  I don't say this to exclusively argue, but your points are worthy of heated discussion. 


I'll just touch on one (well, make it two) points:


The elitism and "skyrocketing" memberships.  If you're going to present "elitism" as a reason you say is not good for the game, then please present your "solution" to that term. 


As far a "skyrocketing" memberships - please cite examples, your solution, and explain how the market is inefficient.  Or maybe we just shouldn't aspire to having great things in our life?  Maybe we should just appeal to the lowest common denominator?

Mike, fair points.
I should have put more meat on the bone.
At the same time, my tolerance for some people making things personal is rather small.


It all started for me as I paid my yearly dues at a club I belong to in Scotland at the same time as our course here in Chicago opens for the season.


How did we (in the US) stray so far from what those in the UK enjoy so easily?


My own personal opinion is that the Masters and the influence of ANGC has played a part in that.


As for a good answer...I will refer to Kalen's above.
Cheers.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,


Easy answer to those two questions.... The UK private model!  To my knowledge, in most cases, it promotes/leads to anti-elitist clubs, and affordable memberships.

Great - now play that out for me with numbers.  Oh, and please define "elitism" in your own words.  While you're at it, please define "affordable." Affordable to whom?  Who sets the #? 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Mike,


Easy answer to those two questions.... The UK private model!  To my knowledge, in most cases, it promotes/leads to anti-elitist clubs, and affordable memberships.

Great - now play that out for me with numbers.  Oh, and please define "elitism" in your own words.  While you're at it, please define "affordable." Affordable to whom?  Who sets the #?

Cold stone rock solid facts coming, Mike. You ready?


1. At a UK "top 25 course in the world"(a Doak 9 or 10), a year full member club subscription costs ~$650 at today's exchange rate. The "initiation fee" when you join is "under $1,000".
- Is that affordable to you? Only you will know the answer.
- My 23 year old son who just started working thinks that it is to him.


2. At an unranked "Doak 6" private club in the US, the yearly dues (not counting extras, just membership fees) ranges from $8,000-$12,000. The initiation fee ranges from $25,000 to well over $75,000.
-How does THAT grab you?
- My son puked in his beer. Even a junior membership costs 6x what a UK full membership costs.


So, why is that?


Scores of reasons obviously: cost basis of land, labor costs, maintenance costs, etc.


20 years ago there was an average wait time of 3-5 years to get into a private club.
Now, at all but the most high-end clubs, the process will take 3-5 months and clubs are creating membership committees and strategies to attract new members.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,


Easy answer to those two questions.... The UK private model!  To my knowledge, in most cases, it promotes/leads to anti-elitist clubs, and affordable memberships.

Great - now play that out for me with numbers.  Oh, and please define "elitism" in your own words.  While you're at it, please define "affordable." Affordable to whom?  Who sets the #?

Cold stone rock solid facts coming, Mike. You ready?


Yes


1. At a UK "top 25 course in the world"(a Doak 9 or 10), a year full member club subscription costs ~$650 at today's exchange rate. The "initiation fee" when you join is "under $1,000".
- Is that affordable to you? Only you will know the answer.
- My 23 year old son who just started working thinks that it is to him.


Awesome - I'm glad you can make that work.  I applaud that.


2. At an unranked "Doak 6" private club in the US, the yearly dues (not counting extras, just membership fees) ranges from $8,000-$12,000. The initiation fee ranges from $25,000 to well over $75,000.
-How does THAT grab you? 


It's a free market


- My son puked in his beer. Even a junior membership costs 6x what a UK full membership costs.


So, why is that?


Scores of reasons obviously: cost basis of land, labor costs, maintenance costs, etc.


Correct.  So what's your solution?


20 years ago there was an average wait time of 3-5 years to get into a private club.
Now, at all but the most high-end clubs, the process will take 3-5 months and clubs are creating membership committees and strategies to attract new members.


Yep, things are always evolving in the free market

So I'm not getting your point.  We should adopt the UK system?  I think that's what Kalen is saying, correct?  If it was a profitable idea here, people would do it.  Until then, we'll just have to put up with the thousands of options we have to enjoy the game at whatever course(s) that may be. 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Mike,


Easy answer to those two questions.... The UK private model!  To my knowledge, in most cases, it promotes/leads to anti-elitist clubs, and affordable memberships.

Great - now play that out for me with numbers.  Oh, and please define "elitism" in your own words.  While you're at it, please define "affordable." Affordable to whom?  Who sets the #?

Cold stone rock solid facts coming, Mike. You ready?


Yes


1. At a UK "top 25 course in the world"(a Doak 9 or 10), a year full member club subscription costs ~$650 at today's exchange rate. The "initiation fee" when you join is "under $1,000".
- Is that affordable to you? Only you will know the answer.
- My 23 year old son who just started working thinks that it is to him.


Awesome - I'm glad you can make that work.  I applaud that.


2. At an unranked "Doak 6" private club in the US, the yearly dues (not counting extras, just membership fees) ranges from $8,000-$12,000. The initiation fee ranges from $25,000 to well over $75,000.
-How does THAT grab you? 


It's a free market


- My son puked in his beer. Even a junior membership costs 6x what a UK full membership costs.


So, why is that?


Scores of reasons obviously: cost basis of land, labor costs, maintenance costs, etc.


Correct.  So what's your solution?


20 years ago there was an average wait time of 3-5 years to get into a private club.
Now, at all but the most high-end clubs, the process will take 3-5 months and clubs are creating membership committees and strategies to attract new members.


Yep, things are always evolving in the free market

So I'm not getting your point.  We should adopt the UK system?  I think that's what Kalen is saying, correct?  If it was a profitable idea here, people would do it.  Until then, we'll just have to put up with the thousands of options we have to enjoy the game at whatever course(s) that may be.

Pass.
Game over.
Thanks for playing.


Great "Mucci-esque" responses in same formatting....

[Edward Glidewell]

I still haven't seen any reason you think the Masters has been worse than the US Open. It seems obvious to me that the US Open has had a much larger (and negative) effect on golf courses over the past 30 or so years than the Masters.

[George Pazin]

Haven't read a single response, but I'll simply ask, how can the level of exposure be bad, on balance? I understand many on here hate the "Augusta effect", ie pressure on your club to maintain perfect standards, but that's like blaming your wife for not looking like a Victoria Secret angel. If you are that weak, you deserve whatever pathetic fate awaits you.


It's a golf tournament. It's on TV. It has really compelling action with the best golfers in the world. Anything else is your problem, not The Masters.

[Jim Nugent]

The Masters made Arnold Palmer.  Arnold Palmer made modern golf.   

Ergo the Masters has been fantastic for golf. 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Haven't read a single response, but I'll simply ask, how can the level of exposure be bad, on balance? I understand many on here hate the "Augusta effect", ie pressure on your club to maintain perfect standards, but that's like blaming your wife for not looking like a Victoria Secret angel. If you are that weak, you deserve whatever pathetic fate awaits you.

No, it's not.
And, if you read first and wrote second, instead of "Fire, Aim, Ready", you would have seen that your clicheed analogy was already used....


Im amazed at how personal this has been taken by so many who offer emotional replies that are devoid of objectivity.
Aggressive retorts that circumvent the issues that the last poster actually dared to touch on."The Augusta Effect"....exactly. Tell me, how has that been "good for the game".


Relax, it's a message board.
I may be wrong in your eye. Wont be the last time.


I'm just curious to hear opinions and not just reactions.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The Masters made Arnold Palmer.  Arnold Palmer made modern golf.   

Ergo the Masters has been fantastic for golf.

Interesting.
However, that syllogism can work a different way. Will skip that...


Yes, the Masters HAS BEEN good for the game.
But IS IT still?


Ive heard barking and name-calling and been asked to quantify this and challenged on that...but Ive missed a real objective answer to the question.


Perhaps the MASTERS is, in fact, good for the game.


There certainly is no downside to that.
Sorry.

[Mike Wagner]

Haven't read a single response, but I'll simply ask, how can the level of exposure be bad, on balance? I understand many on here hate the "Augusta effect", ie pressure on your club to maintain perfect standards, but that's like blaming your wife for not looking like a Victoria Secret angel. If you are that weak, you deserve whatever pathetic fate awaits you.

No, it's not.
And, if you read first and wrote second, instead of "Fire, Aim, Ready", you would have seen that your clicheed analogy was already used....


Im amazed at how personal this has been taken by so many who offer emotional replies that are devoid of objectivity.
Aggressive retorts that circumvent the issues that the last poster actually dared to touch on."The Augusta Effect"....exactly. Tell me, how has that been "good for the game".


Relax, it's a message board.
I may be wrong in your eye. Wont be the last time.


I'm just curious to hear opinions and not just reactions.

I'll tell you precisely why you're amazed.  Your original 5 reasons why you think The Masters is bad for the game included 3 reasons that connect more to an emotional / political / way of life stance than golf.  Words like "elitism" (and not just elitism, but "ridiculous elitism" in your words) just poke the bear.  They don't mean anything until you define them, propose why that's apparently a bad thing, and EXACTLY how YOU would handle that.


You may have had more civil discourse if you stuck to the two reasons that may have a debate - length and condition.  For me, the length issue is a really good debate.  As far as condition ... bring it on.  I like nice things.  I aspire for nicer things in my life.  I hope every course aspires to find the balance of knowing their means and best maintaining their course how they see fit for their customers.  To think the average owner thinks they need to be Augusta National just doesn't hold water.  It's overblown in my opinion ... but I get where you're coming from.

[George Pazin]

Haven't read a single response, but I'll simply ask, how can the level of exposure be bad, on balance? I understand many on here hate the "Augusta effect", ie pressure on your club to maintain perfect standards, but that's like blaming your wife for not looking like a Victoria Secret angel. If you are that weak, you deserve whatever pathetic fate awaits you.

No, it's not.
And, if you read first and wrote second, instead of "Fire, Aim, Ready", you would have seen that your clicheed analogy was already used....


Im amazed at how personal this has been taken by so many who offer emotional replies that are devoid of objectivity.
Aggressive retorts that circumvent the issues that the last poster actually dared to touch on."The Augusta Effect"....exactly. Tell me, how has that been "good for the game".


Relax, it's a message board.
I may be wrong in your eye. Wont be the last time.


I'm just curious to hear opinions and not just reactions.

Well, you just did yourself what you accuse me of doing: reacted emotionally to my thoughts. I gave my reasons specifically without reading others’ thoughts because I did not want to be tainted by theirs. That does not mean I did not think about the question or the implications, and you stating otherwise merely illustrates the old adage about pots and kettles. Trust me, I don’t take any of this stuff personally, I view it as fun 19th hole fodder for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.


What is the difference between an opinion and a reaction? The simple fact that someone agrees with you or disagrees with you? That sure seems like your implication. If you want discussion, then discuss, don’t dismiss.


I don’t think the Augusta effect is good for the game, but i do think it’s far outweighed by the positives of top notch competitors fighting it out on a great golf course.

[Mike_Young]

What if the question was "Is the Masters good for the BUSINESS of golf?"  Answer is YES....much easier question to answer.
What is good for the game of golf varies by each person. The game is totally different thing than the business.  But there is no denying that ANGC has been good for the business...

[Pat Burke]

I’d argue the stupidity of golf course owners or management thatelmthe need to pursue Augusta “ideals” is a threat, but that isn’t the Masters fault, it’s the dick measuring some feel the need to do to “keep up”.


The Masters and attention from golf fans is a positive imo, as is the attention
It receives from sports fans

[Thomas Dai]

The Wed par-3 event is. Not convinced as to the rest of the week though (sic)!

atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

The Masters is the Superbowl of golf. The best of the best. I will never attend a Superbowl but I was able to fly across the country to walk Augusta National and see the Par 3 tournament and would do it again. It is the only major I know every hole and watch every hole.

NFL football is what...down 17% in viewership over the last few years as child participation drops dramatically and fan engagement at the pro level is the worst it’s been in decades.


The Super Bowl is great for business but is apparently not helping the game very much. It did...it used do. But, like cigar and martini bars, not anymore. I get that many people don’t WANT to see that. But wishing it wasn’t true does not change the reality.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Were clubs like NGLA, Pine Valley, etc, that came way before Augusta National exclusive or open to the common man? I have no idea but I'm assuming no and that Bob Jones isn't to blame

I think the exclusivity thing is peculiar to America. Maybe its our way to prove to the world we've "made it" after taking risks instead of staying in the old country.

[Ben Sims]

I know more regular folks that have had a drink with someone in a green jacket at Berckman’s Place than have eaten lunch at Muirfield. #justsayin

[Kalen Braley]

I'm sure there are lots of "regular folk" lining up to buy BP tix... 


"The Masters BP badge may be the new hottest and toughest ticket in sports. At $6,000, it is also among the priciest. The BP badges are available only through members for corporations, with a 10-ticket limit."

[Jason Thurman]

NFL football is what...down 17% in viewership over the last few years as child participation drops dramatically and fan engagement at the pro level is the worst it’s been in decades.


The Super Bowl is great for business but is apparently not helping the game very much. It did...it used do. But, like cigar and martini bars, not anymore. I get that many people don’t WANT to see that. But wishing it wasn’t true does not change the reality.

It is not logical to say the Super Bowl isn’t helping the game of football just because the game of football is declining. There are many obvious factors in football’s decline. I would venture that a game with so many ethical concerns would not possibly be so popular without such a beloved flagship event.


Enjoy the best golf weekend of the year everybody.

[Ben Sims]

I'm sure there are lots of "regular folk" lining up to buy BP tix... 


"The Masters BP badge may be the new hottest and toughest ticket in sports. At $6,000, it is also among the priciest. The BP badges are available only through members for corporations, with a 10-ticket limit."

Kalen,


You don’t have to believe me. Doesn’t change what I said.  I know no less seven people that have been there and I wouldn’t characterize any of them as anything other than regular people. There’s lots of other ways to enjoy the place than just buying a ticket and no doubt, those guys have been fortunate.


The point I was making is this; if someone wants to say Augusta National and this tournament are bad for golf, they need to come at this from an angle other than exclusivity. This is golf. Not beer league softball. It’s ALWAYS been about exclusivity.