Elie to restrict visitors

[Tim Martin]

My son played Elie solo in the middle of September after making the tee time quite a ways in advance. He said he loved everything about the day and couldn't remember being treated more graciously as a guest anywhere he has played. From the pictures and the 45 second video he sent me the course looks spectacular. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have Elie operate as a private club during the designated time considering how generous they are the rest of the year. Membership should come with some privileges.

[Tim_Weiman]

A private club is just that....private.  They don't owe the general public access to anything.  These golf clubs in the UK don't owe me "stewardship" to allow me to play their golf course.

In a very naive sense, of course this is true. This perspective, however, ignores the social compact as the basis for property.

If limited, precious resources fall into the hands of too few in a society, and those few do not act as good stewards, don’t be surprised if the state steps in to preserve some type of status quo.

Matt,


Don’t forget the “American model” provides public access to more than 70% of the golf courses in the United States.


The conversation gets distorted when the “American model” is assumed to mean private clubs.


Beyond that, Jeff Warne brought up the subject of Ballybunion. I fondly remember the days of the beloved Secretary Sean Walsh. He was the person who established Ballybunion’s relationship with Pine Valley and Merion, but even more was extremely welcoming to all visitors.


Who were these visitors? By and large, they were wealthy foreigners, not low income locals who were often on the dole in those pre “Celtic Tiger” days.


So, yes, the European model is very nice if you are a golf architecture junkie and can afford a plane flight across the pond, but it really isn’t so great for locals who aren’t members of a club.


Don’t forget, Alister Mackenzie spoke out against the lack of support for public access clubs in the UK back in the 1920s. I don’t believe that has changed much in the past 100 years.


Jeff Warne:


I don’t want to speak for my local friends in Ballybunion, but my impression is that the days of Sean Walsh are long gone and his current replacement is all about money.


Walsh was truly special, able to get along with the likes of Ernie Ransome at Pine Valley and local members who couldn’t afford the 200 Irish annual dues.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Don’t forget the “American model” provides public access to more than 70% of the golf courses in the United States.
The conversation gets distorted when the “American model” is assumed to mean private clubs.

Look, I want to be as respectful as possible, but there isn't a way to argue my point here without ruffling some feathers. The American model is obviously not a pure model of private clubs, but it is one of partition and exclusion. Suggesting that the access economy that exists in America isn't culturally problematic might go over just fine in an invite-only forum, where the folks least affected are the only ones who can respond, but it is obviously a major concern for many of the hoi polloi in other forums like reddit.

European model is very nice if you are a golf architecture junkie and can afford a plane flight across the pond, but it really isn’t so great for locals who aren’t members of a club.

Again, the idea that everything must be a sub-$100 green fee for it to be accessible misses the point. I've played the Old Course, and paid a healthy fee, the point is that the only reason I was able to do it at all is because they do allow access. Were one to seek out similar historic clubs in America they'd likely be limited to Downers Grove, and not, say, Dorset, or Shinnecock, or the Country Club, or Chicago... I could go on.

Just setting aside a lottery for 14 or 30 days, or even just 1 day, per year for the general public would cost clubs very little, but would do wonders for golf's status in American culture. No, that wouldn't allow everyone to play, but that's not the point. The point is about just acting neighborly. Ultimately we're all in this together, so maybe be generous when you can... and not just with a big check.

Instead, I have to volunteer at organizations whose sole purpose is to preserve municipal golf courses, because the sport is so hated for it's culture of exclusion, that the public is willing to take out there anger at exactly the wrong courses (note: I reference Coaston because her piece illustrates that hatred can be misplaced, but still be politically potent).

So, you're in the UK. I agree that it's not a perfect system, but there are plenty of public assess courses (I played them as a grad student when facing a nasty exchange rate during my time in Edinburgh). I don't moan about access because I am bitter I can't play some of these places (I'll probably never play Pebble Beach even though I easily could, and I would likely never play Augusta even if offered). I moan about access because I care deeply about golf and golf culture in America, and those wonderfully inexpensive accompanied guest rounds come with serious costs to folks outside those gates.

The purely symbolic act of providing limited access, especially at the historic and prestigious archetypes of golf, completely changes the greater public's view of the game. As someone who has spent a substantial amount if time in both cultures, this is so clearly evident it's hardly worth discussing. Thankfully this is becoming more common in America with golf's social media events (e.g. Fried Egg, Golfers Journal, or Random Golf Club events), and many thanks to the clubs who choose participate in them.

[Ben Sims]

Just setting aside a lottery for 14 or 30 days, or even just 1 day, per year for the general public would cost clubs very little, but would do wonders for golf's status in American culture. No, that wouldn't allow everyone to play, but that's not the point. The point is about just acting neighborly. Ultimately we're all in this together, so maybe be generous when you can...

…

The purely symbolic act of providing limited access, especially at the historic and prestigious archetypes of golf, completely changes the greater public's view of the game. As someone who has spent a substantial amount if time in both cultures, this is so clearly evident it's hardly worth discussing.

Matt,

We don’t agree on some things but this is an easy homerun of a post. I think there is a mountain worth of demand to be part of clubs that think this way. And I totally agree, yes, this sort of thinking by many clubs would change the game for the better.

[Sean_A]

Don’t forget the “American model” provides public access to more than 70% of the golf courses in the United States.
The conversation gets distorted when the “American model” is assumed to mean private clubs.

Look, I want to be as respectful as possible, but there isn't a way to argue my point here without ruffling some feathers. The American model is obviously not a pure model of private clubs, but it is one of partition and exclusion. Suggesting that the access economy that exists in America isn't culturally problematic might go over just fine in an invite-only forum, where the folks least affected are the only ones who can respond, but it is obviously a major concern for many of the hoi polloi in other forums like reddit.

European model is very nice if you are a golf architecture junkie and can afford a plane flight across the pond, but it really isn’t so great for locals who aren’t members of a club.

Again, the idea that everything must be a sub-$100 green fee for it to be accessible misses the point. I've played the Old Course, and paid a healthy fee, the point is that the only reason I was able to do it at all is because they do allow access. Were one to seek out similar historic clubs in America they'd likely be limited to Downers Grove, and not, say, Dorset, or Shinnecock, or the Country Club, or Chicago... I could go on.

Just setting aside a lottery for 14 or 30 days, or even just 1 day, per year for the general public would cost clubs very little, but would do wonders for golf's status in American culture. No, that wouldn't allow everyone to play, but that's not the point. The point is about just acting neighborly. Ultimately we're all in this together, so maybe be generous when you can... and not just with a big check.

Instead, I have to volunteer at organizations whose sole purpose is to preserve municipal golf courses, because the sport is so hated for it's culture of exclusion, that the public is willing to take out there anger at exactly the wrong courses (note: I reference Coaston because her piece illustrates that hatred can be misplaced, but still be politically potent).

So, you're in the UK. I agree that it's not a perfect system, but there are plenty of public assess courses (I played them as a grad student when facing a nasty exchange rate during my time in Edinburgh). I don't moan about access because I am bitter I can't play some of these places (I'll probably never play Pebble Beach even though I easily could, and I would likely never play Augusta even if offered). I moan about access because I care deeply about golf and golf culture in America, and those wonderfully inexpensive accompanied guest rounds come with serious costs to folks outside those gates.

The purely symbolic act of providing limited access, especially at the historic and prestigious archetypes of golf, completely changes the greater public's view of the game. As someone who has spent a substantial amount if time in both cultures, this is so clearly evident it's hardly worth discussing. Thankfully this is becoming more common in America with golf's social media events (e.g. Fried Egg, Golfers Journal, or Random Golf Club events), and many thanks to the clubs who choose participate in them.

I don’t disagree with you Matt, but a great many clubs do allow outside play for various reasons. It’s just that they don’t blow a trumpet about it.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I don’t disagree with you Matt, but a great many clubs do allow outside play for various reasons. It’s just that they don’t blow a trumpet about it.

My point is exactly that they ought to. An unadvertised, quite, charity tournament is as much of a welcome mat as a back alley entrance to a speakeasy.

Ben, I appreciate the kind words.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,


I don’t worry about the status of golf in American culture, not when nearly 3/4 of all golf courses in the United States are open to the public.


Then, too, I don’t see how every other course could be made available to everyone who might want to play them. The capacity simply doesn’t exist.


About 25 years ago I played golf with Bob Kain, the co-CEO of IMG and one of the most powerful people in golf. Bob, who was a member of Pine Valley, shared a story about calling the club in February to entertain a client in June and was told:


“we are sorry Mr. Kain, we just don’t have a tee time available that day”.


Honestly, I wasn’t totally surprised. Ernie Ransome’s wife once told me: “every time the phone rings it is someone asking Ernie’s help getting on the course”. (Ernie succeeded John Arthur Brown as club President)


The point is that demand is already so high that prominent members can have difficulty getting a tee time. How would anything more than very limited symbolic access work without denying dues paying members the opportunity to play?


I am not opposed to a private club providing some access for non members. Old Barnwell, like other Aiken, SC clubs does and I think it has the full support of members.


But, I think clubs themselves should have the right to decide how much of this, if any, they provide and don’t see a decision not to do so as “hostile”.


Tim

[Matt Schoolfield]

The point is that demand is already so high that prominent members can have difficulty getting a tee time. How would anything more than very limited symbolic access work without denying dues paying members the opportunity to play one or two more times per year?

I really don't know how to make myself more clear. Yes, I think that sacrificing a few days per year for the public good is more important than squeezing every last drop of golf out for members. Even at insanely oversubscribed clubs like Pine Valley.

We can disagree on this. I understand the counterargument.

[John Handley]

I don’t disagree with you Matt, but a great many clubs do allow outside play for various reasons. It’s just that they don’t blow a trumpet about it.

My point is exactly that they ought to. An unadvertised, quite, charity tournament is as much of a welcome mat as a back alley entrance to a speakeasy.

Ben, I appreciate the kind words.

If you look on any website for clubs in GB&I, it clearly states that they welcome visitors.  The web is open for all.  Not sure what else you think they need to do.  I think it's pretty amazing these wonderful golf clubs (like Muirfield, Sunningdale, Royal County Down) open up their clubs to visitors. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

John, I completely understand and appreciate the generous culture in GB&I. This thread got diverted when I was contrasting that culture with America’s, which came from my concern that the increasing restrictions may harken a move toward an American system.


Thankfully I’m well assured at this point that that is not going to happen.

[Chris Hughes]

The point is that demand is already so high that prominent members can have difficulty getting a tee time. How would anything more than very limited symbolic access work without denying dues paying members the opportunity to play one or two more times per year?

I really don't know how to make myself more clear. Yes, I think that sacrificing a few days per year for the public good is more important than squeezing every last drop of golf out for members. Even at insanely oversubscribed clubs like Pine Valley.

We can disagree on this. I understand the counterargument.

That's just not how it works here pal...

[Sean_A]

I don’t disagree with you Matt, but a great many clubs do allow outside play for various reasons. It’s just that they don’t blow a trumpet about it.

My point is exactly that they ought to. An unadvertised, quite, charity tournament is as much of a welcome mat as a back alley entrance to a speakeasy.

Ben, I appreciate the kind words.

I don’t know about advertising largesse, but I do believe it is in the long term best interest of clubs to be engaged with their local communities and the wider world of golf…and many are.

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

The purely symbolic act of providing limited access, especially at the historic and prestigious archetypes of golf, completely changes the greater public's view of the game. As someone who has spent a substantial amount if time in both cultures, this is so clearly evident it's hardly worth discussing. Thankfully this is becoming more common in America with golf's social media events (e.g. Fried Egg, Golfers Journal, or Random Golf Club events), and many thanks to the clubs who choose participate in them.

Not for nothing, Matt, but I reckon a not-insubstantial amount of the interest in the events you list comes from the mere fact of the host golf courses' exclusivity. It's certainly not the whole appeal, by any means, but part of the attraction of the events is a sort of exclusivity-once-removed: a chance to get through the gates at private clubs as part of another exclusive club. This is how we humans - especially golf-loving American ones - behave. That's why the private club model functions pretty successfully: exclusivity confers value.


This is not a criticism of these events and organizations, by the way. They've found a way to work the system to their advantage helping to build community and also provide positive PR for the private clubs who do choose to open their gates to them on occasion.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I reckon a not-insubstantial amount of the interest in the events you list comes from the mere fact of the host golf courses' exclusivity. It's certainly not the whole appeal, by any means, but part of the attraction of the events is a sort of exclusivity-once-removed: a chance to get through the gates at private clubs as part of another exclusive club. This is how we humans - especially golf-loving American ones - behave. That's why the private club model functions pretty successfully: exclusivity confers value.

Tim G,

That something is successful isn't a reason to think it's good, or something that we should want to replicate.

The concept in the literature is mimetic dominance.^{1, 2} Mimetic desires are basically comparative desires (wanting what other people have), and turning to the collective to derive value. Mimetic dominance, however, is ensuring that mimetic desire creates this perceived value in others, specifically through exclusion. Here we are intentionally creating a caste system, simply so the Brahmin can enjoy the view. (As an aside, it should be no surprise that the relics of American caste are remain in many of these clubs) This is why I started by cautioning against hostility to the general public, because create and reinforcing caste is, in fact, quite hostile when viewed from below.

This is effectively the opposite of generativity, that is, instead of guiding the next generation to make the world a better place, we intentionally make the world worse for the next generation by creating goods with zero-sum value.

[Tim_Weiman]

The point is that demand is already so high that prominent members can have difficulty getting a tee time. How would anything more than very limited symbolic access work without denying dues paying members the opportunity to play one or two more times per year?

I really don't know how to make myself more clear. Yes, I think that sacrificing a few days per year for the public good is more important than squeezing every last drop of golf out for members. Even at insanely oversubscribed clubs like Pine Valley.

We can disagree on this. I understand the counterargument.

Matt,


Actually, there is an opportunity once a year for the public to see and appreciate Pine Valley. Unless I’m mistaken, the annual Crump Cup is open to the public and, if so, a really nice opportunity to see the course and some good golf.


My first visit to Pine Valley was during the Walker Cup in 1985. It was a great experience.


Tim

[Adam G]

Actually, there is an opportunity once a year for the public to see and appreciate Pine Valley. Unless I’m mistaken, the annual Crump Cup is open to the public and, if so, a really nice opportunity to see the course and some good golf.

Sadly Pine Valley has ended this.

[Tim Martin]

Actually, there is an opportunity once a year for the public to see and appreciate Pine Valley. Unless I’m mistaken, the annual Crump Cup is open to the public and, if so, a really nice opportunity to see the course and some good golf.

Sadly Pine Valley has ended this.

That’s a shame as it’s a great day.

[Chris Hughes]

I reckon a not-insubstantial amount of the interest in the events you list comes from the mere fact of the host golf courses' exclusivity. It's certainly not the whole appeal, by any means, but part of the attraction of the events is a sort of exclusivity-once-removed: a chance to get through the gates at private clubs as part of another exclusive club. This is how we humans - especially golf-loving American ones - behave. That's why the private club model functions pretty successfully: exclusivity confers value.

Tim G,

That something is successful isn't a reason to think it's good, or something that we should want to replicate.

What a load of BS.

Pine Valley is undeniably great, period.

It's a privately owned entity -- they should do as they please. (and clearly they know exactly what they are doing)

You have no stake in the situation/entity.

Why do you feel entitled to suggest you know better about what's best for Pine Valley better than the founders & members (stakeholders) know what's best for Pine Valley?'

[Ben Sims]

Chris,


I started this thread because Elie did something somewhat unexpected; they said no to revenue during high season. It will be interesting to me if this becomes a trend and the North Berwicks and Dornochs of the world see a need to do similarly. And then perhaps smaller clubs follow suit. That it morphed into this current conversation isn’t a negative though. It’s a terrific feature of this website.


That to say, I think Matt makes a provocative point. I don’t see a need to browbeat him for bringing up a set of ideas that many American private club members might find odd.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I have similar feelings on your comments and I'm curious if you have any examples of substantial threats US private clubs have faced based in class warfare and/or being poor social stewards?

Sure they have existential threats from acts by mother nature, becoming finally insolvent, or holding off outside developer bids, but outside of the occasional public dust up for a Pine Valley or ANGC (with seemingly minimal consequences), I'm not aware of issues otherwise.

If measuring the pulse of America, I'd say most have their mind on far bigger concerns with massively abundant political and socio-economic problems.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Chris,


I started this thread because Elie did something somewhat unexpected; they said no to revenue during high season. It will be interesting to me if this becomes a trend and the North Berwicks and Dornochs of the world see a need to do similarly. And then perhaps smaller clubs follow suit. That it morphed into this current conversation isn’t a negative though. It’s a terrific feature of this website.

Something in the back of my memory has Elie as different to those clubs. It has always had a huge summer holiday influx and I’m recalling that “casual member” may indeed be a summer member.


I could be wrong however. We have one or two members on here who might correct me.

[Matt Schoolfield]

outside of the occasional public dust up for a Pine Valley or ANGC (with seemingly minimal consequences), I'm not aware of issues otherwise.

Again, the negative impacts fall on the whole of golf culture, and usually not on the private clubs themselves. So, there are asymmetries here. I could discuss tax policy, and potential chances and problems some clubs might face, but that's not really what's lost.

What's really lost is summed up by Golf Digest writer Joel Beall, in a recent interview for ClubTFE. He was asked by Will Knights about an experience that embodied the culture of golf in Scotland (paywalled, quote at 24:12):

Yeah, for me the place it became crystalized was a course called Carradale...

It's everything to me that's good about golf. Maybe 50, 60 people belong there, in the town. It's one of those places where there's no one actually working the clubhouse you just kind of put your money on the box. The reason why I say Carradale is, when the pandemic hit, Scotland had a lot more stringent shutdown rules than the United States, and part of that was if you work at a golf course, you can't touch it. It's basically for need only. So, the course reaches out and, and like, listen, the place is going to become overgrown if we don't touch it. They already have only one person on staff and their already kinda hurting. The police department came back and said "sorry, now if you had volunteers come out and help, that'd be one thing, but you just can't have anybody affiliated with the course come out to the club." So Carradale sends a message to all the people in town, just "Hey, here's what they said. This is what we can do, if anyone's around we're going to try to meet tomorrow at 8am. We have to keep our distance but the course hasn't been touched in two weeks. We got to do something."

So, the club president shows up the next day, and like 60 people are lined up with their mowers... The police department, the very person who told them "hey, you can't do this, but volunteers..." they came out as well.

And I bring this story up just because, these clubs are the connective tissue in so many of these smaller towns in Scotland... the clubs are essentially the town halls, they are the lifeblood of the towns, and without them the towns don't have much. The fact that everyone's willing to come together to sacrifice. As we mentioned earlier that everybody can play, that they always make sure that everyone can play, that's what really spoke to me of, gosh, like, this is what we need more of in the states, of people coming together, and finding their community at their club.

When you move to a system of exclusion, as much of American system is, that sentiment is just gone, and it will probably be gone forever. It's gone forever because nobody is going to give a shit about your club if you don't care to invite the community in.

What you get in return is a status ladder. The club becomes more than a fun place to play golf. It becomes a vehicle to get onto other courses. Combine this with reciprocal relationships and you've ended up trying to reproduce the exact sense of community within the system that destroyed it. It makes so much sense that Americans created the course ranking system, because rank here matters. For better or worse, it provides access. In Scotland there isn't really a point because people can just play the courses that suit them.

If that's what some people want, I mean, that's their business, but I think it's clearly bad for the game. Golf is part of the soul of Scottish culture. And as I noted earlier, in America more often than not, it's seen as a sport for rich pricks, and that is very unfortunate.

Again, not everyone shares my views and that's fine. I'm just trying to articulate some of the consequences of an exclusionary system.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,


I don’t want to keep making the same point, but the “exclusionary system” of golf in America has about 75% of golf courses open to the public. That doesn’t seem very exclusionary.


Let me add one thing. When I got out of school I joined The Standard Oil Company in Cleveland. Since that time I have played a lot of public course golf, including the two well known Cleveland Metroparks courses (Manakiki and Sleepy Hollow).


I can’t recall a single time when any golfer complained about not being able to play the private courses in the area, e.g., Canterbury. It just seems to me people care more about the availability of affordable golf than occasionally playing a private course.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I don’t want to keep making the same point, but the “exclusionary system” of golf in America has about 75% of golf courses open to the public. That doesn’t seem very exclusionary.

I can barely grasp you're point here. 25%, 1 in 4 courses, is an absolutely huge amount of exclusion. There is effectively no other institution in America that comes close to this much "you can't participate here" except maybe the university system, which at least pretends to be a meritocracy, and the inequality of legacy admissions is currently being overturned in many states because of exactly the points I'm making here. The greater populace sees these universities of being bad stewards of their prestige, and changes the rules.

Beyond that, this isn't even a separate but equal situation. Everyone knows that the aspirational courses, the archetypes, the historic courses, the ones where tournaments are played, the courses that represent golf in America... they're almost exclusively private. Golf Digest's list: 15% are public. Golf Mag's list: 20% are public. Of the American top ten courses literally none, on both lists, are publicly accessible. To push this point further, a large segment of those public courses are just Mike Keiser, just one man who cares about golf being publicly accessible has bumped those numbers up significantly.

Let me add one thing. When I got out of school I joined The Standard Oil Company in Cleveland. Since that time I have played a lot of public course golf, including the two well known Cleveland Metroparks courses (Manakiki and Sleepy Hollow).

I can’t recall a single time when any golfer complained about not being able to play the private courses in the area, e.g., Canterbury. It just seems to me people care more about the availability of affordable golf than occasionally playing a private course.

Let's say some SF local at Harding Park gets paired with a guy who has a SFGC bag tag on his bag. Even if the person didn't immediately see it as an opportunity to possibly get access, do you think that person is going to be intentionally rude by bringing up the how he thinks SFGC are snobby jerks because they don't engage with their community? This person will just be trying to have a nice time playing golf. It's not the right space to discuss that. Anecdote and anecdata in this case are going to be wildly unreliable in this case because the entire system is based around asymmetric access, and therefore asymmetric behavior. In American polling golf shows up dead last in popularity, literally tied with esports (competitive video games). In Scotland, the archetype is a bunch of random townsfolk with come help their local, technically private, club keep their course in order because they know it's an important institution in their town. It's just a stark difference from my point of view.

[John Mayhugh]

In Scotland, the archetype is a bunch of random townsfolk with come help their local, technically private, club keep their course in order because they know it's an important institution in their town. It's just a stark difference from my point of view.

Matt,
 
You’re either being disingenuous or don’t understand what the word archetype means.
 
I’ve no doubt that Carradale Golf Club is an important institution in its town of 577 people. But it’s silly to compare its relationship to the community with that of the top US clubs that you seem to have such distaste for. In one of your posts, you mention San Francisco GC. There are probably more than a million people living within a ten mile radius from that course. More people live in the San Francisco metro area than all of Scotland. It’s simply not possible for that sort of club to have the same degree of community integration that a small town course does.
 
If the Carradale community involvement is such an archetype, that should also mean that the similar types of support are seen at the more aspirational clubs such as Prestwick, Muirfield, & Dornoch. Where are those articles? 
 
There are plenty of stories across the US about “technically private” courses having a close relationship with their communities, but this is understandably more common in smaller towns – just as in Scotland. Here’s an example. Can I now call it an archetype for US private golf clubs?
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70551.msg1696308.html#msg1696308