GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
What constitutes a "golf club"?
Matt Schoolfield:
--- Quote from: Matt Schoolfield on March 26, 2025, 07:04:11 PM ---1. The platonic way is to try to delve in to what the essence of golfness and clubness are and try to hash out what that is.
2. The deductive way is basically to look at what legally constitutes a club organized by golf, and just point to that.
3. The analytic way is to just point at a bunch of golf clubs and say it's something like those things.
--- End quote ---
I will admit that I actually lean toward Ben in my thoughts on this thread. It has been incredibly frustrating, which is why I tried to preempt any comment like this by laying out the general concepts in philosophy of language, which is what studied in graduate school.
I think the reason why this conception can be so frustrating has a lot to do with how language works. A prescriptive framework for language means that we, effectively, defer to an authority. This position is arguably instinctual, but linguists have pretty much abandoned this position as it is simply very bad at reflecting how language works. A descriptive framework better describes language, but this means that we're all kind of fighting for our preferred system.
In this way, folks that are arguing the nuances between a "country club" and a "golf club" are having a very different conversation from everyone else. They are having a conversation that effectively makes sense, but can seem incredibly misguided or even nonsensical to anyone who sees the distinction as a kind of regional dialect at best. I think a big part of why this can be pretty aggravating is that the distinction is deeply culturally coded, even if I can perfectly see the distinctions being made.
The problem here is that the type of "golf club" being discussed, is very obviously a subtype of "golf club" that has (1) a course or some special access to a course, (2) some kind of limited membership, (3) does not have access to attributes that more general clubs have. This is all well and good in a very American private club system, but the problem is that the language being use here for "golf club" is just way too broad to clearly communicate that we are talking about a niche submeaning.
For example, is some local eclub that has members that play together a "golf club"? To the vast majority of native English speakers, it very obviously is. Is a country club that focuses on golf a "golf club"? To the vast majority of native English speakers, the term "golf club" very obviously applies, even if it's not the very best term to the niche audience of golf enthusiasts like us. Here, it's important to remember that this niche kind of language isn't plain language, it's technical language, it's jargon. When we take an extremely commonly used term like "golf club" and talking about a technical use, we are effectively creating a homonym. Which is why the phase, "well there are golf clubs, and then there are golf clubs" makes sense.
So, and again I apologize for being so verbose. I want y'all to feel free to discuss these nuances till the cows come home. The difference between a "country club" and a "golf club" is a sensible distinction in a narrow sense, but please please, I'm begging you, don't conflate the term "golf club" that exists in opposition to "country club" with the term "golf club" that just means "club who's purpose is organizing the playing of golf," which are two very distinct terms.
Charlie Goerges:
--- Quote from: Matt Schoolfield on March 30, 2025, 05:23:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Matt Schoolfield on March 26, 2025, 07:04:11 PM ---1. The platonic way is to try to delve in to what the essence of golfness and clubness are and try to hash out what that is.
2. The deductive way is basically to look at what legally constitutes a club organized by golf, and just point to that.
3. The analytic way is to just point at a bunch of golf clubs and say it's something like those things.
--- End quote ---
I will admit that I actually lean toward Ben in my thoughts on this thread. It has been incredibly frustrating, which is why I tried to preempt any comment like this by laying out the general concepts in philosophy of language, which is what studied in graduate school.
I think the reason why this conception can be so frustrating has a lot to do with how language works. A prescriptive framework for language means that we, effectively, defer to an authority. This position is arguably instinctual, but linguists have pretty much abandoned this position as it is simply very bad at reflecting how language works. A descriptive framework better describes language, but this means that we're all kind of fighting for our preferred system.
In this way, folks that are arguing the nuances between a "country club" and a "golf club" are having a very different conversation from everyone else. They are having a conversation that effectively makes sense, but can seem incredibly misguided or even nonsensical to anyone who sees the distinction as a kind of regional dialect at best. I think a big part of why this can be pretty aggravating is that the distinction is deeply culturally coded, even if I can perfectly see the distinctions being made.
The problem here is that the type of "golf club" being discussed, is very obviously a subtype of "golf club" that has (1) a course or some special access to a course, (2) some kind of limited membership, (3) does not have access to attributes that more general clubs have. This is all well and good in a very American private club system, but the problem is that the language being use here for "golf club" is just way too broad to clearly communicate that we are talking about a niche submeaning.
For example, is some local eclub that has members that play together a "golf club"? To the vast majority of native English speakers, it very obviously is. Is a country club that focuses on golf a "golf club"? To the vast majority of native English speakers, the term "golf club" very obviously applies, even if it's not the very best term to the niche audience of golf enthusiasts like us. Here, it's important to remember that this niche kind of language isn't plain language, it's technical language, it's jargon. When we take an extremely commonly used term like "golf club" and talking about a technical use, we are effectively creating a homonym. Which is why the phase, "well there are golf clubs, and then there are golf clubs" makes sense.
So, and again I apologize for being so verbose. I want y'all to feel free to discuss these nuances till the cows come home. The difference between a "country club" and a "golf club" is a sensible distinction in a narrow sense, but please please, I'm begging you, don't conflate the term "golf club" that exists in opposition to "country club" with the term "golf club" that just means "club who's purpose is organizing the playing of golf," which are two very distinct terms.
--- End quote ---
I understand yours and Ben's frustration, but this is what folks around here mean by that. We run into similar problems when defining Links or defining Sport vs Game etc. It can feel like a slow-motion car crash when observing it.
Carl Johnson:
I don't see the issue as one of a "right answer." I take the question "What constitutes a 'golf club'?" to ask what does it mean to you. There is no wrong answer. I find it interesting to hear the different perspectives. I have mine (above, reply 44), and no one is going to change my mind about what I believe until I hear something that strikes me as a little closer to my thinking than what I've expressed it so far. I don't take this as a challenge for critical thinking and analysis (although that's a fair approach if that's your cup of tea).
Sean_A:
Carl and WW are in the right area. A club is people coming together to play golf. The club doesn’t need to own a course or a house. I think the test is obviously GolfClubAtlas. Are we a club?
Ciao
Chris Hughes:
--- Quote from: Sean_A on April 01, 2025, 04:14:33 AM ---Carl and WW are in the right area. A club is people coming together to play golf. The club doesn’t need to own a course or a house. I think the test is obviously GolfClubAtlas. Are we a club?
Ciao
--- End quote ---
Conceptually a "club" without a course is a nice idea, but in real life it's extraordinarily rare. The overarching reason golfers join a "golf club" is for access to the golf course said club owns (or controls).
Now, as for the "house", that's an interesting subject -- how much value do golfers place on the "house"? (clubhouse)
How important is the clubhouse at a "golf club"?
An architecturally significant course with $440 dues and basic "house" facilities that allow for a burger, beer & shower?
The same course with $1300 dues and a big fancy/modern clubhouse, wine dinners, weddings and a "business center"?
Which model resonates with, "golfers"....?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version