have greater consideration for the will and whim of the general American golfer, and if not why not? Should the USGA attempt to determine better what the everyday American golfer really wants, should it attempt to better follow his lead?

If it shouldn't, then should the USGA act the part of the "elistist"---eg the part of "the leader"? And if not, why not?  

What should it be? Is it possible to have it both ways and have golf (and architecture?) remain healthy and vibrant into the future?

Should the USGA trust the will of the every day American golfer?

Do you?

If not, are most of those on here (and their opinions) the real elitists in American golf?

Tom,

The USGA should be in the business of protecting and defending the game of golf.  Given that only 10% - 15% of those out on courses actually play the game, the USGA is elitist from the get go.  If the USGA were to move to a centrist postition for the average American golf coure visitor, the rule book would have to change very quickly.  The entire game would need to be defined by perpetual winter rules, one mulligan a side, abolition of the lost ball and OB penalties, introduction of the line of flight concept for determining drops, etc...  I think it would be a very slippery slope.  I wonder how many USGA individual members are even actually golfers who play according to the rules?  All the more reason why the USGA should abandon the individual membershhip and go back to being supported by the clubs themselves.  After all its about the game not the dues, right?

Cheers!
JT

Jim:

I appreciate your honest opinion. You are a bone fide "elitist". Do you deny it? And if you do, how can you?

These are loaded questions!

Tom, In your original post you mention "the everyday american golfer".

In my mind, that is someone who golfs more than 4-5 times a year. Would you agree that the majority of American golfers account for less rounds total, than the 5 million who golf anywhere from 30-300 rounds a year?

Who should the USGA devote their money, time, and, efforts protecting?

James:

Any golf club in America has the option of being a member club of the USGA. If a golf club joins the USGA I don't believe they pass that cost (if there is one) on to the individual members of that club. Individuals have the option of being a member of the USGA. This arrangement is different for members and member clubs of various state, regional and local golf associations.

So, Adam, you feel a golfer's opinion should be considered by the USGA in relation to the amount of rounds he plays?

That's interesting.  

Sorry Tom,

Didn't mean to offend.

The USGA should try to determine what the average American golfer wants. It should evaluate that and determine what of that it feels most important for it to facilitate. Then facilitate.
E.g., if it finds the average golfer wants more low cost municipal golf options, it could promote public golf to municipalities, perhaps even establish grants.

Thanks Jim Thompson (and TEP)

the USGA site answered my questions.  Looks like an individual pays a similar rate to us in Australia, except our 'membership' is automatic and passed through by our clubs.  More efficient money collection (our club pays about $25,000 to the State association in a single annual cheque) but less feeling of membership from the individual.

Who pays and how they pay can influence the activity of an organisation.  Just imagine how governments would operate if taxation was optional!

James B

"Tom Paul,
Are the terms LEADER and ELITIST synonymous?"

Sully:

Excellent question. The answer, in my opinion, is both yes and no.

Historically the term or concept of "elitism" actually was that of leadership or the perceived "social responsibility" of leadership in some ways, in some areas and in some sense.

Philosophies, cultural, political and otherwise such as "noblese Oblige" were initially that "the educated" had a social responsibility to work for the betterment of humankind. Were there cultural, political and economic abuses in the application of philosophies such as that? You bet there were but in theory they were perhaps noble concepts.

Leadership was the vehicle---with elitistism, responsible leadership of all by the educated (propertied).

This was classical governance that was generally applied across the world in one form or another and throughout history up and until the remarkable experiment in governance America that finally shot to hell the classical concept of the complete necessity of unified power or unified leadership.

Today a word like "elitism" has taken on a far more perjorative meaning than it used to have---eg that of exclusiveness and even snobbishness.

It wasn't always that way. In many ways it gets back to that age old question of political life and the politician---eg does one lead those one represents with educated and superior ideas or does one simply follow what he perceives to be the will of those he represents?

Does the representative lead those he represents through his own conscience and principles or does he merely act upon the results of effective polls of those he represents?

"TE..
Why don't you quit complaining?
Please accept that the more people who come onto to this board, the more people who read, consider, learn, and eventually gather the cajones to actually try to contribute .. then the more the message gets spread.
Having read through your multitude of posts, I have fervent respect for your encyclopedic knowledge of so many things GCA related.  I have learned a lot from your observations, and always look forward to reading new ones.
But if you and some of the other self-appointed guardians of all that is GCA can't accept the input, questions and observations of us less holy than thou, then maybe you should think about taking your expertise elsewhere.
Quit whining.
Gary"

Gary Daughters;

It's always inevitable that people like you come on here and automatically assume there are a few "guardians" of whatever on this website and that those "guardians" rue the fact of newcomers and/or their opinions. There are no "guardians" of this website that I'm aware of---other than perhaps Ran Morrissett who has the capacity to actually moderate this website in fact.

I'm not whinning at all---I simply have opinions and on threads like this one sometimes strong opinions, and I'm simply expressing those opinions---I'm asking questions as well as supplying some of my own opinions to potential answers to those questions.

If I, or others, occasionally mention that the content on this website sometimes slips toward the less thoughtful then that's our perogative---that's anyone's perogative on here.

Believe me, I'm not going anywhere and I expect you aren't either. Just learn to deal with it---it's the way GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is, always has been, and probably always will be.

Some come on here and say they feel intimidated. Why is that? Because some on here have strong opinions? I think that's a good thing. And from time to time it is reiterated that a constant striving for consensus or agreement is probably not the healthiest way to go on this website or its discussion section.

A constant dynamic of opinion is the way to go. At least that's been the way those who have been on here from the beginning have always felt.

It's more interesting that way, and more real and representative of the world of golf and golf architecture. Sure it gets critical, adverserial and tough sometimes. Who cares, other than those who have particularly thin skins or over-arching egos?

This discussion group can be like a barroom in Dodge City on a Friday night, and generally that's not particularly boring.  

I can take your criticisms, and I can and do consider them---they certainly don't intimidate me. I think they are a good thing---I think it's the way it should be on here.

Should the USGA trust the will of the every day American golfer?- TEPaul

No, they should never let the inmates run the asylum.

Tom,
No, I think they keep a reasonably good watch over the game.
The stronger they remain, the better it is for golf.

Hmmmm...when I'm out golfing with the boys, we/I never think about the USGA....

And maybe that's the problem....not that we don't think about the USGA, but rather, the USGA thinks too much about US!!

Perhap's they should focus less on the people that play the game, and more on "the game"?

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to compose such a thoughtful response.

I thought it over this morning and realized how galactically assinine it was of me to suggest that you take your knowledge elsewhere.  

(insert "smilie" that smacks itself on head)

Sorry for that one.

Cheers,
Gary