News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Private clubs
« on: April 16, 2005, 09:39:40 AM »
Can anyone tell me why so many golf clubs in the US are strictly private?  By that I mean that they do not allow green-fee paying visitors other than members' guests.  Presumably these were set up in this way from the very start.  Their model pre-1914, clubs in Scotland, were (with a few exceptions) certainly not so secretive.  Nor those in the rest of Britain, the occasional Rye or Swinley Forest excepted.  We do have the odd Loch Lomond and Wisley which is members only, but almost any private club in the British Isles will accept a number of visitors unintroduced.  OK, it might be expensive, you might have to bring your birthright and you may have to book several years in advance, but if you are wealthy enough you can do it.  

Jason Hines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2005, 10:59:05 AM »
Hi Mark,

I am sure there are several reasons or theories of why there are so many private clubs in the States of which I do not have all of the answers.  However, I can tell you the reasons why I personally joined a private club.  Keep in mind, these are my generalizations.

I do not have 5 hours to play golf.  Whether its from poor marshalling of the courses, the weekend cart golfer etc.

For the most part when you join a club, you are around people that take the game more serious and it’s just as big part of their lives as yours.

Course conditions tend to be better as well.

I also know several other people at my club that joined for their children, such as a pool, tennis courts, gym and the dinning.   Then there are the people that like their perceived social status.

Just a few of my theories.

Jason

Kyle Harris

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2005, 11:24:52 AM »
Mark,

The concept of the Social Club predates golf, and at the time period you are speaking of, a lot of our more famous golf clubs of today were devoted to many other sports (Merion Crricket Club, for example). Golf just happened to become popular with the members at these social and dining clubs so as a result, the clubs started to build golf courses. Many clubs were forced to relocate their first courses during the so-called golden age and the result is some of our most beloved golf courses.

As time went on, many clubs began to splinter and form other clubs for one reason or the other and the concept of the "golf only" club was born. Read Wayne Morrison's piece about Rolling Green in "My Home Course" for one such instance of this happening.

I kinda rushed through that, but that's the general idea.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs New
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2005, 11:32:34 AM »
Mark, I think part of it is the way the fees and dues are set up.  with initiation fees any where from ten to 250,000 dollars, members are reluctant to share the course with non-dues paying unescorted guests. 
The thing I find most interesting is that we Americans pride ourselves on being a democratic society that doesn’t have class distinctions.  England, which seems at least to outsiders, to have distinct classes offers "Artisan memberships" at many private clubs at a fraction of the cost of full members. 
We also don't have the Golf Societies over here that play a variety of private
clubs.
As a traveller I appreciate the opportunity to play the great courses in Brittain and Ireland.  I wish we could have some kind of recirpocity with overseas visitors.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 11:15:37 AM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2005, 11:45:42 AM »
"In aristocracies men are separated from each other by lofty stationary barriers; in democracies they are divided by a number of small and almost invisible threads, which are constantly broken or moved from place to place. Thus, whatever may be the progress of equality, in democratic nations a great number of small private communities will always be formed within the general pale of political society; but none of them will bear any resemblance in its manners to the highest class in aristocracies."

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, Volume II
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Gib_Papazian

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2005, 12:12:09 PM »
Mark,

My sense has always been that many clubs in the U.K. encourage outside play for the additional revenue stream. Places like Dornoch are ridiculously cheap for members - in part - because of all the Americans.

Remember though, America is sprawling nation and the culture of the game is vastly different depending on where you live.

You guys (I am assuming you're in the UK) have less players per golf course and after the summer season, you can walk onto your local track with little hassle or even a tee time.

At first, Americans formed private clubs because of prejudice against other groups. Protestants did not want to be around Catholics (read: Italians or Irish), so the Catholics formed their own clubs.

Jews were barred entry, so they built their own enclaves.

Although this situation is not as endemic to the West Coast, much of the American East is still divided along racial and religous lines.

Nobody wants to admit it, but pure prejudice is the engine that drove much of the golf course construction in America.

Country Clubs here have an insular mentality. As the game has grown in popularity here in the states, the better courses - often private - are in great demand.

The truth is we have a class system of sorts here. Country Club members do not wish to endure playing behind a group of "scorecard and pencil" players wandering aimlessly down the fairway like a lost Arab Caravan.

American golfers are far ruder and less tuned into the spirit of the game than their UK counterparts. You guys pick up your ball when out of the hole and move along.

Here, if you pay the jing, you are entitled to play it out to the bitter end, even if there is a backup.

Plus, our courses are too difficult. Cigar smoking, cart driving Yuppies who cannot hit their ass with both hands insist on playing the 7200 yard tees and take forever.

So, IMNSHO, if our courses were more resonable, user friendly and we controlled who gets to play which tees, I think that clubs might be more inclined to let outsiders play.

As it is right now, we opened the floodgates at Olympic when the "City Athletic Club" members were given the right to play after paying a green fee. Many of these "new" players resemble the aforementioned Yuppies.

It has turned an intimate club into an over-run, over-played muni. In some measure, we are a cautionary tale of what happens when you loosen the rules at a private club. . . . . there is no turning back now. We are doomed.


TEPaul

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2005, 12:34:13 PM »
Tommy Williamsen said;

"The thing I find most interesting is that we Americans pride ourselves on being a democratic socieety that don't have class distinctions.  England, which seems at least to outsiders, to have distinct classes offers "Artisan memberships"  membership at many private clubs at a fraction of the cost of full members.  
We also don't have the Golf Societies over here that play a variety of private clubs."

It is interesting how things evolved over here in almost the opposite way one would've thought the Briiush Isles would be. It's even more interesting as most of the original private golf clubs in American were basically extremely Anglo-Saxon in culture and ethnicity. There's little question in this country the thing that seemingly created class is just money or wealth which is also different from the British Isles (America never had primogeniture basically because they never seemed to need it).

Today private clubs in America are treated slightly different from those that are not private which includes not having to conform to some OSHA laws and other government regulations. For this they maintain a so-called "privacy" status which can mean they cannot generate more than app 15% of their annual income from any outside source. The latter may be one of the prime reasons private clubs in America are as restrictive to outside play as many are.

The maintenance of a club's "privacy" status also has one really interesting effect in America today---essentially it means these types of "private" clubs do not have to conform to federal and state "anti-discrimination" laws. There is a constitutional right in this country that isn't often mentioned but in effect it is the opposite or flip-side of the coin of "anti-discrimination" laws. It's sometimes referred to as our "right of freedom of association", meaning, provided a group of people conform to certain statutes and such they have the right to associate with whomever they please which means they have the right to refuse to associate with whomever they please (as a club).

(In a real sense if Martha Burk continued to press ANGC (the private club not the Masters tournament) in a legal manner, the club ANGC, would have been glad to meet her in the Georgia and US courts all the way to the US Supreme Court! I believe they had no doubt they would win their case to be and remain under the "private" club status they are under which in effect means they have the legal right to refuse membership to anyone they want to---in their case women! That is not the type of case the US Supreme Court really wants to see coming their way in this day and age of an American "anti-discrimination" mentality but if Burk pressed that case for some reason I believe ANGC would've been glad to take it all the way to the highest court in the country and I believe they would, without question, have won. (That is provided Burk could not prove ANGC was violating privacy statutes by filtering too many Masters tournament revenues into the private club solely inuring to the benefit of the club's private members).


« Last Edit: April 16, 2005, 12:55:30 PM by TEPaul »

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2005, 12:56:18 PM »
Mark

I'm convinced that one of the main reasons there are relatively few participants, here on GCA, from Britain/Europe/Australia is because of the restrictive access to the top clubs in the USA.

If the average chap, with an strong interest in golf courses, could plan a holiday and hop on a plane to the USA to play:  NGLA, Shinnecock, Crypress et al, there would certainly be far more participants.  (More participants from with the USA too.)

The different policy has always been in place, not sure why.   The British model was adopted in Australia and Continental Europe.

Couldn't a few of the really big name USA clubs adopt a limited ballot policy like for The Old Course.  And stay within the tax laws?

can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Matt_Ward

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2005, 01:09:36 PM »
From my many travels here in the States and abroad I have to say in general terms -- the situation Gib descibed is prevalent in the American east. Part of that stems from the power / ego situation -- the notion that something is "mine" and far less related to the sharing of the game of golf. Clearly, a desire to assemble with whom wishes is also at play here.

I don't doubt across the pond the desire to take in additonal dollars is one key reason for the allowance of guests. The issue here in America is an abiding love for two words -- private property. In sum -- you can look from the street but don't dare even begin to think you may come onto the grounds -- no matter how much people may love the game.

A pity.

Paul T:

I believe if private clubs were to do what you have suggested they would be subject to even more scrutiny since there cannot be a truly part-time private golf club. I completely concur with your thoughts though / re: ballot provisions.


Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2005, 01:18:56 PM »
Mark

Do you think the boom in golf tourism in  Ireland and Scotland is down to the average American/Japanese not being able to play their own great and famous courses?  

I think so, look at the success of Bandon.  I bet more than a few Californians have gone there instead of catching a 12 hour flight to play Turnberry.

Has this spoiled the British/Irish clubs?  I think the big ones are certainly overcharging for green fees now.  It used to be a fairly casual arrangement, allowing players to play all private courses at a reasonable fee.  But now the average chap in the UK can barely afford to play the famous courses!!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2005, 01:19:26 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Gib_Papazian

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2005, 01:46:23 PM »
Paul,
The success of Bandon has nothing whatsoever to do with inaccessability to private clubs. Links golf is far more fun. The joy of using the contours of the ground to direct your ball is a completely different thought process than the aerial courses prevalent today in America.

It astounds me that many of the newer courses built on your side of the pond seem to emulate the worst of American golf architecture. Glenegales has the King's, Queen's . . . . . and a Nicklaus course with cart paths?

Americans go across the pond for the same reason they go to Bandon.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of players on any given day at Bandon belong to private clubs already - and I'll double the bet that a high percentage come from what would be described as some of the top clubs in America.

Maybe we ought to ask the great "Shoe." He knows everybody and where they come from.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2005, 01:49:36 PM by Gib Papazian »

TEPaul

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2005, 01:56:23 PM »
Tom MacWood:

In all seriousness what happened is federal, state and local governments began putting more and more restrictions on private clubs. Although the increased restrictions may've been intended by the governements to somehow make the private clubs loosen up somehow, in fact, it by necessity had the exact opposite effect.

In the last ten years the IRS and the federal government tried to persumably improve the lot of caddies but it almost whipped out the profession before a stand-alone federal bill granted them permanent "independent contractor" status.

TEPaul

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2005, 02:02:21 PM »
"Couldn't a few of the really big name USA clubs adopt a limited ballot policy like for The Old Course.  And stay within the tax laws?"

Paul:

No they could not. What do you think the chances are of changing those tax laws? Essentially these private American clubs are not permitted to have a profit motive derived from "outside" income (over 15% of their annual income).

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2005, 02:08:18 PM »
When I grew up in the 60's in Chicago, there were very few public courses of any quality that weren't 5.5 hour rounds.

The overbuilding of golf courses is really of recent vintage, and many Chicago clubs are suffering as a result.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2005, 02:13:09 PM »
I blame Clifford Roberts.

Doubt Clifford Roberts had much to do with founding places like Merion or Brookline or Winged Foot. ;D
Best
Dave

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2005, 02:17:35 PM »
The reluctance of reciprocity is that in this day and age of escalating initiation fees, the guy who has just forked out a couple of hundred thousand dollars to join a club, wants it to be there for his use and enjoyment. The idea of non-members playing in front of him is offputting. I am not saying this is right, but it is a fact.

There are certain clubs that I know of, that the influx of new members is quite different from that of of the those of just twenty years ago.

I know of one club in this part of the world, that not one new member who has been admitted in the last three or four years, is not a member of at least one and sometimes, two or three other clubs.

Private golf clubs in America are elitest, as is Muirfield, but Muirfield likes the money!

JohnV

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2005, 03:08:19 PM »
"Couldn't a few of the really big name USA clubs adopt a limited ballot policy like for The Old Course.  And stay within the tax laws?"

Paul:

No they could not. What do you think the chances are of changing those tax laws? Essentially these private American clubs are not permitted to have a profit motive derived from "outside" income (over 15% of their annual income).


The clubs could do it if they were willing to become for-profit enterprises.  Some of the smaller clubs around Pittsburgh have done this.  One, in particular, was making so much money of its banquet room rentals that it just bit the bullet and became for-profit.  But, even when they did that, they didn't open up the golf course.

When Pumpkin Ridge first opened to much acclaim, there were calls coming in all the time from the pros at well known private clubs seeking access for their members.  Our pro-shop adopted a policy that if the other club would allow our members to go there and play, we would all their members to come and play.  In most cases this worked just fine.  But, in one case, a club in Southern California refused to allow our members to play there so our pro told their pro that we were sorry but his member couldn't play.  Either the pro down there didn't tell the member or the member just figured he could bluff his way on and showed up anyway.  Somewhat embarassing for everyone concerned when he was told firmly that he couldn't play.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2005, 04:39:46 PM »
Mark,

It's primarily due to the legal environment and encroachemt of government into clubs NOT declared, "stricly private".

Clubs that permit public access must abide by public policy and therein lies the rub.

Even private clubs that permited unaccompanied guests were declared subject to public policy as determined by the State of their domicile.

Tom MacWood,

I think your guess as to the timing of the tides of change is about right.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Private clubs
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2005, 05:00:25 PM »
Mark

There are 2 books on the history of private clubs in America. From amazon.com reviews:

1.Golf and The American Country Club by Richard J. Moss

 Editorial Reviews
Product Description:
In this entertaining cultural history, Richard J. Moss explores the circumstances that led to the firm establishment of the country club as an American social institution and its inextricable connection to the ancient, imported game of golf.

The founders of the early country clubs sought to counter the nationalization and standardization of American life by creating closed, controlled communities that reminded them of the village America being snuffed out by industrialization. Initially little more than informal groups of friends playing golf in pastures and orchards, country clubs were soon draped in "instant" history and prestige and their members distinguished by uniform dress. By 1901, the country clubs that had sprouted all over the country had undergone another change, becoming "country estates" in the suburbs where the prosperous registered their social status.

The transformation of the club from country retreat to suburban playground went hand in hand with a widespread shift in attitudes toward health and sport. Golf was perceived as a democratic game, one that was physically sedate enough to accommodate players of both genders and all ages and that employed a handicap system to level the playing field. Other factors spurred the growth and expansion of country clubs in the 1920s: the advent of professional golf architects, the rise of public golf courses, increased discretionary time and income for many Americans, and a shift away from the Protestant ethic of deferred gratification toward values that justified increased leisure and pleasure.

The Depression brought this expansion to a screeching halt. After World War II the business of golf changed, with public and private daily-fee courses, corporate country clubs, and gated golfing communities, as on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, presenting steep competition for the private clubs. Moreover, the clubs confronted demands for equal access by minorities and women.

Pairing a conversational tone with rock-solid scholarship, Golf and the American Country Club offers a readable and even-handed treatment of a venerable and controversial American institution.

2. The American Country Club: Its Origins and Development by James M. Mayo

From Publishers Weekly
The words "country club" are almost always accompanied by the word "exclusive" and images of cultural islands of economic power, social status and minority discrimination. Here, Mayo, professor in the School of Architecture and Urban Design at the Univ. of Kansas and author of The American Grocery Store, traces their history from the dining clubs of the early 1800s, through the city clubs, and then the blossoming of country clubs in the first decades of the 20th century. The rise of the American country club coincided with suburbanization, new methods of transportation and the desire of the elite to separate themselves from the lower classes. But Mayo goes beyond social and economic history. For example, he includes philosophical debates about the country club as an exemplar of republican (little r) values: one magazine writer went so far as to say "[t]he country club seems almost destined to satisfy the somewhat communistic dream" of such utopian experiments as Brook Farm. The role of sports, of women, of the Great Depression, of WWII and of the rebellious 1960s are all reflected in the changing face of the country club and are all adeptly and readably charted by Mayo. Last but not least, this is also a fascinating study of the growth of an American business?how problems of transportation, location, rules, management, activities, design and maintenance led to new solutions and new problems. Mayo turns one pocket of American history inside out to show how the country club reflects not just wealth, but America's political landscape.



"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Mark_F

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2005, 06:41:50 PM »

I'm convinced that one of the main reasons there are relatively few participants, here on GCA, from Britain/Europe/Australia is because of the restrictive access to the top clubs in the USA.


No, Paul, it's because we don't want to run into Lou Duran.

There's obviously some wonderful stuff in America, but you can play Pacific Dunes and Pinehurst Number two easily, if expensively, enough, and see pretty much the best there is, no?

The rest are just name dropping trophies - albeit nice ones, I would imagine.

We can sate our desires by the UK, and now, Barnbougle.  And soon, The Fingal course at StAB.



Mark_F

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2005, 06:42:40 PM »
Hell.

How does this damn quote stuff work?

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2005, 07:08:28 PM »
Mark,

If you do a quick search at golfcourse.com, there are 12,000+ public, resort or semi-private courses that come up in the US. There are 4300 private courses in the US. Obviously many of the better courses are private, and certainly many of the favorites here at GCA are private.

Look at the founding members of the USGA:

St. Andrew’s,
Shinnecock Hills,
Chicago Golf Club,
Newport CC
The Country Club at Brookline

Golf at this time was a "club sport" that needed to find people willing to foot the bill for the cost of building the golf courses. It had to a "rich man's sport" at the beginning to build the courses. It had to be a fairly small affluent group that could afford it, thus they needed to create close knit clubs to fund the economics. Then it grew to many of the suggestions above.

I was a guest this winter at The Racquet Club on Park Avenue in NYC. They play a game there called "Racquets" that is played on a court with 4 walls probably 2/3 the size of a traditional tennis court with very high ceilings. I have been in there 3 or 4 times over the past 10 years and have never seen a player playing! However, they have a small loyal following that fund it, because if they ever thought how much they could sell that wasted space for on Park Avenue, it would pay for many golf memberships on Long Island!

The economics here of joining a private club rarely work in terms of $ per round private versus public.

ForkaB

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2005, 03:04:05 AM »
What exactly would be the consequences of a private club being deemed "public" vis a vis the law?  So far I've heard:

1.  Have to be subject to OSHA regulations.  How would this be a bad thing?
2.  Taxation.  What is really involved here, % or $ wise? Private clubs in the UK are subject to corporate taxation on the income they receive from non-members.  It is not a significant burden, even at those clubs which allow substantial visitor play.
3.  Not be allowed to discriminate by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. as to membership.  OK, if that's what you really want, why don't you just come out and say it.
4.  Not to be forced to "associate" with people who are not members.  Muirfield seems to maintain its sense of privacy even though allowing scum like me to play their course from time to time, eat with the members in the dining room, and drink with them in the common rooms.  Those of you belonging to American "Muirfields" why can't you deal with a similar scenario?

Any other reasons?

PS--Thanks, Steve, for your synposes of the two books.  The first one seemed to confirm Tom MacWood's thesis visa vis the Arts and Crafts movement, although not, perhaps, in the manner he intended (by portraying the country club movement as an A&C-like desire to move backwards in time to the good old days of small (read homogenous) communities)!

TEPaul

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2005, 04:46:16 AM »
1. OSHA regulations cost.
2. Additional taxation is generally something private clubs try to avoid in America. I've never heard of an American club interested in the European structure of taxation or golf clubs.
3. I think if one asked any private club about this they'e be more than willing to come right out and say they'd prefer to associate with whom they choose as members and not have to be told they have no choice as to who their members might be.
4. Again, it's a matter of revenue to clubs like Muirfield, RCD etc. At least that's what those that run those clubs told me, but perhaps you know some other reason those clubs themselves aren't aware of. They're policies are economic and not some burst of European egalitarianism.
5. Most golf clubs have 18 hole courses and a sufficient number of members to fill the course up regularly. If those private club members feel like footing that bill themselves for convenience of play for their memberships I don't see why anyone has a problem with that. To prove all these points one would only have to compare the cost of a club memberhips of an American private club vs even a top flight European club such as Muirfield and RCD.

ForkaB

Re:Private clubs
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2005, 05:01:35 AM »
Thanks, Tom.

1.  How much exactly would protecting the heath and safety of the workers at "private" clubs cost?  It is or is it not a cost worth paying?

2.  How much money are we talking about vis a vis taxation?  Over here it adds under $100/year to member dues.  Any private club in the USA you know that couldn't afford that?

3.  OK.  Just be honest about it, as you have.

4.  Don't know RCD, but I'm pretty sure that Muirfield's philosophy is more along the line of:

--we have a great course
--we would like to share it with other golfers
--our members don't need 24/7 tee times
--so, let's allow limited outside play
--and, as a bonus, it probably cuts our dues by a couple of hundred pounds a year

5.  See above.


All in all, at the level of (say) Muirfield/NGLA to me it seems more a question of "noblesse oblige"/lack thereof.  One sees themselves as stewards of a great golfing venue, the other one sees themselves as "owners" of a piece of land and some buildings.

They have an "Artisans" golf club at Swinley Forest, which is "posher" than either Muirfield or NGLA can ever hope to be.  Isn't that a healthier and more constructive attitude to golf, in this century?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back