[TEPaul]

"The fact remains, however, that no matter the motivations, there is a very marked "aysmmetry" of outcomes, inasmuch as the US golfer who wants to play the marquee courses around the world - not just Europe - can pretty much do so, but the reverse is not true."

PhilipG:

There's no question in my mind whatsoever that that is true. I've never once said that wasn't true. All I've ever said or maintained is the reasons that's true are not exactly the reasons that Rich and some others on here claim.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Nice try changing the subject...you are still trying in vain to shoot down my A&C essay. The fact remains the A&C movement had a major affect on all aspects of British society at the turn of the century...including golf architecture. I'm not sure why you believe golf architecture existed in some kind of cultural vacuum."

Tom:

Yes I am trying to shoot down a few of your conclusions in your five part A&C essay. I'm trying to do that because I don't feel those two conclusions are true or historically supportable---at the very least not anywhere near the extent you're trying to assign. And for about the tenth time I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that golf course architecture existed in some kind of artistic or cultural vacuum. Far from that---the artistic and cultural influences on golf architecture are pretty clear and pretty well known and not all that few either. I believe those influences have been pretty well chronicled too in the long and rich history of golf architecture literature. For God's sake, an early influence that's very rarely mentioned on here---the horse--and the entire culture of the horse and recreations involved with the horse in that early time probably had a greater influence on many aspects of the evolution of the art of golf architecture than your A&C movement did! The incipient reaction of the early Golden Age to that alone probably had as much to do with the direction the art form went later in it's quest back towards naturalism as anything else.  

I sort of resent a statement on your part that my only source of information on the Arts and Crafts movement and early golf architecture is Cornish and Whitten. That is certainly not the case in the slightest. It's pretty typical of you to not see the ludicrousness of you actually telling me with any kind of seriousness that you're aware of what I've read or not or refer to.

Frankly, C&W is a pretty darned good and accurate compilation of the real influences on golf archtiecture and early golf architecture and it isn't exactly lost on me that the Arts and Crafts Movement's influence is hardly mentioned. What is mentioned and historically accurate is the influences of linksland, heathland and the other various evolutionary influences from both golf and golf architecture that have been pretty well known and accepted throughout the very rich literature of golf architecture over the years.

It's pretty interesting to me and pretty curious, amazing really that for some reason you actually think after all that you can somehow redefine what the real and most impactful influence on golf architecture and the Golden Age was which apparently no one of that time or any other time apparently noticed or admitted. That alone is one of the most salient facts that you should probably attempt to deal with if you care to convince anyone who really cares about and studies the evolution of golf architecture of the historical accuracy of your conclusions about the A&C Movements influence on golf architecture.  

If Ran Morrissett actually believes that Huthinson should be called the Father of golf architecture and the Golden Age should be called or considered "Arts and Crafts" architecture I'm pretty confident I can probably disabuse him of such a silly notion, at least of the extent of it that you propose.

As for GeoffShac, I've known him for years and have talked with him for years about all kinds of things to do with golf architecture and the influences on it of earlier times. I've known about Geoff's interest in the Arts and Crafts movement for years and talked to him about it both before during and after going to California. My strong recollection is that he does believe it had a notable influence on the general atmosphere of golf, particularly West Coast golf of the 1920s and such and particularly on supplemental things to do with golf courses such as the style of clubhouses and such.

This has always been my general point to you on this subject---that the A&C Movement in the sense of golf has always been far more of an influence on building architecture related to golf courses than on golf course architecture itself. The mediums, if one looks at them clearly, are just different enough to make this fact obvious.

And if Geoff Shackelford actually feels the way you do about those two conclusions of Hutchinson and the fact Golden Age architecture should be more accurately considered or called "Arts and Crafts" architecture then one wonders why Geoff never made that point in the series of really good an accurate books he's already written on golf course architecture of the Golden Age and the influences on it!  

And lastly, of course we're all entitled to our own opinions on these things and that's exaclty why I will continue to mention these things---because I just do not agree with some of your opinions or conclusions. That's what a golf architectural website discussion group, that's any good, as this one is, is all about!  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom P

Why are you ignoring the fact that the UK clubs had open door policies long before golf tourism and the cash it brings.  That culture was there long before you visited Ireland and Scotland.  

If the culture wasn't previously there...then no golf tourism!

Rich

If Dornoch closed their doors.  How much would your yearly subs go up by?

[T_MacWood]

"That alone is one of the most salient facts that you should probably attempt to deal with if you care to convince anyone who really cares about and studies the evolution of golf architecture of the historical accuracy of your conclusions about the A&C Movements influence on golf architecture."

With all due respect, there are very few who care more about and who have studied the evolution of architecture more than Ran Morrissett, Geoff Shackelford, and Rand Jerris.

I have no idea if they agree that the genesis of modern golf architecture can be traced back to Hutchinson, or agree about his impact on the game's development in general...I really haven't discussed HH with them. (In fact I'd go beyond calling him the father of the art of golf architecture, and say he is probably the father of modern golf, period.) But I do know they have told me they agree on the influence of the A&C movement upon early golf architecture...which was the main focus of the essay.

Was there a more important or influencial writer at the turn of the century than HH? Who else was writing about golf architectural issues in the late 1890's, early 1900's?

[JohnV]

There is a free magazine that I can't remember the name of that can frequently be found around private clubs.  I remember that Desmond Muirhead used to write for it.

They did an annual edition that listed most if not all the private clubs in the US and what their reciprical policies are.  Many, if not most, clubs are very welcoming of others from private clubs as long as the club pro called.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Why are you ignoring the fact that the UK clubs had open door policies long before golf tourism and the cash it brings.  That culture was there long before you visited Ireland and Scotland.  

If the culture wasn't there...then no golf tourism!

Rich

If Dornoch closed their doors.  How much would your yearly subs go up by?

Paul

They would still be less than 2-3 rounds at Pebble Beach.

PS--give up trying to get TEP to admit the truth.  He has blinders on, and won't take them off until he goes to bed--if he ever goes to bed,that is..........  A textbook example of the old saw "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
Why are you ignoring the fact that the UK clubs had open door policies long before golf tourism and the cash it brings.  That culture was there long before you visited Ireland and Scotland."

Paul:

I'm not ignoring that at all, and I never have. I'm only telling you what the reasons and motivations are for a few clubs that I visited and discussed this subject with in the last five years---reasons and motivations that I believe, and they also believe are representative of the reasons they do what they do now. Those reasons and motivations are true no matter when you think golf tourism began in Europe---perhaps a lot earlier than you care to admit.

My point has always been that golf and its policies within clubs just evolved so much differently in Europe than they did in America. And so I believe this has a whole lot less to do with what you and Rich are claiming as some kind of European golf egalitarianism when compared to America. If American golf evolved the same way it did in Europe I have no doubt at all the open policies that exist in Europe would exist in America. But for a series of pretty clear reasons it just didn't happen that way. Golf in Europe being as old as it is just evolved in a rather democratic manner where kings played with cobblers in the very beginning and in many ways the vestiges of democracy in European golf are still around---the whole idea of "common" ground and such is another marked difference between Europe and America that supports how the evolutions in either country worked. That (common ground) virtually does not exist in American golf, and either does multi-golfing clubs or societies attached to a single course that still exists in European golf.

All of that has served to keep the price structure for golf memberships in Europe, and even at the finest courses over there so much lower than over here---and that fact has been true for ages. The entire onset of the public or municipal course over here does not exist in the same way over there. Over there it was some combination of the two (more open access even at "private" European clubs which made for the open access policies of almost all the courses over there. That was not remotely true of private courses over here---at any time, despite what Tom MacWood thinks to the contrary. Guests might've been more prevalent at some time in earlier American private courses but nothing remotely like the open access tourist (or whatever you want to call it) policies that've been going on in Europe for ages.

"If the culture wasn't there...then no golf tourism!"

That's true. That's the way it evolved over there with tourism and your golf clubs whatever they were---and over there most all European clubs continue to rely on that---in a very real way you don't have, and have never really had, the option over there we've always had over here---truly public golf courses. Truly public courses that sprang up in volume long ago over here were for people no matter where they came from who didn't have or couldn't have access to private American courses. That is what I'm saying. It did not begin or evolve over here like it did over there and the fact of that is the reason things are the way they are over there and different from here. You're saying that the way it evolved over there and the way it is now is due to some inherent European egalitarianism and I'm saying it's more than that---and has been for years.

If European golfers wanted the type of privacy they have over here they'd have to pay for it as we do but the point I'm making is they don't want to pay that kind of money we do over here (and that's precisely why even RPR, RCD or Muirfield do what they do) except in some of the rare cases that have sprung up over there relatively recently that are basically the American private club idea over there that costs as much or more for members to maintain that privacy as it does here.

[Bob_Huntley]

Rihc Goodale,

I am not quite sure about my "Bitterness" toward both Muirfield and Paddy Hamner. I enjoy the former and got on very well with the latter, as I always wore the right tie when I was there.

My disdain came about from observing the the humiliation that he dished out to an American couple, who arrived at the Club with confirmed reservations in hand. I went to an English  boarding school, so I know something about bullies, he could have been the paramount chief of the species.

Your own story about the Prestwick member sitting down at lunch, would seem to prove that he was not universally admired.

Bob


Bob

[Bill Gayne]

John Vander Borght,

I think you are referring to Executive Golfer. The issue that is currently out is the one that has all the private clubs listed and guest policy. The policies range from must stay in certain lodge, may be arranged by the pro, must be sponsored by a member, must accompany member, must accompany and play with member, and no reciprocal play allowed.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

You only have to pick up an old book or two and see how cheap the green fees were in the past (going back to the 1920s).  In the past, these clubs were not getting a substantial saving on their membership fees from visitor green fees.  You might not call it egalitarian, but the truth is, these clubs saw no reason to have closed doors.

I agree it is different now for some of the top clubs.  But as Rich points out, if the green fee intake at Dornoch is ignored, the annual membership fees are still tiny when compared with the US.  An order of magnitude lower.

God knows what happens to all that dosh at the US clubs?  Is it spent on extraneous crap?  Is 36 greenstaff for 36 holes at Baltusrol typical

I agree with you regarding the common land.

[JohnV]

John Vander Borght,

I think you are referring to Executive Golfer. The issue that is currently out is the one that has all the private clubs listed and guest policy. The policies range from must stay in certain lodge, may be arranged by the pro, must be sponsored by a member, must accompany member, must accompany and play with member, and no reciprocal play allowed.

Bill, that's the one.  I'll have to keep my eye out when I go to some of our member clubs for a new copy.

[ForkaB]

Rihc Goodale,

I am not quite sure about my "Bitterness" toward both Muirfield and Paddy Hamner. I enjoy the former and got on very well with the latter, as I always wore the right tie when I was there.

My disdain came about from observing the the humiliation that he dished out to an American couple, who arrived at the Club with confirmed reservations in hand. I went to an English  boarding school, so I know something about bullies, he could have been the paramount chief of the species.

Your own story about the Prestwick member sitting down at lunch, would seem to prove that he was not universally admired.

Bob


Bob

Bob


Bob

I was fortunate enough to have never seen such behavior as you witnessed.  He surely was a bully on that occasion.  Perhaps my memory is also affected by a recent reading of Bamberger's "To the Linksland" (sic?) in which he describes interviewing Paddy H. in his retirement, and where the old man comes across as a very sympathetic figure.

Rhic


Rhic

[George Pazin]

I realize it will always be fashionable to pick on the US, and wealthy Americans in particular, but perhaps some would do well to reread - or actually read for the first time - Gene Greco's simple and clear post #47. The UK policy has been tried and abandoned due to legal reasons.

It's the not the first time lawyers/politicians with "good intentions" caused the opposite to happen and it won't be the last, unfortunately.

[SPDB]

George is right, somewhat. Public Accomodation laws have the perverse effect of actually encouraging clubs to be more private, i.e. courts have ruled in clubs' favor on evidence that they were stringently exclusive as to membership and restrictive as to guest policies, & cetera.

These opinions variously become the lodestar for clubs. The fear (whether real or imagined) is that if clubs aren't increasingly more restrictive w/r/t guest policies they'll fall into that gray area, and expose themselves. The trade association and legislative representatives foment the fear by broadcasting white papers to clubs and their managers.

Even if the chance of running afoul of one of these public accomodation law is remote, why would a club risk it?

[ForkaB]

For us non-lawyers, what exactly are those "public accomodation laws" which have apparently forced Sand Hills to retract its admirable access policy and seem to strike fear into club managers and boards everywhere else?

What is the nature and scope of the downside?

[Mike_Sweeney]

What is the nature and scope of the downside?

You have to pay the lawwyers.

[JohnV]

Rich,

Read the following for a good overview:

Private Clubs: Equal Access Issues and Public Status

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Spend a day away from the computer and you have five pages of posts to digest!  Someone asked about the present situation in and around London.  It's very much as it always has been.  A few new clubs such as the Wisley have opened with closed-door policies (though they let me play there for free) but you can still play Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Woking etc.  Unfortunately it costs a lot more than it used to and none of these would be affordable to me now.  They have never been cheap but were not quite so prohibitive.  They still accept some visiting societies and parties.  Probably the hardest thing is to get on as a single player because everywhere is so busy and it may be difficult to find a sociable 2- or 3-ball for you to join.  

Most clubs require you to be a member of another club and to have a valid handicap certificate.  I have never been asked to show a membership card or handicap certificate in the UK - only in continental Europe.  But I would not dream of turning up without first having rung the club to see if it would be possible to play.  One lovely club advised me that as a single player I should have no status and therefore could be pushed out of the way by 3- or 4-balls, and added that on the particular day I had suggested the Clergy of the Oxford Diocese would be playing the Clergy of Gloucester Diocese and they can get very nasty!  He kindly suggested another club (Goring and Streatley) which I had not played before and I had a lovely time.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Thank you for that article. All those cases are the same ones I found when I tracked significant cases through the NCA in the last 5-7 years. I did it for a reading for my club primarily on liability issues on my golf course but nevertheless that article and the ramifications for clubs who choose to maintain their "private" status is pretty withering and surely explains in no uncertain terms the reasons why access to American private clubs is probably always shrinking. In other words to continue to potentially prove (in a legal context) that a club is private seems to be putting most of these private clubs on the defensive in offering access. For a club to lose its privacy status seems to look something like opening Pandora's Box but even with all that I'm quite sure a guy like Rich Goodale will continue to not understand that or recognize the significance of it in a variety of ways important to most private clubs. He'll probably just ask next why any golf club would even want to maintain their "private" status in America?  

[tonyt]

In Australia, one of the reasons it is easier to justify allowing unaccompanied visitor play is that most of out elite clubs cost less than $US2,000 per year in member dues.

Monday play makes sense at quite a few clubs. Comparing membership dues divided by rounds played to work out if the green fee is adequate is a faulty process, since the members have their full access on comp days and throughout the weekends and preferred weekdays, the premium days that matter where a round is worth quite a lot more. At a lot of clubs, a Monday plus one other dead day of some type of access hurts no member, and keeps their expensive facility in use and earning revenue. And if it is an outing with a couple of dozen players, they breeze in and out unnoticed on this quiet day and tip the equivalent of a members' annuals into the coffers without one ball struck or time sheet spot taken on a Saturday.

[Philip Gawith]

I have read the note posted by JvB which is very enlightening. I am not sure, though, that the case law it cites, or even the guidelines at the end, present an open and shut case why admitting visitors on a very limited, patently non-commercial basis would fatally compromise a club's claim to be private.

The only tricky area would appear to be the issue about not being seen to pay for services.

That said: I can see why a club, under advice from its lawyers, would not see it worth embracing even a very small risk that a court might rule against it on this crucial issue. The downside is big, and there is not much upside other than an appeal to the club's higher instincts.

Still, it is pretty sad that the legal situation should have evolved to the position where, say, a good faith attempt to share your course with genuine afficianadoes, on a transparently non-commercial basis, would appear to be high risk proposition not worth embracing.

[George Pazin]

Still, it is pretty sad that the legal situation should have evolved to the position where, say, a good faith attempt to share your course with genuine afficianadoes, on a transparently non-commercial basis, would appear to be high risk proposition not worth embracing.

Welcome to the state of the American judicial system, circa 2005.

[SPDB]

George -
The american "judicial" system? I hope you meant the American legal system (which encompasses far more than its courts) or you've been suckered by the "activist judges" propaganda. I trust its the former; you're far too sharp for the latter.

[George Pazin]

I mean both. I hope YOU have been suckered by your law professors!

[SPDB]

No, George. I can still think for myself. I'm a bit worried about you, though.
The "judicial system" describes the organization of our court system (e.g. district court, circuit courts of appeal), do you have a problem with the way our courts are structured? If so, how is it at all relevant to the quotation you included?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()