[T_MacWood]

"In the changed social order in which we must aim at every one being employed consistently and constructively, golf as I foresee might more than any other, be the game engaging actively most individuals of both sexes, and giving the quiet healthful relaxation and good companionship essential to the strain of modern conditions of work. What an ideal to strive after!

How can such be achieved? In other words, on what basis can we budget?

I can find no other answer than a return to less costly and therefore simpler methods. Nor can I see the game suffering in any way thereby.

What does this entail?

(1) Shorter, more natural, and less 'architected' courses, requiring small green staff and a minimum of machinery.

(2) Cheaper clubs. Note--At the beginning of the century a first-class hand-made craftsman-fashioned club cost 6s. 6d. The average price today for a machine made hand-finished club is £2, 2s.

(3) The reduction of a set from 14 to 8.

(4) Cheaper golf balls.

I am confident all this is feasible and possible once all concerned realise and admit the problem confronting the game and show themsleves ready to work together for a solution. It requires only an invitation from the Royal & Ancient to make such conference a gathering of good omen."

~~Sir Guy Campbell 1947

[Sean_A]

Tom

I am with the esteemed Sir.  Fewer clubs (8 is very reasonable), less money, less yardage.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"I am confident all this is feasible and possible once all concerned realise and admit the problem confronting the game and show themsleves ready to work together for a solution. It requires only an invitation from the Royal & Ancient to make such conference a gathering of good omen."

This is an interesting remark--with some interesting references. What, for instance, does Campbell think 'the problem confronting the game' is? Does he think it's too expensive and consequently not able to reach what may've at that time in England been considered "the masses" (afterall, in England golf had to have developed as a far more "elistist" pastime than it was in Scotland)? Clearly that's what Campbell would like to see happen. Basically he mentions it's healthful to body and mind as so many of the early architects said (their wording is eerily similar in that era. Was the phrase almost a cultural or even political motto of that era?).

It's also interesting he mentions the solution to the problem only requires an invitation from the Royal & Ancient to apparently call a conference to solve the problem. Why the Royal & Ancient? Could a golf course or a golf concept not get off the ground in England in that era without the R&A? Or was is just a matter of funding----Campbell mentions in the beginning of the entire quotation posted above the all important "budget".  

It appears Campbell must have been part of or a proponent of the English Socialist Movement from the nature of his words and suggestions. Or was he more interested in building golf courses even if for the masses? It seems 1947 was getting a little bit late in the "Socialist Movement's" run in England but it seems a logical thing to suggest following the WW2 years when England was trying to return to post-war normalcy.

Attempts to create and sustain public golf in any country or culture is a very interesting subject and a very interesting evolution. There were so many noble attempts but it seems in looking back at all of them now the one thing that appears to have been the primary obstacle is that one little word mentioned in Sir Guy Campbell's remarks---The 'budget'.

In other words, who's going to pay to do it and to sustain it long term? That always seems to be the problem with public golf in any kind of "socialist" sense in any country at any time.

We just had the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Golf Association and among other things the subject of how to accomodate and service better the needs of public golfers in this state came up. In my opinion, it's somewhat of a structural problem that begins with a few of the USGA's basic requirments as they filter on down to the states and regions. Part of the problem, I believe, is simply a few niggling obstacles in the area of handicap providing, but the over-all problems of better accomodation of public golfers seems always to be on-going.

Perhaps, it'll always just be that one little word----the "budget"---eg "whos going to pay to sustain it longterm?"  Obviously it's never cheap to build and sustain golf courses.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

In a way we are just getting round to this now, for there has been a proliferation of simple, low-cost, pay-and-play courses in the UK in the 90s.  They have been prompted by the collapse of our agricultural industry and the R and A's pronouncement of 1987 that 700 new golf courses were required to meet the demands of present day golf.  I don't think you would enjoy golf on many of these very basic courses and, almost invariably, they have shocking greens.  However, they do get people out playing who otherwise would not.  It is proving a problem for some members' golf courses, especially where there is plenty of provision but not of a particularly high quality, such as the suburbs of Manchester.  Here many clubs are losing members who don't want to pay £750 a year in subscriptions to play perhaps half a dozen times a year.  They would rather pay a few green fees at the pay-and-plays.  Quite a number of members' clubs around Manchester are advertising for members, have dropped joining fees, and are seriously struggling to survive.

[T_MacWood]

TE
This is what sparked the article:

"...I came across two golfing items. The first was an article shwoing that we have 196 artisan clubs wiht over 10,000 members--the author appropriately called them the "Cindrellas of Golf"--of which 200 players are rated a scratch or better. The second was an advertisement setting out the price of guaranteed new steel-shafted clubs at two guineas a piece, second hand ditto at 15s. 6d. and--Ichabod--hickory-shafted clubs at 3s. 6d. At once it struck me how, in present-day circumstances, can artisans afford to build up a full set of clubs two guineas at a time. the answer simply is, It can't be done."

"...Golf as we know it was sponsored by Scotland, a traditionally democratic country.

It was therefore a traditionally democratic pastime, the game of the people, in which poor and rich could meet on an equality.

After the spread to other countries it gradually became indentified with the learned and monied section of the community, assumming more and more the characteristics of the rich man's pastime."

Although technically born in England, Campbell was a Scot through and through. Competed for Scotland in International events and spent a great deal of his time at St. Andrews, which I believe was his ancestral home.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I believe you are confusing Campbell's Scottish instincts with Socialism...he is not proposing the R&A take away clubs from the rich and give away or subsidize the poor. He is simply proposing measures to make the game cheaper for everyone at time of great economic hardship. He is trying to recapture the original Scotish model...to inject the Scot's attitude back into the game.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

That's the problem. When golf first migrated out of Scotland, perhaps first to England and then the rest of the world, it simply failed to take with it some of those essences about the game as it was played solely in Scotland for so long.

One of those things about the game in Scotland that obviously failed to migrate with it out of Scotland to the rest of the world was its inherent democracy as it was for so long in Scotland. The other thing it failed to take with it, particularly to America was that somewhat undefinable "spirit" (of the game) that C.B Macdonald wanted so badly to transport to America but simply could not manage to do it. At first it fairly drove him crazy (it was primarily in a "Rules" context) and then he obviously came to realize why it could not be done in this country----he said essentially this country and its incipient players simply had none of the history with golf that Scotland had and so they could never know the game the way it had interestingly evolved over the centuries in Scotland alone.

Obviously one of the primary components in the context of this particular subject is so much of golf in Scotland had evolved from "common" land. In America the lands for golf had to be bought----and buying land for golf in any era is a pretty big nut in the over-all scheme of things!  

Back to that little word again----the "budget"----"Who's gonna pay"  

Obviously those that're gonna pay are those that have the money.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I believe you are confusing Campbell's Scottish instincts with Socialism..."

Tom MacW:

Perhaps. However, you're pretty good at researching the lifes and times of some of these men. Was Sir Guy Campbell a political socialist?

"....he is not proposing the R&A take away clubs from the rich and give away or subsidize the poor."

Obviously. That scenario would surely not have worked. Not in England at that time in any case.  

"He is simply proposing measures to make the game cheaper for everyone at time of great economic hardship. He is trying to recapture the original Scotish model...to inject the Scot's attitude back into the game."

I understand that. But half a century later we can pretty much see that basically never worked no matter who proposed that or how often. We do know that many proposed that all over the world. What we should be looking for here is why it was never very successful or more successful. Golf just is expensive compared to many other sports and somebody has to pay the freight, particularly when you analyze how it evolved differently in other countries from the way it evolved in Scotland.  

When golf immigrated to other countries and cultures it was just bound to take on much of the ethos of those other countries and cultures, most certainly including their "economics". If one looks back at it all now one can see it probably couldn't have been otherwise.

[Tony_Muldoon]

"
It was therefore a traditionally democratic pastime, the game of the people, in which poor and rich could meet on an equality.

Tom not trying to stir things up but I sometimes think the equality bit in Scottish golf is a bit overdone.  Various things I've read would support the idea that in Scotland the workers only got out on the links in the long summer evenings - they were too busy earning a crust the rest of the time.

Caddies, professionals and others were always looked down on in Scotland as elsewhere by the gentlemen players.

During the day the better off had their games. When they formalised this they gave themselves titles like The Honourable Company of (Gentlemen) Golfers...

The Artisan movement survived in my fathers club near London until the 1980's - it allowed 'blue collared' workers access to clubs. It seems to me it carried the traditions firmly established in Scotland from the days when golf first got organised.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

TE Paul,

One avenue of public golf occasionally occurs when a course owner decides to cash out to a developer, the township steps in and condemns the land, buys the course and makes it public.  Good or bad for the township residents and the taxpayers, and for the future conditioning of the course is very much of issue, however it seems to be happening a little more nowadays.

I do think that local officials, township, school board underappreciate the value of recreation.  Its easy to provide soccer fields of turf and baseball diamonds because it is a bone to the public and cheap, but when you start talking all weather tracks, TurfEx football/soccer/field hockey fields and golf courses suddenly tax payer money shouldn't be used, and all three of these types of fields of play are expensive.  When the public is given public golf particulalrly new public courses then recreation becomes less a part of the equation because the management companies price all green fees with a cart included so many people simply ride a cart because they had to pay for it.  

In some ways I am sympathetic to Sir Guys comments particulalry the idea of the game being experienced by the masses, but it certainly comes late to the masses because as kids most grown ups did not have access to a course, they had much more access to ball fields, and face it this country is a football country, basketball country in the poor inner cities, and this is proven by the failure of soccer to capture any imagination.  Golf never has penetrated the youth culture and become a part of youth programs, however later in life many do turn to the game, and man do they suck because of the late start.

[T_MacWood]

Tony
If anyone was qualified to discuss early Scotish golf it was Guy Campbell, his grandfather was one of the very early golf historians--Robert Chambers. I believe his father was also a historian who wrote on the history of the game. And Sir Guy was one of two major contributors (along with Bernard Darwin) to 'The History of Golf in Britian'.

TE
I don't know Campbell's politics. I do know he was a career military man, and one of his architectural partners--Colonel SV Hotchkin--was conservative member of the House of Commons.

"But half a century later we can pretty much see that basically never worked no matter who proposed that or how often."

Why?

[Paul_Turner]

I agree with Mark, the standard of recently built, inexpensive, municipal courses in England and Wales has been poor (not familiar with the modern courses in Scotland).

Regarding Campbell's comments he was definitely right in 1947.  Although you didn't have to be THAT wealthy to play good golf in England (the middle classes were well catered for), people with very little money had the artisans option or nowt!  I don't think there was much of a North/South(within England) divide on this issue.  

I think the public are better off now than in 1947.  I also think that   people are moving away from private clubs for more reasons than expense.  But I'm not quite why that is, perhaps people just don't have time to make it worthwhile.   And there's lots of competition for leisure time.

If I still lived in England I might not join a club.  Not because of expense, but because it makes sense to spend the money on green fees at many of the private clubs.


PS Campbell sounds about as Scottish as Lyle and Brian Barnes

[T_MacWood]

"In some ways I am sympathetic to Sir Guys comments particulalry the idea of the game being experienced by the masses, but it certainly comes late to the masses because as kids most grown ups did not have access to a course, they had much more access to ball fields, and face it this country is a football country, basketball country in the poor inner cities, and this is proven by the failure of soccer to capture any imagination.  Golf never has penetrated the youth culture and become a part of youth programs, however later in life many do turn to the game, and man do they suck because of the late start. "

Kelly
I agree. I think it is getting worse...at least when I was a kid we (myself and many others) were able to be introduced to the game as caddies. Caddies today are an endangered specie.

[Paul_Turner]

I think the caddie has died in the UK because the culture has moved away from the "Master/Servant".  

It can't be buggies. The trolley?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I was a caddy at Ohio State GC, which had a thriving caddy program. Caddies were completely replaced by golf carts; OSU hasn't had caddies for fifteen or twenty years.

[Tony_Muldoon]

however later in life many do turn to the game, and man do they suck because of the late start.

"You lookin' at me... You lookin' at me?"

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom, at the moment it's just a feeling so I need to do some more reading around the subject. However you don't have to be a Marxist historian to point out that "Sir Guy" and all his kinsfolk and the Histories they have written are just the people likely to put out a patrician view of the game.  This is the recieved history we have all digested.

That said even I can see he does make sense in your Quote above.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tom P,

I don't know anything about the politics of agriculture in this country.  All I know is that a lot of farmers have had to diversify.  Not all those who tried golf were successful. Those who aimed too high very often failed - Portal, Carden Park, Shrigley Hall were all financially disastrous and only survive now because they were sold on for peanuts.

I have to say that my wife and I quite often play one of the local 9-hole pay-and-play places simply because it's inexpensive (under £10 each) and we don't need to take up too much of my wife's very limited free time.  The one we like best is a par-3 course (Adlington) with 9 holes ranging from 117 to 245 yards, designed by Hawtree with really good greens.  It is far more enjoyable than any of the fuller-length courses with their abysmal greens.  

I don't know how many artisans' clubs survive in the UK.  They were a particularly valuable institution in that their members did work on the course.  Now, I suppose greenkeeping has become so technical that only a few are qualified to carry it out.

There are unlikely to be any new municipal courses in this country - and I suspect some will be sold into private ownership - simply because it would be politically suicidal to use rate-payers' money on a leisure pursuit when there are so many social problems.  There is very little municipal funding of the arts, either.  

Having said that, Heaton Park in north Manchester (a really characterful JH Taylor course with several formidable water carries) was upgraded a few years ago and remains publically owned, although I think it is now in a partnership with a private venture.  

There's also a dual-ownership private/public 9-holer at Kinsale in Flintshire.  It provides accessible golf for many (it's not a wealthy part of Wales) and some very violent hillclimbs if you want to keep fit.  Unfortunately its greens are lamentable - shame, because it is a potentially excellent site with great views.  The routing is dreadful, too.

I think the most sensible model is a course local to me, Heyrose.  It started with 9 fairly basic holes and a caravan at which to pay the modest green fee.  The money coming in enabled him to add a clubhouse and another 9 holes.  The clubhouse is available for functions such as parish meetings, farm sales and wedding receptions.  There is a membership of 600, but midweek there is also a steady booking of society and company events.  Now he's started to upgrade the greens (or, rather, build completely new ones) and the course is growing in stature and quality.  By 2020 he will have a nice course.

[Brent Hutto]

Another way of expressing all the folderol about caddies vs. carts and so forth is to say that caddies are way more expensive than they used to be. An economist would look at the situation and observe the following:

a. Caddies used to be dirt cheap and now they're not.

b. There are alternatives to caddies that are much cheaper.

c. The use of caddies has virtually disappeared.

Given a. and b. you can't exactly consider c. a surprise, can you?

[Tony_Muldoon]

The artisan movement survives, but only just.

http://icseftonandwestlancs.icnetwork.co.uk/golf/golfnews/tm_objectid=16206439&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=hard-work-pays-off-for-golf-s-artisans-name_page.html

this is only one of two close Gooogle matches.  You too can play Hesketh on the cheap - but you need to be a tradesman and there's the members rule 22 -need ot have a handicap.  However it was interesting to see that it came about to offer ex servicemen a chance to play.

[T_MacWood]

Bret

D. Many golf courses consider carts a revenue stream, not so much with caddies.

Caddies were "dirt cheap" at the time carts drove them out at public courses and second tier clubs

Mark
The unique artisan golf movement in the UK has always fascinated me.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tom,

One of the most interesting is the Mourne Golf Club which plays over the Royal County Down Links.  It has its own separate clubhouse and 355 members.  They seem to be able to introduce visitors at a reasonable green fee and to have plenty of access to the course.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

http://www.mournegc.freeserve.co.uk/Frames.html

There's an interesting history of the Mourne on this site.

[ForkaB]

Interesting post, Tom.  Thanks.

I think we have to put Campbell's words in historical context.  In 1947, Britain was extremely poor and still battered by the effects of its 2nd World war in 30 years.  Virtually all consumer items were rationed (and would be for another 5+ years).  And yet, the "new" Attlee Labour government had pushed through a number of "socialist" policies (particularly old age pensions and a national health service) which were widely applauded in the country (don't forget that the war hero Churchill was thrown out on his ear in the 1945 election by Labour).  So......

....a "small is beautiful" golfing manifesto from even someone as relatively posh as Sir Guy is not hard to understand at that time.  Where have all the flowers gone.....

Tony, et. al.

Swinley Forest still has a very active Artisan Club.  I saw them in action, repairing divots on the fairway (the tit-for-tat they do to keep their privileges) last summer.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom MacWood:

That's the problem. When golf first migrated out of Scotland, perhaps first to England and then the rest of the world, it simply failed to take with it some of those essences about the game as it was played solely in Scotland for so long.

One of those things about the game in Scotland that obviously failed to migrate with it out of Scotland to the rest of the world was its inherent democracy as it was for so long in Scotland. The other thing it failed to take with it, particularly to America was that somewhat undefinable "spirit" (of the game) that C.B Macdonald wanted so badly to transport to America but simply could not manage to do it. At first it fairly drove him crazy (it was primarily in a "Rules" context) and then he obviously came to realize why it could not be done in this country----he said essentially this country and its incipient players simply had none of the history with golf that Scotland had and so they could never know the game the way it had interestingly evolved over the centuries in Scotland alone.

Obviously one of the primary components in the context of this particular subject is so much of golf in Scotland had evolved from "common" land. In America the lands for golf had to be bought----and buying land for golf in any era is a pretty big nut in the over-all scheme of things!  

Back to that little word again----the "budget"----"Who's gonna pay"  

Obviously those that're gonna pay are those that have the money.

Tom Paul,

You have expressed with exquisite precision the reason why the Scottish golf ethos did not transfer well elsewhere.

The "common ground" thesis did not exist outside the country north of the border.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()