"The Battle for the Soul of the Game"

[David_Tepper]

Interesting column by John P. Newport in today's WSJ. It presents a nice contrast to the narrow-minded, stilted, parochial and regressive view of the game currently being promoted elsewhere on this website.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213533058811256.html?mod=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_4  

[Tommy Williamsen]

The correlation between the Reformation and the present state of golf is laughable.  Luther did not want to leave the church, begin a new denomination, or have a different set of rules for different segments.  He felt that the church should reform itself from within.  He did not leave the church as much as the church left him by an act of a Papal Bull of excommunication. The result did not add Christians and most certainly created the deep divide in Christianity that exists today.  I say this as a Lutheran Pastor.  If anything the Reformation was a tragic necessity.  Tragic because it spilt the church.  Necesserary because it made some needed reforms.  I would hope that changes in golf could be less contentious and more positive.

[Tom_Doak]

The idea that golf must grow, or die, is misguided -- it's an imperative of business school, for people who seek to make money off the game.

I hope that we do not change the game of golf just so some jackass MBA's can make a go of it.

[Mike_Young]

The idea that golf must grow, or die, is misguided -- it's an imperative of business school, for people who seek to make money off the game.

I hope that we do not change the game of golf just so some jackass MBA's can make a go of it.

Tom,
Well said.  When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee.

[Mac Plumart]

When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee

Quite frankly, that is hilarious. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Whenever any thing or any person or any institution thinks it needs to re-define itself, to find again the soul that it has lost, the times become, almost by necessity/definition, times of change and upheaval, of breaking ups and building anews.  Whether or not that need is real, or justified, or even in anyone's best interest, seems almost besides the point -- especially in our day and age; we seem to be in love with the idea and the process of re-definition, of change -- as if nothing and no one is simply good or useful or meaningful just the way it/he is and has always been.  So - they'll be those, the MBAs for example, who will try to drive this change in the way they want it to go; others have and will continue to shape it in the way they believe best.  I think in this area I'm an existentialist, i.e. I believe that existence pre-dates essence; and so the essence of the game, its soul, will be precisely what we as individuals -- clients, architects, golfers -- decide to imbue it with.

Peter   

[Carl Nichols]

When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee

Quite frankly, that is hilarious. 

Except for the fact that a good cup of coffee is a lot easier to find these days. Oh, and the coffee market isn't retrenching.

[Mac Plumart]

Well, yeah.  But the fact an entire industry has sprung up a round a cup of coffee is very funny to me.

[jeffwarne]

The idea that golf must grow, or die, is misguided -- it's an imperative of business school, for people who seek to make money off the game.

I hope that we do not change the game of golf just so some jackass MBA's can make a go of it.

Tom,
Well said.  When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee.

+1
on both counts
coming from three people who make their living" in" the game
too many trying to make their living "off" the game

[Melvyn Morrow]

“It presents a nice contrast to the narrow-minded, stilted, parochial and regressive view of the game currently being promoted elsewhere on this website.  ”

Perhaps, but then you do play at Royal Dornoch which is in some ways can be described as ‘stilted, parochial and regressive view of the game currently’, so welcome to the club. Yet far more importantly it is a Scottish model course based upon the principles I hold dear and which you continue try to rubbish.

David you are a Cuckoo, a cuckoo in a Scottish nest, or perhaps just very, very, very narrow minded, certainly stilted not to mention parochial with a regressive view of others who you do not agree with you.

For someone who apparently loves the game of golf, who has a place beside a classic Scottish model, you seem rather fast to rubbish its golfing traditions. Living in Dornoch at times you must have realised the way many play the game in Scotland and the many old little gems of courses scattered all around the country, many as you put it regressive in their own way.

You do not insult me, but you are taking a swipe at the country you play golf in and the Scottish game, but then like some on this site it is more important to attack others for your own lack of balls in having a real opinion on golf, you know that regressive game you play on one of Scotland great old courses.

I think it speaks volumes about you more than me particularly as I have tried to leave on a friendly note but you threw it back in my face.

While you have brought up the subject, let’s look at my opinions which seem so distasteful to you.

Carts, - the game is some 600 years old carts are new approx. 60 years old – We play golf by the grace of God, but today if suffering from a medical ailment carts seem a good idea but to stay true to the game they should be made available for those who need them on medical grounds including age.
Side issues with or without cart tracks the course design must consider the use of carts and its additional cost to the wear and tear which far exceeds those of walking, plus hiding of the tracks if off the fairway.
What about the great advantage in the saving of energy by riding rather than walking, proved by that American scientific journal from 1920.    

Distance Aids – my point being they are not required because the human mind and body takes over automatically you address the ball for the last time then take the shot. All previous input is null & void the moment your eyes finally focus on the ball and target just before you take your swing.

Technology/Long ball travel achieves little apart from flying over a course rendering much of it redundant, meaning the design, the long or short course, its hazards have been marginalised, yet the expense to design, build and maintenance still exists and has to be paid for. So why not roll back the ball, use technology to sustain the game and its equipment but limit the ball travel to circa 200 yards give or take. It will give us back our great courses as they were originally designed to play, add more spice to our golfing life by having to consider navigating around the ground hazards. The seeking and finding of options to overcome the designer clever little traps.

The Governing bodies for allowing cons like distance aids to enter the game, for lack of foresight re the consequences of their decisions and overall accountability for their said decisions.

I see nothing radical in any of the above, I do see it all having a major impact upon the game and GCA. In fact I see each in their own right as a great debating subject for the GCA.com DG

At least they are true genuine issues that have a major impact on the game of golf so are worth discussing in detail, more so than club listings, ratings or the many OT topics, but then that’s just my opinion.

So pray tell me David who really is responsible for the “narrow-minded, stilted, parochial and regressive view of the game currently being promoted elsewhere on this website.  ”

[Mike Sweeney]

When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee

Quite frankly, that is hilarious.  

Except for the fact that a good cup of coffee is a lot easier to find these days. Oh, and the coffee market isn't retrenching.

I currently have a free desk at a client's office in midtown Manhattan where I go 2-3 days per week. I recently looked at getting my own office, but just could not pull the mental trigger at $1500+ per month in midtown Manhattan.

I will take some of the $18,000 of savings per year and have meetings at Starbucks when I work out of my apartment for $4.50 per meeting.  

I hope to use some of the remaining savings and play Mike Young and Tom Doak courses in the coming year.    

In ten years of savings $18,000 per year, I will be 1/3 of the way to being able to afford a membership at Jeff Warne's club!!!

Mike Sweeney
Cornell MBA, 1989
Consumer of Fancy Coffee and Fancy Golf 

[Mike Hamilton]

Mike Sweeney
Cornell MBA, 1989
Consumer of Fancy Coffee and Fancy Golf 

Are you a Cornell MBA, or a Cornell Jackass MBA?

I am pretty sure that I have been described as a jackass myself (although I am guessing Doak has as well).

I find the coffee analogy interesting.  Some 20-25 years ago, lured by Starbucks marketing, I started drinking espresso...which led to purchasing an espresso machine.

Today I have evolved or devolved into buying green coffee from an internet business, http://www.sweetmarias.com/index.php, which I am guessing is not run by MBA's, jackass or otherwise, and roast my beans at home in 30 year old hot air popcorn popper I bought on ebay.   I either drink espresso straight or coffee which I make hand poured through a filter.

I am pretty sure this makes me a coffee minimalist...but I am also sure I got here because of growth in the coffee industry....without which who knows what this guy who travels and buys high end beans and sells them through a website would be doing now?

I cannot disagree that the money driven imperative for growth is disheartening at times....but it's also a driver for things good as well.  Without a boom in golf 20 years ago would a place like Bandon have been possible? 

[jeffwarne]

When we think how much the MBA's tried to make golf into a corporate business just look at what they did to the cup of coffee

Quite frankly, that is hilarious.  

Except for the fact that a good cup of coffee is a lot easier to find these days. Oh, and the coffee market isn't retrenching.

I currently have a free desk at a client's office in midtown Manhattan where I go 2-3 days per week. I recently looked at getting my own office, but just could not pull the mental trigger at $1500+ per month in midtown Manhattan.

I will take some of the $18,000 of savings per year and have meetings at Starbucks when I work out of my apartment for $4.50 per meeting.  

I hope to use some of the remaining savings and play Mike Young and Tom Doak courses in the coming year.    

In ten years of savings $18,000 per year, I will be 1/3 of the way to being able to afford a membership at Jeff Warne's club!!!

Mike Sweeney
Cornell MBA, 1989
Consumer of Fancy Coffee and Fancy Golf  

Better check that math again
oversubscribed items go up faster than coffee

also don't forget to deduct the cost of Starbux coffe from your savings  

[Mike_Young]

OK  OK   OK...maybe MBA was a bad choice of words...but jack ass wasn't.
Another way of putting it for me is:
Maybe, just maybe, our institutions for higher learning have put out people who  view most businesses as growth businesses because they are in a position to have to make money for the shareholders and they pursue growth as much as they do profits.  For a long time dividends had as much bearing on investments as growth.  Over the last 25 years people have tried to take the sport of golf and make it into one of these growth oriented businesses and in doing so they did not worry about the sustainability of the game.  (Same for coffee). 
Anyway, the last 25 years were the exception and not the norm for golf.  Clubs and the industry need to realize  they need to take care of the members or players they now have and quit worrying about how to put all their efforts into growing more members or players.  If they do this the game will take care of itself.  Sure there will not be as many courses or equipment companies or golf cars but what is left will become solid.  Pros need to be allowed to be pros again and golf supts need to understand and WANT to be golf supts ( the good ones already do) instead of vying for an office at the clubhouse.  PGM programs need to go away and the golf associations need to reevaluate their purpose.  And in doing all of this,  if their are some MBA's in the mix then maybe the shoe fits.

[Carl Rogers]

I have always been struck by how different threads on this site intermingle ....

reference the Bill Murray, PB Saturday and growing the game via entertainment threads

[Mike Sweeney]

Anyway, the last 25 years were the exception and not the norm for golf.  

Sorry to pick on you Big Guy but here goes....

25 years ago for me takes me back to 1987 (Jeff check my math!!) and I was a "member" at the newly re-designed Stone Harbor Golf Club:



It was a funky time for architecture and in that market, Stone Harbor was the first of a new wave of for-profit golf, either country club for a day or relatively cheap membership which Stone Harbor was as a "private" club.

No membership meetings, just join and write a check.

Before this, the only "private" clubs in that market were Atlantic City, Wildwood and Greate Bay, which were/are all pre-war courses from some now well known designers.

My Dad did not play golf, so I did not have the connections to join those clubs and they really did not want young guys at that time.

As a consumer of golf, Stone Harbor despite is flaws, changed the market to what it is today in that area. It is very affordable, there are some private but very accessible clubs, there are some very good courses, there are some average courses and it is clearly an overbuilt market.

The "Soul of the Game" are guys (and girls) who play golf, not the guys who run golf.

As a consumer of golf, it is the GREATEST time in golf:

* Many great courses are now accessible, Atlantic City is public,
* You can find places to play in 4 hours, it simply cost more money,
* Memberships are more diverse,
* There are walking oriented courses, there are riding oriented courses, there are caddy oriented courses.

The "Soul of the Game" golfer (me) has more choices than ever.

The fact that a second tier country club now has to scramble to make their number IS good for golf as it will force people to think about ways to make the game "better". That game may be different than what I and many people here want, but now we have the ability to choose.

Twenty six years ago, I basically had to play Avalon Golf Club and The Jersey Devil (predecessor on the same land as Stone Harbor), and those Doak 3's get old pretty quickly.

That crazy hole above, as bad as it was now with hindsight, may have kept me in the game because it opened up options for me as the son of a non-golfer.

[Tim Martin]

Anyway, the last 25 years were the exception and not the norm for golf.  

Sorry to pick on you Big Guy but here goes....

25 years ago for me takes me back to 1987 (Jeff check my math!!) and I was a "member" at the newly re-designed Stone Harbor Golf Club:



It was a funky time for architecture and in that market, Stone Harbor was the first of a new wave of for-profit golf, either country club for a day or relatively cheap membership which Stone Harbor was as a "private" club.

No membership meetings, just join and write a check.

Before this, the only "private" clubs in that market were Atlantic City, Wildwood and Greate Bay, which were/are all pre-war courses from some now well known designers.

My Dad did not play golf, so I did not have the connections to join those clubs and they really did not want young guys at that time.

As a consumer of golf, Stone Harbor despite is flaws, changed the market to what it is today in that area. It is very affordable, there are some private but very accessible clubs, there are some very good courses, there are some average courses and it is clearly an overbuilt market.

The "Soul of the Game" are guys (and girls) who play golf, not the guys who run golf.

As a consumer of golf, it is the GREATEST time in golf:

* Many great courses are now accessible, Atlantic City is public,
* You can find places to play in 4 hours, it simply cost more money,
* Memberships are more diverse,
* There are walking oriented courses, there are riding oriented courses, there are caddy oriented courses.

The "Soul of the Game" golfer (me) has more choices than ever.

The fact that a second tier country club now has to scramble to make their number IS good for golf as it will force people to think about ways to make the game "better". That game may be different than what I and many people here want, but now we have the ability to choose.

Twenty six years ago, I basically had to play Avalon Golf Club and The Jersey Devil (predecessor on the same land as Stone Harbor), and those Doak 3's get old pretty quickly.

That crazy hole above, as bad as it was now with hindsight, may have kept me in the game because it opened up options for me as the son of a non-golfer.

Mike - Great post. Right on the money.

[Mac Plumart]

Great post Mike.  Spot on!

[ward peyronnin]

Just to lighten things up a little part of the soul of the game that is perhaps bleeding away is the recognition that it is a GAME.

I love this quote from Robert Rock's caddy after his player won at Abu Dabai:

Apparently well versed at the dying art of the good night out the caddy said " this is a win he won't remember for a long time."

I am not sure this speaks to turning golf into a bottom line game but we sure need to keep in mind that we need to remember to transmit an attitude about playing the game and not just the standards and facts and limitations plus i just wanted to find a way to get that quote out in the treehouse

[JC Jones]

I will take some of the $18,000 of savings per year and have meetings at Starbucks when I work out of my apartment for $4.50 per meeting.  

Mike Sweeney
Cornell MBA, 1989
Consumer of Fancy Coffee and Fancy Golf  

No surprise that you only pick up the tab for YOUR coffee.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Probably very true for the home US market but does that really apply to the rest of the world?
So perhaps a certain individual should have posted a different heading ‘The Battle for the Soul of the US Game’.

I hope that battle is not lost, but wonder at times when I see so many Americans invading our Scottish courses. However, you do miss out on some of our real gems sticking to TOC, Dornoch, Cruden. By revisiting these courses seems to indicate that your soul is too deeply hidden to venture to far into the unknown in case of disappointment.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Melvin, I think you were looking in the mirror when you described David. the man you describedis not the David I know and friends with.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tiger

Enjoy being anti-Melvyn, but do so because you do not like my opinions on golf don't start copying some of your friends, it makes you look as petty as them.

Between us let’s just stick to the Golf

[PCCraig]

The idea that golf must grow, or die, is misguided -- it's an imperative of business school, for people who seek to make money off the game.

I hope that we do not change the game of golf just so some jackass MBA's can make a go of it.

Tom,

I wasn't aware the Mosaic Company doesn't hire MBA's?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mr. Morrow please read your post in direct response to David Tepper. It is not anti you. I am defending a friend you insulted. I would rather you not say something wrong and ugly about a very nice man who happens to love Scotland and golf as much as anyone on here. As to your last point, I feel the american style of design is what most in England, Europe and Asia have bought and paid for the last 20 years. I do not think that is a good thing. It is just the type of course and style of play in demand on the world stage.