Saturday
Mar012008
"The concept of opening the premises up to local youngsters is something that is not only frowned upon, it is never actually considered by club committees whose next original thought will be their first."
After reading the New York Times cover story on dwindling U.S. participation, John Huggan sees many of the same issues afflicting golf in Scotland.
Of course, increasing participant numbers is never really going to happen, no matter how many schemes golf's alphabet-soup organisations come up with to justify their increasingly pointless existences. As long as the golf club system itself is in place, the game is doomed to stagnate. Clubs, after all, are by their very nature exclusionary and exclusive. Especially at the so-called 'high-end' establishments, wonderful golf courses sit all but empty on far too many beautiful summer evenings. The concept of opening the premises up to local youngsters is something that is not only frowned upon, it is never actually considered by club committees whose next original thought will be their first.
Is it any wonder then that Scotland's best golfer is a rapidly ageing 44-year-old whose best days are very much behind him? Is there a less-welcoming environment for young people than the typically rule-ridden and grey-haired golf club? No you can't wear your jeans or your trainers. No you can't play before 4pm in the winter months. No you can't play off the back tees even if you can beat 99% of the members (who should be playing off what are still archaically referred to as the 'ladies tees'). No. No. No, no, no.
And what is being done to arrest this decline in Scotland? Well, take a look around at all these lovely new golf courses being built. What do you mean, you can't? They won't let you in the gate, you say? They're not looking for people like you? All they want are the affluent minority who will buy a gaudy home in the expensive housing estates surrounding these high-end clubs? And they cost the earth to play anyway?
Oh well, there are other less time-consuming games where the equipment is cheaper and you can actually play with the kids. Anyone for tennis?
Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 08:58 PM
Reader Comments (12)
John Huggan is correct about todays alphabet groups (nonprofit organizations) practicing "APARTHEID" golf. Agusta National (ANGC) goes without saying. Golf will never grow as long as it retains the base it is built on, discrimination.
Here's an original thought for the alphabet groups, "GROW UP".
http://us.m.yahoo.com/p/sports?lg=golf&ac=article&aid=daae74&tsrc=yahoo
After all, it's done wonders for medicine...
"Of course, increasing participant numbers is never really going to happen, no matter how many schemes golf's alphabet-soup organisations come up with to justify their increasingly pointless existences."
He also refers to something called the "golf club system", which, I gather refers to several thousand "unnationalized" private establishments.
My club doesn't care who you are, they care if you can pay. And they care if you play slowly and if you pee on the floor. We are INclusive in that we INclude anyone who wants to join and pay for the privilige. We try to EXclude people who do not pay for the upkeep of our club or who choose to dress badly when they come play our club.
I have seen many articles on this site that touch on "growing the game". That is:
The USGA sucks at growing the game (GTG)
Slow golfers on TV harm efforts to GTG
The golf ball has damaged all efforts to GTG
the Rule of 78 harms efforts to GTG
The PGA Tour does not care about GTG
I'm not sure who (or what) is RESPONSIBLE for growing the game, but I doubt that privates clubs represent an obstacle. Callaway and Titleist want more golfers. CBS wants more viewers. But my club doesn't really care as long as there is a waiting list. Macro economic reality seems to affect our membership more than how long it takes Jim Furyk to hit a putt.
My club focuses on improvimg the golf experience for our members. We seem to be fairly self-contained and frankly, it doesn't matter much to us if the number of golfers in the US does not grow. Of if TV ratings go down. Or if the US never wins another Ryder cup. Growing The Game is not our mission. We play in 4 hours and the course is in great shape.
Notwithstanding Huggan's exposure of a nefarious, exclusionary "golf club system", we do the best we can for our members. Oh, and let the local college team play here for free.
Glad to see your members care about whether you pee on the floor -- sounds like a start...
We have a golf club that we bought from the developer for many $ millions. Like most every other club out there, were have multiple items on our wish list, but the algebra gets tough with limited funds. We sponsor a college golf tournament and provide free golf for a D-1 golf program and we also have corporate outings to help pay the freight.
Our world is necessarily limited to paying the bills; paying down debt; maintaining the course; maintaining the clubhouse; providing competition for members and guests; seeking new members; paying and retaining fantastic employees and providing excellent food.
We really don't have time to worry if the USGA has screwed up its equipment oversight - and they don't ask us about it. CBS doesn't ask if we care about pace of play on its Tour telecasts. No one has asked for our opinion on the US Open site selection and redesign process.
Our "place in the overall scheme of the game" is to provide an excellent experience for our members. If you beleive that our mission isn't very ambitious, you should come to our meetings for equity members.
What exactly SHOULD we be doing in order to meet your very high standards?
The "golf club system" that he so derides has been pretty successful the last hundred years plus at growing the game.
Does he really think the Poms can't produce a tennis Grand Slam winner because the local kids can't play at Wimbledon?
Granted, there are a lot of clubs. But for that very reason many are very cheap to join, on the order of £500 to £2000 a year for a 7 day membership with little or no joining fee. Perhaps that's too much? Well, it includes unlimited use of the practice areas (which often aren't great, but good enough to get a solid short game.) And the price will be 2/3 or less of what I quoted if you want a five-day membership.
Oh, and those juniors: it costs them (actually their parents) something like £100 - £200 a year for membership. They can practice all they want. I'm sure there are some restrictions on their course access (not during men's competitions, which happen twice a week), but they have far easier access than someone who has to try to get a time on a public course. And I haven't even brought up the junior programs run by the pros.
I grew up in the 70s in California. If I could have paid $200 bucks a year for nearly unlimited access to a golf course in good shape, do you know how much money that would have saved me and how happy I would have been? And if that course had required, say, that I wear my corduroy trousers instead of jeans, and some sort of collared shirt instead of a t-shirt, and perhaps no sneakers, I don't think I would have minded that "imposition".
The club system I see here should be hugely beneficial to junior golf, not a hindrance. I only wish I had the support 30 years ago that is offered to juniors now, in this country. Perhaps Scotland is different from England with respect to golf clubs; if it's not, I don't understand where Huggan is coming from.
However all the new developments are of the Gleneagles/Loch Lomond type where only the rich or those on corporate jollies get to play. The kids don't get a look in and aren't welcome unless mummy or daddy coughs up.