Another US Major at a Course You can't play

[golfortennis]

Out side the government regulation issues, I think member access is the biggest issue. I'm paying for my 2.5 hour 18 hole rounds after work without needing a tee time. Allowing public play would put that benefit in jeopardy and ruin the value proposition.

 

This is my thing as well. I pay a lot of money for that convenience. I'm supposed to just let people come in and take up space on the course because? If you're a good guy the odds are I will invite you to play. But for people to just call up and get on and clog up the course? Well then I might as well just be a trunk slammer as well.

 

Little too much "I want something but don't want to have to pay for it" in society, and it's creeping into golf.

[smashdn]

We have topsoil in Iowa, not linksland.

 

Amen.

 

Nice to think you can have stacked sod sand bottom bunkers with no liners but this is 'Merica and we have red clay and chert rocks you ought to try and keep out of your sand.

 

Pot bunkers are "created" for maintenance and playability as well. You let a sandy waste area do what they do on a windy links course and you can't control their margins or where they wander to. Stacked sod keeps them in place.

[Twism86]

It definitely is a shame the best courses in the US are reserved for the wealthy and the entitled. I can basically walk to Baltusrol from my house and The only chance I get to be on the course is when the PGA comes there. If you dont have buckets of $$$$$ of know someone who does most golfers are confined to the public courses. Not that there are not some amazing courses out there but I agree with the OP that its always nice to play a course the pros play to see it first hand and test yourself.

 

Maybe the PGA should move to model that follows some racing leagues, where in the only cars that are eligible to race must have a consumer production based model (i.e. not Formula-1 cars). There has to be something the public can buy, even at outrageous prices.

 

So following that, perhaps the PGA should only play at courses that are also open to the public! They can cost $2,000 a round, musty be scheduled 30 days in advance, etc. but as long as you dont have to be a private members the tour can play there, even if it means the public pays out the wazoo to maintain the "private" factor of a club for the members.

[burnsniper]

Truth is that very few US private courses prohibit outside play to someone with the right connections. I have played many major championship and Ryder/Presidents cup clubs as a unaccompanied guest utilizing my own club. You do pay a lot to get on, however it is usually less than the top public fees like Shadow Creek, Pebble Beach, etc.

 

In fact I have only been turned down twice: once because it was the week before hosting a PGA tour event (have played the course unaccompanied before anyway) and a second time where a multimajor championship hosting course told me that I had to bring a foursome (vs just being a single) - it rained like hell the day I was in town anyway.

 

I do realize there is still the barrier to entry of being a member of an old school equity club.

[duffer987]

While excited to watch the PGA championship, it is another course that most avid golfers will never get the chance to play. I just returned from Scotland on an epic golf trip, my first time in the country. The originators of golf still have it figured out better than we do in the USA. I think that includes golf course maintenance, the pace of play, the cost to play, and the openness of the courses. It is amazing that you can step onto any Open rota course in the UK and we were able to hit two of them, Old Course and Murifield, while we were there.

 

It is really a shame that there are so many unbelievable, beautiful, and historic golf courses that many of us who love the game will never get the chance to play in the US.

 

I realize that Pebble, Torrey, Erin Hills and Bethpage are some exceptions but I think the point is still valid.

I see you're on a post Scotland trip high, but that afterglow doesn't change the landscape of North American golfing society.

It's just such a different environment and no club owes it to the general golfing public to open the gates.

 

TBH are any of the PGA Championship private venues that fantastic: wherever it is this week, Quail Hollow, Valhalla...

Heck even the US Open, do you really want to play Olympic, Oakmont, Merion or Congressional that badly? Except for Shinny, I'd prefer their public course rota to their private.

[pldbryan]

If private courses just let non members come in and play, they would find that they would lose essentially all of the members who actually fund the course. Limited members, open times, faster rounds, better facilities and upkeep are the exact reason that some people chose to pay some pretty big chunks of money.

A course that is open to the public is always going to go for getting as many foursomes as possible through the facility, period.

[Argonne69]

Anyone offer a case for not letting golfers on private courses?

 

My understanding is that it has to do with the tax code. To remain a private club (from a tax perspective), the amount of outside income must be very small. Thus, they can't open it up to public play. I don't believe the same issue occurs in the U.K., so almost all clubs have some form of public play.

[tacrispy]

While excited to watch the PGA championship, it is another course that most avid golfers will never get the chance to play. I just returned from Scotland on an epic golf trip, my first time in the country. The originators of golf still have it figured out better than we do in the USA. I think that includes golf course maintenance, the pace of play, the cost to play, and the openness of the courses. It is amazing that you can step onto any Open rota course in the UK and we were able to hit two of them, Old Course and Murifield, while we were there.

 

It is really a shame that there are so many unbelievable, beautiful, and historic golf courses that many of us who love the game will never get the chance to play in the US.

 

I realize that Pebble, Torrey, Erin Hills and Bethpage are some exceptions but I think the point is still valid.

I see you're on a post Scotland trip high, but that afterglow doesn't change the landscape of North American golfing society.

It's just such a different environment and no club owes it to the general golfing public to open the gates.

 

TBH are any of the PGA Championship private venues that fantastic: wherever it is this week, Quail Hollow, Valhalla...

Heck even the US Open, do you really want to play Olympic, Oakmont, Merion or Congressional that badly? Except for Shinny, I'd prefer their public course rota to their private.

 

I would say yes I would love to play any of those courses you mentioned. Many of those have a great deal of history and designers that aren’t around any more, different eras of golf for example.

 

I don’t necessarily think that private courses must be daily fee courses all of a sudden but it would

Be nice to at least have the chance to play some of the historic venues in the US once in your life. Take muirfield for example. Very exclusive club in Scotland , private club, major venue, but allows visitors on tuesdays and Thursdays.

 

 

[Argonne69]

If private courses just let non members come in and play, they would find that they would lose essentially all of the members who actually fund the course. Limited members, open times, faster rounds, better facilities and upkeep are the exact reason that some people chose to pay some pretty big chunks of money.

A course that is open to the public is always going to go for getting as many foursomes as possible through the facility, period.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that private clubs simply fling open their doors to the masses. I'd certainly have no problem if a club allowed limited public play during the week, e.g. Monday and Wednesday from 1 pm to 3 pm.

[tacrispy]

If private courses just let non members come in and play, they would find that they would lose essentially all of the members who actually fund the course. Limited members, open times, faster rounds, better facilities and upkeep are the exact reason that some people chose to pay some pretty big chunks of money.

A course that is open to the public is always going to go for getting as many foursomes as possible through the facility, period.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that private clubs simply fling open their doors to the masses. I'd certainly have no problem if a club allowed limited public play during the week, e.g. Monday and Wednesday from 1 pm to 3 pm.

 

Exactly

[duffer987]

I would say yes I would love to play any of those courses you mentioned. Many of those have a great deal of history and designers that aren't around any more, different eras of golf for example.

 

I don't necessarily think that private courses must be daily fee courses all of a sudden but it would

Be nice to at least have the chance to play some of the historic venues in the US once in your life. Take muirfield for example. Very exclusive club in Scotland , private club, major venue, but allows visitors on tuesdays and Thursdays.

Sure, but IMHO, it's the courses that don't get major championships that are the really cool ones; Cypress, NGLA, Seminole, Sand Hills, Prairie Dunes, etc... (admittedly 2 of those will likely let you play if you ask politely and bide your time) I don't feel my golfing life is deficient because I've not played US Open/PGA Championship courses, sure they seem to be nice courses, but there are enough public options available to offset that.

 

And I didn't mean they should be 'public' when I said open the gates, I meant any scheduled public play at all. Folks aren't paying serious fees to not be able to get out at Tues between 11am-3pm because the hoi poilloi are out there. You simply cannot reasonably compare the structure of clubs in the UK versus those in the States.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that private clubs simply fling open their doors to the masses. I'd certainly have no problem if a club allowed limited public play during the week, e.g. Monday and Wednesday from 1 pm to 3 pm.

 

Which private club are you a member at that you are speaking for? And when do we get our invites? ;)

[smashdn]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

[theebdk]

Anyone offer a case for not letting golfers on private courses?

 

Sure. The members of a private club, owned by the members, can do whatever they like with their course. If they prefer zero outside play than it is their club and their desire.

[tacrispy]

I would say yes I would love to play any of those courses you mentioned. Many of those have a great deal of history and designers that aren't around any more, different eras of golf for example.

 

I don't necessarily think that private courses must be daily fee courses all of a sudden but it would

Be nice to at least have the chance to play some of the historic venues in the US once in your life. Take muirfield for example. Very exclusive club in Scotland , private club, major venue, but allows visitors on tuesdays and Thursdays.

Sure, but IMHO, it's the courses that don't get major championships that are the really cool ones; Cypress, NGLA, Seminole, Sand Hills, Prairie Dunes, etc... (admittedly 2 of those will likely let you play if you ask politely and bide your time) I don't feel my golfing life is deficient because I've not played US Open/PGA Championship courses, sure they seem to be nice courses, but there are enough public options available to offset that.

 

And I didn't mean they should be 'public' when I said open the gates, I meant any scheduled public play at all. Folks aren't paying serious fees to not be able to get out at Tues between 11am-3pm because the hoi poilloi are out there. You simply cannot reasonably compare the structure of clubs in the UK versus those in the States.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that private clubs simply fling open their doors to the masses. I'd certainly have no problem if a club allowed limited public play during the week, e.g. Monday and Wednesday from 1 pm to 3 pm.

 

Which private club are you a member at that you are speaking for? And when do we get our invites? ;)

 

I agree with you in that many of the private courses that aren’t major courses are some of the better ones. Pine valley to add to your list. If a club wants to be private it is their prerogative for sure and I don’t think I should be able to play just because I want to.

 

Still doesn’t change my opinion that it is a shame that the “majority” of the top courses in the states, i and many other golfers will never get on to play and in many cases even look at.

[tacrispy]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about “growing the game” , isn’t it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn’t play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

[duffer987]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about "growing the game" , isn't it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn't play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

You don't "grow the game" with the $400+ green fees at Pinehurst, Pebble, Kohler or EH (OK it's under that still). They are no different to the privates in that regards.

Even Bethpage Black, Chambers, and Torrey are not exactly cheap.

And how many people who don't live in Norcal, N.C. or the East Coast are going to explicitly travel there with their kids to then pay big fees to get the whole family on these courses?

 

Nobody starts playing the game with the expressed intention of paying $500 green fees and wanting to see how Mackenzie's designs changed over the decades.

They like seeing the ball fly through the air or sinking putts. This appreciation for the courses themselves comes later and once they are already in the club - pun not intended.

 

How about other sports? If they want to grow the game, why do they play baseball at Fenway or Wrigley when you local little league team or Thursday night beer league slow pitch team cannot have that as their home field? ;)

[golfortennis]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about "growing the game" , isn't it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn't play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

Then I'll devil's advocate right back to you. Someone mentioned they didn't care if it was $2,000 for a round, with 30 days in advance booking required, etc. Do you know who will be playing under those conditions? Members of private clubs, because they are the only ones who can afford that.

 

This is starting to sound more and more like the "I can't afford a ballgame" crowd, when what they really mean is "I can't afford seats right behind home plate."

 

Cause if Bellerive allows public play at $2,000 a pop, you're all in?

[smashdn]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about "growing the game" , isn't it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn't play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

I don't think the PGA gives two hot craps about growing the game. They are beholden to members of the PGA not the general golfing public. They are holding a championship and the priority is putting it on at a great course that can handle spectator volume and be shown on tv so they can make revenue from both.

 

Augusta is about tv revenue.

US Open is a national championship. As much as they are railed against on here my guess is USGA is the closest to caring about growing the game. A fair amount of US Opens are played on public courses (Pinehurst, Pebble, Chambers Bay, Bethpage, etc)

The Open and the RA are lucky that the golf climate is much different across the pond than the US. They can play the inclusivity card and it work. They have great public courses in the rota and the "clubs" are clubs of golfers made up of people that play golf at a particular course. Clubs in the US are facilities that have members.

[tacrispy]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about "growing the game" , isn't it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn't play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

Then I'll devil's advocate right back to you. Someone mentioned they didn't care if it was $2,000 for a round, with 30 days in advance booking required, etc. Do you know who will be playing under those conditions? Members of private clubs, because they are the only ones who can afford that.

 

This is starting to sound more and more like the "I can't afford a ballgame" crowd, when what they really mean is "I can't afford seats right behind home plate."

 

Cause if Bellerive allows public play at $2,000 a pop, you're all in?

 

I’m not in for $2k a pop even if i could afford it. Doesn’t matter though because I can’t get on if I wanted to. Plus the clubs set the price do they not?

 

I think the overall theme here is the clubs where the game started and the openness of the game to the public in the UK is very different than the USA and therein lies the issue to me.

 

If you have been to Scotland I think you know what I mean. Seeing people , even non players, walking up to the swilken bridge and taking pictures is akin to someone walking out and taking their picture in amen corner. It is cool. Being able to visit these clubs, Dunbar, North Berwick, etc and visit with their members and see their course is cool.

 

If I wanted to tour the US and play oakmont, shinny, cypress, Merion once before I quit playing, that would be amazing. But, I can’t.

[tacrispy]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course?

 

There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do.

 

Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

 

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about "growing the game" , isn't it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn't play if they wanted to?

 

Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

I don't think the PGA gives two hot craps about growing the game. They are beholden to members of the PGA not the general golfing public. They are holding a championship and the priority is putting it on at a great course that can handle spectator volume and be shown on tv so they can make revenue from both.

 

Augusta is about tv revenue.

US Open is a national championship. As much as they are railed against on here my guess is USGA is the closest to caring about growing the game. A fair amount of US Opens are played on public courses (Pinehurst, Pebble, Chambers Bay, Bethpage, etc)

The Open and the RA are lucky that the golf climate is much different across the pond than the US. They can play the inclusivity card and it work. They have great public courses in the rota and the "clubs" are clubs of golfers made up of people that play golf at a particular course. Clubs in the US are facilities that have members.

 

I think your last paragraph is spot on

[tatertot]

You realize you live in the USA right? Free enterprise and all that?

[TadWPJ]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course? There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do. Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about “growing the game” , isn’t it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn’t play if they wanted to? Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

What does it say about the folks that are bothered by not being able to play it but then watch it on TV?

[tacrispy]

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course? There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do. Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about “growing the game” , isn’t it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn’t play if they wanted to? Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

What does it say about the folks that are bothered by not being able to play it but then watch it on TV?

 

Don’t know, what does it say?

 

Is the desire to play the private course due to the fact it is hosting a major or due to the fact it is a great course? There are many private courses that will never host a major that are on the same level or even above those that do. Seminole, Butler National, Crystal Downs, et al.

Not necessarily but if the game of golf is truly concerned about “growing the game” , isn’t it a little hypocritical to show golf on its biggest stage at places where the viewers couldn’t play if they wanted to? Just asking as a bit of a devils advocate

 

What does it say about the folks that are bothered by not being able to play it but then watch it on TV?

 

Don’t know, what does it say?

[ClarkGrswld4]

SMH at some of these responses, is it a shame that you don't live in a mansion and don't drive a Bentley as well?

[raynorfan1]

This whole discussion is based on a false premise. With the exception of Augusta National, every private course that hosts a major also hosts one (or more) charity tournaments a year. Most cost $500 - $2000 (per player) for the round.

 

Bellerive is hosting the St. Louis Blues event next month:

 

https://www.nhl.com/blues/community/golf-classic

 

IMHO it's a better model that the clubs leverage their prestige to raise money for charity (Bellerive) than to offset their dues expense (Muirfield).

[dhc1]

This whole discussion is based on a false premise. With the exception of Augusta National, every private course that hosts a major also hosts one (or more) charity tournaments a year. Most cost $500 - $2000 (per player) for the round.

 

Bellerive is hosting the St. Louis Blues event next month:

 

https://www.nhl.com/blues/community/golf-classic

 

IMHO it's a better model that the clubs leverage their prestige to raise money for charity (Bellerive) than to offset their dues expense (Muirfield).

 

Ding ding ding! Winner!

 

There are very few private courses that have no charity outings. You can play shinnecock, baltusrol lower, winged foot west easily and support a great cause.

 

 

[umassgolfer]

I'm going to approach this from a different angle. I appreciate majors (and non-majors for that matter) going to new and interesting courses so I can see those courses. I'll never play Bellerive. But it will be cool seeing another new (to me) course on TV. Same with LACC, etc.

 

I can see Bethpage on my own if I make a tee time. I can see Chambers Bay, Torrey, Pebble, etc. if I decide that's how I want to spend my money (it's not at this point in my life, but maybe some day).

 

But outside of charity events that I may or may not be able to find, I'm not getting onto so many of the great, historic courses in the country. I actually appreciate the majors being contested at ultra-private clubs, as it gives me an opportunity to watch the best golfers on courses I'd otherwise never get to know.

[bobloblaw1978]

This whole discussion is based on a false premise. With the exception of Augusta National, every private course that hosts a major also hosts one (or more) charity tournaments a year. Most cost $500 - $2000 (per player) for the round.

 

Bellerive is hosting the St. Louis Blues event next month:

 

https://www.nhl.com/...ty/golf-classic

 

IMHO it's a better model that the clubs leverage their prestige to raise money for charity (Bellerive) than to offset their dues expense (Muirfield).

 

Ding ding ding! Winner!

 

There are very few private courses that have no charity outings. You can play shinnecock, baltusrol lower, winged foot west easily and support a great cause.

 

Exactly. I remember when Pine Valley did a charity event for 9/11. $1000 a person and they sold out both days instantly.

 

I do wish every PGA course was at least required to hold a charity lottery event every year. Say, $10 for a raffle ticket to play in a single day event. They could raise millions for charity while at least giving us the dream of playing some of these courses.

[RSinSG]

It definitely is a shame the best courses in the US are reserved for the wealthy and the entitled.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. If you work hard enough to become wealthy you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor without feeling guilty about it. If a person can't afford a $750k car or a $5M house I don't think its a shame. It's just that for whatever reason their life's choices have landed them in a different bracket than those who can afford those things. Of course there are those who because of the circumstances of their birth will have a hard time rising above poverty, but we're talking about disposable income here - playing golf.

 

I bristle some when I hear someone try to wealth-shame someone by saying"Do you know how many people could be fed for the amount you paid for that car?" The correct answer is "No I don't. But I do know the assembly line workers made a good living off of the purchase. As did those who work in a glass factory, a tire factory, a leather shop. The salesman, counter person, service department employees, and the custodian who cleans the auto dealership."

 

And I suspect you and I differ on who is "entitled" in this country. Most of those I consider entitled are those who have not earned much of anything on their own but who think the world owes them everything.

[Hawkeye77]

"Growing the game" is such a tossed about term these days anytime someone doesn't like what some private club, or organization or random person behind a muni cash register is up to that it's become pretty meaningless.

 

Private clubs aren't inhibiting the "growing of the game", lol.

 

And get off the Swilcan Bridge nonsense. St. Andrews is a one of a kind public access course, it's not hard to get why it is unique. Yes, opportunities exist over there we don't seem to have here, but we also help with those opportunities over there with tourism.

 

Appreciate the differences and look forward to your next trip over!